Current Models Of Digital Scholarly Communication
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka for the
Association of Research Libraries
November 2008
Nancy L. Maron
K. Kirby Smith
Association of Research Libraries
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka Strategic Services
for the Association of Research Libraries
Ithaka is an independent not-for-profit organization with a mission to accelerate the productive uses of
information technologies for the benefit of higher education worldwide. Ithaka promotes innovation
in higher education by supporting entrepreneurial not-for-profit initiatives to develop sustainable
organizational and business models. We aim to combine a commitment to the core values of higher
education, a deep understanding of technology and its impact, and experience developing economically
sustainable not-for-profit business models, to help advance community-wide benefits during this time of
technological transition.
Published by the
Association of Research Libraries
Washington, DC 20036
www.arl.org
Cover photo courtsey of the National Science Foundation
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171
Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Contents
Preface ..............................................................................................................5
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................7
Introduction ......................................................................................................9
Methodology ................................................................................................. 11
Creation of the field team ..................................................................................11
Identifying new digital scholarly resources .......................................................12
The data gathering process ................................................................................12
How Faculty Use Digital Publications .............................................................. 15
How do scholars use these sites? ........................................................................15
How often do scholars report using these resources? ......................................15
In what ways do scholars engage with new models of digital publishing? ...16
Types of Digital Scholarly Resources ............................................................... 17
E-only journals ....................................................................................................18
Reviews ............................................................................................................... 21
Preprints and working papers ........................................................................... 22
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated content ....................................... 24
Data resources .................................................................................................... 26
Blogs .................................................................................................................... 28
Discussion forums ............................................................................................... 29
Professional and academic hubs ........................................................................ 31
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................33
Looking Ahead: Digital Scholarly Resources and the University Library ..........35
Appendix A: Field Team Participation ............................................................. 37
Appendix B: Current Models of Digital Scholarly Resources by Type ...............39
Appendix C: List of Interviews ........................................................................ 47
Appendix D: Digital Scholarly Resources by Disciplinary Group .......................49
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 3
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
List of Figures and Side Bars
Figure 1. Frequency of Use of Submitted Digital Scholarly Resources ....................................... 16
Figure 2. Digital Scholarly Resources by Type .............................................................................. 17
EXPERIMENTING WITH PUBLIC PEER REVIEW: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ................. 19
EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF A JOURNAL: JoVE’s video articles .......................................... 20
ESTABLISHING LEGITIMACY FOR DIGITAL BOOK REVIEWS: Bryn Mawr Classical Review
and H-France Review...................................................................................................................22
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF arXiv: PhilSci Archive ................................................................................ 24
IMAGES BEFORE WORDS: Visualizing Cultures and Image-Driven Scholarship .......................... 25
HARNESSING THE POWER OF USERS: eBird .................................................................................. 27
ACCELERATING THE SPEED OF SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION: PEA Soup ..........................................29
THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF THE LISTSERV: H-France Forum ............................................. 31
ONE-STOP SHOPPING: Alzheimer Research Forum .......................................................................32
Page 4
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Preface
How are we to understand new forms of scholarship and understanding trends and patterns, or simply judging
scholarly works in their own right? It is a vexing question how far change has progressed are lacking.
for those of us who aspire to grasp how the system of
An organized scan of new models of scholarly works
scholarly communication is adapting to a digital net-
has been needed, and this study set out to identify
worked environment. Nearly a decade into the twenty-
examples from as many disciplines as possible. With a
first century, new forms are no longer hypothetical but
sizable col ection of resources, it becomes easier to ask
increasingly part of the everyday reality of research and
questions like: Are there emerging genres? What kinds
scholarship.
of quality control practices are used? What are different
The urge to consider new forms in comparison to
disciplinary strategies?
the monograph and journal genres that dominate library
Fortunately, as a plan for a study of new model
col ections and the consciousness of the Academy is
works developed, staff in Ithaka’s Strategic Services
powerful. Yet, this frame for interpreting changing prac-
Group agreed, with the happy result that ARL commis-
tices of scholarly communication carries the risk of fal ing sioned Ithaka to implement the study and develop the
into a certain circularity of thought – we may acknowl-
final report.
edge that scholarly works will change and yet behave
The study that produced this report was conceptual-
as if anything that doesn’t look like a traditional work of ized as a project that would look squarely at new forms
scholarship is not a scholarly work; thus the immutability of scholarship and scholarly works and consider them in
of traditional publishing models becomes axiomatic. Dif-
their own lights. It was also conceived as a mechanism
ferent becomes less by definition. From this perspective,
to engage librarians and faculty members in mutual ex-
any counter-example is regarded as exceptional rather
plorations of the ways in which scholars and researchers
than appreciated as transitional or transformational.
are already relying on new models.
Yet, for close observers of scholars and scholarship,
From the outset, the study was designed to concen-
something about this doesn’t seem quite right. Within
trate on new kinds of works that are already in active
the library community, discussions of new kinds of
use within a research community or discipline. Yet one
scholarly works have tended to return again and again
of the chal enges was that no listing for new model
to the same short list of examples. While these seem
resources exists. The Directory of Open Access
to be thriving and growing, scholars and research can
Journals is perhaps closest to a registry, but its scope
often identify others they use. Col ectively, there has
is limited to a particular genre and by an accessibility
been a sense that many new kinds of scholarly works are criterion. In many cases it seems that only the scholars
successful y contributing to the scholarly communication who create or use a new kind of work or col ection are
system, but that effective frameworks for noticing them, aware of it.
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 5
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
The field study concept solved this problem by pro-
knowledge, this work offers significant evidence to the
viding a mechanism to work directly with faculty to iden- contrary. While the faculty members who spoke with
tify new model works they were using with the result
librarians for the study may not be entirely representa-
that this research was a unique community effort. This
tive of their communities, hundreds of conversations
innovative qualitative approach succeeded in generating found that established scholars and relative novices alike
a substantial col ection of examples for analysis.
reported using and contributing to new kinds of works
But the field study served a second important func-
in their field. Notably, a large proportion of the works
tion by providing a structure that encouraged and sup-
faculty talked about with librarians were developed by
ported librarians to reach out to local faculty and consult scholars (rather than traditional publishers) to meet
with them in exploring the kinds of works that were in
needs or pursue opportunities that served their desire
use in various disciplines. Initiating several hundred of
to advance the creation of new knowledge in their field.
these conversations on campuses in the US and Canada
Just as scholars themselves invented the scholarly jour-
was a substantial study outcome in its own right. ARL is nal, they are taking the lead in inventing a new genera-
grateful for the contributions of these generous volun-
tion of scholarly works.
teers – both librarians and faculty members.
This study is intended to support librarians, scholars
The richness of examples that emerged from the
and researchers, campus and association leaders, along
field study validates impressionistic observations that a
with other interested constituencies navigating shifting
variety of new models have become embedded in disci-
patterns of scholarly communication. It presents new
plinary communication practices. If regular use by a com- landmarks for those who want to engage in further ex-
munity of scholars is a reasonable measure of success,
ploration. But, it also provides a basis for ongoing dialog
then a substantial number of new model resources are
about how best to advance positive change in scholarly
successful. By closely examining the diverse examples
communication.
col ected for the study, the authors have taken a major
The field study has already advanced conversations
step toward describing a largely unexplored ecosystem
about changing communicative practices on many cam-
– one that we now know occurs across a wide range of
puses, and this report provides an opportunity to deepen
disciplines. Further, the exemplar resources gathered in
those and begin new ones.
the database released with this report should help other
explorers of the changing landscape of scholarly com-
munication.
Karla Hahn
For those who believe scholars and researchers
Director, Office of Scholarly Communication
are unwil ing to change their practices of sharing new
Association of Research Libraries
Page 6
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Executive Summary
The networked digital environment has enabled the
subsequently conducted by Ithaka with project leaders
creation of many new kinds of works that are accessible
of eleven representative resources. This qualitative
to end users directly, and many of these resources have
approach, while not statistical y meaningful, yielded a
become essential tools for scholars conducting research, rich cross-section of what innovation in digital scholarly
building scholarly networks, and disseminating their
resources looks like today.
ideas and work. The decentralized distribution of these
The final report identifies eight principal types of
new model works can make it difficult to ful y appreciate digital scholarly resources:
their scope and number, even for university librarians
tasked with knowing about valuable resources across the
E-only journals
disciplines. In the spring of 2008, ARL engaged Ithaka
Reviews
to conduct an investigation into the range of online
Preprints and working papers
resources valued by scholars, paying special attention to
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated
those projects that are pushing beyond the boundaries
content
of traditional formats and are considered innovative by
Data
the faculty who use them.
Blogs
A field team of librarians at ARL institutions in the
Discussion forums
US and Canada was assembled to interview faculty
Professional and scholarly hubs
members on their campuses about the digital scholarly
resources they find useful in their work. The field
This report profiles each of these eight types of
team of 301 librarians at 46 institutions interviewed
resources, including discussion of how and why the
professors about the digital resources they use. Ithaka
faculty members reported using the resources for their
staff then evaluated each resource to ensure that it
work, how content is selected for the site, and what
met ARL’s definition of “original and scholarly works,”
sustainability strategies the resources are employing.
those resources containing born-digital content by and
Each section draws from the in-depth interviews to
for a scholarly audience. Of the 358 responses the field
provide il ustrative anecdotes and highlight representa-
team gathered, 206 unique digital resources met these
tive examples.
criteria. These resources are included in a publicly-
Among the findings of this study were:
accessible database.1 The final report is based on both
the fact-checked results of the field study and interviews
While some disciplines seem to lend themselves
to certain formats of digital resource more than
1 The database is available at: http://www.arl.org/sc/models/
others, examples of innovative resources can
model-pubs/search-form.shtml
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 7
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
be found across the humanities, social sciences,
may need years to establish their place in their
and scientific/technical/medical subject areas.
scholarly community.
Traditions of scholarly culture relating to estab-
Innovations relating to multimedia content and
lishing scholarly legitimacy through credential-
Web 2.0 functionality appear in some cases
ing, peer review, and citation metrics exert a
to blur the lines between resource types. We
powerful force on these innovative online proj-
observed “video articles,” peer-reviewed reader
ects. Almost every resource suggested by the
commentary, and medieval illuminated texts
interviewed scholars incorporates peer review
coded as data – all evidence of the creative for-
or editorial oversight. Though some born-digital
mat mash-ups that challenge us to re-think the
journals are beginning to experiment with open
definitions of traditional content categories.
peer review, the examples we observed were
still in early stages.
Projects of all sizes are still seeking paths to
sustainability. For open access sites – the vast
Many digital publications are directed at small,
majority of the resources studied here – the
niche audiences. There appears to be a very
challenges can be great, since subscription fees
long tail in the field of digital scholarly re-
are not an option. Nearly all of the publications
sources with many tightly-focused publications
that emerged in our survey are experimenting
directed at narrow audiences and capable of
to find economic models that will support their
running on relatively small budgets.
work.
Some of the resources with greatest impact
This report indicates several ways that university
are those that have been around a long while.
librarians can play a central role in sharing information
Given the importance of longevity in establish-
about these digital resources with the campus com-
ing scholarly reputation, the necessity of build-
munity, and in guiding new projects toward success. In
ing an audience to attract high-quality content, addition, the field team model has provided a path for
and the time it takes to fine-tune a digital re-
enriching future interactions between faculty and librar-
source, even excellent new digital publications
ians, one which ARL continues to develop.
