Re-envisioning a future in scholarly communication
| dc.audience | Audience::Academic and Research Libraries Section | |
| dc.audience | Audience::Advisory Committee on Copyright and other Legal Matters | |
| dc.audience | Audience::Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression | |
| dc.conference.sessionType | Academic and Research libraries, FAIFE and Copyright and Other Legal Matters | |
| dc.conference.venue | Centennial Hall | |
| dc.congressWLIC | IFLA WLIC 2017 - Wrocław, Poland | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hartgerink, Chris H.J. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-09-24T08:36:49Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-09-24T08:36:49Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Scholarly communication is in need of disruption. Commodifying knowledge as is currently done with journals, is not sustainable any longer. An alternative is the commodification of how information is consumed. By focusing on the commodification of consumption instead of commodification of the resource, the problem of access to knowledge can be resolved in a sustainable manner. Additionally, commodification of consumption removes several perverse incentives from the scholarly system that now produce unreliable knowledge. The main tenet underlying the themes of Open Access, Open Data, Open Science, and replication initiatives in scholarly communication is sustainability through transparency of the scholarly process in all facets. The sustainability of any networked system is threatened by single points of failure (i.e., the entire system can be manipulated from one node in the network). The scholarly process is ridden with such single points of failures at all stages. Distributing the scholarly communications system would remove the problems of single points of failure. Distributing and decentralizing the scholarly communications system is achievable with newly developed peer-to-peer (p2p) Internet protocols. Alongside decentralization and distribution of the content, integrity of the scholarly record can also be reformed to transform sections of a paper into different, reusable nodes of knowledge. These nodes can be logged on a blockchain based ledger of which everyone can have a copy. In order to deposit nodes onto the ledger, the depositor needs to agree that the contents are licensed CC 0, in order to maximize legal certainty regarding reuse of the contents. This is key to create a sustainable eco-system where scholars and companies can cooperate instead of compete, as we currently do. | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | Anderson, Melissa S, Brian C Martinson, and Raymond De Vries. 2007. “Normative Dissonance in Science: Results from a National Survey of U.S. Scientists.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2 (4): 3–14. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3. Arnqvist, Göran. 2013. “Editorial Rejects? Novelty, Schnovelty!” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28 (8). Elsevier BV: 448–49. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.007. Baker, Monya, and Elie Dolgin. 2017. “Cancer Reproducibility Project Releases First Results.” Nature 541 (7637). Springer Nature: 269–70. doi:10.1038/541269a. Beaulieu-Jones, Brett K, and Casey S Greene. 2016. “Reproducible Computational Workflows with Continuous Analysis.” BioRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Labs Journals. doi:10.1101/056473. Begley, C. Glenn, and Lee M. Ellis. 2012. “Drug Development: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research.” Nature 483 (7391). Springer Nature: 531–33. doi:10.1038/483531a. Chambers, Christopher D. 2013. “Registered Reports: A New Publishing Initiative at Cortex.” Cortex 49 (3). Elsevier BV: 609–10. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016. Domenico, Manlio De, and Alex Arenas. 2017. “Modeling Structure and Resilience of the Dark Network.” Physical Review E 95 (2). American Physical Society (APS). doi:10.1103/physreve.95.022313. DotEcon. 2015. “Independent Evaluation of the Oft’s 2006 Market Study into the Commercial Use of Public Information (Cupi).” CMA. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418097/Evaluation_of_CUPI_study.pdf. Easterbrook, P.J, R Gopalan, J.A Berlin, and D.R Matthews. 1991. “Publication Bias in Clinical Research.” The Lancet 337 (8746). Elsevier BV: 867–72. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. Franco, A., N. Malhotra, and G. Simonovits. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345 (6203). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1502–5. doi:10.1126/science.1255484. Gelman, Andrew, and Eric Loken. 2014. “The Statistical Crisis in Science.” American Scientist 102 (6). Sigma Xi: 460. doi:10.1511/2014.111.460. Hartgerink, Chris H. J. 2017. “Composing Reproducible Manuscripts Using R Markdown.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170510084253/https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/composing-reproducible-manuscripts-using-r-markdown. Hartgerink, Chris H. J., and Jelte M. Wicherts. 2016. “Research Practices and Assessment of Research Misconduct.” ScienceOpen Research, September. ScienceOpen. doi:10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-socsci.arysbi.v1. Henderson, Emma. 2016. “Pirate Website Offering Millions of Academic Papers for Free Refuses to Close Despite Lawsuit.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170509182825/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pirate-website-offering-millions-of-academic-papers-for-free-refuses-to-close-despite-law-suit-a6875001.html. Ioannidis, John P. A. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2 (8). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Kidwell, Mallory C., Ljiljana B. Lazarević, Erica Baranski, Tom E. Hardwicke, Sarah Piechowski, Lina-Sophia Falkenberg, Curtis Kennett, et al. 2016. “Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency.” Edited by Malcolm R Macleod. PLOS Biology 14 (5). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e1002456. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456. Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3). American Psychological Association (APA): 480–98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. 2015. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” Edited by Wolfgang Glanzel. PLOS ONE 10 (6). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. Merton, Robert K. 1942. “A Note on Science and Democracy.” J. Legal & Pol. Soc. 1. HeinOnline: 115. Mitroff, Ian I. 1974. “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 39 (4). American Sociological Association: 579–95. doi:10.2307/2094423. Munafò, Marcus R., Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Christopher D. Chambers, Nathalie Percie du Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Jennifer J. Ware, and John P. A. Ioannidis. 2017. “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science.” Nature Human Behaviour 1 (1). Springer Nature: 0021. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. Naik, Gautam. 2017. “Peer-Review Activists Push Psychology Journals Towards Open Data.” Nature 543 (7644). Springer Nature: 161–61. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21549. Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170510145053/https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Nuzzo, Regina. 2015. “How Scientists Fool Themselves – and How They Can Stop.” Nature 526 (7572). Springer Nature: 182–85. doi:10.1038/526182a. Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): aac4716–aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. Panith, Judith M., and Sarah Michalak. 2005. “The Serials Crisis: A White Paper for the Unc-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170509082718/http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch-michalak.html. Sample, Ian. 2012. “Harvard University Says It Can’t Afford Journal Publishers’ Prices.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170509082722/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices. Schiermeier, Quirin. 2017. “Science Publishers Try New Tack to Combat Unauthorized Paper Sharing.” Nature 545 (7653). Springer Nature: 145–46. doi:10.1038/545145a. Schweinsberg, Martin, Nikhil Madan, Michelangelo Vianello, S. Amy Sommer, Jennifer Jordan, Warren Tierney, Eli Awtrey, et al. 2016. “The Pipeline Project: Pre-Publication Independent Replications of a Single Laboratory’s Research Pipeline.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 (September). Elsevier BV: 55–67. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.001. Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. “False-Positive Psychology.” Psychological Science 22 (11). SAGE Publications: 1359–66. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632. United Nations General Assembly. 1948. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” http://wayback.archive.org/web/20170510094028/http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html. Vanpaemel, Wolf, Maarten Vermorgen, Leen Deriemaecker, and Gert Storms. 2015. “Are We Wasting a Good Crisis? The Availability of Psychological Research Data After the Storm.” Collabra 1 (1). University of California Press. doi:10.1525/collabra.13. Vines, Timothy H., Arianne Y.K. Albert, Rose L. Andrew, Florence Débarre, Dan G. Bock, Michelle T. Franklin, Kimberly J. Gilbert, Jean-Sébastien Moore, Sébastien Renaut, and Diana J. Rennison. 2014. “The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age.” Current Biology 24 (1). Elsevier BV: 94–97. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014. Wicherts, Jelte M., Denny Borsboom, Judith Kats, and Dylan Molenaar. 2006. “The Poor Availability of Psychological Research Data for Reanalysis.” American Psychologist 61 (7). American Psychological Association (APA): 726–28. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.726. Young, Neal S, John P. A Ioannidis, and Omar Al-Ubaydli. 2008. “Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science.” PLoS Medicine 5 (10). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201. | |
| dc.identifier.relatedurl | http://2017.ifla.org/ | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/5949 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.rights | CC0 | |
| dc.rights.accessRights | open access | |
| dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ | |
| dc.subject.keyword | Sustainability | |
| dc.subject.keyword | p2p | |
| dc.subject.keyword | decentralization | |
| dc.subject.keyword | block-chain | |
| dc.subject.keyword | commodification | |
| dc.title | Re-envisioning a future in scholarly communication | en |
| dc.type | Article | |
| ifla.Unit | Section:Academic and Research Libraries | |
| ifla.Unit | Section::Advisory Committee on Copyright and other Legal Matters | |
| ifla.Unit | Section::Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression | |
| ifla.oPubId | https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1631/ |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1