Misunderstanding ArXiv

(by Christina Pikas) Jan 30 2012

The physics, astro, CS, math and related fields e-print server, ArXiv, is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Specifically, it's often represented as a place anyone can send any article in any state.

Anyone: users must be endorsed by another user. Endorsers are active submitters in the same area. This could be a fairly low bar, but it is there.

Any article: articles can be rejected or reclassified. Articles are expected to be journal quality. There are moderators to make these calls.

Any state: articles are supposed to be done. Read this interesting discussion on AstroBetter. Even if the rules don't say it, the norms in one of the subject areas might.

Share

2 responses so far

Access to the literature: does interlibrary loan solve our problems?

(by Christina Pikas) Jan 11 2012

Elsewhere around the web there has been a lot of discussion of the Research Works Act (see John Dupuis' round-up, for example).  This is a bill to prevent U.S. federal agencies from mandating open access to government funded works, among other things. One of the arguments given by the publishers is that access to the literature is not a problem - everyone who needs it has several ways to get it.*  They cite these methods:

  • abstracts are free
  • institutional subscriptions
  • walk-up access for members of the community of institutional subscribers
  • pay-per-view
  • article rental
  • patient programs
  • programs to provide access to less developed countries
  • interlibrary loan (henceforth, ILL)

Abstracts, yeah, well, that's fine but...

Institutional subscriptions are for affiliates of the institution. By that I mean employees, staff, students, faculty, etc. Budgets are being cut all over the country, in some places as much as 25-30%. Even very wealthy institutions can't license everything that their users need.

Walk up access. Most of our licenses do permit walk up access. If you do live near a large research institution then this might help you. It is not acceptable, however, for government labs, for-profit companies, and other organizations that should have their own licenses to systematically send interns over to the large university to download all the needed articles.(as was mentioned in the comments to Sandra Porter's post)

Pay per view. Typically articles can be purchased for $15-$75. Sometimes that's for 24 hours worth of access, sometimes that's to download. That's never to redistribute.

Article rental. This is to look at the article online only - not to print or save down - for approximately 24 hours. This typically costs <$5. The problem is engaging fully with an article in 24 hours. What if you want to cite later and check something?

Patient programs and programs for less developed countries. I personally think these are great programs but 1) I'm not sure how many patients know about their programs and 2) there are a lot of people in developed countries who still don't have access.  Of course 1) doesn't mean that the publishers aren't trying.

ILL. Here is where we get to the purpose of my post. Can interlibrary loan solve our problems? My answer is no, and I'll tell you why.

First, you have to be affiliated with a library to request an interlibrary loan. Most people in western countries have a local public library. My local public library won't ILL articles for you and any books they ILL have to be free. Government libraries (at least the one I worked at) could also only get free articles. Did you know that many universities charge a fee to lend articles? Government libraries don't charge, but what with their budget woes there were a lot of articles to which they don't have access.

Second, ILL is not to be a substitute for a subscription. There are a set of guidelines that libraries follow. One of these is CONTU. The rule of 5 states that you can request no more than 5 articles per year from a particular journal (for journals published within the last 5 years).**  So what if there's a special issue? What if it's a really relevant journal with lots of good stuff? What you do is you go and you purchase the copyright clearances for extra copies --- or you say no. You could also pay the document delivery price (pay per view).

Third, ILL is expensive. A 1993 report calculated about $30 per transaction. If you have to pay for document delivery or copyright clearance charges or if you can only get it from some university that charges a fee, then it can be a whole lot more. Libraries are cutting services and even when they have a robust service, there's only so much an individual researcher can ask for without being seen as abusing the system.

Fourth, ILL is slow. It really is. Think of the opportunity cost. The luxury of being affiliated with two major research institutions means I have almost everything I want at my fingertips - but do people satisfice if they have to wait 2 days-3 weeks for something? Sure they do. And sometimes they wait for a crappy copy because the publisher says you have to print it first and then send fax quality (Evil empire rule).

Fifth, a crappy copy days later is not the type of engagement we need right now. We need to be able to mine, to compare, to calculate, to reuse data and tables

So no, IMO, ILL will not solve our problems.  I would be interested to hear of any other public libraries (besides perhaps NY city and maybe Cleveland) that do ILL articles for their patrons - for no fee, happily, and a bunch all the time.

With all this said, I really do wonder to whom the publishers are talking when they're hearing that people have the access they need. Are they talking to people who are at institutions like mine***? Are they talking to community college instructors? Are they talking to random members of the public?