Page 8
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Introduction
As electronic resources for scholarship proliferate, more
publication, and distribution also existed for scholarly
and more scholars turn to their computers rather than
monographs. For both types of publication, the campus
to print sources to conduct their research. While society
library played a central role in gathering these scholarly
journals, university presses, and conference proceed-
outputs for the academic community.
ings still form the backbone of the scholarly publishing
Today, the university library still plays a central role
enterprise, alongside them many new digital scholarly
in distributing both print and online resources, but the
resources have appeared, sprouting up wherever there
networked digital environment has enabled the creation
is a devoted individual or team of scholars wil ing to
of many new kinds of works that are accessible to end
create and nurture them. Born-digital journals, blogs,
users directly. The decentralized distribution of these
wikis, and other forms of online publishing and discus-
new digital resources can make it difficult to ful y appre-
sion now appear in every discipline. While some of
ciate their range and number, even for university librar-
these digital resources resemble their print predecessors, ians tasked with being familiar with valuable resources
others are quite novel, making use of the space, speed,
across the disciplines.
and interactivity that the Internet al ows. Though many
Given the wealth of digital scholarship created and
digital scholarly resources are small in scale, this does
disseminated independently by scholars, research teams,
not necessarily make them marginal; some have already
associations, and other entities, the Association of
gained widespread acceptance in their fields on par with Research Libraries (ARL) wanted to explore the variety of
the print publications that, until just a decade ago, held
online resources currently in use by the scholarly commu-
an unchal enged monopoly on disseminating scholarly
nity. In spring 2008, ARL engaged Ithaka to help survey
work.
the broader landscape of these resources, to understand
This rapid proliferation of Web-based resources has
more about the resources that exist, and to highlight
had an impact on how scholars conduct research and
particular examples of innovation. Using a variety of
keep abreast of new work by their peers. In the past,
examples that emerged through this investigation, this
a university professor might expect to learn about new
report describes some of the ways in which scholarly
work in her field by reading articles published in scholar-
communication is occurring in a digital world.
ly journals. Wel -articulated systems of selection, review,
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 9
Methodology
ARL’s objective was not to provide an exhaustive survey
United States and Canada.2 Librarians from three pilot
of the resources in use across all disciplines, but rather
institutions – the University of Washington, Cornell Uni-
to highlight interesting and relevant examples of digital
versity, and the University of British Columbia – signed
scholarly resources, their contribution to the scholarly
on to help develop the interview protocols. In some
process, and the organizational and business models
cases, the entire library staff assigned to faculty liaison
that help them survive and thrive. For this reason, a
work was asked by their director to participate; at other
qualitative research approach was selected. Although
institutions, interested librarians joined independently.
qualitative research does not enable statistical y-driven
The participating librarians embraced this project
conclusions or generalizations, it is a valuable method for not only because of their interest in new digital scholarly
unearthing unique examples and understanding broad
resources, but also because it provided an opportunity
trends. ARL asked Ithaka’s Strategic Services group to
for structured interaction with faculty members at their
support them in the creation, training, and deployment
institutions. In fact, many participating library directors
of a team of librarians to interview faculty members
voiced support for this project as a means to initiate
about the digital scholarly resources they use, and in the or continue deep engagement between librarians and
interpretation of these results. We hope this investiga-
scholars on campus. The value of this field team in fa-
tion will be of interest both to faculty and students look-
cilitating conversations about digital resources between
ing for digital sources for their research or new models
librarians and faculty could extend well beyond its role in
for publishing their own work, as well as to the librarians this particular study.
who support faculty and students in these endeavors.
Ithaka and ARL conducted Web-based training ses-
sions to provide the field team members with necessary
Creation of the field team
background on the project’s goals and to present the
A field team of librarians at ARL institutions in the United questionnaire that would structure their conversations
States and Canada was recruited to interview faculty
with faculty. A question-and-answer session fol owed
members on their campuses about the digital scholarly
the presentation and the webcast was archived on the
resources they find useful in their work. ARL invited
ARL Web site so that new field team members joining
librarians from all its member institutions and other
after that date could still benefit from the training. As
institutions involved with the Institute on Scholarly Com-
the field work started, an electronic discussion list al-
munication to participate, and assembled a field team of lowed members of the field team to share questions and
301 volunteers from 46 col eges and universities in the
tips with the entire group.
2 For a list of institutions that participated in the field team, please
see Appendix A.
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 11
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Among the topics discussed in detail during the
focus of these resources is not scholarly communication
training was how to define the new models of digital
they were considered outside the scope of this study.
scholarship we were looking for so librarians could en-
sure that their conversations focused on similar resourc-
The data gathering process
es. When the library field team participants conducted
Between April 1 and June 17, 2008, field team members
their interviews, they asked faculty members to identify
conducted interviews with faculty members to ask them
for them the “online works you rely on to keep up with
about the online resources they use that contain original
current research,” and, specifical y, those that could be
scholarly work. The faculty members were encouraged
described as containing original scholarly work. They
to offer as many examples as they felt were relevant. For
were asked not to focus on search engines or sites that
each resource cited, the field team member asked a set
provided only col ections of links.3
of questions including how the scholar uses the resource,
his opinion on how the resource accomplishes something
Identifying new digital scholarly resources
innovative, and how often he uses it. In addition, field
ARL’s primary interest was in identifying sites with con-
team members asked a series of questions relating to the
tent that was both original and scholarly. “Original” was resource, including its method of selecting content and
defined as born-digital material (content that appeared
business model. In some cases, faculty members knew
first on the Web site in question). In cases where the
this information. When they did not, field team mem-
resource consisted of digitized primary source content,
bers conducted fol ow-up research about the sites after
such as medieval manuscripts, we considered it original
the interviews to verify factual information and to fill in
if the site facilitated some sort of new scholarly manipu-
answers to questions that the faculty member could not
lation of the content, or if it was published alongside a
answer. Final y, field team members entered this infor-
layer of original scholarly annotation. Though digitized
mation into a Formspring database set up by ARL. The
versions of print publications and search tools pointing
field study conversations yielded 358 responses. Three of
to content hosted elsewhere may be extremely useful
these were from interviews with scholars who said they
to scholars, they were outside the scope of this study.
used no digital resources at al ; the other 355 described
“Scholarly” resources are those authored by and for
digital resources.
the scholarly community. This definition encompassed
The Ithaka team then reviewed each suggested
a wide variety of formal and informal resources, includ-
resource to determine if it met the agreed-upon defini-
ing peer-reviewed publications like e-only journals, but
tion of a new digital scholarly resource. About two-thirds
also sites that scholars use to share casual information
of all responses – 240 resources – met the requirement
or thoughts-in-progress, including discussion forums or
of containing some original scholarly content.4 This set
blogs. Considered outside the scope of the study, how-
4 While 240 of the entries faculty and librarians submitted to the
ever, were popular-interest resources, such as YouTube
study database met the criteria set out by ARL as “scholarly and
and Wikipedia. Although it would be fascinating to study original,” 115 did not. These resources, though often of high
the way that sites like these are becoming both the
quality, were excluded from analysis for this report. They included:
aggregations of links to other sites; software and digital tools;
subject of and a resource for scholarly work, because the digital copies of print content; industry newsletters; commercial
and/or mass audience sites; and teaching-focused resources.
Faculty reported using these resources daily far more often than
3 Several faculty members did, in fact, mention search engines and
they did the resources that include works of original scholarship.
aggregations of links. See footnote 4 for a discussion of those re-
This suggests that scholars’ priority is to find relevant content,
sources that were excluded from the field study.
regardless of where it is hosted. Among the additional reasons
Page 12
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
included several resources named by more than one re-
tions are being incorporated into the workflow
spondent. The number of unique resources that scholars
of some scholars.
reported to the library field team participants was 206.5
At this stage, Ithaka staff assessed all of the re-
• Data about the resources themselves.
sources in this group, and assigned each to one of eight
This information, supplied originally by the fac-
categories of resource types for purposes of analysis.
ulty member, and corrected or verified by the
Ithaka then selected eleven representative projects and
field team member, helped to describe the types
conducted in-depth phone interviews with project lead-
of content on the site, methods of selecting
ers and key staff to gain a deeper understanding of the
content for the site, whether or not there is a
mission, goals, and organization of the different publish-
peer review process in place, if there appeared
ing models. These interviews helped Ithaka gain insight
to be institutional support for the site, and
into how their leaders think about strategies for creating
more. In addition, the team at Ithaka inspected
and developing site content over time, metrics for under-
the sites to verify as much of this information as
standing the site’s users, experimentation with technical
possible.
innovations, and different sustainability strategies.6
This report relies upon three sources of data:
• In-depth interviews conducted with the
project leaders and key personnel.
• Data gathered by the field team through
The interviews Ithaka conducted with the lead-
faculty interviews.
ers of eleven representative projects provided a
The method employed by the field team, known
picture of just how these projects have grown
as convenience sampling, is commonly used in
and developed over time, the strategies that
exploratory research. It suited the time and re-
have worked (or not) for some of them, and
source constraints of the project as well as the
the ways in which project leaders think about
goal of creating a qualitative assessment of a
fulfilling their mission. The interviews were con-
specific type of resource. The information gath-
ducted, when possible, by both an interviewer
ered by the field team helped guide us to ex-
and a note-taker.
amples of innovative digital scholarly resources
that faculty are using today. Faculty members’
By integrating these three sources of information,
answers to the librarians’ questions also helped this project offers a snapshot of what innovation in
to explain why professors use certain resources, digital scholarly resources looks like today. The report
what they find most innovative and valuable
begins by assessing the ways in which faculty report us-
about them, how often they use them, and
ing the new digital resources they recommended. Then,
whether they contribute to the resource as au-
we examine eight types of digital scholarly resources,
thors or editors. These data points provided a
describing their content, the ways faculty report using
glimpse into the way that these digital publica-
them, and their strategies for success. Examples drawn
from specific digital projects provide a ful er picture of
faculty cited for using these resources were quick access, easy
the kinds of resources in use, the innovations underway,
searching, and useful overviews.
and the chal enges their leaders face in sustaining them.
5 See Appendix B for a listing of the 206 unique resources
discussed in this report.
6 For a list of the interviewees and resources, see Appendix C.
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 13
How Faculty Use Digital Publications
How do scholars use these sites?
than for any others. Faculty members told librarians that
How do scholars use digital resources to help with their
other aspects they appreciated in these sites included
research needs? Providing access to the most current
news and alerts about publications, conferences, and
research was by far the most frequent reason suggested other developments in the field; and access to different
by the faculty with whom field team librarians spoke.
types of content including data, primary source material,
Facilitating exchanges among scholars and supplying
reviews, and teaching materials. 7
useful co-location of works were also mentioned often,
field librarians reported. Many faculty indicated that the
How often do scholars report using these
resource they suggested accomplished not one, but all
resources?
three of these goals. Scholars in different disciplinary
About half of the faculty in our study told field team
categories – humanities, social sciences, and science,
librarians that they used the site they named at least
technical, and medical (STM) fields – tended to note
weekly. This was similar for interviewed scholars in all
different reasons for finding a resource useful. Librar-
disciplines. Certain content types, however, seem to
ians noted that across all disciplines faculty emphasized
demonstrate specific patterns of use; faculty who used
their interest in access to current research as the most
data sites, for example, told librarians that their usage
important benefit of the resources they identified. Field
was not constant, but rather varied depending on their
librarians speaking with scholars about humanities and
current research project. In addition, it is interesting to
social sciences resources, however, were much more
note that many of the resources scholars mentioned
likely to find that faculty appreciated those resources
using daily were those considered outside of the scope
for facilitating exchanges between researchers than
of this study, such as search sites like Google, reference
did faculty nominating resources in STM subjects. This
sites like Wikipedia, and other finding tools like online
does not mean that scientists are not interacting with
catalogs and aggregations of links pointing to content
their col eagues using the Internet, but that they less
held elsewhere.
frequently cited those types of sources, such as blogs
7
and discussion lists, where “exchanges among schol-
For an ongoing study of scholarly communication, assessing
“how and why scholars do what they do to advance their fields, as
ars” is a primary function. By far, STM resources – data
well as their careers,” see Diane Harley, Sarah Earl-Novel , Sophia
sites and e-journals were most often named – seemed
Krzys Acord, Shannon Lawrence, and C. Judson King, “Interim
to be valued for providing access to new research; we
Report: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communica-
tion,” (Spring 2008), available at: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publi-
heard this response more frequently for STM resources
cations/publications.php?id=300
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 15
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Figure 1. Frequency of Use of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=240)
1% Other
7% As Needed
32% Weekly
18% Infrequently*
18% Daily
24% Monthly
* “Infrequently” includes resources that scholars reported using a few times a year, annually, or less often.
