Scholarly work in the Internet age: Co-evolving technologies, institutions and workflows

Journal

of

Innovation

&

Knowledge

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge

Conceptual

paper

Scholarly

work

in

the

Internet

age:

Co-evolving

technologies,

institutions

and

workflows

Ludovico

Bullini

Orlandi

a,∗

_,

_Francesca

_Ricciardi

a

_,

_Cecilia

_Rossignoli

a

_,

_Marco

_De

_Marco

b

a_{DepartmentofBusinessAdministration,UniversityofVerona,viaCantarane,24,37129Verona,Italy} b_{UninettunoUniversity,CorsoVittorioEmanueleII,39,00186Roma,Italy}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received11April2017 Accepted25November2017 Availableonlinexxx JELclassification: M10 M15 Keywords: Researchworkflow Scholarlycommons Academicpublishers Publishorperish Openscientificdata Academiclibraries Academicincentives Digitalpublishing

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

ThisstudyexploreshowICTsandtheInternetareinfluencing,andbeinginfluencedby,theevolutionof institutions,organizationsandworkflowsthatplayaroleinscholarlywork.Basedonaliteraturereview andastructuredanalysisof8carefullyselectedwebsites,thisstudyexplores:(i)theevolvingbusiness modelsofscientificjournals;(ii)thenewcompetitivedynamicstriggeredbyopenaccessand article-levelmetrics;(iii)thetraditionalandemergingformsofpeerreview;and(iv)theemergingICT-enabled changesinresearchworkflows.Thefindingsdepictahighlycomplexanddynamicscenario,inwhich differentscholarlycommunities,withtheirrespectiveinstitutionalandorganizationalenvironments, areexperimentingdifferentICT-basedarrangementsandsolutions,whicharedramaticallywideningthe rangeofpossibleactivitysystemsthroughwhichscientificknowledgeiscreated,exchanged,evaluated andleveraged.

©2018JournalofInnovation&Knowledge.PublishedbyElsevierEspa ˜na,S.L.U.Thisisanopenaccess articleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

The self-organizing capabilities of the global scholarly sys-temstem froma peculiar, uniqueincentive structure. Faculties are responsibleto two intertwined, but distinct social entities: theiruniversitiesandtheirdisciplinarycommunities.Universities givescholarsprofessionalcredit throughtenureand promotion decisions, usually based ontheirpublications. It is disciplinary colleagues,however,whodeterminethesepublications’success, throughpeerreviewandcitations(Acord&Harley,2013).

Complexand diversesystems of institutions, i.e.norms and values,havebeendevelopedinthedifferentcontextsworldwide togovernthetensionsduetothecomplexincentivestructureof scholarlywork. Theseinstitutions relyon specificintermediary organizationsthathaveevolvedthroughoutcenturies(Willinsky &Provencal,2012)aspivotaltothescholarlysystem.

Inthetraditionalmodel,thattookshapebetweenthenineteenth and the twentieth century, the key intermediary organizations

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:ludovico.bulliniorlandi@univr.it(L.BulliniOrlandi).

wereuniversitylibrariesandnon-profitpublishers(suchas uni-versitypressesanddisciplinaryassociations).Themodelwasquite simple:universitypresses anddisciplinary associationshad the responsibilityofselectingpublication-worthyresearch;university librariesboughtthepublishedworkatapricethatsubsidizedthe non-profitpublishers;and thefacultycoulduseforfree the lit-eraturemadeavailablebylibraries,asthefoundationforfurther research(Beverungen,Bohm,&Land,2012).Thismodelhasbecome muchmorecomplexinthelastdecades,withamyriadoffurther actorsplaying many,diverseandoftendisruptiveroles(Wellen, 2013), but the basic logic of the cycle described above is still viable.

Whatmakesthismodeluniqueisthefactthat,evenifit gov-ernsabig,exponentiallygrowing,andcriticalbusinessattheglobal level,somecorephasesoftheprocessare“islandsofgifteconomy” protectedbyhighlyinertialinstitutionalandorganizational envi-ronments.Theseislandsofgifteconomy(Wellen,2013)include processes suchas comment exchangein scholarly conferences, patronage,mentoring,andthecoreengineoftheacademicsystem: peerreviews.

Itisnotsurprising,then,thatthetheoryofthecommons(Hess, 2008;Hess&Ostrom,2007)isgrowinglymentionedinstudiesand

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.001

2444-569X/©2018JournalofInnovation&Knowledge.PublishedbyElsevierEspa ˜na,S.L.U.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

debatesonthescholarlysystem(Fecher,Friesike,&Hebing,2015; Wellen,2013).Thetheoryofthecommonsacknowledgesthe exist-enceofsystemsthatneedcollectivecollaborationtomaintaintheir capabilitytoprovidecertaincommunitieswithvaluableresources. Wikipediaisatypicalexampleofknowledgecommons.The com-monsarebydefinitionthreatenedbysocialdilemmas(Friesike& Schildhauer,2015),becausethe“rationalopportunism”of individ-ualactors,ifnoteffectivelygoverned,soonerorlaterdisruptsthe system’scapabilitytoprovidetheactorswiththedesiredresources. Forexample,shouldallWikipediausersbehave“rationally”,they wouldjustexploittheothers’work,withoutcontributingtothe platform,thusjeopardizingtheirownpossibilitiestoextractvalue fromtheplatforminthelongterm.Effectivemulti-layered insti-tutions,strongsocialnetworks,reputationalmechanismsandthe community’sself-organizingcapabilitiesaretheonlyantidotesto theso-called“tragedyofthecommons”(Dietz,Ostrom,&Stern, 2003).

