Sara Mannheimer

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of Web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform current models while avoiding as many of the biases of existing systems as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that, at least partially, resolves many of the technical and social issues associated with peer review, and can potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

Cultivate, Assess, Advocate, Implement, and Sustain: A Five-Point Plan for Successful Digital Preservation Collaborations

Purpose For libraries with limited resources, digital preservation can seem like a daunting responsibility. Forming partnerships can help build collective knowledge and maximize combined resources to achieve digital preservation goals. This paper aims to provide guidance to help libraries with limited resources achieve digital preservation goals by forming partnerships to build collective knowledge and maximize combined resources. Design/methodology/approach In 2015, librarians from four Montana institutions formed the Digital Preservation Working Group (DPWG), a collaboration to increase digital preservation efforts statewide. The group’s immediate goals were to promote digital preservation best-practices at each individual institution, and to learn about and support each other’s work. The group’s long-term goal was to implement a shared digital preservation service that would fill gaps in existing digital preservation efforts. Findings Beyond the cost savings gained by sharing a digital preservation service, the members of DPWG benefitted from shared knowledge and expertise gained during the partnership. The group also functioned as a sounding board as each institution built its digital preservation program, and it became a system of support when challenges arose. Practical/implications This paper proposes a five-point plan for creating digital preservation partnerships: cultivate a foundation of knowledge and identify a shared vision; assess the current digital preservation landscape at each institution; advocate for the value of digital preservation activities; implement shared digital preservation services; and sustain group activities and establish structures for ongoing support. Originality/value The activities of DPWG provide a model for institutions seeking to collaborate to meet digital preservation challenges. This paper shows that by implementing a structured plan, institutions can build and sustain digital preservation partnerships, thus positioning themselves to achieve digital preservation success.

On the ethics of social network research in libraries

Purpose In this paper, faculty librarians at an academic institution explore the ethical dimensions of conducting research with user-generated social networking service (SNS) data. In an effort to guide librarian-researchers, this paper first offers a background discussion of privacy ethics across disciplines and then proposes a library-specific ethical framework for conducting SNS research. Design/methodology/approach By surveying the literature in other disciplines, three key considerations are identified that can inform ethical practice in the field of library science: context, expectation, and value analysis. For each of these considerations, the framework is tailored to consider ethical issues, as they relate to libraries and our practice as librarian-researchers. Findings The unique role of the librarian-researcher demands an ethical framework specific to that practice. The findings of this paper propose such a framework. Practical implications Librarian-researchers are at a unique point in our history. In exploring SNSs as a source of data to conduct research and improve services, we become challenged by conflicting and equally cherished values of patron privacy and information access. By evaluating research according to context, expectations, and value, this framework provides an ethical path forward for research using SNS data. Originality/value As of this paper’s publication, there is no existing ethical framework for conducting SNS research in libraries. The proposed framework is informed both by library values and by broader research values, and therefore provides unique guidelines for the librarian-researcher.

Qualitative Data Sharing: Data Repositories and Academic Libraries as Key Partners in Addressing Challenges

Data sharing is increasingly perceived to be beneficial to knowledge production, and is therefore increasingly required by federal funding agencies, private funders, and journals. As qualitative researchers are faced with new expectations to share their data, data repositories and academic libraries are working to address the specific challenges of qualitative research data. This article describes how data repositories and academic libraries can partner with researchers to support three challenges associated with qualitative data sharing: (1) obtaining informed consent from participants for data sharing and scholarly reuse, (2) ensuring that qualitative data are legally and ethically shared, and (3) sharing data that cannot be deidentified. This article also describes three continuing challenges of qualitative data sharing that data repositories and academic libraries cannot specifically address—research using qualitative big data, copyright concerns, and risk of decontextualization. While data repositories and academic libraries cannot provide easy solutions to these three continuing challenges, they can partner with researchers and connect them with other relevant specialists to examine these challenges. Ultimately, this article suggests that data repositories and academic libraries can help researchers address some of the challenges associated with ethical and lawful qualitative data sharing.

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.