In what ways do scholars engage with new
pears that those scholars who nominated a site to which
models of digital publishing?
they contribute were more likely to tell librarians that
Scholars are both the producers of and the audience
they visit that site daily.
for digital scholarly communications. While many of
Our findings suggest that scholars at all stages of
the ways in which scholars contribute to print publica-
their careers are experimenting with participation in
tions also exist in the digital world – writing and peer-
new models of digital publishing. We found no evidence
reviewing articles, editing journals, reviewing books, etc. that the assistant professors with whom librarians spoke
– electronic media also facilitate new forms of scholarly
– presumably younger and more immersed in a digital
contributions. Examples of this include moderating a
world – contributed to the resources they suggested
discussion list, contributing data to a shared repository,
more frequently than their more senior col eagues. Per-
posting thoughts and annotations on a blog, or editing
haps there are other factors encouraging senior faculty
a wiki. Almost half of the interviewed faculty contributed to participate (the protections of having tenure, invita-
to the resource they suggested to the librarians. Nearly a tions to participate from other col eagues) and discour-
third of these contributions consisted of offering content; aging younger faculty (a sense of caution regarding
other forms of participation included contributing reader where to publish work before receiving tenure). Further
commentary, contributing editing services, managing a
research would be needed to better understand the fac-
site, providing peer review to e-only journal articles or
tors motivating or discouraging faculty to participate in
moderating a discussion list.8 And not surprisingly, it ap- different forms of digital communication.
8 It is worth noting that the librarians who conducted these conver-
sations may have been inclined to seek out faculty members with
a reputation for being active users of digital resources, so these
numbers may not be representative of rates of contribution across
the academy.
Page 16
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Types of Digital Scholarly Resources
While many scholarly resources combine several types
listed in the order in which we will discuss them. The
of formal and informal content, we found that most of
categories have been loosely grouped based on similar-
the original scholarly resources in our sample featured
ity in content; so, we discuss article-focused formats like
one primary content type. For purposes of analysis,
e-only journals, reviews, and preprint servers in turn, as
we placed each of the 206 resources into one of eight
we do with informal formats like blogs and discussion
content categories. In instances where a resource con-
forums.
tained multiple content types – for example, an e-only
journal that also had a blog – we categorized it based
• E-only journals (51)
on the element of the site the scholar reported using,
• Reviews (10)
or the content type that appeared to be predominant.
• Preprints and working papers (10)
Some resources included extensive content in several of
• Encyclopedias, dictionaries and annotated
these categories. We described these sites, whose value
content (24)
was not in any single element, but in the aggregation
• Data (41)
of many forms of content, as “hubs.” The list below
• Blogs (15)
includes the eight publication types we examined and
• Discussion forums (21)
the number of unique resources we examined in each,
• Professional and scholarly hubs (34)
Figure 2. Digital Scholarly Resources by Type (n = 206)
5% Preprints
23% E-journal
5% Reviews
7% Blogs
11% Discussion forums
20% Data
12% Encyclopedias, etc.
17% Hubs
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 17
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
While the sample col ected through the field team
emerge, and the revenue-generating strategies most
survey was not intended to be statistical y representative often used. Along the way, representative or exception-
of all projects in all disciplines, it does provide us with
al y innovative cases provide further detail to the profiles
interesting clues about the relative prominence of differ-
of each model.
ent genres of digital publication, both overall and within
particular disciplines. Although e-only journals were
E-only journals
wel -represented across the disciplines, different content E-only journals – the resource type suggested most
types stood out in each broad subject area.9
frequently by the scholars interviewed for this study –
are shaped by the same forces in online academic culture
• In the humanities, e-only journals were the
as their print forbears, including credibility, prestige, and
most commonly cited genre of content,
tenure and promotion decisions. They strongly resemble
followed by discussion forums. Resources
traditional print journals in terms of editorial guidelines,
facilitating informal exchange, like discussion
peer review, and a wel -defined scholarly mission, while
forums and blogs, appeared more frequently in
also incorporating a variety of innovations made possible
the humanities than in the other subject areas.
by the digital environment. The journals named by schol-
ars in this study represented a nearly even cross-section
• Among the social sciences resources, the
of disciplines, including humanities (17 titles), social
largest group was professional and scholarly
sciences (12 titles), and STM (22 titles).
hubs, followed by e-only journals. It is
Incremental y, some e-only journals are using digital
interesting to note that preprint resources
technologies to improve the publication process in a
were actually mentioned more frequently than
variety of ways. Faculty frequently told librarians that
any other content type in the social sciences;
speedy access to new work, the open access model, and
however, most faculty members mentioned
the benefits of being part of a network or online com-
the same resource: Social Science Research
munity of scholars made the e-only journals they sug-
Network.
gested innovative. Other innovations mentioned relate
to novel features like associated discussion lists or public
• Based on our sample, sites that enable access
commenting. PLoS, a col ection of online journals in the
to and publication of data seem especially
biological sciences, includes the option to comment on
important in the STM field. Within the group
an article, as does Industrial and Organizational
of STM-focused sites, the largest group by far
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Prac-
was of these data resources, followed by e-only tice, which encourages both peer commentary and
journals and professional and scholarly hubs.
responses by an article’s author. Other innovations in this
category take advantage of the flexibility that the digital
In the fol owing sections we discuss each of the
environment al ows to accelerate the speed of publica-
eight types of new digital scholarly resources in turn,
tion and the peer review process, and to explore the
sharing findings on each content type, examining how
possibilities of including new media formats.
scholars said they are using it, the methods of edito-
Ecology and Society is an example of an e-only
rial selection in evidence, the disciplinary patterns that
journal that conforms in many ways to traditional ideas
about what a journal should be, while also exploring the
9 See Appendix D for a breakdown of the eight different genres of
content discussed in the paper, by disciplinary group.
advantages and opportunities of the new online publish-
Page 18
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
ing environment.10 For example, Ecology and Society
EXPERIMENTING WITH PUBLIC PEER
publishes new articles as soon as they are ready in an
REVIEW: Atmospheric Chemistry and
“Issue in Progress,” al owing readers to access new
Physics
content much more quickly than they would be able to
if they had to wait for several articles to be published in
a print issue. Every six months, the issue is “closed” and
given a volume and issue number, facilitating citation
and enabling traditional citation analyses to be applied.
This strategy nods to the imperative to catalog and cite
scholarly content in familiar ways while still facilitating
more rapid dissemination of content.
Digital publication can al ow a range of types of
written content to co-exist more easily than they would
in print. The peer-reviewed journal The Asia-Pacific
Journal: JapanFocus includes scholarly articles, Eng-
Once the editors of Atmospheric Chemistry
lish translations of articles original y written in Japanese,
and Physics determine that a submitted article
as well as shorter, more journalistic or thought pieces,
meets basic standards of quality, it is posted to the
and many articles that include extensive photographs
site as an open access discussion paper. For eight
and multimedia. The journal editor feels strongly that
weeks, anyone may read and comment on the
this addresses the needs of his online audience for mate-
paper; these comments are posted and archived
rial that addresses contemporary issues or offers histori-
alongside the paper itself. After this period, the
cal perspectives on contemporary issues. Compared
paper undergoes a more traditional peer review
to other Asian journals, he told us that Japan Focus
process by referees who have the option to remain
is “a different kind of hybrid . . . Other journals may
anonymous.
limit publication to research articles of 6,000 to 10,000
words, extensively footnoted. .” Because the journal’s
This novel process has not hurt the credibility of
position is that much important writing in contemporary
the journal; Atmospheric Chemistry and
affairs is being done by journalists or by scholars adopt-
Physics has the highest ISI ranking of any journal
ing journalistic techniques, their editor believes online
in its field. However, the site only receives about one
readers will benefit most from a range of work: “short,
comment from a member of the public for every four
hard-hitting, direct articles to long, heavily-footnoted
discussion papers posted, suggesting that their core
research articles.” 11
audience has not yet embraced this modified peer
Concerns persist in the academy that publication in
review process.
e-only journals will be perceived as less prestigious than
publishing in print. Will the work be cited in the best
journals? Will it be considered a legitimate publication
10 Interview with Lance Gunderson, editor-in-chief of Ecology and
Society, August 20, 2008.
11 Interview with Mark Selden, a founder of JapanFocus, July 18,
2008.
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 19
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
by a tenure review board? Misperceptions about the
level of peer review of open access publications have
EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF A
contributed to these concerns, although leaders of the
JOURNAL: JoVE’s video articles
open access movement have continued to argue that
quality and cost are not synonymous, and that notions of
access and prestige can be separated.12 13 Online journal
publishers take strategic action in this area to re-create
the measures of legitimacy and excel ence that long-es-
tablished scholarly publishers enjoy due to their longevity
and reputation. The vast majority of e-only journals in
our sample rely on a peer review process to regulate the
quality of their publication. Furthermore, the publications
that instead employ editorial selection tend to describe
themselves as “magazines” – publications for which one
would not expect formal peer review. Experimentation
with peer review among the titles we saw has come
mostly in digital management of the process. For exam-
ple, Ecology and Society has a custom-built system
JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments
to help automate the process of distributing manuscripts
has been explicit and successful in its effort to be
and reminding reviewers to respond, and Western
considered a journal, referring to its contributions
Journal of Emergency Medicine developed an
as “video-articles.” The founders of JoVE seek
online training module for reviewers. The few journals
to speed up the knowledge transfer that currently
in our sample that experiment with enabling open and
takes place in laboratories, researcher to researcher.
public peer review alongside traditional peer review,
While the “methods and materials” section of a
like Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (see inset
scientific article currently serves this function, the
on previous page), see limited scholarly participation in
founders realized first-hand just how difficult it was
the public process, emphasizing the strength of cultural
to re-create experiments, a critical aspect of the
norms about traditional blind peer review for the titles
scientific process. As they point out on the Web site,
we examined.
“written word and static picture-based traditional
Many of the e-only journals that emerged from the
print journals are no longer sufficient to accurately
field study included some form of multimedia content.
transmit the intricacies of modern research.”