Similarly,shouldallscholarsworldwide“rationally”refuse,for example,towastetimeinpeerreviewing,thewholesystemwould collapse. The scholarly environment can be viewed as a com-plexecosystem that canprovide thecommunity with valuable resources,onlyiftheantidoteslistedabove protectthesystem fromcriticalopportunisticdrifts.Thestudiesonthescholarly com-mons,oracademiccommons,arestillintheirinfancy(Fecheretal., 2015;Wellen,2013),butthisapproachisextremelypromising;in ouropinion,thecommonsviewis likelytoprovecrucial tothe much-neededscientificunderstanding(McNutt,2013)and effec-tivegovernanceoftheevolutionaryprocessesthataretransforming thescholarlysystem.

This study explores this emerging issue. More specifically, this study explores how ICTs and the Internet are influencing, and being influenced by, the evolution of institutions, orga-nizations, and workflows that play a role in the scholarly commons.

Indeed,thenewdigitalageemergedinaphase,1980s–1990s, in which the scholarlysystem wasalready destabilized by the exponentialgrowthoftheglobalscholarlycommunityand, conse-quently,ofbothglobalcompetitionandvolumeofpublishedwork (Nentwich,2003).Somefirst,naïvepredictionsdescribeda forth-comingworldinwhichICTswouldcompletelychangetheforms andformatsofscholarlycommunication;wouldcanceloutthe pub-licationcosts,thusmakingscientificdataandarticlesavailablefor all;andwouldreplacethetraditionalgatekeepingmechanismsof theacademicworldwithamoredemocraticandopenuniverseof ideas(Acord&Harley,2013).

Therealityprovedmuchmorecomplexanditcontradictsthese simplisticpredictions.Althoughthedigitalformatimprovedaccess, searchability and navigation, the “classical” form of the schol-arlyjournal is anything but obsolete, and thePDF hasbecome thestandard formof journal articles,mimicking theprint for-mat(Larivière,Haustein,&Mongeon,2015).Scholarlypublishing hasbecome an oligopolistic market,with most journalsin the handoffewcommercialplayersthatimposeveryhighpricesfor both library subscriptions and “gold” openaccess (Beverungen etal.,2012).Publicationoutletsproliferate,includingtheso-called “predatory”journalsand conferences (Bohannon,2013; Mervis, 2013); this exponential proliferation has placed a premium on high-prestigejournals,whichperpetuateorevenexacerbatethe traditionalgatekeepingmechanismstoprotecttheirreputationand role(Harley,2013).

Thisstudyexploresthishighlydynamicscenario,by concentrat-ingonfouraspectsinparticular:(i)theevolvingbusinessmodels ofscientificjournals;(ii)thenewcompetitivedynamicstriggered byopenaccessandarticle-levelmetrics;(iii)thetraditionaland emergingformsofpeerreview;and(iv)theemergingICT-enabled changesinresearchworkflows.

Basedonaliteraturesurveyandastructuredanalysisof8 web-sitesselectedasrepresentativeoftheemergingchangeprocesses, this studyshows that thescholarly systemis today a dynamic andcomplexenvironment,withemergingdivergencesacross dis-ciplinesandgeographicalareas,strongconflictsandtensions,and growingpreoccupationsforthefragilityofthescholarlycommons. TheanalysisconfirmsthatICTs,farfromresultinginmeretechnical changes,havetriggeredparamounteconomic,socialand organiza-tionaltransformationsinthescholarlysystemthroughacomplex interplaybetweeninstitutionsandtechnologies.Theseextremely relevanttransformationshaveattractedmanyideologicaldebates, declarations,andmanifestos,butareseverelyunder-investigated by social sciences (Harley,2013; McNutt, 2013), and call for a specificengagementofscholarsinthefieldsoforganization, inno-vationandinformationsystemsstudies.

Method

Thisstudystemsfromaliteraturesurveybasedontwo impor-tantspecialissuespublishedin2013.

Thefirstspecialissue,dedicatedto“Scholarlypublishingand theInternet”(Jankowski&Jones,2013)appearedinthejournal NewMediaandSociety.

Thesecondspecialissue,entitled“CommunicationinScience: PressuresandPredators”washostedbyScience(Stone&Jasny,2013). Backwardandforwardsearchwasconducted(VomBrockeetal., 2009)basedonthearticlesincludedinthesespecialissues.The retrievedpublicationswereselectedforrelevancetotheresearch question;inaddition,wedecidedtofocusonrecentpublications (after1999).Thisledtotheidentificationofabasketof47relevant publications.

Thesestudiesmentionseveralorganizations,communities,and initiatives as particularly representative of the role of ICTs in the scholarlysystem’s evolving scenario. Aftera careful online researchbasedonthekeywords’combinationsthatbetterfitthe investigatedissues(e.g.scholarlypublishingevolution,scholarly publishingAND ICT, etc.),we selected themore representative eightwebsitesthatprovidedinformationontheseorganizations, communities,andinitiatives(Table1).

These websites were browsed, and about 250 pages were selectedasrelevanttothisresearch’spurposes.Thesepageswere downloadedandservedasabasisforcoding(Bryman&Bell,2011), alongwiththe47selectedpublications.

Thesecontentswereanalyzedandcodedthroughgrounded the-orytechniques(Bryman&Bell,2011).Thisledtotheidentification offourkeyaspectsoftheevolutionofscholarlycommonsinthe Internetage:(i)theevolvingbusinessmodelsofscientific jour-nals;(ii)openaccessandarticle-levelmetrics;(iii)traditionaland emergingformsofpeerreview;and(iv)theemergingchangesin researchworkflows.Thesefourissuesaresynthesizedinthe fol-lowingsections.

