Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0

New Media and Society

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 379-397

  Acord, Sophia Krzys ^a   Harley, Diane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Data sharing; epistemic cultures; higher education; peer review; scholarly communication; social media; sociology of science; tenure and promotion; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876727723     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812465140     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abbott ASocial Knowledge in the Making. Camic CGross NLamont M, ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2011:43-88.
2. Archer L.Younger academics' constructions of "authenticity", "success" and professional identity.Studies in Higher Education. 2008;33 (4): 385-403.
3. ArmsWLarsenR (2007) The future of scholarly communication: Infrastructure for cyberscholarship. In: Report of a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Joint Information Systems Committee, Phoenix, AZ. Available at: http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/NSF-JISC-report.pdf (accessed 19 October 2011).
4. Australian National Data Service (2011) Data Citation. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: ANDS. Available at: http://www.ands.org.au/guides/data-citation-awareness.pdf (accessed 19 October 2011).
5. Becher T,Trowler PRAcademic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. 2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. 2nd ed. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press; 2001:.
6. BellRKHillDLehmingRF (2007) The Changing Research and Publication Environment in American Research Universities. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srs07204/.
7. Borgman CLScholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2007:.
8. Borgman CL.The conundrum of sharing research data.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;63 (6): 1059-1078.
9. Borowski C.Enough is enough.Journal of Experimental Medicine. 2011 1337;208 (7):.
10. Bulger M,Meyer ET,De la,Flor G, et alReinventing Research? Information Practices in the Humanities. London: Research Information Network (RIN); 2011:.
11. Social Knowledge in the Making. Camic CGross NLamont M, ed. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press; 2011:.
12. Crane DInvisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1972:.
13. Cronin B.Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures.New Review of Academic Librarianship. 2010;9 (1): 1-24.
14. CroninB (2011) Not with a bang: the first wave of science 2.0 slowly whimpers to an end. The Scholarly Kitchen, 27April. Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/04/27/not-with-a-bang-the-first-wave-of-science-2-0-slowly-fizzles-out/ (accessed 19 October 2011).
15. DawsonMRascoffM (2006) Scholarly communications in the economics discipline. Ithaka, New York, June. Available at: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/scholarly-communications-economics-discipline.
16. De Solla Price DJLittle Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963:.
17. Douglas MPurity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger; 1966:.
18. Ellison G.Is peer review in decline?.Economic Inquiry. 2011;49 (3): 635-657.
19. EstabrookLWarnerB (2003) The book as the gold standard for tenure and promotion in the humanistic disciplines. Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. Available at: http://cirss.lis.uiuc.edu/Surveys/BookGoldStandard.html (accessed 19 October 2011).
20. Fitzpatrick KPlanned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: New York University Press; 2011:.
21. Ginsparg P.First steps towards electronic research communication.Computers in Physics. 1994;8 (4): 390-396.
22. Goodwin C.Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.Journal of Pragmatics. 2000;32:1489-1522.
23. GrantE (2011) Suspending precirculated papers at the AHA annual meeting. AHA Today. Available at: http://blog.historians.org/news/1352/suspending-precirculated-papers-at-the-aha-annual-meeting (accessed 19 October 2011).
24. Greaves S,Scott J,Clarke M, et al.Overview: Nature trial of open peer review (Web debate: peer review).Nature. 2006;:.
25. GriffithsRDawsonMRascoffM (2006) Scholarly communications in the history discipline. Ithaka, New York, August. Available at: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/scholarly-communications-history-discipline.
26. HarleyD (ed.) (2008) The university as publisher: Summary of a meeting held at UC Berkeley on November 1, 2007. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=295.
27. HarleyD (2012) Issues of Time, Credit, and Peer Review. In: UhlirP (ed.) Developing Data Attribution and Citation Practices and Standards: Summary of an International Workshop. National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13564&page=81.
28. HarleyDAcordSKEarl-NovellS. (2010) Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc.
29. HarleyDAcordSK (2011) Peer review in academic promotion and publishing: Its meaning, locus, and future. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xv148c8.
30. HarleyDEarl-NovellSArterJ. (2007) The influence of academic values on scholarly publication and communication practices. Journal of Electronic Publishing10(2). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.204.
31. Holmgren M,Schnitzer SA.Science on the rise in developing countries.PLoS Biology. 2004;2 (1): 0010-0013.
32. HowardJ (2010) Leading humanities journal debuts 'open' peer review, and likes it. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26July. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Leading-Humanities-Journal/123696/ (accessed 19 October 2011).
