Programme

0930 – 1010      REGISTRATION 

1010 – 1200      SESSION ONE: Publishing’s future: Disruption and Evolution within the Industry

  • 100% Open Access by 2020 or disrupting the present scholarly comms landscape: you can’t have both? A mid-way update – Pablo De Castro
  • Inputs, Outputs and emergent properties: The new Scientometrics – Phill Jones
  • Against capital Stuart Lawson
  • Redesigning Science for the Internet Generation – Gemma Milne

1200 – 1245      ****LUNCH****

1245 – 1345    UNCONFERENCE SESSION 1

1345 – 1500   SESSION TWO: The Early Career Researcher Perspective: Publishing & Research Communication

  • Getting recognition for all your research outputs – Michael Markie
  • Make an impact, know your impact, show your impact – Anna Ritchie
  • How to share science with hard to reach groups and why you should bother – Becky Douglas
  • What helps or hinders science communication by early career researchers? – Lewis MacKenzie

PANEL DISCUSSION

1500 – 1515   ****COFFEE BREAK****

1515 – 1600   UNCONFERENCE SESSION 2

1600 – 1715   SESSION THREE: Raising your research profile: online engagement & metrics

  • Green, Gold, and Getting out there: How your choice of publisher services can affect your research profile and engagement – Laura Henderson
  • What are all these dots and what can linking them tell me? – Rachel Lammey
  • The wonderful world of altmetrics: why researchers’ voices matter – Jean Liu
  • How to help more people find and understand your work – Charlie Rapple

PANEL DISCUSSION

1715 – late        INFORMAL DRINKS RECEPTION, pub

Abstracts

Abstracts

Pablo De Castro: 100% Open Access by 2020 or disrupting the present scholarly comms landscape: you can’t have both? A mid-way update

With the momentum provided by research funders’ Open Access policies like HEFCE’s, Wellcome’s and RCUK’s, Open Access implementation has reached its maturity in the UK. The broad political agreement at the Amsterdam Conference last year to aim for full OA by 2020 at an EU level has added extra leverage to the attempt to progress with large-scale OA implementation across a fairly fragmented policy landscape. Even with the intrinsic contradiction between quickly reaching 100% OA and disrupting the present scholarly communications landscape, there’s a growing consensus that we’re heading towards a ‘new’ situation where Academia may regain some control over its own research output. The presentation looks into the current status of this process, examining the impact of disruptive initiatives like the Open Library of Humanities, the no-hybrid OA policies or Sci-Hub.

Phill Jones: Inputs, Outputs and emergent properties: The new Scientometrics

Stuart Lawson: Against Capital

The ways in which scholars exchange and share their work have evolved through pragmatic responses to the political and economic contexts in which they are embedded. So rather than being designed to fulfill their function in an optimal way, our methods of scholarly communication have been distorted by the interests of capital and by neoliberal logic. If these two interlinked political forces – that suffuse all aspects of our lives – are the reason for the mess we are currently in, then surely any alternative scholarly communication system we create should be working against them, not with them. The influence of capital in scholarly publishing, and the overwhelming force of neoliberalism in our working practices, is the problem. So when the new ‘innovative disrupters’ are fully aligned with the political forces that need to be dismantled, it is questionable that the new way of doing things is a significant improvement.

Gemma Milne: Redesigning Science for the Internet Generation

Uber disrupted taxis; Airbnb disrupted hotels; Amazon disrupted retailers…all because they didn’t look at the existing solutions and look to improve upon them – but instead, by totally redesigning what those industries had built in a time before the internet. The idea of disruption is not new – ‘Silicon Valley’ has been flourishing for 30 years – but, ironically, despite being invented as a result of science, the internet has left researchers decades behind. So – what does peer review and publishing and wet lab work look like in a world of Tinder, CTRL+C and Skype? How do you begin to think about innovating in a world of long processes, fierce bureaucracy and prolonged stagnation? How can you truly ‘disrupt’ science?

Nicola Osborne: Best Footprint Forward

How well are your online tracks and traces representing you? In this short talk Nicola Osborne will offer some advice on managing your digital footprint by making a positive impact with social media, amplifying your scholarly work, and building a great professional profile to help you communicate your work.

Nicola will also touch on the importance of making sure your work is also fit for the future, with a brief introduction to an exciting new project, Reference Rot in Theses: A Hiberlink Pilot, which is building tools and approaches to support researchers like you to ensure the URLs you cite remains valid and provide access to relevant snapshots of the web long after you’ve submitted that thesis or publication.