Scientificjournals:thegrowingpoweroftopcommercial publishers

Sincethe1950s,nationalresearchbudgetsintheUnitedStates expandedat3–4%peryear.Thisledtoamassiveincreaseinthe rateof researchoutput,through thespecializationof academic subfields,eachrequiringitsownjournals.Therecognizedjournals ineachsubfieldacquiredthestatusof“musthave,”thuscreating inelasticdemandthatenhancedthemarketpowerofthepublisher (Wellen,2013).

Thissituation attracted many commercialpublishers, which graduallycomplementedandoftenreplacedtraditionalnon-profit publishers,suchasacademicpresses.

Table1

Websitesanalyzedforthisstudy.

URL Organization/community/initiative Reasonforinclusioninthisstudy

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ InnovationinScholarly Communication:Changing ResearchWorkflow

Thesitepresentsaveryrecentandlargesurveyon theadoptionofICTtoolsinresearchworkflows.

https://www.force11.org/ Force11:theFutureof ResearchCommunicationsand e-Scholarship

Thesiteprovidesinformationontheactivitiesofa globalcommunityoflibrarians,publishers,and researchersadvocatingICT-enabledinnovationin scholarlywork.

https://mellon.org/programs/scholarly-communications/ TheAndrewW.Mellon FoundationPrograms: ScholarlyCommunications

Thesitedescribestheactivitiesofanimportant fundedprogramsupportingdigitalscholarship.

https://www.elsevier.com/ Elsevier Thesiteprovidesinformationonthestrategies, activitiesandfinancialresultsofarepresentative globalcommercialpublisher.

http://www.jstor.org/ JSTOR Thesitepresentstheactivitiesofanon-profit

organizationthatprovideslibraries,publishers, andindividualswithweb-basedservices facilitatingscholarlywork.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/ PLOSONE Thesitepresentstheactivitiesofthelargest journalintheworld,whichpublishes85papers perdaybasedonaninnovativeweb-based businessmodel.

http://f1000research.com/ F1000Research Thesitepresentstheactivitiesofahighly innovativeplatform,basedonopenpeerreview thattakesplaceafterpublication.

https://www.altmetric.com/ Altmetrics–who’stalking aboutyourresearch?

Thesitepresentstheactivitiesofastart-up companythatdevelopsadvancedalgorithmsand softwareformeasuringtheimpactofindividual articlesandauthors.

Becauseofthisexponentialproliferationofpublications,many ofwhichdistributedbyfor-profitpublishers,thereweregrowing financialproblemsfor universitylibraries.In 1997,institutional journalsubscriptionswere30timesmoreexpensivethanin1970, amountingtoanaverageannualpriceincreaseof13%(Beverungen etal.,2012).Thecostsofbuying,storingandmanagingprinted jour-nalsbecameunsustainable,andthecommunityoflibrariansand scholarspioneerednewprojectssincethe1980stopromote elec-tronicjournals,inthehopethatthetransitiontodigitalpublishing wouldhelpaddresstheso-called“serialpricingcrisis”(Correia& Teixeira,2005).

Thistransitiontodigitalpublishingwasaccompaniedby ideo-logical expectations. Many scholarsand librarians thoughtthat whileinthepastthefinancialinvestmentsrequiredfortraditional print,storageanddistributionjustifiedtheroleofcommercial pub-lishers,thedigitalrevolutionwoulddisintermediatetheprocess. Thiswasexpectedtoallowacademicstotakepublicationsintotheir ownhands,forexamplethrougharenaissanceofuniversitypresses (Beverungenetal.,2012).

Inthelightoftheseexpectations,whathappened,inreality, maylookparadoxical.Inaveryrecentarticle,Larivièreetal.(2015) demonstratethatsincetheadventofthedigitalera,thetopfive mostprolificcommercialpublishers(Sage,Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell,Springer,andTaylor&Francis)haveincreasedtheirshare ofthepublishedoutput.Thisconcentrationisduetoboththe foun-dationofnewjournalsandtheacquisitionofexistingonesonthe partofthebigplayers.Socialsciencesdisciplines(includingalso business,organization,and management)havethehighestlevel ofconcentration(about70%ofpapersfromthetopfive commer-cialpublishers;itwasabout10%in1973).Themainreasonisthat socialsciencesdidnotdeveloplargescientificsocietiesthatregroup andpublishvariousjournalscoveringdifferentsisterdisciplines. Thesenumerous,smallandde-centralizedscientificsocietiesdid nothavethemeanstoadapttothedigitalera;inmanycases,their publishingactivitieshavebeenacquiredby,oroutsourcedto,big commercialpublishers,thuscontributingtotheirmarketpower (Beverungenetal.,2012)andscarcepricecompetition(McGuigan &Russell,2008).

Thisconcentrationisspecificallyenabledbythedigitalnature oftoday’spublishing.Infact,thecontemporarypublishing infra-structureprovidesawiderangeofdigitallyenabledservicessuch asindexing,retrieval,andreferencemanagement,which comple-ment the corebusiness of contentprovision. In addition,once thisinfrastructureisestablished,themarginalcostsofselling fur-thersubscription,issues, orindividualarticlesare neartozero. Therefore,themajoracademicpublishershavedeveloped multi-yearlicensingarrangementscalled“BigDeals.”Thesedealsbundle togetherhighandlowimpactjournalsintosinglepackagesthatare soldinbulkformtouniversitylibraries(Beverungenetal.,2012). Thesestrategiescreatesignificantentrybarrierstoindependent publishersthatdo notbelongtolargegroups (Stewart,Procter, Williams,&Poschen,2012).

