Scholarly communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Science communication.

Scholarly communication is the process by which academics, scholars and researchers share and publish their research findings so that they are available to the wider academic community and beyond.


Scholarly communication can be defined as “the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and preserved for future use. The system includes both formal means of communication, such as publication in peer-reviewed journals, and informal channels, such as electronic listservs.”[1] Among the many scholarly communications issues include author rights, the peer review process, the economics of scholarly resources, new models of publishing (including open access and institutional repositories), rights and access to federally funded research and preservation of intellectual assets.[2]


Common methods of scholarly communication include writings in a scholarly journals, books, E-only journals, reviews, preprints and working papers, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and annotated content, data, blogs, discussion forums, professional and scholarly hubs and conference papers.[3] Other forms, particularly in the arts and humanities include multimedia formats such as sound and video recordings. At the outset, the goal of most e-journal editors was the education of those who subscribed to their publication. Through this medium, users had an incentive to access the Internet and to become familiar with navigating the Web. The editors’ goals were similar to those of the library. Both wanted to provide access to journals, in order to help readers and patrons gain the knowledge to conduct further online research independently. Over time the role of the e-journal has transformed from an innovative education tool, to the primary means for delivery of scholarly content.

Scholarly communication crisis[edit]

Main article: Serials crisis

The term "scholarly communications" has been in common usage at least since the mid-1970s, in recent years there has been widespread belief that the traditional system for disseminating scholarship has reached a state of crisis[4][5] (often referred to as the "publishing crisis" or "serials crisis")

The proliferation of new journals and the "twigging" of established journals into smaller sub-specialities, combined with rising prices, especially in the sciences, have dramatically reduced the capacity of research libraries to purchase resources required by their scholarly communities. All disciplines and formats are affected, the humanities and social sciences as well as the sciences, books as well as journals. The proliferation of electronic journals and the various pricing models for this information has further complicated the acquisitions issue, both for libraries and for publishers.

Many groups, including library consortia, research funders,[6] academics and universities have been calling for changes to the ways scholarly communication takes place, particularly in light of the Internet creating new and low cost methods to disseminate research, while still maintaining a 'peer review' process to ensure the quality of research is maintained. Developments such as open access and institutional repositories at universities are seen as vehicles for changing or improving the scholarly communication process.

Chief among the factors contributing to the perceived crisis is the academic reward system, which emphasizes quantity of publication. There is a consequent demand by scholars for peer-reviewed publication outlets. Another important cause is the commercialization and internationalization of scholarly publishing. The growing dominance of publishing conglomerates in scientific, technical, and medical fields, and to some degree in the social sciences, is of special concern to information professionals. Scholars, often indifferent to rights issues, transfer copyright to for-profit publishers, frequently for reports of research funded wholly or partially at public expense. Commercial publishers have established a highly profitable niche for themselves in the scholarly communication chain.

Scholarly communication and academic reward and reputation[edit]

Main article: Publish or perish

Scholarly communication is seen as a crucial part of research, and researchers - many of whom are lecturers and academics at universities - are often judged by their academic output and list of publications. Promotions will normally take into account the number of publications and how prestigious the journals they were published in (e.g. Nature and The Lancet are seen as very prestigious journals within the sciences). A researcher's publication list will help create them a reputation within their discipline. The proliferation of open access journals has facilitated this process by providing a means for scholars to publish their research regardless of perceived importance, as is the case with traditional journals. Publications such as PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports follow an author pay model, where the peer review and publishing service are provided for a one time cost to the writer. The material is then made available at no cost to others, who can then build on this research without limitation. This approach results in the acceptance and publishing of a greater percentage of submissions across a broader subject area.

Scholarly communication and libraries[edit]

Libraries and librarians play a critical role in the aggregation, evaluation and dissemination of scholarly communication. The Scholarly Communication Toolkit was designed by the Research and Scholarly Environment Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to support advocacy efforts designed to transform the scholarly communication landscape.[7] The future of research libraries will be shaped by broader developments at research universities in the areas of creating, sharing, disseminating, and curating knowledge. Universities face fundamental policy choices in all of these areas that have been recast by developments in information technology.[8] Current trends in digital scholarship practices across the humanities, science, and social science have significant implications for research libraries in academic institutions as a means of framing policy choices. Many research libraries have formalized the role of Scholarly Communications Librarian and defined specific responsibilities, including the implementation of outreach programs to increase awareness relative to copyright, open access, and other scholarly communication issues.

Other resources: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, Library Publishing Coalition

Scholarly communication and data publishing[edit]

The modern research author requires a reliable and standardized method to make research data available to other members of their community. This need has resulted in the development of a new form of scholarly communication known as data publishing. This process involves making data accessible, reusable and citable for long term use and is more elaborate than simply providing access to a data file.[9]

Peer review and quality control[edit]

A key element of the scholarly communication process is ensuring that research meets a level of quality and is of scholarly merit. This is normally done through a process of peer review, where other researchers in the same discipline review the research write up and decide if it is of sufficient quality. For example, in the case of a journal article, the author(s) of a piece of research will submit their article to a journal, it will then be sent to a number of other academics who specialize in the same area to be peer reviewed. The journal will often receive many more articles than there is space to publish them, and it is in their interest to publish only those of the highest quality (which will over time increase the reputation of the journal). If the reviewers feel the article is of a high enough quality for the journal, they will often request some changes to be made and once these are done, accept the article for publication.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ admin (2006-09-01). "Principles and Strategies for the Reform of Scholarly Communication 1". Retrieved 2016-08-30. 
  2. ^ Bernard Becker Medical Library
  3. ^ Maron, Nancy L.; Smith, K. Kirby (2009-02-15). "Current Models of Digital Scholarly Communication: Results of an Investigation Conducted by Ithaka Strategic Services for the Association of Research Libraries". The Journal of Electronic Publishing. 12 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0012.105. ISSN 1080-2711. 
  4. ^ University of Connecticut Libraries
  5. ^ "The Crisis in Scholarly Communication", Iowa State University Communication
  6. ^ The Wellcome Trusts' Position Statement in Support of Open and Unrestricted Access to Published Research
  7. ^ "ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit". Retrieved 2016-08-30. 
  8. ^ Lynch, Clifford; Carleton, Don E. (2009-04-09). "Lecture: Impact of Digital Scholarship on Research Libraries". Journal of Library Administration. 49 (3): 227–244. doi:10.1080/01930820902785041. ISSN 0193-0826. 
  9. ^ Borgman, Christine L. (2008-01-01). "Data, disciplines, and scholarly publishing". Learned Publishing. 21 (1): 29–38. doi:10.1087/095315108X254476. ISSN 1741-4857. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Belhajjame K, Corcho O, Garijo D, et al. Workflow-Centric Research Objects: A First Class Citizen in the Scholarly Discourse. In proceedings of the ESWC2012 Workshop on the Future of Scholarly Communication in the Semantic Web (SePublica2012), Heraklion, Greece, May 2012.
  • Genoni, P., Merrick, H., & Willson, M. A. (2006). Scholarly communities, e-research literacy and the academic librarian. The Electronic Library, 24(6), 734-746.
  • Klain-Gabbay, L., & Shoham, S. (2016). Scholarly communication and academic librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 38(2), 170-179.
  • Thomas, W. J. (2013). The structure of scholarly communications within academic libraries. Serials Review, 39(3), 167-171.

External links[edit]