Michael Markie: Getting recognition for all your research outputs

The ways in which early career researchers are currently evaluated typically ignores much of the valuable activity they undertake, for which they do not receive credit.   At F1000, we are working to change this by partnering with major research funders and institutions (e.g. Wellcome, Gates Foundation) to provide platforms to capture a much broader range of activities and delineate more clearly the contributions of each individual. This includes enabling publication of all types of research outputs, from posters, to small pieces of data & code, to negative/null results, all the way to full narrative research articles. We are also developing new approaches to enable the quality, reach and impact of that work to be captured at the level of the output, independent from the venue of publication, using CRediT to recognise individual researcher contributions.

Open Peer Review enables the contribution of referees to scientific review and discussion to be captured, with referee names published alongside the review, identified as principal or co-referee together with information on their specific area of expertise. By getting the funders on board, we hope to break the hegemony of the traditional STM publishers, change the way science is communicated, and ultimately enable researchers to receive recognition for all their work.

Anna Ritchie: Elsevier and Mendeley: Make an impact, know your impact, show your impact

Advancing science is more important than ever, yet researchers face increasing pressure and new challenges in the changing research landscape. Elsevier is evolving its products and services to support researchers with changing needs, not only in publishing their work, but throughout the research lifecycle. I’ll talk about a few ways in which Elsevier helps researchers to try to increase the impact of their work, including Mendeley as a platform for monitoring and showing your impact.

Becky Douglas: How to share science with hard to reach groups and why you should bother

Increasingly, institutions and researchers are recognising the benefits of science communication and public outreach. Many are now finding it necessary to report on outreach activities in order to complete annual reviews and promotion and grant applications. Certainly, with so much research being publicly funded it is clearly only fair that the public get to hear about where their money goes. However, it is important that this does not become a simple box-ticking exercise. In this talk I will discuss why we need to reach out to those groups who might not be your typical audience at a science festival, and I will make some suggestions about how to go about this.

Lewis MacKenzie: What helps or hinders science communication by early career researchers?

Early career researchers are often excellent science communicators. However, they also face substantial and numerous pressures around their career and life, resulting in science communication falling by the wayside. This talk will explore the factors that make it hard for early career researchers to pursue science communication, and ask what can be done to help science communication continue through the turbulent career transition phases that face early career researchers.

Laura Henderson: Green, Gold, and Getting out there: How your choice of publisher services can affect your research profile and engagement

In today’s academic world, it is important for every researcher to raise their profile and get maximum engagement with their publications. The rapid rise of Open Access in publishing reflects that need. But what are the differences between the Open Access formats – Green, Gold, and more? When choosing a publishing route (and particular publisher), you know that peer review and indexing are major quality indicators, but what extraordinary services should researchers be selectively seeking, and how can these help ensure better visibility and recognition?

At Frontiers, we were born digital and fully open access, with the ongoing aim of constantly innovating to meet the needs of our academic authors. Let’s talk about what discoverability tools a top-level academic publisher should offer (and how Frontiers provides these): from article-level to author impact metrics and networking tools, to community engagement and targeted research promotion.

Graham Steel: Preprints – a journey through time

As an entity, whilst preprints have been around for some time, there have been a number of significant developments over the last few years. In this short talk, Graham will take you through a journey in time, touching upon the history, developments and what the future may hold in terms of preprints.

Rachel Lammey: What are all these dots and what can linking them tell me?

Your research doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We’re familiar with linking articles (dots) to other articles, data, versions, and authors. So far, so traditional. However, interest is growing in tracking other platforms, tools and sources that might cite and use research (other dots). Wikipedia, Reddit, Twitter, blogs, and more—they all support the discussion, sharing, and promotion of research—so why not add them into the mix? That’s what Event Data will help you do; it provides a unique record of the web activity related to individual research outputs. Not just articles, but also books, datasets, preprints, and anything with a Crossref DOI. We make that data openly available through a public API. What can this data tell us? That’s where you come in: what’s your interpretation of these dots? How would you evaluate this data in the context of your work? Give us some food for thought (and action)!

Jean Liu: The wonderful world of altmetrics: why researchers’ voices matter

Charlie Rapple: How to help more people find and understand your work

With so many tools and networks for sharing your research, how do you know which ones will be most effective? The bad news is there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to that question. The good news is that Kudos will tailor an answer just for you. This talk will look at some of the different ways you might communicate around your work, and show how you can use the free Kudos system to help you track those communications, and map them directly against your publication metrics (readership, citations, altmetrics) so you can see which efforts have the highest impact.

Vu

Venue

We are delighted to announce that the venue for the 2017 ReConEvent Conference will again be:

The Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI)

High School Yards

Edinburgh

EH1 1LZ


ecci