Talk:Scholarly communication

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Items vs activities

While conference papers (and posters) are items of communication, academic conferences, sabbaticals and visiting scholar are all "processes"/activities/forums that improve scholarly communication (and networking) as well. Should these be mentioned, and hyperlinked both ways? Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source supporting Scholarly communication crisis

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I would suggest adding this information to better back up points brought up regarding Scholarly communication crisis. The information that I wish to include will appear in italics..

Jon Saklofske states that social media sites have managed to engage broad communities in debate and discussion albeit most do so with commercially motivated intent. The focus of these sites heavily relies on the social layer of engagement between their users, leading to communication interfaces that promote brevity and simplicity. Unfortunately, the environment constituted by existing social media platforms is already plural and scattered, resulting in many splintered but also overlapping communities, making uniform scholarly communication difficult to manage. ^[1]

Chief among the factors contributing to the perceived crisis is the academic reward system, which emphasizes quantity of publication. There is a consequent demand by scholars for peer-reviewed publication outlets. Another important cause is the commercialization and internationalization of scholarly publishing. The growing dominance of publishing conglomerates in scientific, technical, and medical fields, and to some degree in the social sciences, is of special concern to information professionals. Scholars, often indifferent to rights issues, transfer copyright to for-profit publishers, frequently for reports of research funded wholly or partially at public expense. Commercial publishers have established a highly profitable niche for themselves in the scholarly communication chain. This leads to what Saklofske argues as the “valuing [of] product over process, and valu[ing] quantifiable publications over the actions that make such publications possible.” Materialist economies as well as attitudes that limit scholarly communication result in a greater emphasis on the end product rather than its own process.^[1]

Hectorlopez17 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source supporting Scholarly communication and academic reward and reputation

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I would suggest adding this information to better back up points brought up regarding Scholarly communications and academic reward and reputation. The information that I wish to include will appear in italics.

Scholarly communication is seen as a crucial part of research, and researchers - many of whom are lecturers and academics at universities - are often judged by their academic output and list of publications. Promotions will normally take into account the number of publications and how prestigious the journals they were published in (e.g. Nature and The Lancet are seen as very prestigious journals within the sciences). The most prevalent channels for scholarly communication mainly consist of academic conferences, journal articles, and monographs; these channels also bear the bulk of the weight when it comes for a candidate to be either hired, given tenure and/or promotional consideration. The persistence of these channels retaining their value consists of the rigorous processes of peer review what they uphold as well as what Jon Saklofske calls their “traditions of editorial diligence.” These processes, therefore, bolster the status of the aforementioned channels as viable means for academic and scholarly advancement as well as reputation. ^[1]

Hectorlopez17 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hectorlopez17. Unfortunately, I cannot add those sentences since some were copied word-for-word from the journal article. The journal article is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 2.5, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license – the journal does not permit commercial reuse but Wikipedia does. You'll have to paraphrase that sentence if it is to be incorporated into the article. Best,

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Saklofske, Jon (2016). "Digital Theoria, Poesis, and Praxis: Activating Humanities Research and Communication Through Open Social Scholarship Platform Design". Scholarly and Research Comunication. 7 (2/3). Retrieved 17 February 2017.

[Saklofske-1] Saklofske, Jon (2016). "Digital Theoria, Poesis, and Praxis: Activating Humanities Research and Communication Through Open Social Scholarship Platform Design". Scholarly and Research Comunication. 7 (2/3). Retrieved 17 February 2017.

[1]