Michael HabibAs mentioned in my previous post, my first Belgrade lecture focused on the concept of Research 2.0. The second lecture focused on Scholarly Identity 2.0, which is increasingly important because of the wealth of online identity information created by Research 2.0.
The Scholarly Identity Matrix below is adapted from a general identity matrix concept pioneered by the founders of ClaimID. It is meant to display the different types and components of a researcher’s online identity.
The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model below displays how the different components from the Matrix fit together.
The black text is content types. The blue are the characteristics of identity these content types best represent. The green is who is responsible for managing this information. The Scholarly Identity 2.0 Concept Model takes the series of concept models one step farther, but with a slightly different twist.
The spectrum is more specific than in past models with one end being entirely user-generated content (UGC) and the other traditional scholarly communication. My hypothesis is that scholarly identity online, or Scholarly Identity 2.0, is a combination of these two information types held together by a unique identifier. For example, the combination verifies not just topical expertise through peer-review of articles, but also personality verified by LinkedIn recommendations.
Please share your thoughts on the accuracy of this model in the comments below or on FriendFeed.
The below presentation covers each quadrant of the Matrix culminating in the Concept Model as a summary.
What does the Web say about your research
(Update: The videos of the lecture are now available here.)
I would like to give special thanks to Adam Sofronijevic, at the University of Belgrade Libraries for all his hard work in arranging the lectures and for his hospitality during my visit.
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 2 people and commented on 3 times 
Excellent work, sir. Thanks for the nod on the matrix. I first drew it on a napkin (true!) in 2005.
Glad it has some useful legs.
Nevertheless more than a few scholars realized that the new scholarship could only really be controverted on scholarly grounds. Widgets