* this argument does not address the bunch of other arguments including the one about how the taxpayer has already paid for the research and the writing up and the peer review...

** actually i think this really applies to the lender so you could probably shop around to multiple lenders to request things but it's easy to run out of lenders for expensive or rare titles

*** and hey some of our researchers are pissed because we had to drop AMS (American meteorological society) journals and a  v. v. expensive T&F remote sensing journal

update 1/12/12: Kiyomi Deards adds on twitter that some publishers limit or won't sell copyright clearance to go over 5.

Share

11 responses so far

When your web services change terms

(by Christina Pikas) Dec 23 2011

Jonathan Rochkind has written a ton about web services and APIs that libraries can/should/do use. His posts are written from the point of view of someone who understands the programming bit, the data bit, and the library bit. This post is written by someone who watches that stuff with interest and has worked, on occasion, with programmers.

I mentioned some time ago that we got an internal (to my place of work) "ignition grant" to build a system for supporting the listing, searching, lending of personal or desk copies of books. It should be noted that the money was from lab leadership, but we were voted in by lab staff. We have an internal social networking tool that's running on Elgg so we decided to build it to hang off of that. My collaboration partners are from 2 sponsor-facing departments and work in information assurance type CS jobs, not as software developers. My contribution was really in how to track books and how people search for books, and lending books... oh and barcode scanners :)

So anyway, after a lot of discussion, we went with the Amazon API to provide book metadata including descriptions and book cover images. Unfortunately, Amazon changed their terms of service in November to require an associates ID. We ran this past various parties at the lab, including legal. No go. We couldn't sign up for an associates id because of other things in the license. So our beautiful system couldn't add any new books! And our grant was long over.

Luckily, some folks in the IT department stepped up to make a fix, but the problem is, what API to use?  I used Jonathan's posts and some other things around the web and came up with WorldCat and Open Library for cover images. So we're now back up and running but with no book descriptions.

Assuming we get the go ahead from legal, we hope to make our Elgg add-on open source and make it available from the Elgg site. If/when we do, we'll probably have screen shots to share and more information. It's a neat idea on another way to find expertise and to support collaboration (and saving money) within an organization.

The moral of the story is, watch out for the terms of service on apis, and keep watching because they can change and then your functioning service can go up in smoke. We feel a lot better about open library and somewhat better about worldcat ... but vigilance is important.

Share

No responses yet

In favor of the HTML full text (am I the only one?)

(by Christina Pikas) Dec 20 2011

Chatting with a society publisher last week they told me that it's hardly worthwhile doing anything with the html page because maybe only 10% of readers use it!  I guess I'm in that 10%.

Over the years I've had so many problems with pdfs. They crash. They crash Adobe, they crash the browser, they crash the computer... and they can (and sometimes do) have malware embedded so pose a security risk. MPOW, like many other security-minded organizations, has it set up so all pdfs must fully download and be scanned before displaying. So this creates lots of temporary files to clog up the computer and it also makes irrelevant all those stupid frames publishers put around their pdfs.

Granted, when I need to print, I want the pdf. I use the pdf for my own reading that I want to suck into Mendeley.  My customers typically want pdfs.

But when I'm reading out of vague curiosity or browsing to pick out a fact (that is, if they don't pull out the tables and graphs separately), or checking to see if the article is any good... it's all html. If I'm going to read the whole thing, I'll frequently use the Readability plugin (I'm getting old).

So don't do away with the html, please, for me? And Sage?  Please add html full text (thank you in advance)!

Share

One response so far

SLA Maryland’s Job Search Workshop III

(by Christina Pikas) Nov 12 2011

I spoke at this workshop last Saturday in Gaithersburg at the Universities at Shady Grove. This full-day event drew 60 attendees, so you see how the environment is right now.  I only stayed for our panel because the remainder of the day was speakers on resumes, cover letters, and the interview.

At first I was a bit surprised to be asked to speak, but I did warm to the topic. I spoke on: Identifying Non-Traditional Roles & Skills for Information Professionals. I started by talking about my job, and how it started as uber traditional, but how I’ve been embedding in teams and taking on more analysis tasks as I build my client base. Also, how my employer makes it easy to put me on teams, I just have to charge my time to that other budget.  I then talked about how the job description for my current job didn’t really scream librarian, and was a bit scary. I wasn’t sure what type of analysis I could do. So I reassured the audience that with SLA help on packaging search results and what I already learned about analyzing search results… turns out I was perfectly qualified. I listed some other jobs that librarians do:

  • taxonomist
  • information architect
  • knowledge manager
  • community manager
  • social marketer
  • intelligence analyst (particularly open source)
  • technology trainer
  • database designer (ugh)

I also made the point that I always make, that many of the traditional skills *in addition to organizing information* are still needed and very useful. They should look for jobs that require these skills that we use to connect people to information:

  • ascertaining the real information need – the reference interview
  • searching
  • evaluating resource
  • analyzing results
  • reporting results

How do you sell this to a new employer? Emphasize the functional aspects and make the point about what you can do for them.

