Following the blogpost of Yasmeen Shorish “Data, data everywhere…but do we want to drink? The role of data, digital curation, and scholarly communication in academic libraries.” Got me thinking on the curriculum of information literacy in academic libraries. Shorish:
This means that academic libraries must incorporate the work of data information literacy into their existing information literacy and scholarly communication missions, else risk excluding these data librarian positions from the natural cohort of colleagues doing that work, or risk overextending the work of the library.
Information literacy is one of the core activities of information specialists, but usually only aimed at students, ideally graduate students as well and perhaps post grads, but certainly not the researchers or teaching faculty of the institution. Including research data management under the umbrella of information literacy reinforces the position of library information specialists and bring their complete information literacy offereings under the attention of faculty as well. The data literacy skills help to “sell” information literacy to faculty as well.
Some information specialists might be caught off guard by the new required skills set mentioned by Shorish “experience with SPSS, R, Python, statistics and statistical literacy, and/or data visualization software find their way into librarian position descriptions“. This brings me to the third aspect of information literacy, I would broaden this to the digital skills set, or digital literacy as mentioned in NMC Horizon report 2015. But exactly in this part of the report research libraries are not mentioned. Undeservedly so in my opinion.
So here we have a task at hand. Quite a large one, if you ask me, but doable. Break out of the shackles of the classical forms of information literacy, include research data management in these courses, or curricula as well and work towards digital literacy courses.
The proposed merger between Springer and Macmillan came as a surprise to me. They are two big brands that come together. However if you look purely at figures in number of journals Macmillan is a midget compared to Springer and combined they are probably slightly bigger than Elsevier. It is the brand value of Nature and the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) that might shine on Springer and its journals if this merger is managed well. Imagine a cascading peer review system for turned down articles from Nature to the complete Springer portfolio rather than the NPG journals only. That would give the Springer journals an enormous boost. In number of journals involved this planned merger will probably not be stopped by the anti-cartel watchdogs.
What has not been mentioned in most press releases is the fact that this deal will for sure create the most profitable Open Access publisher in the world. Springer already acquired BioMed Central some years ago, and is expanding ferociously its own Springer Open brand and platform. Macmillan’s Nature Publishing Group acquired the Swiss Frontiers early 2013. Frontiers showed a healthy growth from 2,500 article in 2006 to 11,000 in 2014. The combined numbers of Open Access articles published by Springer Open, BioMed Central, Frontiers and the Nature Open Access journals (Nature Communications, Nature Reports) is still not topping that of Public Library of Science (PLoS). However the revenue in Article Processing Charges for this portfolio easily surpasses that of PLoS. For the Netherlands I made an estimate for the national APC paid to the largest publishers in early 2013. This new merger is the largest in turnover simply because they charge the highest Gold APC.
Interesting as well is to look at books, I have no figures at hand, but Springer publishes around 6000 scholarly books per year. The number by Macmillan likely to be a lot smaller, but complementary since Macmillan has a much better penetration in the textbook market. If Springer will learn from Macmillan to produce text books, rather than purely scholarly books, their earnings will increase considerably.
What amazes me however, is the fact that Digital Science is not part of the deal. Springer is still a bit of a traditional publisher and so is Mamillan. Books and journals abound it is the mainstay of their businessmodel. Okay Springer have acquired Papers, as competitor to EndNote and Mendeley. Digital Science however, is the collection of start ups from Nature and Macmillan, they have a whole portfolio of new and exciting things, Readcube, Figshare, Altmetric, Symplectic and many more. Those are really the jewels in the crown, but they are not part of the merger and Springer will badly gonna miss them.
Just added a few bits and pieces to read which I added to my library last week.
Frosio, G. 2014. Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review. CREATe Working Paper Vol. 2014/1. 219 pp. http://www.create.ac.uk/publications/open-access-publishing-a-literature-review/
and article I had missed last year:
Piwowar, H. A. & T. J. Vision. 2013. Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1: e175. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
An interesting read showing that Peer Review for of grant applications is not always capable of selecting the best proposals
Danthi, N., C. O. Wu, P. Shi & M. S. Lauer. 2014. Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of NHLBI-Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants. Circulation Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.114.302656