The big commercial publishers are fully exploiting their increasedpower.Inthelastyears,theirprofitsrangedfrom30% to40%(Beverungenetal.,2012;Larivièreetal.,2015),whilethe subscriptionpricesconstantlygrewuntiltheybecame unsustain-able, especially for small libraries. On the other hand,through thesebigdeals,scholarshavebeenaccustomedtohavingaccessto anincreasinglylargeproportionofthescientificliterature,which makesitverydifficultforuniversitylibrariestodaytonegotiateout ofBigDealstooptimizetheircollectionsandmeetbudget restric-tions(Larivièreetal.,2015).Thissituationraisedpublicdebateand indignation.AsaHouseofCommons(UK)reportfrom2004put it,“publicmoneyisusedatthreestagesinthepublishingprocess: tofundtheresearchproject;topaythesalariesofacademicswho carryoutpeerreviewfornoextrapayment;andtofundlibraries topurchasescientificpublications”(Beverungenetal.,2012).The manifestosagainstcommercialpublishersandBigDeal subscrip-tionswereoftenwrittenanddisseminatedbylibrarians.Infact, librariesarebeingdisrupted bytheverytechnologiesthey pio-neered.PublishersandotherglobalserviceproviderssuchasJSTOR andEBSCOnowprovidemuchofthesoftware,technology,research tools,andmetadataworldwide,thusreplacingmostofthe tradi-tionalfunctionsoflibrariesthemselves(Wellen,2013).

On the other hand, the big commercial publishers respond tothose who blame them for free-ridingby claiming that also

digitalpublishingrequestsbiginvestmentsindigital infrastruc-tures,softwaredevelopment,anddifficult,costlyexperimentation withusers.Moreover,commercialpublishersclaimtheymustalso facetherisksandthreatsofcompetingwithglobalplayersofcloud computing,suchasGoogle(Hazen,2015;Stewartetal.,2012).

Eventually,thetensionsbetweenthegiantsofelectronic pub-lishingandtheacademicworldexplodedwiththeemergenceof theso-called“AcademicSpring”in2012.TheAcademicSpring wit-nessedpeer-reviewandsubscriptionboycottsofElsevierafterthe companyhadsupportedlegislativeeffortsintheUnitedStatesto banopenaccessmandates(Wellen,2013).Aftertheseboycotts, commercialpublishersstartedtorealizethatsomeformof higher-levelcollaborationwiththescholarlycommunity,tobuildamore sustainablesystem,wasadvisable. Somepioneeringpublishers, suchasNature and PLOS,started dedicating effortsto propose themselvesasinnovationintermediariesforthecommongood.The roleofinnovationintermediariesimpliesthatpublishersshould leveragetheirpivotalroletosupportthetransitionofthescholarly communitytoamoreadvancedexploitationofallthepossibilities offeredbythedigitalrevolution(Stewartetal.,2012).

Meanwhile,thefinancial pressuresstemmingfromBigDeals arebeingpartiallyrelieved,alsothankstolibraryconsortia(Hazen, 2015).Beyondall thesecontroversies,somescholarsthink that thesedealsareleastpartlyresponsibleforthepositivechange,i.e., academicresearchersincreasedthenumberofarticlestheyread by87%between1977and2005(Wellen,2013).“Moreover, effi-cienciesrelatedtodigitizationareevidentinthevastproductivity differencesbetweenthemarketforjournals—whichare predom-inantlydigital—andbooks,whicharestillmostlyprinted.Inthe 25yearsendingin2011,memberinstitutionsoftheAssociationof ResearchLibraries(ARL)paid402%morefor333%morejournals. Bycomparison,thesamelibrariespaid90%moreforonly10%more monographs[...]scalabledistributionsystemshavesupportedthe massiveexpansioninthenumberofsmall,specializedoutletsfor scholarship”(p.4).

Openaccess,article-levelmetrics,datasharingandpeer review

Openaccessacademicpublishing

TheAcademicSpringof2012wasasymptomofawiderglobal movement(Friesike&Schildhauer,2015)towardOpenAccessas analternativetothesubscriptionmodelinacademicpublishing.

TheBudapestOpenAccessInitiative(BOAI)isusuallycitedasa keyturningpointintheOpenAccessmovement(Correia& Teix-eira,2005).TheBOAIidentifiedtwomainstrategies:self-archiving (oftenidentifiedas “greenopenaccess”)and openaccess jour-nals(oftenidentifiedas“goldopenaccess”).Bothtypesofopen accesshavesteadilydeveloped(Wellen,2013),notonlybecause thefreeavailabilityofthefullpaperincreasescitationrates,butalso becausethegovernmentsoftheleadingcountriesasforresearch prestige(USAandUK)haveimposedopenaccesspublicationfor publiclyfundedresearch.Greenopenaccessimpliesthatauthors archivethepre-printorpost-printversionsoftheirarticlesinfreely accessiblerepositories suchasinstitutional databases, Research Gate or Academia.edu; the process usually respects embargo periodsthatvaryfrompublishertopublisher.Goldopenaccess, instead,correspondstoapay-per-publishmodel.

AnothermilestoneoftheOpenAccessmovementwastheFinch Report(Wellen,2013),commissionedbytheUKgovernmentand presented to the public in 2012. This report significantly con-tributedtotheideathatopenaccesswouldimprovetheflowof knowledgenotonlywithin,butalsobeyondtheresearch commu-nitywhilefacilitatingtext-miningandbetterresearchdiscovery

methods.Anotherreason citedbyOpenAccessadvocatesisthe need to fight artificial scarcity in the publication market. Tra-ditional journalspursueselectivity and exclusion, byattracting moresubmissionsfromimpact-hungryauthorswhilelimitingthe finalvolumeofpublishedarticles(Wellen,2013).For these rea-sons,traditionaljournalsendupbeinggatekeepingsystemsthat mayencourageconservatismandconformism,whilediscouraging innovativeresearchthatchallengesdisciplinaryboundariesorthe journal’sscope.