In many journals, the digital environment enables the
12 Peter Suber, SPARC Newsletter, September 2008, available
at: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-08.
htm#prestige
13 Diane Harley, Sarah Earl-Novel , Jennifer Arter, Shannon Law-
rence, C. Judson King, “The Influence of Academic Values on Schol-
arly Publication and Communication Practices,” in The Journal of
Electronic Publishing (MI: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of
Michigan, University Library)10, no. 2 (Spring 2007), available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.204
Page 20
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
publication of data visualizations, large data sets, or
Reviews
audio and video clips that serve to il ustrate the text
Reviews of scholarly works have emerged as an impor-
of scholarly articles. A few publications, like JoVE:
tant form of digital scholarly publishing, meeting a real
Journal of Visualized Experiments (see inset)
need in the scholarly community for rapid notification
are making multimedia a more central element of the
about and evaluation of new works. These articles,
work.14 However, it is worth noting that the pressures
which analyze and summarize the arguments of recently-
of traditional scholarly publishing may affect the
published monographs or scientific studies, have long
opportunities for an e-only journal to innovate in this
been important in many disciplines, where scholars ap-
way. The editor of Ecology and Society told us
preciate this means of learning of new works and of hav-
that though they tried to promote the innovative use
ing the guidance of a peer to place the work in context.
of digital technologies in the articles they published,
And the process is valuable for the authors themselves,
they found that many times the scholars submitting
as a strong review in a wel -regarded publication can be
the best research were reluctant to incorporate
essential for scholars who hope that their work will be
multimedia elements, instead presenting their work in
embraced by scholars and purchased by libraries. Unfor-
more traditional forms. Faced with a conflict between
tunately, the process of writing, editing, and publishing
including more innovative multimedia content and
a review in a traditional print journal can take so long
including the best-quality scholarship, they choose to
after the monograph’s publication that one of the major
publish the more traditional works.
benefits of the review – to help scholars identify the best
Most of the e-only journals that emerged through
new scholarship – can be greatly diminished.
our study use an open access model. In fact, the few
Ten different online sources of reviews were men-
examples of subscription-based support were for e-only
tioned by the scholars who spoke with the field team
journals published by commercial publishers or schol-
librarians. Six of these resources review works in the
arly societies; the independent titles tended to be open
humanities, reflecting the long-standing importance
access. Even when editorial labor is donated, however,
of the monograph in that scholarly community. One
publications still need to generate revenue to support
resource focused on social science, and three covered
costs such as Web hosting and copy editing. Many of
STM content. Several sites were mentioned by multiple
the e-only journals we found have in-kind support from
scholars, including the Bryn Mawr Classical Review
their host institution, in the form of server space, techni-
in the humanities, and UptoDate and Faculty of
cal support, or the contributed staff time of program-
1000 in medicine and biology.15 Regardless of discipline,
mers. Other revenue-generating strategies we observed
scholars universal y reported turning to these resources
included soliciting donations from readers, advertising,
for the same reasons. Every scholar who reported using
and (particularly in STM fields) author fees.
a review site said that the resources provide access to
current research or updates on developments in fields of
14 Interview with Moshe Pritsker, CEO, and Nikita Bernstein, CTO of interest.
JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments, August 15, 2008. Fol-
The digital review resources innovate in several
lowing our interview, JoVE was accepted for indexing in MEDLINE
ways. First, digital reviews are not subject to the space
and PubMED, the official databases maintained by the National
Library of Medicine. Co-founder Pritsker points out that JoVE is the restrictions of their print cousins. H-France Review’s
first video journal to be accepted by NLM, an act that constitutes
the “official ‘blessing’ of the scientific community for JoVE specifi-
15 Interview with Richard Hamilton, editor of Bryn Mawr Classical
cal y and for the multimedia-based scientific journals in general.”
Review, July 27, 2008
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 21
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Editor-in-Chief was pleased not to have to restrict
authors to a short word limit, al owing space to include
ESTABLISHING LEGITIMACY FOR
a detailed review of the literature in the book review.16
DIGITAL BOOK REVIEWS: Bryn Mawr
Classical Review and H-France Review
This context-setting is not always possible when space
is in short supply but is an extremely valuable element in
the review for the scholars and students reading it. Not
only can digital reviews be longer in length, but a greater
number of reviews can be written by a widely distributed
group and published at low cost. In addition, digital pub-
lication enables reviews to be published as soon as they
are prepared, without a wait for a new print cycle – a
major benefit both for authors and readers. For example,
While all scholarly publications must establish
the Bryn Mawr Classical Review strives to deliver “a
credibility in their field, this is especial y important
review a day, every day,” to the nearly 10,000 subscrib-
for e-only publications. Reviews use a variety of
ers to its e-mail list. The greater volume of digital reviews
techniques to demonstrate that their resource can
(and the fact that faculty are often able to receive
be trusted to have high-quality content. Founders of
updates about new reviews via e-mail) may contribute
the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the second-
to the fact that many of the scholars who use reviews
oldest e-only humanities journal, addressed this both
reported relying on them daily or weekly.
through the early involvement of prominent scholars
The low cost of adding digital content al ows
and also by initial y publishing a print supplement to
scholars writing for a digital format to engage more
the review to help reassure readers of the content’s
substantively with the work they are reviewing, while
quality.
not reducing the number of works that the publication
In addition, establishing high standards for
reviews. Here, however, book review editors still face an
submissions can help reviews establish credibility.
“old media” chal enge. While the book reviews may ben-
While book reviews rarely engage in the double-
efit from the economics of online space, they must still
blind peer review process favored by many scholarly
confront the high cost of mailing printed monographs
journals, they often use a non-blind peer review
to an international body of reviewers. The director of
process that al ows them to careful y manage the
one highly successful review site told us that his single
quality of the content accepted for inclusion in their
greatest expense each year is the approximately $10,000
publications. H-France Review requires that all
needed to mail books to reviewers around the world.
of their editors have both a PhD and a published
Preprints and working papers
book, and only those with a PhD are permitted
to submit reviews to the journal. In addition, the
Preprint and working paper servers provide scholars with
editor careful y manages the assignment of reviews
access to new research and permit them to share their
to encourage participation of senior scholars in the
own work without the delay a journal’s lengthy peer
field and insure that significant new works and
review and publication process can cause. Of course,
works by new scholars are assigned for review with
there are many vehicles for scholars to exchange early
particular care.
16 Interview with David Kammerling Smith, editor-in-chief of H-
France, August 18, 2008.
Page 22
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
versions of their work. Scholars may post preprints on
ent scholars, and arXiv was mentioned by seven; the
personal Web pages or in institutional repositories, share other preprint servers were each mentioned once. These
them through society-sponsored channels, and e-mail
sites are large – SSRN contains over 190,000 working
draft copies to networks of trusted col eagues. In addi-
papers, and arXiv has over 490,000. Almost all the
tion, dedicated preprint servers play an important role
scholars who said they contributed to preprint servers
in certain disciplines. Our study results suggest that the
contributed to SSRN or arXiv, and a large majority of
landscape for these servers is dominated by the oldest,
the scholars who told us they use preprint servers daily
largest preprint servers like Social Science Research
or weekly use one of these sites.
Network (SSRN) and arXiv, although we also found
Nearly all of the preprint resources we examined
smal er working paper exchanges in some niche fields as are open access. One exception was the National
well. 17
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which of-
We classified ten of the resources faculty suggested
fers institutional subscriptions to the working papers
to field team librarians as preprint or working paper serv- NBER scholars produce. Even SSRN, a commercial site,
ers. Two of these resources were humanities-focused, six makes any paper uploaded voluntarily by a researcher
were in the social sciences, and two were in STM fields.
freely available, though it generates its revenue through
The scholars who suggested preprint servers tend to use institutional subscriptions to curated networks of content
them very frequently. We suspect that this heavy use
and through its Partners in Publishing program. The
may be due to several factors. First, since the barriers for other preprint sites we looked at make their content
publication on these sites are low, often involving just a
available for free and had few apparent strategies to
simple vetting for broad disciplinary relevance, the vol-
generate revenue outside of grants and support from
ume of new content appearing on preprint servers can
host institutions.
be significant. arXiv, the preprint server hosting papers
Our study results underline the importance of
in physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative
disciplinary culture in influencing the extent to which
biology and statistics, receives thousands of new papers preprint sites are valuable. The field of economics, for
a month, with over 5,000 in July 2008 alone. This cre-
example, has a particularly strong tradition of working
ates an incentive to check back frequently to learn about paper exchange; NBER distributed printed and bound
new research. In addition to using preprint servers to
working papers for decades before use of the Internet
learn about developments in the discipline and the new
was widespread. The abundance of economics-related
work of their peers, many respondents reported using
preprint and working paper resources highlighted by our
the servers to share their own work, as wel .
study may be explained by the fact that the distribution
Although our sample shows that niche working
and use of this kind of literature has been a part of the
paper exchanges exist in some fields, these results sug-
culture and workflow of economists for a long time. The
gest that it is still the older, more traditional servers that same may be said for arXiv, which has become an im-
attract the most use. SSRN, a preprint server focused
portant site for those in physics, math, and computer sci-
on economics, business, and law, while also expanding
ence. Scholars in other STM fields, however, have been
into the humanities, was mentioned by eleven differ-
much less likely to post preprint work.18 One attempt to
17 For example, 77% of those resources classified here as profes-
18 The Ithaka Report “Scholarly Communications in the Biosciences
sional/academic hubs include working papers/technical reports
Discipline,” highlights the reluctance of those in some branches of
as one of their content types. Many of these hubs are themselves
biology to share pre-publication work beyond smal , private groups
society and association sites.
of col eagues, the result of deep concerns about having one’s
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 23
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
change this is Nature Precedings, the preprint server
for the biological sciences started by the Nature Publish-
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF arXiv: PhilSci
ing Group; since 2007, more than 1,100 papers have
Archive
been uploaded to the site.
While large preprint resources are expanding into
new disciplines – SSRN recently branched into the
humanities, for example – others are content to deliver
a service to a wel -defined niche audience. PhilSci
Archive, for example, focuses on the philosophy of sci-
ence, taking care to limit the submissions to the archive
to just those addressing topics in this field. While the
project’s leaders would like to see greater participation
from across the full range of philosophy of science, the
Archive’s greatest strength today is within “the sub-
niche of philosophy of physics.” Its leaders are wil ing to
be patient, though, and are in “no hurry” to force the
PhilSci Archive, which serves scholars in the
issue “since pressing people who are reluctant will surely
philosophy of science, further demonstrates how
backfire. The success of the archive itself will be its best
the preprint culture of one discipline may influence
advertisement.”19 While some niche preprint servers
practices in adjacent fields. Philosophy of science is a
like PhilSci Archive model themselves after existing
discipline that overlaps significantly with theoretical
sources, other sites experiment with newer models for
physics and PhilSci Archive was inspired in large
exchanging work. The Online Feminist Philosophy
part by the success of arXiv. “Philosophers of science
Draft Exchange, for example, utilizes a Google
have a strong interest in all sciences including
Group to exchange working papers.
physics, and PhilSci Archive was inspired in large
part by the success of arXiv. Since the three founders
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated
of PhilSci Archive (Clifton, Earman, Norton) all
content
work or worked in philosophy of physics, we knew
This category of new digital publication includes re-
the model of [arXiv] very well and just thought that
sources attempting to provide comprehensive, authori-
philosophy of science should have the same thing,”
tative reference for a topic, as well as resources that
according to founder John Norton.
layer primary source material with definitive scholarly
commentary. Whether or not they explicitly call them-
selves “dictionaries,” “encyclopedias,” or “documentary
editions,” they all in some way declare their mission to
research “scooped,” and the importance of peer-reviewed publica-
tion to tenure and promotion decisions. Available at: http://www.
ithaka.org/publications/pdfs/JSTOR%20BioSci%20Study%20Re-
port%20Public%20final1031.pdf
19 Interview with Justin Systma, academic consultant for PhilSci
Archive, July 25, 2008. Project founder John Norton was
interviewed via e-mail, as wel .
