Achieving research reproducibility is challenging in many ways: there are social and cultural obstacles as well as a constantly changing technical landscape that makes replicating and reproducing research difficult. Users face challenges in reproducing research across different operating systems, in using different versions of software across long projects and among collaborations, and in using publicly available work. The dependencies required to reproduce the computational environments in which research happens can be exceptionally hard to track – in many cases, these dependencies are hidden or nested too deeply to discover, and thus impossible to install on a new machine, which means adoption remains low. In this paper, we present ReproZip, an open source tool to help overcome the technical difficulties involved in preserving and replicating research, applications, databases, software, and more. We examine the current use cases of ReproZip, ranging from digital humanities to machine learning. We also explore potential library use cases for ReproZip, particularly in digital libraries and archives, liaison librarianship, and other library services. We believe that libraries and archives can leverage ReproZip to deliver more robust reproducibility services, repository services, as well as enhanced discoverability and preservation of research materials, applications, software, and computational environments.
What's in the LIS Scholarship Archive
Open Access (OA) publications allow for anyone to access research information free of charge. It is difficult for researchers to discover which OA publications exist, and the price to publish. We designed and implemented a data-driven web app and API enabling researchers to discover relevant and reputable OA publications to maximize publishing impact. We aggregated price information and journal impact data. Our goal is to provide the OA community with the tools they need to separate legitimate OA publications from unethical publishers. We believe transparency in the market will produce downward price pressure, further lowering economic barriers to publishing.
Digital scholarship is an evolving area of librarianship. In this piece we propose 10 theses, statements about what this kind of work DOES, rather than trying to define with it IS. We believe that digitally-inflected research and learning, and the characteristics they employ, are essential to the recentering of our profession's position in/across the academy. We also believe that the "digital scholarship center" has served its time, and that the activities and models for digital scholarship work are core to librarianship. This manifesto is meant to serve as a starting point for a necessary discussion, not an end-all, be-all. We hope others will write and share counter-manifestos, passionate responses, or affirming statements.
This study analyzed 2005–2006 Web of Science bibliometric data from institutions belonging to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and corresponding ARL statistics to find any associations between indicators from the two data sets. Principal components analysis on 36 variables from 103 universities revealed obvious associations between size-dependent variables, such as institution size, gross totals of library measures, and gross totals of articles and citations. However, size-independent library measures did not associate positively or negatively with any bibliometric indicator. More quantitative research must be done to authentically assess academic libraries’ influence on research outcomes.
This project will develop a plan to optimize the SHARE aggregator and data set for digital humanities in consultation with scholars, institutions, and centers. Given the dispersed nature of modern scholarship, a digital humanities project may produce more than one book or article manuscript, each published on a different publisher’s website, any number of pre-prints on institutional repositories or pre-print servers, data sets and code books on Dryad or Figshare, and text mining or cleaning scripts on github. With many digital humanities projects based in academic departments, such project components may be housed semi-permanently in web-publishing platforms like Omeka without formal integration with library discovery systems or other services to link them to similar projects. As part of a growing open infrastructure movement, the SHARE platform links scholarly activity across the research lifecycle and makes it available as enhanced, free, open metadata. The project team will administer a survey, conduct focus groups, and engage with the humanities community to detail requirements and prototype applications for digital scholarship curation, discovery, and aggregation using SHARE.
The iSchool movement is not merely a reaction of the information science community to the criticism that there is a mismatch between LIS education and needs of the information job market but also represents the growing recognition that there is a need to elevate the status of the discipline in the higher education system to a level on par with other professions/disciplines. This paper attempts to construct the domain of interest to the iSchools by profiling the ongoing and recent research in the iSchools. The profiling is carried out by examining the publications emanating from six iSchools. The findings suggest that there is as yet no clear construct of what constitutes the domain of interest of iSchools. The research profiles of these iSchools also appear to differ significantly. The study also suggests the emergence of certain new information specialities.
The open access movement seeks to encourage all researchers to make their works openly available and free of paywalls so more people can access their knowledge. Yet some researchers who study open access (OA) continue to publish their work in paywalled journals and fail to make it open. This project set out to study just how many published research articles about OA fall into this category, how many are being made open (whether by being published in a gold OA or hybrid journal or through open deposit), and how library and information science authors compare to other disciplines researching this field. Because of the growth of tools available to help researchers find open versions of articles, this study also sought to compare how these new tools compare to Google Scholar in their ability to disseminating OA research. From a sample collected from Web of Science of articles published since 2010, the study found that although a majority of research articles about OA are open in some form, a little more than a quarter are not. A smaller rate of library science researchers made their work open compared to non-library science researchers. In looking at the copyright of these articles published in hybrid and open journals, authors were more likely to retain copyright ownership if they printed in an open journal compared to authors in hybrid journals. Articles were more likely to be published with a Creative Commons license if published in an open journal compared to those published in hybrid journals.
Copyright law is the primary means by which society preserves and protects valued cultural heritage. There is a clear correlation between that which is protected and that which is valued by society for the continued enjoyment of future generations. However, this truth becomes troubling when it is considered that modern copyright continues to espouse antiquated ideals of acceptable cultural production, to the exclusion of the cultural property of many historically marginalized people groups. This article takes a critical look at copyright law to deconstruct the ways in which historical values and assumptions continue to color the modern protection of cultural creation, thereby confining cultural expression and barring protection to the cultural work of the marginalized.
This chapter is published in the Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, Volume Two: Lesson Plans