Afterthenew openaccesspolicies ofthe USAand UK gov-ernments,eventheleadingcommercialpublisherstodayinclude openaccessasacorepartoftheirstrategicvision.Almostallof themajoracademicpublishersallowauthorstopayanoptional Gold Open Accessfee—often over $3000—to enable free online accesstoarticlespublishedintheirtraditionaljournals.This sit-uationshows thatOpen Accesshasnothinderedjournalsfrom takingadvantageoftheirrole,sincetheaveragefirst-copycosts ofjournalpapersareestimatedtorangebetween20 and40US dollars per page, dependingon rejectionrates (Larivière et al., 2015).

This,ofcourse,raisedcriticism,since onlypartof the publi-cationsare Open Access,and thentheuniversities havetopay publisherstwice:forgoldopenaccess,andforsubscriptions.Some publishershaveagreedtowaiveOpenAccessfeesforinstitutions thatsubscribetotheirjournals,butthesituationishighlydynamic. ThestrongestopponentsofGoldOA,however,worrythattheneed toallocatepublicationfundsmayintroducerationingoffundsand controversiesaboutwhichscholarlycontributionsanddisciplines shouldbeeligibleforsupport.SinceSTEM(science, technology, engineering,andmedicine)fieldsreceivemuchmoregrantsand aremuchmoretime-sensitive,OpenAccessoptionsaremuchmore attractiveandaffordableforthesedisciplinesthanforsocial sci-enceand humanities(SSH). Indeed,the“SSHcommunity isless concernedaboutboosting researchproductivitythanitisabout avoidingapatternofpublishingreforminwhichthemarketwould dictate scholarlyprioritiesand resourceswould bemanagedin awaythatupsetsthelevelplayingfieldbetweenmoreandless affluentdisciplines”(Wellen,2013).

Anotherimportantphenomenonistheemergenceof innumer-ablefully,“native”OpenAccessjournals.ManyoftheseGoldOpen Access journalshave a bad reputation. Open-access profitsare notlinked toqualityselection,but tovolume.Therefore, abuse is frequent,as a Science investigationhasfound.In 2012,faux paperswithblatantscientificflawswereexperimentally submit-tedto304open-accessjournals:morethanhalfacceptedthepaper (Bohannon,2013).TheseresultsshedlightonhowICTsandthe OpenAccessoptioncontributetothephenomenonoftheso-called “predatoryjournals”:thesejournalsmakemoneybyexploitingthe needtopublisheveninlow-reputationoutlets,especiallyonthe partofscholarsfromlesscompetitiveuniversitiesanddeveloping countries.

However, even if many fields (e.g., business and manage-ment)donothavehighlyrankedOpenAccessjournals(Friesike &Schildhauer,2015), OpenAccessisfarfrombeingasynonym of low quality. Of particular interest are the inter-disciplinary megajournalsthathaverecentlybeenlaunched,basedon particu-larlyinnovativeOpenAccessmodels.ExamplesincludePLOSOne, F1000Research,andSAGEOpen(Harley,2013).Theaveragequality ofthearticlespublishedinthesemegajournals,measuredthrough thetraditionalindicators,isdiverse.Forexample,PLOSOnehasan ImpactFactorof3.234in2014.F1000Research,launchedin2012, rapidlyescalatedtoScimagoQ1in2014forthecategory “Phar-macology,Toxicology,andPharmaceutics.”SAGEOpen,theonly megajournaldedicatedtoSSH,hasalowerranking;infact itis nowclassifiedinScimagoQ4for“SocialSciences”,butwemustsay thatthisjournalpublishedoneofthemostinterestingandaccurate

articleswefoundinourliteraturesurveyforthisstudy(i.e.,Wellen, 2013).

TheOpenAccessphilosophyandtechnologiesimplyand facili-tatefurtherinnovationsthataretoorecenttobeevaluable.These innovationsincludearticle-levelmetrics,datasharingandopen, post-publicationpeerreviewing.Furtherimplicationsofthenew, ICT-enabledmodelsofscholarlycommunicationsinclude innova-tivemarketinganddisseminationapproachestoincreasearticles’ impactbothinthescholarlycommunityandtothelargerpublic (Beverungenetal.,2012).

Article-levelmetricsanddata-sharing

Article-levelmetricsarebasedontheprinciple“Peopledonot read journals.People read articles”(Rabesandratana,2013).Big dataandWeb2.0techniquesoffercompletelynewopportunities toassesstheimpactoftheindividualarticle,wellbeyondsimple citations.Forexample,PLOSarticle-levelmetricsincludecitation data,socialmediausage,and commentsin thepressthat serve asindicatorsofqualityandimpact.Thisevidenceisinlinewith previousstudiesaboutthecentralroleofsocialmediain knowl-edgesharingandtherelatednecessitytoemployeffectiveKPIsto measuretheirimpact(e.g.Alberghini,Cricelli,&Grimaldi,2014). Thesenewmetricsareexpectedtodisentanglethereputationof articles(andauthors)fromthereputationoftheoutlets(Wellen, 2013).However,sincecareersarebasedonpublicationmetrics, thescholarlycommunityisextremelycautiousaboutthese inno-vations.Thevaluing,fine-tuningandinstitutionalacceptance of article-levelmetricsarelikelytobeslow,inertialandcontroversial processesforyearstocome(Stewartetal.,2012).

