Analysis and news
generated, collected and not used or extracted effectively from inside traditional article capsules. Over the years, requirements for research articles have mushroomed, and we’ve seen author guidelines grow as a result. Twenty years ago, author guidelines
would often fit on one or two printed pages and today that is easily 10 to 15 printed pages, not counting the links to additional resources for in-depth requirements and forms. These requirements are compounded by growing research output and increase the workload of authors, editorial offices, editors, reviewers, publishers and readers. However, these developments also make it attractive and necessary to smartly assess targeted aspects from within these complex studies. Several of those author guideline requirements equal targeted services already here or waiting to emerge. Alice Meadows and Phill Jones recently
shared a couple of great posts about PIDs on The Scholarly Kitchen that I recommend reading. They were possibly the catalyst for making me wonder why fairly simple and traditional PIDs continue to require value proposition pitching, yet they are foundational to the direction of scholarly communication. I suspect it’s because the
“Why couldn’t something like a data reporting badge be thought of as a PID or content enrichment?”
framing of what PIDs include is maybe too narrow. It is possibly similar for content enrichment, which makes some people think of semantic enrichment and a decade’s worth of seeing demos of text highlighted in different colours, keyword tagging and related article algorithms. Why couldn’t something like a data
reporting badge that persistently identifies and certifies the presence of a met requirement in a research article be thought of as a PID or content enrichment? Similarly, why couldn’t open ‘publish,
then review’ review reports be thought of in terms of PIDs and content enrichment? Once the review is done, it’s persistent and it links to a critical component of a research article. The list goes on and is consistent with FAIR data principles to make research data meet principles of
findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability. I feel that more inclusive PID and enrichment frameworks may have more to offer.
This opinion piece suggests that
something is brewing that may currently appear disjointed and may not fit traditional frameworks, but it feels consistent in direction and staying power. I doubt that anyone truly knows what services will survive or emerge to make lasting impacts, but from multiple directions, it seems like the scholarly research community is somewhat deconstructing or modularising scholarly workflows into multiple components.
This is an opportunity for the research
community (including publishers and librarian readers of Research Information) to rethink how research is produced and shared. At Research Square, we envision a partnered future where our roles in the workflow, namely in the areas of preprinting, manuscript preparation, and review support, are achieved through partnerships with people such as yourselves and the organisations you represent. Let’s make research communication faster, fairer and more useful.
Neil Blair Christensen is director for partnership solutions at Research Square Company
Book your place! ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2021 • 15-17 September
Great day with thought-provoking sessions. Good to have voices and perspectives from around the world.
Thanks to our sponsors Platinum Gold Silver Fantastic!
Very impressive speakers and some excellent initiatives put forward.
Bronze
www.alpsp.org/conference
#alpsp2021
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