Page 24
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
methodical y gather valuable materials on a given topic,
IMAGES BEFORE WORDS: Visualizing
often subject to a rigorous review process. Our sample
Cultures and Image-Driven Scholarship
included thirteen humanities resources, three social sci-
ence resources, and eight STM resources, that fit in this
category. Most of the resources we found through our
field study are completely open access, although a few
require some minimal level of registration for visitors.
Articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos-
ophy (SEP) are individual y authored, often by leaders in
the field, and may contain the level of analysis and foot-
noting seen in journal articles. SEP describes itself as a
unique “scholarly dynamic reference work,” priding itself
on its ability to maintain high academic standards while
benefiting from the expertise of over 1000 professional
philosophers who contribute articles. Encyclopedia
One of the most vibrant examples of experiments
of Life, which describes itself as an “online reference
in
multimedia
scholarship,
Visualizing
and database” of information about Earth’s 1.8 mil ion
Cultures provides a place for scholars “devoted
known species, encourages contributions from the lay
to transcending the printed word and hard-bound
public but has a team of experts to authenticate and
text” to create original works on topics relating
select the material that will ultimately appear in each en-
to Chinese and Japanese social and cultural
try. Partnerships with data-gathering projects including
history. Cal ed “units,” these works consist of four
Fishbase and Tree of Life provide additional sources
elements: an essay, heavily il ustrated by images
of authenticated content that the project will use.
and other media; a visual narrative (almost an
While encyclopedia projects like these attempt
image essay) annotated with captions to guide the
comprehensive coverage of a topic through articles sum-
reader through the sequence of images; an image
marizing current knowledge, other sites feature primary
database, including all images used in the essay
source content at their core. The digital environment
as well as additional ones on the topic; and when
enables scholars to publish commentary and annota-
available, video clips on the topic which may include
tions around this content, making them richer forms of
author commentaries, interviews, animation, and
publication than simple libraries of digital images. For
source footage.
example, Roman de la Rose Digital Library is a col-
lection of digital surrogates of versions of that medieval
The site, first launched in 2002 at MIT on their
il uminated text, whose originals are dispersed in special
OpenCourseWare platform, is original in the types
col ections around the world.20 The project al ows side-
of multimedia, image-driven scholarship it makes
by-side comparisons of digitized manuscripts that would
20
possible, and in the project’s many partnerships with
Interview with Sayeed Choudhury, Associate Dean for Digital
Library Projects at Johns Hopkins University, August 13, 2008. For
the academic and cultural institutions that provide
more on the relationship between data in the humanities and the
many of the images available on the site.
sciences, see: L. Sayeed Choudhury and Timothy L. Stinson, The
Virtual Observatory and the Roman de la Rose: Unexpected
Relationships and the Col aborative Imperative, available at:
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 25
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
be impossible otherwise. In addition, scholars contrib-
quickly became obsolete. By instituting a “use it or lose
uted to the development of metadata for these digital
it” policy requiring that corrections to entries be made
surrogates, based on different critical interpretations of
within a certain period of time, PlanetMath now man-
this work. The digitized texts are therefore searchable
ages the editorial process more closely, al owing articles
based on criteria reflecting scholarly output – and the
to be transferred to new authors when necessary.
research enabled by these searches will lead to new
Data resources
scholarly conclusions not possible in an analog world.
The sciences were among the first fields to use tech-
Several projects in this group are attempting to
nology to aggregate and share the results of research.
engage a wide community of scholars to contribute
For example, one of the projects investigated here, the
content, benefitting from the decentralization that new
Protein Data Bank, can trace its roots to the data-
technologies al ow. Examples of this include the Stan-
base its founders created in 1971.22 Today, this and other
ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and, on a more
data projects are now available through the Internet to
modest scale, PlanetMath.21 This model offers some
scholars around the world who can contribute their own
benefits of scale: a decentralized format al ows scholars
data to them and harvest the data of others for their
to contribute far more and more quickly than a print
own research aims.
publication of comparable size; updating entries – the
The field team interviews yielded 41 examples of
bane of a reference editor’s existence – can be managed data projects, a number second only to e-only journals
online, protecting against the obsolescence of the work
in our sample. In some cases, these sites host the data
minutes after printed copies leave the press; and the
output of a particular scientific endeavor for others to
work of this updating can be entrusted to the person
use and analyze. In other cases, the database itself is a
who wrote the article in the first place, in whose inter-
dynamic entity, al owing scientists to deposit the output
est (in theory) it is to have only the best, most accurate
of their individual work, making it a valuable tool and
information available.
source of reference for others, who contribute their work
This model is not without its chal enges, though.
and benefit from the scale of the communal data. For
While digital encyclopedias and dictionaries built on
example, the RCSB Protein Data Bank, part of “the
principles of crowd-sourced editing, like Wikipedia,
single worldwide depository of information about the
can benefit a great deal from decentralizing content
three-dimensional structures of large biological mole-
generation, scholarly communication still emphasizes the cules,” colects data on protein structures from scientists
necessity of expert editorial vetting to determine (or at
around the world, who are often required by funding
least approve) who will be creating and editing the en-
agencies to submit this information. Once submitted,
tries. In the case of PlanetMath, getting mathematics
data is reviewed and validated by the project’s over 30
professors and graduate students to contribute articles
US-based, ful -time staff before being made freely acces-
was only the first step. The founders quickly ran into
sible via the Internet.
trouble with “orphaned” entries, abandoned when the
Still other projects have taken the notion of data
authors who “owned” the entries either moved on or
contribution a step further, beyond the wal s of the acad-
simply stopped contributing, and resulting in entries that emy. Community data initiatives23 such as these aggre-
http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/VO-and-
22 Interview with Helen Berman, Director of the Protein Data Bank,
roman-de-la-rose-col aborative-imperative
August 2008.
21 Interview with Aaron Krowne, founder of PlanetMath, July 24,
23 The Science of Col aboratories project, http://www.
2008.
scienceofcol aboratories.org/, identified Community Data Systems
Page 26
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
gate the col ective observations of large groups of users
HARNESSING THE POWER OF USERS:
to build a single source that can have valuable applica-
eBird
tions to research. For example, by col ecting the recorded
observations made by amateur bird-watchers, eBird has
been able to develop a large set of data regarding bird
sightings, which proves valuable both to the scientific
research community and to other non-academic parties
interested in avian migration patterns.24
When asked how the data resources contribute to
their scholarship, most faculty cited the importance of
“access to current research.” The elements that faculty
and librarians found the most innovative regarding the
online databases, however, were much more clearly
expressed as the benefits of having a variety of data all
in one place, and being able to search that data. While
having current data is certainly important, the increased
eBird, a community data project, relies on
functionality that the databases themselves al ow is
devoted amateur bird-watchers to supply their own
what is truly new. Nearly half of the faculty responses
observations to a large central database, where the
indicated that data resources were used either daily or
results can be mined by professional ornithologists
weekly. The “other” responses almost all offered varia-
and environmentalists. The founders were aware of
tions on this response by one faculty member: “intensely
the intense birding activity taking place around the
when working on a project, rarely otherwise.”
country, but realized that simply asking birders to
Many of the data projects in our sample are support-
enter their data online for research’s sake was not
ed by grants from foundations or government sources.
enough. “People did not care about helping birds;
For example, the Protein Data Bank has been able to
engagement was an issue… initial y we weren’t
sustain itself through a series of grants, in large part due
giving them enough candy; enough tools to get
to the prominence and importance of the resource to the
them excited and to participate in the project…”
scientific community. “Last time we counted, we had 16
So, they invested some time, spoke to people in
different grants worldwide to fund this thing; 8-9 in the
the bird-watching community, and determined that
US from different agencies,” one of the founders told us.
users would find the most value in “the ability to
Because of the unpredictability of the revenue stream,
manage and maintain their lists online, to compare
and the labor involved in monitoring and applying for so
their observations with others’ observations.” Once
many grants, project leadership feels this model is not
these tools were in place, eBird’s founders noticed
ideal, and has begun discussions about other sustainabil-
a steep increase in participation: from 40,000
ity options to pursue.25
observations a month, to 1 mil ion observations per
as one of the types/venues for digital col aboration for scholarship.
24
month today (only 4 years later).
Interview with Steve Kel ing, Director of Information Science for
the Cornell Ornithology Lab, and Chris Wood and Brian Sul ivan,
eBird project managers, July 21, 2008.
25 For a discussion of the range of sustainability options digital
resources can consider, see Kevin Guthrie, Rebecca Griffiths, and
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 27
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Many data projects also receive some kind of sup-
field. Blogs like these add an interesting layer of com-
port from their home institutions and some, though not
mentary to published literature. Scholars told us that
many, have tried advertising or corporate sponsorship.
one blog like this “gives frequent updates of researchers’
Chemspider offers ads on its home page, as well as
opinions rather than just facts,” and another “attracts
“compound-based advertising,” which al ows advertisers well established, well known writers in the field,” with
to display ads in proximity to materials relevant to the
lead articles that are “substantial, although no one is
products being advertised. Similarly, eBird has a corpo-
sharing original research.” Blogs also add value to re-
rate sponsor in Zeiss, a manufacturer of the optic devices sources focused on other sources of content, like e-only
that birders use.
journals or encyclopedias. In addition to the fifteen blogs
described here, at least 29 other resources from our
Blogs
sample include blogs as a supplemental form of content.
Though blogs may receive more attention in the popular
Though blogs are clearly an informal method of
media as vehicles for political commentary, celebrity gos- scholarly communication, posting restrictions al ow
sip, or personal musings, this form of digital content is
them to maintain some degree of quality control and
being put to interesting use by scholars, as wel . In some content vetting. Although all the blogs in our sample
ways, blogs may be thought of as an “updated” version
were completely open access, requiring no registration
of the traditional listserv (described in more detail in
for readers, and although in many cases any reader may
the section on Discussion Forums, below). For example,
post a comment to a blog, the right to author blog posts
the scholars who created PEA Soup, a blog focused
must be specifical y granted. This is not to say that blogs
on philosophy and ethics, were eager to re-create the
are closed endeavors – PEA Soup, for example, has
“water cooler conversations” about their work – work-
46 contributors, and frequently invites new ones to join.
ing through new ideas informal y – that they otherwise
However, unlike discussion lists where all readers of the
lacked as members of relatively small departments.26
list are also potential contributors to the list, blogs tend
“We were more interested in the electronic equivalent of to be a more “control ed” form of informal scholarly
walking down the hall to talk to your col eague, but with communication, al owing a limited number of authors
people all over the country and world,” according to one to post work to a much wider audience. The higher bar
of its founders.
for contribution was reflected in conversations field
Blogs are being employed across the disciplines –
team librarians had with faculty. Only about a third of
the study turned up seven humanities blogs, three social those scholars who nominated a blog indicated that they
science blogs, and five science blogs – and tend to be
contributed to it through authoring, editing, or adding
read daily or weekly by the scholars who reported using
reader commentary; for comparison, close to two-thirds
them. Many blogs like RealClimate, a resource focus-
of those who nominated discussion lists contributed
ing on advances in climate science, are used primarily to content to them.
alert readers (both scholars and laypeople) to new and
Early ambiguity about the place of blogs in scholarly
interesting research and events in their community and
workflow may have limited their uptake to some degree
Nancy Maron, Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online
at first. While this has not been a problem for PEA
Academic Resources. An Ithaka Report, available at: http://
Soup contributors, its founder mentioned hearing worri-
www.ithaka.org/strategic-services/sca_ithaka_sustainability_
some stories about young scholars being denied inter-
report-final.pdf
26 Interview with Daniel Boisvert, a founder of PEA Soup, August
views or jobs when other scholars mistakenly assumed
4, 2008.