DatasharingisconsideredveryimportantbymanyOpenAccess activists.Inthetraditionalprintedjournals,therewasnotenough spacetopublishthefulldatasetsscholarsbasedtheiranalyses on.Traditionalflagshipjournalsoftenmaintainthisconcisionand imposeprecisepagelimitseventotheirelectronicpublications. Conversely,OpenAccessjournalshavenoreasontoconstrain arti-clelengthandencourage,orevenimpose,thepublicationoffull datasets.Inagrowingnumberofcases,datasharingismandatory forgrantandpublicfundingbeneficiaries,inordertoencourage transparencyandgreaterreturnoninvestmentthankstodatareuse (Acord&Harley,2013).However,theexistinginstitutionsresultin stronginertialforcesagainstdatasharing.Datasets,exhibitions, andother‘subsidiary’products, perse,arefarless rewardedin tenureandpromotiondecisionsthanstandardpublications. Scho-larsarethenscarcelyincentivizedtousetheirtimetopreparethe dataandnecessarymetadatainstandardizedformatsfordeposit andreuse.Inaddition,scholarsmayfearthatdata,oncemade pub-lic,enablecriticismformistakesorimprecisions.Lastbutnotleast, scholarsmaybewishingtokeepthedataconfidentialandmaintain theoptiontoreusethemforfurtherpublicationsinthefuture, hin-deringothersfromdoingthesame(Acord&Harley,2013).Forthese reasons,thedistancebetweentherhetoricofopenscientificdata andtherealityisstillgreat,anditisquitehardtomakepredictions forthefuture.

Peerreview:towardasimplifiedreviewprocess

OneofthemainreasonswhyscholarsmaypreferOpenAccess journalsistheirexpectationofrapidpublication.OpenAccess pub-lisherssoonrealizedthatthemainconstraintorapidpublication isthetraditionalblindpeerreviewprocess(Stone&Jasny,2013). OpenAccessmegajournalsareinthepositiontointroduce simpli-fiedreviewprocessessincethesejournalsareinterdisciplinaryand donothavetoevaluatethecorrespondenceofthearticle’stopic withthejournal’sscopeand approach.For thesereasons,these journalsusuallyadoptsimplifiedpeerreviewprocesses.Therefore,

thesejournalsacceptarticlesforpublicationbasedonan accel-eratedpeerreviewprocess,screeningonlyforaccuracy,validity, and scientific soundness rather than novelty or importance. In manycases,thepaperispublishedfirstandthenundergoesopen (instead of blind)peer review.This modelis consideredhighly disruptiveandfacesconsiderableinertia(Acord&Harley,2013); severalexperimentalactivitysystemshavebeenexperimentedto addresstheseproblems.Perhapsthemostsuccessfuland interest-ingmodelofopenpeerreviewisthatdevelopedbyF1000Research. Inthiscase,thereviewersarerewardedwithdiscountsonlater GoldOpenAccesssubmissions,whilstpapers,althoughpublished immediatelyaftersubmission,areindexedinPubMedonlyafter thesuccessfulconclusionoftheopenreviewprocess,thusallowing clearqualityfiltering.

These innovations have already demonstrated to have sev-eralmerits.Openaccess,article-levelmetricsandopen,simplified peerrevieware apossibleintegrated solutiontothe forthcom-ing information explosioninworldwide scholarly work,due to the growing productivity of scholars from countries that have remainedexcludedfrominternationalpublicationssofar(Roberts, 1999).Moreover,theseICT-enabledapproachesalreadyoffer valu-ablesolutionstoscholarsstrugglingagainsttimepressures.Last butnotleast,theseoutletsallowscholarstopublishalso interest-ing“orphanstudies,”suchasthoseincludingunexpectednegative results,inter-disciplinaryorunconventionalapproaches,thatare usually rejected by high-prestige traditional journals (Shafer, Shafer,Design,&Lane,2010).

Emergingchangesinresearchworkflow

Theacademicworldisinthemiddleofforcefulchanges trig-geredandinfluencedbyICT.Itisbecominggrowinglyclearthat different scholarly communities and subfields are creating and adopting differenttools in different ways, to meet thespecific needsandpracticesthattheydelineatecollectively(Acord&Harley, 2013).

Somepioneeringstudiesareinvestigatinghowand why dif-ferentscholarsadoptdifferentICTtoolsindifferentcombinations toinnovatescholarlywork(forexample(Acord&Harley,2013; Harley,2013;Shehata,Ellis,&Foster,2015)).Gettingthewhole pictureisquitedifficultsincenewtoolscontinuouslyemergeand evolvethroughinteractionswithothertools.Anextremely inter-estingsurvey hasjust beenconducted bytwo librariansof the University ofUtrecht. Thissurvey providesawide-range, gran-ularassessment ofwhich are theICTtoolsthat scholarsusein theirresearchworkflows.Theonlinequestionnairewasfilledin by 20,663researchersworldwide between2015and 2016.The results, very well organized and readable, are available online (https://101innovations.wordpress.com/).Table2synthesizesthe surveyoutcomesthataremorerelevanttoourgoals.

Interestingly,thesiteprovidesalsotheaggregateddataofthe mosttypicalcombinations oftools that shapethe respondents’ workflows.Theseresultsconfirmthattechnologicalinnovations onlycometofruitionifstakeholdersadoptand embedthemin theirsettingsandpractices(Stewartetal.,2012).Ingeneral, scho-larsseemmuchmorekeentoadoptICTtoolsenablingliterature search,filtering,access,dataanalysis,andcloud-based collabora-tiononspecificcommonprojects,thanICTtoolsenablingtoshare anddisseminateone’sscholarship.

Inaddition,therearedifferencesanddivergencesbetween dis-ciplinaryfieldsasfortechnologyadoption.Forexample,infields withlowcommercialvalueand/orgrowinglagtimesto publica-tion(e.g.,physics/astrophysics,economics,andquantitativesocial sciences),scholarsaremorewillingtopostdraftstopersonal web-sites,preprintservers,andworkingpaperrepositories(e.g.,arXiv).