33. Jacobs JA,Winslow SE.Overworked faculty: job stresses and family demands.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2004;596 (1): 104-129.
34. Katz J,Rice RE,Acord SK,Dasgupta K,David KCommunicaiton Yearbook 28. Kalbfleisch PJ, ed. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004:315-371.
35. Kling R,Spector LBDigital Scholarship in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process. Anderson DL, ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe; 2004:78-103.
36. Knorr-Cetina KEpistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:.
37. Lamont MHow Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2010:.
38. Latour B,Woolgar SLaboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1979:.
39. Lynch MArt and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1985:.
40. Maunsell J.Announcement regarding supplemental material.Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30 (32): 10599-10600.
41. Meyer ET,Bulger M,Kyriakidou-Zacharoudiou A, et alCollaborative Yet Independent: Information Practices in the Physical Sciences. London: Research Information Network (RIN); 2011:.
42. Moran M,Seaman J,Tinti-Kane HTeaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today's Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media. Boston, MA: Person Learning Solutions; 2011:.
43. Myers GWriting Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1990:.
44. Special issue: big data.Nature. 2008;455 (7209):.
45. Nelson B.Data sharing: empty archives.Nature. 2009;461 (7261): 160-163.
46. Nentwich MCyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2003:.
47. Noor MAF,Zimmerman KJ,Teeter KC.Data sharing: how much doesn't get submitted to GenBank?.PLoS Biology. 2006;4 (7): 1113-1114.
48. Pochoda P.The big one: the epistemic system break in scholarly monograph publishing.New Media & Society. 2012;15 (3): 413-432.
49. Ponte D,Simon J.Scholarly communication 2.0: exploring researchers' opinions on Web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination.Serials Review. 2011;37 (3): 149-156.
50. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Powell WWDiMaggio PJ, ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1991:.
51. Procter R,Williams R,Stewart J, et alIf You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0. London: Research Information Network (RIN); 2010:.
52. QuinnMKimJ (2007) Scholarly communications in the biosciences discipline. Ithaka, New York, 26March. Available at: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/scholarly-communications-biosciences-discipline.
53. RehmeyerJ (2010) Crowdsourcing peer review. Science News, 9September. Available at: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/63252/title/Crowdsourcing_peer_review (accessed 19 October 2011).
54. Patterns of Information Use and Exchange: Case Studies of Researchers in the Life Sciences. London: Research Information Network (RIN); 2009:.
55. RodrikD (2007) Is the econ-blogosphere unsustainable?Economics, 17October. Available at: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/10/is-the-econ-blo.html (accessed 19 October 2011).
56. Rowe K,Fitzpatrick K.Keywords for open peer review.LOGOS: The Journal of the World Book Community. 2010;21 (3-4): 133-141.
57. Rowlands I,Nicholas D,Williams P, et al.The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future.Aslib Proceedings. 2008;60 (4): 290-310.
58. Rowlands I,Nichols D,Huntingdon PScholarly Communication in the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want?. London: Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER), City University; 2004:.
59. Savage CJ,Vickers AJ.Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals.PLoS ONE. 2009;4 (9): 1-3.
60. Schofield PN,Bubela T,Weaver T, et al.Post-publication sharing of data and tools.Nature. 2009;461 (7261): 171-173.
61. Science (2011) Special online collection: dealing with data. Science331(6018). Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/data/ (accessed 19 October 2011).
62. ThriftN (2011) The power of blogs in forming new fields of international study. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31August. Available at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/the-power-of-blogs-in-forming-new-fields-of-international-study/28638 (accessed 19 October 2011).
63. Tuchman GWannabe U: Inside the Corporate University. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2009:.
64. Van Dalen HP,Henkens K.Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;:.
65. Wardrip-FruinN (2009) Blog-based peer review: four surprises. Grand Text Auto, 12May. Available at: http://grandtextauto.org/category/expressive-processing/ (accessed 19 October 2011).
66. Ware M,Mabe MThe STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. Oxford: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2009:.
67. WatersDJ (2004) Building on success, forging new ground: the question of sustainability. First Monday9(5). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1148 (accessed 13 June 2012).
68. WatersDJ (2009) Archives, edition-making, and the future of scholarly communication. Available at: http://msc.mellon.org/staff-papers/EditionMakingPaper (accessed 19 October 2011).
69. Weber MThe Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin Hyman; 1930:.
70. Wellman B,Salaff J,Dimitrova D, et al.Computer networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community.Annual Review of Sociology. 1996;22:213-238.
71. Williford C,Henry C,Friedlander AOne Culture: Computationally Intensive Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources; 2012:.
72. Zuckerman H,Merton RK.Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system.Minerva. 1971;9 (1): 66-100.