Page 28
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
that informal, unpolished ideas that they had published
ACCELERATING THE SPEED OF
on a blog were representative of their formal scholarly
SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION: PEA Soup
output. Rumors like this may have made some schol-
ars reluctant to post on blogs, but we heard that the
general scholarly community is increasingly coming to
understand that while blogs may be an interesting (and
citable) record of the development of scholarly thought,
they represent interim stages, not a final product.
Although some larger resources, like the Science-
Blogs network of 74 science-related blogs, have begun
to experiment with advertising, most of the blogs that
emerged through our study operate without advertis-
ing or other forms of earned revenue. Many are built on
free blogging software like Blogspot, LiveJournal,
or WordPress. PEA Soup pays $60 a year for their
blog to be hosted and its four founders split this minor
PEA Soup, a blog for scholars of philosophy and
cost.27 While they have considered adding advertising,
ethics, serves as a tool for scholars to explore and
they felt that the potential for revenue generation would
develop nascent ideas with a community of interested
not be worth the added clutter to the blog; in addition,
individuals. PEA Soup’s founder commented that
they worried about the potential for controversy if one
this method of communication was very important
of the blog readers were to have an ethical objection to
in al owing them “to work through their ideas in
an advertiser. For many blogs, extremely low costs mean
an online community,” and to “air ideas and get
this lack of revenue may not be a problem.
feedback and comment on current issues.”
Discussion forums
The benefits of a tool like this may be great; we heard
Although discussion forums – message boards, listservs,
one scholar speculate that, with blogs, a scholar can
or other sites to which scholars can post comments and
get “feedback in five days that once would have
respond to others’ thoughts – have been used by schol-
taken three months to get back. People could come
ars nearly since the advent of the Internet, they are still
to a settled view (on a philosophical question) in a
important and heavily-used in many disciplines today.
number of months that even a few years ago might
Some examples of innovative approaches to facilitating
have taken years.”
discussion emerged in our study, but most discussion
forums took the form of an archived e-mail list. Perhaps
the “oldest” of these new models of digital scholarly
publishing, the continued importance of discussion
forums is likely due both to their long-established pres-
ence in certain communities, and to the fact that their
27 Technorati’s State of the Blogosphere 2008 – Day 4: Blogging for
Profit, available at: http://www.technorati.com/blogging/state-of-
the-blogosphere/blogging-for-profit/
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 29
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
relatively basic technology is wel -suited to facilitating a
Although these e-mail lists enable a wide range of
simple form of communication appreciated by scholars.
interaction, some scholars report that the lists are of only
By facilitating informal exchanges and enabling the quick variable utility. In Ithaka’s 2006 report on scholarly com-
dissemination of announcements and updates, these
munications in the history discipline, we found that every
resources still play a critical role in many academic com-
historian with whom we spoke used H-Net in some
munities in the humanities and social sciences.
form. While the lists sometimes facilitated discussion
Twenty-one resources suggested by scholars fit into
about topics of broad interest, they were used more of-
the category of discussion forums; about three-quarters
ten to post basic questions about, for example, obtaining
of these were traditional discussion lists, or listservs.
access to a particular archive or finding recommenda-
Fourteen of the resources are humanities-focused, six are tions for good teaching materials. We found that the lists
in the social sciences and one includes all disciplines.28
were used relatively rarely to work through nascent ideas
Our results included five different resources affiliated
in detail, or to share preprints or working papers.29
with H-Net, an organization of over 180 discussion
Although scholars may not use discussion lists to en-
networks in the humanities and social sciences. Com-
gage in in-depth scholarly exchanges, they still use them
ments from scholars about these twenty-one resources
heavily as sources of information and ways to commu-
highlight the role discussion forums play in connect-
nicate with others. Most of the scholars who nominated
ing scholars to each other and to new ideas. Scholars
these discussion forums author posts or contribute com-
reported that discussion lists:
mentary to them. Discussion forums also saw more daily
use by the faculty who mentioned them than any other
• Allow the scholar “to keep in touch with
content type in our study. To some degree, this high level
everyone, all the time,” and to “keep abreast of of use is a result of the format of the resources; subscrib-
research in the field.”
ers receive listserv updates in their inboxes, so “use” is
as easy as opening an e-mail. The informal nature of a
• Bring “together a large quantity of timely,
discussion forum may contribute to the frequency of its
reliable information online.”
use as wel .
• Provide “daily updates in the field” and allow
Though the H-France Review program generates
“scholars to post queries and get immediate
many of the costs and faces many of the issues of the
(and delayed) responses that are archived and
review sites described above, the discussion list itself is
available to the entire community of scholars.”
relatively inexpensive to run. H-France spends a few
hundred dol ars per year on Web site hosting, and is
• Act as “a forum for scholarly discussion prior
able to cover these costs from small grants and member
to a peer review process; covers diverse topic
donations. Many of the independent discussion lists in
areas; open to anyone; discussion of recently
our sample likely have similar costs. Because listserv
published works; the dialogue is more like a
technology is inexpensive, many of these resources do
conference dialogue with a wider audience.”
not need independent sources of support. Five discus-
28 It is worth noting that although none of the resources we de-
sion lists in our sample use either free software like that
fined as discussion forums focused on STM subjects, this does not
provided by Google Groups, or were created with mail-
imply that scientists do not engage in exchanges with col eagues.
Those STM faculty who named sources they liked for facilitating
29 For the Ithaka Report on Scholarly Communications in the His-
exchanges with other scholars tended to cite data sites and hubs,
tory Discipline, please see http://www.ithaka.org/publications/
rather than blogs and discussion lists, for this purpose.
History.
Page 30
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
ing list capability provided by a scholar’s institution, and
THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF THE
others were supported with mailing list tools provided by
LISTSERV: H-France Forum
a scholarly society or association. One notable exception
to this among the discussion lists is H-Net; it combines
university support, grant support, donations, and some
revenue from click-through book sales to support the
organizational structure that houses many lists.
Although most of the resources in the discussion
category are more traditional discussion lists described
above, we also found evidence that some organiza-
tions are starting to innovate with new technology that
facilitates informal interaction between scholars. For
example, the Emerging Scholars Interdisciplin-
H-France is not a “new” resource — it was
ary Network was established to provide a forum for
founded in 1991 and has had a long history of
networking young scholars of color doing research in
connecting scholars in its discipline. The list was
health-related fields. The resource includes a “Scholars
original y started with a small group of scholars
Only Lounge” where members can discuss issues, share
so “that the types of conversations that occurred
information, and read news alerts. Incorporating as-
around the coffee machine [at Parisian archives]
pects of Web 2.0 functionality, the resource also al ows
would occur online,” according to H-France’s
members to create personal profiles, and to develop
Editor-in-Chief. Today, it boasts a subscriber list of
their own mini-networks around topics of interest. While
over 2,300 scholars of French culture and history.
resources like this suggest that Web 2.0 technology will
enable new forms of scholarly exchange and interaction
While newer forms of online discussion are available
in the future, our study indicates that there may still be a
today – chat and instant messaging, real-time
place for more traditional listservs and discussion forums
forums and discussion boards – the listserv has
for some time to come.
remained a mainstay of scholarly communication,
Professional and academic hubs
al owing slightly more formalized communication
than other, newer methods. Restricted access, list
While the majority of resources faculty mentioned
moderation, and list archiving are some elements
focused on delivering one type of content, such as
that lend a greater sense of credibility and enduring
journal articles or data, a group of resources stood out
value to the exchanges of ideas and information via
for combining a wide range of content types in a single
the lists.
site. These “hubs,” often the digital portal for a scholarly
society or professional membership organization, may
offer e-only journals, reviews, access to preprints and
conference papers, grey literature, blogs or newsletters
that disseminate timely content, and functionality for
networking with other scholars. Although these sites
combine content from many of the other genres we
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 31
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
describe in this paper, we consider them separately here
because their core innovation relates to their particular
ONE-STOP SHOPPING: Alzheimer
mix of multiple content types.
Research Forum
Many of the scholars who described these hub
resources find them innovative or valuable because
they are portals, or “one-stop shops” for information. A
scholar who uses IBMS BoneKEy, the web portal for
the International Bone and Mineral Society for example,
described the site as combining “original articles and
commentaries with other tools and resources, providing a
portal-type approach to specialized subject information,
continuing education, news, directories, employment
services and retail offerings.” Another scholar said that
the resource Information for Practice “represents a
The Alzheimer Research Forum brings
synthesis of information gathered by and directed toward
together a variety of content types related to the
social work practice professionals.”
study of this disease. The resource in part serves
Thirty-four of the resources mentioned by schol-
as a convenient way to access content published
ars are best described as this kind of professional or
elsewhere; its paper-search functionality supports
academic hub. Seventeen of these were in the social
targeted searching of Alzheimer-related papers in
sciences, and sixteen focused on STM subjects; several
the PubMed Central database, including papers
were in applied branches of these fields, like nursing. Hu-
recommended by ARF as being of particularly
manities hubs were rare; the study sample includes just
high quality. The site also includes original content,
one hub focused on music that fit this category. While
publishing news updates with brief articles and
most of the scholars who mentioned these sites rely on
reviews of important developments and upcoming
them primarily as clearinghouses for relevant information
conferences, grant announcements, and job
about a topic of interest, many also use hubs as tools to
postings, as well as reference material. In addition to
locate and network with col eagues, and to keep up-to-
more traditional message boards/discussion forums,
date with news, grant announcements, and conference
the sites also include user-generated content such
information.
as a “Hypothesis Factory,” a forum in which people
Large sites such as these require many resources
can post and comment on others’ ideas, and a
to build and update regularly. Because many of these
Knowledge Base which al ows users to publish
resources are built as the portal or Web-presences for a
comments and annotations on materials.
scholarly society, that society’s membership fees help to
finance the sites. Perhaps because these large sites likely
attract large audiences, they frequently support them-
selves in part with advertising or corporate sponsorships,
as wel .
Page 32
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Summary of Findings
The field study of digital scholarly resources revealed
in humanities fields. Further research might explore
an impressive variety being used by professors today,
the factors that may be encouraging or discouraging
many bearing a strong resemblance to their print coun-
the adoption of new forms of digital scholarly com-
terparts, and some experimenting with exciting new
munication in various fields.
features made possible by the online environment.
While each type of digital scholarly content explored in
• Digital publishing is shaped powerfully
this paper has its own distinctive characteristics, some
by the traditions of scholarly culture.
overall trends began to emerge. Below is a summary of
Although the Internet has the potential to democ-
our findings, touching on those pertaining to the nature
ratize scholarly publishing – nearly any scholar is
and content of the resources themselves; the types of
able to set up a Web site to post his or her work and
chal enges digital scholarly communication innovators
share it with others across the world at relatively
face today; and the strategies they use to confront those
low cost – old traditions of establishing scholarly
chal enges.
legitimacy through credentialing, peer review, and
citation metrics are still paramount, particularly for
• Digital innovations are taking place in
e-only journals and book reviews. Though we have
all disciplines.
seen cases of technical innovation – open peer
We found examples of publications of nearly every
review and multimedia-integrated articles, to name
content type across fields in the humanities, social
two – many scholars choose not to take advantage
science, and STM. While certain models appear to
of these new innovations and instead publish more
play a greater role in some disciplines than others
traditional articles, even in e-only journals.