Table2

Themainresultsofthe“101Innovation”survey.Re-elaboratedfromthedatapresentedat:https://101innovations.wordpress.com/.

Phaseoftheresearchworkflow Sub-phases(examples) ICTtools(examples)

Preparation Fundresearch,definepriorities,developcollaboration,

etc.

OpenScienceFramework,PMango,Crowdcrafting, GanttProject,etc.

Discovery Getalerts,referencemanagement,annotate,etc. GoogleScholar,WOS,Scopus,Mendeley,

ResearchGate,etc.

Analysis Collectdata,minedata,sharenotebooks,elaborate

data,etc.

Excel,R,SPSS,NVivo,fsQCA,myExperiment,etc.

Writing Visualizeresults,processtext,cite,translate,etc. Word,GoogleDrive,LaTeX,Dropbox,Mendeley,

EndNote,Zotero,etc.

Publication Archive/sharedata,archive/sharepresentation,select

targetjournals,etc.

ResearchGate,SherpaRomeo,SJR,SlideShare,etc.

Outreach Valorization,dissemination,socialnetworking,etc. Twitter,Wikipedia,Academia.edu,Mendeley,

Wordpress,etc.

Assessment Commentpublication,measureimpact,researcher

evaluation,etc.

Publons,WOS,JCR,Scopus,ORCID,ResearcherID,etc.

Instead,workingpapersareunheardofinhighlycompetitivefields

likechemistryormolecularbiologythatarecharacterizedbylarge

grantfunding,commercialpotential,aquicktimetopublication.

Pre-publicationisalsoavoidedbymanyscholarsinthehumanities

orqualitativesocialsciences,whoarewaryofsharing‘unfinished’

draftsbeforecompletingtheirlong,careful,interpretiveargument

(Harley,2013).

Whilenewdigitaltechnologieshavemadescholarly communi-cationmuchfaster,facultyalsoaccusetheso-called“digitalsoup”of enablingaproliferationofannoyingonlinejunk.Scholarstendtobe growinglyoverworkedandlookformorefilters,notfewer,in deter-miningwhattoread.Mostscholarsturntothefamiliarfiltersof peerreview,perceivedselectivity,high-prestigeflagshipjournals, andpersonalnetworkstofilterwhattheypayattentionto(Acord& Harley,2013;Harley,2013).Alltheresearchesonthistopicconfirm thatsocial,organizationalandinstitutionalfactorsstrongly influ-encescholars’decisionsontechnologyadoption(Harley,2013). Conclusions

Theacademicsystemtodayco-evolveswithICTsandis becom-inggrowinglycomplexanddynamic.Sincetheacademicsystem’s roleandsustainabilitydependontheprotectionanddevelopment ofthescholarlycommons,this systemis fragiletoseveral pos-siblethreats.However,thesethreats and thepossiblesolutions arequiteunder-investigatedfromascientificpointofview.This studycontributestothedebateabouttheassessmentoftheimpact ofcurrentchangesinthescholarlysystem,highlightingboththe opportunitiesandthreatsbroughtbytheICTs’innovationstothe scholarlypublishingsystem.Ononehanditunderlinesthat,evenif thedevelopmentofsuchinnovationscouldhavebenefitedsmaller andde-centralizedplayers,thetraditionalbigplayersaregrown biggerinthelastyearsemployingastrategyofconcentrationin ordertoincreasetheirimportanceinthepublishingmarketand protectthemselvesagainsttherisksofdigitalizationandtherelated increaseofopenaccessplayers.Ontheotherhand,ICTs’ innova-tionshavepavedthewaytoopportunitiesthatpotentiallymay resultindisruptivechangesintheacademicpublishingfield.The firstopportunityaddressedby ourstudyisopenaccessand its ambiguousapplicationin theacademicpublishingfield,in fact, thesameconceptisdeclinedinthedevelopmentofhighlyranked openaccessmegajournals,suchasPLOSOne,andinthepracticeof GoldenOpenAccessappliedbytraditionalbigeditors.

The article-level metrics is another huge changing factor enabledbyICT’sinnovation,infacttrackingthepapercitations, itssocialmediadiffusionandcomments,permitstodisentangle thereputationofthearticlefromthereputationofthejournalin whichitispublished,increasingthepublishingopportunitiesina broaderrangeofjournals,notnecessarilyinhighlyrankedones.

Thisstudyalsocopeswiththeissueofemployingdigital chan-nelstosharescientificdatasetsandmadethemopenaccesstoo,in particular,ithighlightsthemorefrequentissuesaboutthispoint, suchasresearchersconcerns aboutmadethem availabletothe publicandthescarceincentivesindoingthat.

Whatemergesfromouranalysissuggestthatalsothetraditional peerreviewprocesswillbeaffectedbyICTs’innovationin partic-ularintermsofsimplificationoftheprocessanddevelopmentof incentivestoreviewers.

Lastly,weaddressedthechangesbroughtbyICTs’innovations to researchers’ practices and workflows underling,also in this case,theambivalentroleofdigitalinnovations.Ononehandthey provideresearcherswithnewandvaluabletoolsforresearch activ-ities,butontheotherhand,theyhaveencouragedthediffusionof low-qualityresearchcontents,pushingresearchersto“take shel-ter”intraditionalhighlyrankedjournalstofilterthequalityofthis over-abundanceofacademiccontents.