Next, Marianne Giltrud spoke about getting a federal job. Lots of good advice there, including to look outside of 1410 in IT and administrative series.

Finally, Naomi House spoke about her service, I need a library job – INALJ.com. They put out an e-mail, twitter stream, and facebook site on library jobs. Looks really great for job seekers.

This workshop is very well-run and very useful for information professional job seekers. Highly recommended!

Share

No responses yet

OSTP call for public comment on access to data and publications from government funded research

(by Christina Pikas) Nov 08 2011

via Joe Hourclé on the Earth-Space Science Informatics listserv (who got it from Clifford Lynch on the CNI listserv)

The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy  has issued two calls for public comment. One deals with policies for access to journal articles reporting on federally funded research. This is somewhat similar to a call that was issued last year. The second covers policies related preservation, access and reuse of data created as part of federally funded research programs...

These calls can be found at

http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-28621  (data)

and

http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-28623 (publications)

This is a time when your voice can be heard in government. It's particularly important for those of you (cough chemists and physiologists cough) who are part of societies that are spreading hate and discontent about the topic instead of communicating rationally (like, for example, the physics societies). Please consider providing a comment.

Share

No responses yet

New, now scientists can use blogs to talk to other scientists about science!

(by Christina Pikas) Oct 29 2011

I collect articles on scientists using blogs and twitter. Mostly because it’s relevant to my dissertation, but also because I find them interesting. You can see a listing here: http://www.delicious.com/cpikas/meta_science_blogging (used to be displayed on my UM page, but that broke in the transition).

So one of these articles that I saw tweeted by about five people at the same time is Wolinsky, H. (2011). More than a blog. EMBO reports 12, 1102 - 1105. doi:10.1038/embor.2011.201 .

Of course it starts with the arsenic life discussion. It talks about the immediacy of the blog reaction and the tone of the discussion on the blogs.  Overall a nice article.

I think the subtitle of the piece is unfair. It acts like the title of this post when the article itself is more about where blogs have evolved to right now. There are a lot of differing experiences with blogs and differing uses, some of which have always been talking shop.

Share

4 responses so far

How not to support advanced users

(by Christina Pikas) Oct 29 2011

At first I wasn’t going to name names, but it seems like this won’t make sense unless I do.

Over the years Cambridge Scientific Abstracts became CSA and then now is just part of ProQuest. The old peachy tan-colored interface always supported advanced searching. When the tabbed olive colored interface came out a few years ago, some of the advanced search features were a little buried, but you could still find them (I blogged about it then, but was corrected by someone who showed me where they were). The databases I’ve always used on CSA are very specialized. I use Aerospace and High Technology the most, but I also use Oceanic Abstracts and Meteorological and Geoastrophysical Abstracts. For my own work, I also use LISA.

I find that for topics like missile design, including hypersonics and propellant formulations, and spacecraft design, Aerospace and High Technology does much better than the general databases like Compendex. Oceanic abstracts is a great complement to GEOBASE (and GeoRef, but meh) on other topics I research.

I have search alerts set up in these various databases. Some I review and forward to my customers whereas others I keep for my own use. The alerts take advantage of the advanced searching available and are tweaked over time to be as precise as possible.

So now that we’re all moving to the new ProQuest interface, it was time to translate my searches to the new format. Luckily, ProQuest has a help page that takes you from the searches in the old interface to the new. I have to say, though, that there are pieces missing. I found in Illumina (the olive colored interface), I could just use kw to get the primary fields out of the record and leave off the references. In the new interface, I had to list all of the fields individually. Also, I had a real problem nesting all of the searches I needed to do. Long story short, I did manage to figure out some satisfactory searches for the alerts.

Now, here’s what actually prompted me to write this post. I am an advanced user and I do have a lot of experience with different interfaces. When I do find a problem in the interface, I’ll report it – particularly if it’s keeping me from performing some task.

In the new interface, if you have something more than the basic search, it often will not let you see the last few pages of results.