(e.g., the exchange of digital working papers on
arXiv in physics, or the continued importance of
• Some of the largest resources with
discussion forums and listservs in the humanities),
greatest impact have been in existence
we heard anecdotal evidence that models are indeed
a long while.
jumping the disciplinary divide as scholars observe
Although new digital publications emerge every
new models that work and adapt them to suit their
year, many of the most popular and most robust
own discipline. However, it is worth noting that
resources have been in existence for years. Given
many of the sites incorporating the richest multime-
the importance of longevity in establishing scholarly
dia elements and the most innovative digital com-
reputation, the necessity of building an audience to
munication tools are in the sciences, whereas older
attract high-quality content, and the time it takes
technology like listservs emerged more prominently
to fine-tune a digital resource, even excel ent new
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 33
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
digital publications may need years to establish their
• Establishing credibility is not easy, but is
place in their scholarly community. By the same
of critical importance.
token, we observed some wel -established projects
Maintaining quality control, whether by peer review
that continue to innovate; offering something “new”
or moderation of submissions, is a critical issue for
is possible for projects young and old.
nearly all digital publications. Above, we discussed
the importance of peer review for more formal pub-
• Many digital publications are small,
lications, but even a large majority of informal re-
niche resources.
sources engages in some form of editorial selection
There appears to be a very long tail in the field of
or moderation to monitor and control the content
digital scholarly publishing. Our study found a great
that appears on the site. (As one editor put it, while
deal of tightly-focused resources directed at niche
they do not try to restrict the scholarly conversa-
audiences and capable of running on relatively small
tion, “We are not a free speech site.”) Particularly
budgets. In some cases, this stance may appeal to
for “born-digital” publications with no print-based
those project leaders who cherish their “indepen-
reputation for quality, quickly establishing credibility
dence;” many resources seem content to remain
is necessary to attract and impact scholars in the
small and serve their niche audience, and have few
field.
aspirations to grow. In other cases, though, the
small scale and difficulty in securing a reliable rev-
• Achieving sustainability – especially for
enue source can hinder desired growth and experi-
those resources with an open access
mentation for these publications.
mandate – is a universal challenge
Smal , low-cost options like blogs aside, the chal-
• Innovations relating to multimedia and
lenge for digital scholarly resources – open access
Web 2.0 content and functionality are
or not – is how to generate the funds needed to
encouraging the emergence of new
support themselves over the long term. For the
types of publications.
open access publications that comprise the majority
Although many of the digital scholarly resources are
of the resources we studied here, traditional sub-
primarily text-based, we also saw examples that
scription-based support is not an option, so finding
incorporated multimedia technology and network-
an economic model to support their work requires
ing tools to create new and innovative works. We
experimentation. While resources in our sample
observed “video articles,” peer-reviewed reader
employ a wide range of revenue models, including
commentary, and medieval il uminated texts coded
advertising, author fees, and corporate sponsorship,
as data – all evidence of the creative format mash-
most appear to enjoy some degree of support from
ups that chal enge us to re-think the definitions of
their host institution, including in-kind contributions
traditional content categories. Many of the resources
of server space and/or technical support. The contri-
in our sample that incorporate these sorts of innova-
butions of volunteers are also important to many of
tions – data sites, annotated primary source con-
the examples we saw. The speed of digital commu-
tent, and the newest forums to facilitate exchanges
nication has made it possible to harness the power
between scholars – have no print corollary.
of volunteer scholarly contributors from around the
world.
Page 34
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Looking Ahead: Digital Scholarly Resources and
the University Library
In a digital world, librarians seeking to support faculty
only journal editor told us that he was eager to make his
and students in research endeavors have a dauntingly
project discoverable through more library catalogs, but
broad task.30 In addition to the volume of scholarly
he was not sure how to achieve this. By sharing knowl-
resources distributed through traditional channels like
edge about independent digital scholarly resources with
commercial publishers and university presses, indepen-
faculty either through an ILS or through direct research
dent scholarly projects – often of great relevance, but
assistance, librarians can help promote high-quality
sometimes unknown outside their area of focus – crop
projects and build the audience for these resources.
up in every discipline. This study revealed some of the
Although preservation was not the subject of this study,
rich variety of resources that faculty use to learn about
it seems clear that librarians can initiate and contribute
new scholarship and communicate with their peers.
to conversations about the long-term preservation of
Some of the sources suggested through faculty inter-
new digital works. Preservation did not seem to be a
views are large and wel -established enough to be con-
top-of-mind concern for many of the smal er projects we
sidered “mainstream,” but many others are likely known investigated, and proactive library steps may be valuable
only to those specialists in the field who use them on a
in raising and addressing this unrecognized need. Librar-
regular basis. Learning about these many niche resources ians, with their broader knowledge of the landscape
is only possible through an ongoing dialogue with those of digital scholarly resources, may also have a role to
scholars who create and use them. In this way, the work play in working with scholars to create new projects. By
of the field teams has not only highlighted a wide range
providing guidance on existing models and approaches
of resources in use today, but also has established a
to issues such as establishing scholarly legitimacy and
valuable network to enhance library-faculty communica-
credibility, librarians can help put new projects on surer
tions for the future. This communication can only benefit footing. As outreach continues, libraries may also serve
the library in its goal to guide faculty and students to the as an important nexus of communication for a variety
materials they require.
of digital projects on campus. The creation of the ARL
There may be a valuable role for the library to play in field team could be a useful step in fostering ongoing
supporting these new digital initiatives, as wel . One e-
interaction between the library and faculty and in further
establishing the pivotal role of the university librarian in
30 For a discussion of recommendations for the role of libraries in
the development and sharing of scholarly resources in a
digital publishing on campus, see Laura Brown, Rebecca Griffths,
and Matthew Rascoff, University Publishing in a Digital Age.
digital age.
An Ithaka Report (July 2007), available at: http://www.ithaka.
org/strategic-services/Ithaka University Publishing Report.pdf
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 35
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Appendix A: Field Team Participation
301 librarians from 46 institutions registered to interview faculty. 160 librarians from 29 institutions contributed a
total of 358 examples for resources from these interviews to the database. Numbers by institution are in the table
below.
Institution
Individual
Individuals
Number
Field Librarians
Submitting Entries
of Entries
Arizona State University
3
0
0
Bowling Green State University
1
1
1
Brown University
4
1
1
California Institute of Technology
1
1
1
Colorado State University
2
0
0
Columbia University
15
10
16
Cornell University
20
11
21
Dartmouth Col ege
26
19
33
Emory University
1
0
0
Florida State University
1
0
0
Georgetown University
1
0
0
Grand Val ey State University
4
3
8
Johns Hopkins University
8
4
12
New York University
29
7
15
Occidental Col ege
1
0
0
Ohio Wesleyan University
3
2
9
Rice University
3
1
1
Smithsonian Institution Libraries
1
1
1
State University of New York, Buffalo
1
1
1
Trinity University
1
0
0
University of Alabama at Birmingham
11
7
21
University of British Columbia
15
11
28
University of California, Irvine
20
15
45
University of Connecticut
1
1
21
University of Il inois at Chicago
4
1
1
University of Il inois at Urbana-Champaign
1
0
0
University of Iowa
1
0
0
University of Kansas
8
1
1
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 37
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
University of Louisvil e
3
0
0
University of Massachusetts Amherst
13
7
13
University of Michigan
1
0
0
University of Minnesota
20
15
22
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
1
0
0
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1
0
0
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
1
0
0
University of Northern Colorado
2
2
9
University of Notre Dame
2
2
3
University of Pennsylvania
1
0
0
University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus
1
1
1
University of Texas at Arlington
9
5
6
University of the West Indies, Mona Campus
1
0
0
University of Toronto
7
7
20
University of Toronto Mississauga
5
0
0
University of Washington
18
5
13
Vanderbilt University
18
10
21
Virginia Commonwealth University
9
8
13
Washington State University
1
0
0
Grand Total
301
160
358
Page 38
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Appendix B: Current Models of Digital Scholarly Resources by Type
E-journals
Title
URL
Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal
http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
http://aem.asm.org
Astronomy Education Review
http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/new.pl
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: An Interactive
http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net
Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences
Union
Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry
http://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc/home/home.htm
BioMed Central Series Biology Journals
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/bmcseries
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/index
China Brief
http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/index.php
Classics@: An Online Journal
http://chs.harvard.edu/chs/classics%40
Communications in Information Literacy
http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php/cil
Critical Studies in Improvisation/Etudes critiques en
http://www.criticalimprov.com/public/csi/index.html
improvisation
Cryptology ePrint Archive
http://eprint.iacr.org/index.html
dichtung-digital
http://www.dichtung-digital.de/
Digital Medievalist
http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
dlib magazine
http://www.dlib.org/
Ecological Archives
http://esapubs.org/archive/default.htm
Ecology and Society
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org
Ecrypt Network of Excellence in Cryptology
http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/index.html
EDUCAUSE
http://www.educause.edu
Fabula, la recherche en litterature
http://www.fabula.org
History Cooperative
http://www.historycooperative.org
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP)
http://www.siop.org/journal/siopjournal.aspx
Japan Focus, an Asian Pacific e-Journal
http://japanfocus.org/
JMDE: Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation
http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1
Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture
http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/
Journal of Visualized Experiments
http://www.jove.com
LII / Legal Information Institute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/
Monastic Matrix
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
New Journal of Physics
http://www.iop.org/EJ/njp
North Star Journal
http://northstarjournal.org/
Nucleic Acids Research
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 39
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Open Atmospheric Science Journal
http://www.bentham.org/open/toascj/index.htm
Palaeontologica Electronica
http://palaeo-electronica.org/
Particip@tions: journal of audience & reception
http://www.participations.org
studies
Philosopher’s Imprint
http://www.philosophersimprint.org/
Philosophy Compass
http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/philosophy
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education
http://prst-per.aps.org
Research
PLoS (Biology)
http://biology.plosjournals.org
PLoS One
http://www.plosone.org
Postmodern Culture
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pmc/
Postmodern Culture
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/
Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net (RaVoN)
http://www.ron.umontreal.ca/
Scholar & Feminist Online
http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/sfonline
Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com
Science Magazine Collections: Chemistry
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/chemistry
SEMIOTIX: A GLOBAL INFORMATION BULLETIN
http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/
Senses of cinema
http://www.sensesofcinema.com
SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems
http://epubs.siam.org/SIADS/siads_toc.html
The Forum : A Journal of Applied Research in
http://www.bepress.com/forum/
Contemporary Politics
WestJEM: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
http://repositories.cdlib.org/uciem/westjem/
Web del Sol
http://www.webdelsol.com/
Reviews
Title
URL
BioNews.org.uk
http://bionews.org.uk/
Bryn Mawr Classical Review
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/
caa.reviews
http://www.caareviews.org/
Faculty of 1000 (Biology)
http://www.f1000biology.com
H-Net: Reviews
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/
Law and Politics Book Review
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
http://ndpr.nd.edu
The Medieval Review (TMR)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tmr
The Public Journal of Semiotics
http://www.semiotics.ca/
UpToDate
http://www.uptodate.com
Page 40
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Encyclopedias, Dictionaries, and Annotated
Content
URL
Title
µSR Wiki
http://cmms.triumf.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
A Hellenistic Bibliography
Anglo-Norman Hub
http://www.anglo-norman.net/
Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
http://cdli.ucla.edu/
Dictionary of War
http://dictionaryofwar.org/
Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/
Encyclopedia of Life
http://www.eol.org
EqWorld: The World of Mathematical Equations
http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/
Internet Resources for Historians (del.icio.us - grown)
http://web.jhu.edu/history/historyresource.html
Jazz in Film Bibliography
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/findaid/jazz/intro.html
Jazz Studies on Line
http://jazzstudiesonline.org/
Material History of American Religion Project
http://www.materialreligion.org/
MathWorld
http://mathworld.wolfram.com
MIT Visualizing Cultures
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027j/menu/index.html
Multitude TV
http://multitude.tv/
Natural History of Orange County
http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu
Planet Math
http://planetmath.org
Roman de la Rose
http://romandelarose.org/
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/
The John Milton Reading Room
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/
The Red Hot Jazz Archive
http://www.redhotjazz.com/
Therevidae
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/research/therevid/
Tree of Life
http://tolweb.org/tree/
Warring States Project
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/
Data
Title
URL
All Catfish Species Inventory
http://silurus.acnatsci.org/
Allen Brain Atlas
http://www.brain-map.org
Birds of North America
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna
Bordwell pKa tables
http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/
BugGuide
http://bugguide.net/node/view/15740
Challenging Problems in Chemistry & Chemical Biology
http://www2.lsdiv.harvard.edu/labs/evans/problems/index.