Despiteourstudygivestothereaderabroadvisionoftheissues linkedtoICTs’innovationsinacademicpublishing,itisaffectedby somelimitations,inparticular,eveniftheselectedwebsourcesare relevantandrepresentative,thesources’numberisquitelimited, furthermorein-depthinterviewswithrelevantactors,involvedin thescientificpublishingfield,wouldsupportourstudywith addi-tionalempiricalevidence.Besidesfutureresearchshouldaddress inmoredepthanddetaileachissue,emergedfromouranalysis, becauseeachofthemisworthyofaspecificliteraturereviewand empiricaldatacollectionandanalysis.

Whilemanifestosandideologicalconflictsproliferate,thereisa scarcityofscientificallysoundassessmentsontheactualimpactof theongoingchanges.Asauthoritativelycalledforbythe Editor-in-ChiefofScienceinthe2013SpecialIssue(McNutt,2013),itisthe timethatscientistsapplyscientificthinkingtoassesstheimpacts ofthedifferentandintertwinedinstitutional,organizationaland businessmodelsthat aredynamicallyemerging inthescholarly system.

References

Acord,S.K.,&Harley,D.(2013).Credit,time,andpersonality:Thehumanchallenges tosharingscholarlyworkusingWeb2.0.NewMedia&Society,15(3),379–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140

Alberghini,E.,Cricelli,L.,&Grimaldi,M.(2014).Amethodologytomanageand monitorsocialmediainsideacompany:Acasestudy.JournalofKnowledge Management,18(2),255–277.

Beverungen,A.,Bohm,S.,&Land,C.(2012).Thepovertyofjournalpublishing. Orga-nization,19(6),929–938.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448858 Bohannon,J.(2013).Who’safraidofpeerreview?ScienceMagazine,342(October),

60–65.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Bryman,A.,&Bell,E.(2011).Businessresearchmethods.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.

Correia, A.M.R.,&Teixeira,J. C.(2005).Reforming scholarlypublishingand knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to

thechallenges ofopen access.Online InformationReview, 29(4), 349–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520510617802

Dietz,T.,Ostrom,E.,&Stern,P.C.(2003).Thestruggletogovernthecommons. Science,302(5652),1907–1912.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015 Fecher,B.,Friesike,S.,&Hebing,M.(2015).Whatdrivesacademicdatasharing?PLOS

ONE,10(2),1–25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053

Friesike,S.,&Schildhauer,T.(2015).Openscience:Manygoodresolutions,very few incentives yet. In S.Friesike, & T. Schildhauer (Eds.), Incentives and performance:Governanceof researchorganizations (pp.277–289). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5 17

Harley,D.(2013).Scholarlycommunication:Culturalcontexts,evolvingmodels. Science,342(6154),80–82.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1243622 Hazen,D.(2015).Lostinthecloud:Researchlibrarycollectionsandcommunityin

thedigitalage.LibraryResources&TechnicalServices,55(4),195–204. Hess, C. (2008).Mapping the newcommons in governing shared resources:

Connetinglocalexperiencetoglobalchallenges.InTheTwelfthBiennial Con-ferenceoftheInternationalAssociationfortheStudyoftheCommons(pp.1–76). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1356835

Hess,C.,&Ostrom,E.(Eds.).(2007).Understandingknowledgeasacommons:From theorytopractice.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Jankowski, N. W., & Jones, S. (2013). Scholarly publishing and the inter-net: A NM&S themed section. New Media & Society, 15(3), 345–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472098

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., &Mongeon, P. (2015). Theoligopoly of academic publishersinthedigitalera.PLOSONE, 10(6),e0127502.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

McGuigan,G.,&Russell,R.(2008).Thebusinessofacademicpublishing:Astrategic analysisoftheacademicjournalpublishingindustryanditsimpactonthefuture ofscholarlypublishing.ElectronicJournalofAcademicandSpecialLibrarianship, 9(3),1–11.

McNutt, M.(2013).Improvingscientific communication. Science,342(October) http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1246449

Mervis,J. (2013).Theannual meeting: Improving what isn’t broken.Science, 342(6154),74–79.

Nentwich,M.(2003).Cyberscience:ResearchintheageoftheInternet.Vienna:Autrian AcademyofSciencesPress.

Rabesandratana,T.(2013).Theseerofsciencepublishing.Science,342(6154),66–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.66

Roberts,P.(1999).Scholarlypublishing,peerreviewandtheInternet.FirstMonday, 4(4),1–11.

Shafer,D.,Shafer,D.,Design,O.,&Lane,D.(2010).pp.1–9.Thepowerofnegative thinking(vol.7652)http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.868943

Shehata,A.,Ellis,D.,&Foster,A.(2015).Theimpactofinformationand communica-tiontechnologiesoninformalscientificcommunication.LibraryReview,64(6/7), 428–445.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LR-09-2014-0102

Stewart,J.,Procter,R.,Williams,R.,&Poschen,M.(2012).Theroleofacademic publishers in shaping the development of Web 2.0 services for schol-arlycommunication.NewMedia&Society,15(3),413–432.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444812465141

Stone,R.,&Jasny,B.(2013).Scientificdiscourse:Bucklingattheseams.Science,342, 57.

VomBrocke,J.,Simons,A.,Niehaves,B.,Riemer,K.,Plattfaut,R.,&Cleven,A.(2009). Reconstructingthegiant:Ontheimportanceofrigourindocumentingthe lit-eraturesearchprocess.InECIS2009Proceedings,vol.9(pp.2206–2217). Wellen,R.(2013)..Openaccess,megajournals,andMOOCs:OnthePolitical

Econ-omyof AcademicUnbundling.SAGEOpen(vol.3) http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244013507271,2158244013507271–2158244013507271

Willinsky,J.,&Provencal,J.(2012).Theintellectualandinstitutionalpropertiesof learning:Historicalreflectionsonpatronage,autonomy,andtransaction.New Media&Society,15(3),398–412.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465142