For example, in Aerospace (the name now leaves off high tech, let’s hope it still covers the same content):

propellant friction sensitivity – is just fine and you can see all the results

propellant AND “friction sensitivity” – either done through the basic search screen or done through the advanced search, will not let you see the third page. It gives an error.

Fine, so I reported this to their help desk. They replied a week later and we’ve been exchanging e-mails ever since. They’ve assumed I was technologically inept, that my computer was broken, that my library had set up something wrong with the database, that our network was messed up, and that we had a proxy server causing errors. I sent them the error messages from the screen. I sent them screenshots. I tried the same search on three browsers and got another librarian to try from her computer. We could all replicate the problem. They said they visited my library’s web page and couldn’t find a link to the database. Well, *my library* doesn’t have an external web presence – at all! Further, I had already given them the direct URL and told them at least three times that I wasn’t going through a proxy server because I was on campus.  They wanted a screenshot of the search screen (?!?) so I sent that.

Yesterday morning, I got another e-mail. Upon further investigation, they found that this was… a known error… and that technical services was working to fix it. The work around is to re-sort the records until I had seen them all.

Do they have any idea how mad that makes me? How much time I spent proving I was seeing what they already knew was happening?  Did they even check their knowledge base or did they decide to screw with me for three weeks before even checking?

I’ve had it, but damn it, I need that stinking database for my work and there’s no other real option. GRRR.

Is this how to treat your advanced users?  The first search string I sent them should have clued them in (it’s not the one above, it’s much longer). Plus, they asked and I told them I was a librarian when I submitted the report.

Share

3 responses so far

OT: New project for the spring

(by Christina Pikas) Oct 22 2011

I've started on a new project that is consuming a lot of energy (more than the amount available, it sometimes seems), and I've finally decided to announce it here. This is not to excuse the lack of posting, though. I do feel somewhat energized by ASIST and hope to get back on the blogging horse soon.

So here it is: my husband and I are happy to announce that we're expecting twins in the spring (April 12,2012).

These are our first and we're scared to death.  Everything seems to be nominal so...

Anyway, it's been a pleasure to use the resources of the medical institution that is another division of my parent institution. I've been consulting MDConsult and AccessMedicine regularly with all the little things. I think I'm actually scaring the doctors a bit, but it's all good. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. (congratulations are welcome as long as they don't come with a tummy rub, lol)

Share

14 responses so far

ASIST2011: Post-Conference Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research

(by Christina Pikas) Oct 14 2011

I attended almost all of this symposium – unfortunately, I had to leave at 2:45 to get to my flight. I guess it probably ended early anyway, because certainly two of the speakers in the last part didn’t show.

I wish I had a copy of the slides –maybe one will be provided later. The talks were mostly early summaries of work in progress, with little methodological detail.

Kate McCain provided additional detail on her location of the core journals in health informatics. Her analysis included picking out themes within health informatics.

Stasa Milojevic looked at the whole field of LIS from 1955- to look at citation and recitation practices.

Bei Wen talked about triangulating journal, paper, individual bibliometrics to better understand the field of water research… I found this incredibly confusing.

Kun Lu compared two methods of looking at author relatedness. He brought in information retrieval methods like vector space modeling and latent Dirichelet allocation. The problem with using ACA for author relatedness is when there aren’t a ton of citations to use. They found that the topic model worked fairly well – once again, difficult to get enough details from the presentation so hopefully an article will be forthcoming

Dangzhi Zhao extended her earlier work looking at all author co-citation analysis to look at author bibliographic coupling. Author selection is very important but once you do that, first/last/all author bib coupling is great for an overview.

Chaoqun Ni spoke very quickly about research diversity and intensity using LIS research.

Judit Bar-Ilan did a study of the tag bibliometrics in CiteULike and Mendeley. Seems like there are really some problems with getting good data from both of these services. She didn’t use the fairly new Mendeley API, but she found that some of the searches mentioned in the help didn’t work (I think the main one was searching for tag: ). The other thing is that she didn’t search on a journal or on free text nor did she expand the query to other related terms.

Jason Priem talked about his most recent work with Heather Piwowar and Brad Hemminger. The abstract has a lot more detail and is online here: http://jasonpriem.com/self-archived/PLoS-altmetrics-sigmetrics11-abstract.pdf

 

As for posters, Jason and Kaitlin Costello’s poster was already shared on read/write web so it probably had more mileage than anything else from this conference. It’s at http://jasonpriem.com/self-archived/5uni-poster.png

Share

No responses yet

Older posts »

Bad Behavior has blocked 301 access attempts in the last 7 days.