cgi
Chemspider
http://www.chemspider.com/
Child Language Data Exchange System
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 41
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment TWiki
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/
Dalton Transactions
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/dt/index.asp
DOE Joint Genome Institute
http://www.jgi.doe.gov/
EarthChem
http://www.earthchem.org
East View Cartographic
http://www.cartographic.com/
eBird
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/
Election Results Archive
http://www.binghamton.edu/cdp/era/
Ensembl
http://www.ensembl.org/index.html
FishBase
http://www.fishbase.org
FishNet 2
http://www.fishnet2.net/index.html
Flybase
http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/
GENSAT Mouse Brain Atlas
http://www.gensat.org
Geokem: Geochemistry of Igneous Rocks
http://www.geokem.com/
GEON
http://www.geongrid.org/
GeoRoc
http://georoc.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de/georoc/
Gold Genomes Online Database
http://www.genomesonline.org/
Long-Term Ecological Research Network
http://www.lternet.edu/
Mouse Genome Informatics
http://www.informatics.jax.org
MPEx (Membrane Proteins of Known 3D Structure)
http://blanco.biomol.uci.edu/Membrane_Proteins_xtal.html
NCBI GenBank
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank
Neogene Marine Biota of Tropical America
http://eusmilia.geology.uiowa.edu/nmita.htm
NLM Entrez Gene
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=gene
Online Cultural Heritage Research Environment
http://ochre.lib.uchicago.edu/
Paleobiology Database
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl
Protein Data Bank
http://www.wwpdb.org/
SafetyLit Injury Prevention Literature Update
http://www.safetylit.org/
Search360
http://wfxsearch.webfeat.org/clients/wfxdartmouth/
advSearch.asp?cid=10340
Spectral Database for Organic Compounds, SDBS
http://riodb01.ibase.aist.go.jp/sdbs/cgi-bin/cre_index.
cgi?lang=eng
Thayer School Wiki
https://wiki.thayer.dartmouth.edu/display/cnfs/Home
The Alvin Frame-Grabber System
http://4dgeo.whoi.edu/alvin
The STScI Digitized Sky Survey
http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form
Traditional Chinese Medicine Information Database
http://tcm.cz3.nus.edu.sg/group/tcm-id/tcmid_ns.asp
Visions 2000
http://www.visions05.washington.edu/index.html
Page 42
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Preprint and Working Paper Servers
Title
URL
arXiv
http://arxiv.org/
ASIST Digital Library, E-Prints in Library and Information Science
http://eprints.rclis.org/
(E-LIS)
Dispute Resolution Resource Center
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/drrc/
IEP: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos
http://www.iep.org.pe/
Nature Precedings
http://precedings.nature.com
NBER National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers
http://www.nber.org/papers/
Online Feminist Philosophy Draft Exchange
http://groups.google.com/group/
feministdraftexchange?hl=en
PhilSci Archive
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/
Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
http://www.ssrn.com/
Vanchivard: The Vanderbilt Chicago Harvard Workshop for
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vanchivard/
Andean Anthropology
Blogs
Title
URL
Biocurious
http://biocurious.com/
Design Your Life
http://www.design-your-life.org
Dial “M” for Musicology
http://musicology.typepad.com/
Grand Text Auto
http://grandtextauto.org/
Health Beat
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/
Hotgiraffe Livejournal
http://hotgiraffe.livejournal.com/
La Bloga
http://labloga.blogspot.com
Nature Blogs
http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful
PEA Soup
http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/
PERticles
http://perticles.blogspot.com
Real Climate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
http://www.realclimate.org
ScienceBlogs
http://www.scienceblogs.com/
The Center for Innovation in College Media Blog
http://www.collegemediainnovation.org/blog
The China Beat
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/
Video Vortex
http://www.networkcultures.org/videovortex
Discussion Forums
Title
URL
Agade List
Subscription via listserv@unc.edu
American Association of Italian Studies Listserv
http://www.aais.info/
Andean Research Listserv
Dan_Sandweiss@unit.maine.edu
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 43
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
CHORALNET: THE INTERNET CENTER FOR CHORAL MUSIC
http://www.choralnet.org/
Economic History Services
http://eh.net/
Emerging Scholars Interdisciplinary Network
http://www.emergingscholars.net/
Epsilen
http://www.epsilen.com
FEAST - Association for Feminist Ethics and Social Theory
http://www.afeast.org/
H-France
http://www.h-france.net/
History and Philosophy of Science LISTSERV
http://www.hopos.org/listserv.html
H-Net: H-Afro-Am
http://www.h-net.org/~afro-am/
H-Net: H-Asia Asian History and Studies
http://www.h-net.org/~asia/
H-Net: H-German
http://www.h-net.org/~german/
H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online
http://www.h-net.org/
Latino Caucus and Race & Politics (2 listservs of the American
lLATINO-C@listserv.ilstu.edu and RACE-POL@listserv.ilstu.
Political Science Assn)
edu
PMJS: Premodern Japanese Studies
http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/~pmjs/
PSI network: power, status & influence research group
http://www.psinetwork.org/
SHAKSPER: The Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference
http://www.shaksper.net
Society of Antiquaries of London Newsletter
http://www.sal.org.uk/salon
The Linguist List
http://www.linguistlist.org/
Victorian listserv
http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/archive/Victorian/
Professional and Academic Hubs
Title
URL
Alliance for Aging Research
http://www.agingresearch.org
Alzheimer Research Forum
http://www.alzforum.org/
American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
http://www.aahpm.org/
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/
American Chemical Society
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content
American Economic Association Web
http://www.aeaweb.org/index.html
American Physical Society
http://aps.org/
American Planning Association Knowledge Exchange
http://www.planning.org
Arthur W. Page Society
http://www.awpagesociety.com/
asha (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association)
http://asha.org/default.htm
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication http://www.aejmc.org/
(AEJMC)
Aunt Minnie
http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?sec=def
College Media Advisers, Inc.
http://www.collegemedia.org/
Community Campus Partnerships for Health
http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/index.html
Commwealth Foundation
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/
Critical Resistance
http://criticalresist.live.radicaldesigns.org/
Page 44
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
CTSNet.org: Cardiothoracic Surgery Network
http://www.ctsnet.org/
eBlackStudies
http://www.eblackstudies.org
eMedicine
http://www.emedicine.com/
Eurasian Strategy Project
http://ceres.georgetown.edu/esp/
Future Medicine
http://www.futuremedicine.com/
Hartford Institute/Geriatric Nursing
http://www.hartfordign.org
HBS Working Knowledge
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/
IBMS BoneKEy
http://www.bonekey-ibms.org/
Information for Practice
http://www.nyu.edu/socialwork/ip/
informs online
http://www.informs.org/
Jazzinstitut Darmstadt
http://www.darmstadt.de/kultur/musik/jazz/us.htm
Latin American Studies Association
http://lasa.international.pitt.edu
Living Books
http://livingbooks.nln.org
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Multimedia Archive
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Multimedia/
Multimedia/
Pew Center for Civic Journalism
http://www.pewcenter.org/
Poynter Institute for Media Studies
http://www.poynter.org/
Society for American Archaeology Digital Data Interest Group
http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/blog/?page_id=4
Society of Professional Journalists
http://www.spj.org/
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 45
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Appendix C: List of Interviews
Interviewee
Title and Resource
URL
Resource
Type
Helen M. Berman
Director, Protein Data Bank
http://www.pdb.org
Data
Professor of Chemistry and Chemical
Biology, Rutgers
Daniel R. Boisvert
Founder, PEA Soup
http://peasoup.typepad.com
Blog
Lecturer in Philosophy, UNC -
Charlotte
Sayeed Choudhury
Associate Dean for Digital
http://romandelarose.org/
Encyclopedia,
Johns Hopkins University Library
Library Projects
dictionary,
annotated content
Aaron Krowne
Founder, PlanetMath
http://planetmath.org
Encyclopedia,
dictionary,
annotated content
Lance Gunderson
Editor-in-Chief, Ecology and
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org E-journal
Associate Professor of Environmental Society
Studies, Emory
Richard Hamilton
Editor, Bryn Mawr Classical
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr
Review
Professor of Greek, Latin, and
Review
Classical Studies, Bryn Mawr
Steve Kelling; Chris Wood and Brian
Director of Information
http://ebird.org/content/ebird
Data
Sullivan
Science and Project Managers,
Cornell Ornithology Lab
eBird
John Norton
Founder and Academic
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu
Preprint server
Professor of Philosophy of Science,
Consultant, PhilSci Archive
Pittsburgh; Justin Systma
Moshe Pritsker; Nikita Bernstein
CEO and CTO, JoVE: Journal
http://www.jove.com
E-journal
of Visualized Experiments
David Kammerling Smith
Editor-in-Chief, H-France
http://www.h-france.net
Discussion forum
Professor of History, Eastern Illinois
University
Mark Selden
Coordinator, Japan Focus: An
http://japanfocus.org
E-journal
Senior Fellow, East Asia Program,
Asia-Pacific Journal
Cornell University
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 47
Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication
November 2008
Appendix D: Digital Scholarly Resources by Disciplinary Group
60
50
40
30
20
Social Sciences
Humanities
10
STM
All disciplines
0 E-only journals Reviews Preprints, Encyclopedias, Data
Blogs
Discussion
Professional
working dictionaries, and
forums*
and scholarly
papers annotated content
hubs
STM
Humanities
Social Sciences
E-only journals
21
17
13
Reviews
3
6
1
Preprints, working papers
2
2
6
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated content
8
13
3
Data
37
0
4
Blogs
5
7
3
Discussion forums*
0
14
6
Professional and scholarly hubs
16
3
15
*In addition, one project classified as a discussion site aims to cover all disciplines, so does not figure in any one disciplinary group.
www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf
Page 49
Document Outline
