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
- Getting recognition for all your research outputs – Rebecca Lawrence
- Against capital – Stuart Lawson
- Redesigning Science for the Internet Generation – Gemma Milne
1200 – 1245 ****LUNCH****
1245 – 1345 UNCONFERENCE SESSION 1 (TBC)
1345 – 1500 SESSION TWO: The Early Career Researcher Perspective: Publishing & Research Communication
- Title coming soon – Gemma Hersh
- How to share science with hard to reach groups and why you should bother – Becky Douglas
- Force multipliers and detractors for Early Career Research science communicators – Lewis MacKenzie
- Inputs, Outputs and emergent properties: The new Scientometrics – Phill Jones
1500 – 1515 ****COFFEE BREAK****
1515 – 1600 UNCONFERENCE SESSION 2 (TBC)
1600 – 1715 SESSION THREE: Raising your research profile: online engagement & metrics
- Title coming soon – Charlie Rapple
- Title coming soon – Jean Liu
- What are all these dots and what can linking them tell me? – Rachel Lammey
- Title coming soon – Laura Henderson
1715 – late INFORMAL DRINKS RECEPTION, pub
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.
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.
Lewis MacKenzie: Force multipliers and detractors for Early Career Research science communicators
Gemma Milne: Redesigning Science for the Internet Generation
Becky Douglas: How to share science with hard to reach groups and why you should bother
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)!
Rebecca Lawrence: 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.
Phill Jones: Inputs, Outputs and emergent properties: The new Scientometrics
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