At the 2013 SSP (Society of Scholarly Publishers) Annual conference I was on a panel about research assessment and metrics. As part of my presentation I shared some findings from a large survey conducted by Elsevier’s Research and Academic Relations group (methodology in the slides).
One finding the Twitter back-channel picked up on was the surprising statistic that, from this random sample, only 1% of academics were familiar with altmetrics. I followed this up with a more optimistic statistic showing that both researchers under 35 and also researchers from developing nations were more likely to view different types of potential altmetrics as useful. For this section of the talk, my primary point was that we need to focus on raising awareness among this demographic if altmetrics are to gain legitimacy in the researcher community.
“His presentation on scholarly identity 2.0 reminds me that academic libraries’ strategic planning should include a line item about assisting faculty with managing their digital reputation and identity (even promoting it).”
The videos of the Belgrade lectures are now loaded on the University of Belgrade Library’s YouTube channel.
The second day’s presentation was the more interesting topic and a better presentation overall, so I am going to highlight it first. A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is here and the playlist for the second lecture is embedded below:
The first day’s presentation was titled From Academic Library 2.0 to (Literature) Research 2.0. A written overview of the highlights, key diagrams, and slides is located here and the playlist is embedded below:
I look forward to any feedback you might have on either presentation.
As 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.
Abstract: Social media provides scholars with unprecedented opportunities to promote their accomplishments and expertise. Conversely, social media creates more identity information to for scholars to manage. Different facets of scholar identity online will be introduced. Within this framework, new types of identity content produced by social software and the challenges this creates will be discussed. Lastly, opportunities for using social software to manage scholarly reputation will be explored.
DISCLAIMER The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Elsevier or any other organization
I am affiliated with, including past and present employers, professional organizations, schools, friends, and so on. The links above (on this blog) are provided for convenience, but neither I nor Elsevier are responsible for the content on the linked site.