Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
While Online Publishing has replaced most traditional printed journals in less than twenty years, today’s Online Publication Formats are still closely bound to the medium of paper. Collaboration is mostly hidden from the readership, and ‘final’ versions of papers are stored in ‘publisher PDF’ files mimicking print. Meanwhile new media formats originating from the web itself bring us new modes of transparent collaboration, feedback, continued refinement, and reusability of (scholarly) works: Wikis, Blogs and Code Repositories, to name a few. This chapter characterizes the potentials of Dynamic Publication Formats and analyzes necessary prerequisites. Selected tools specific to the aims, stages, and functions of Scholarly Publishing are presented. Furthermore, this chapter points out early examples of usage and further development from the field. In doing so, Dynamic Publication Formats are described as (a) a ‘parallel universe’ based on the commodification of (scholarly) media, and (b) as a much needed complement, slowly recognized and incrementally integrated into more efficient and dynamic workflows of production, improvement, and dissemination of scholarly knowledge in general.
Efimova, L. (2009). Passion at work: Blogging practices of knowledge workers. Enschede: Novay. Available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/phd/dissertation/.
Farzan, R., & Kraut, R. (2012). Eight months of APS Wikipedia initiative. Available at http://de.slideshare.net/PsychScience/recruiting-and-engaging-psychologists-to-the-aps-wikipedia-initiative.
Kramer, M., Gregorowicz, A., & Iyer, B. (2008). Wiki trust metrics based on phrasal analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (p. 1). ACM Press, doi: 10.1145/1822258.1822291.
Mietchen, D., Hagedorn, G., & Förstner, K. U. (2011). Wikis in scholarly publishing. Information Services and Use, 31(1–2), 53–59. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2011-0621.
Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2012). Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the age of digital social networks. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Paul, S. A., Hong, L., & Chi, E. H. (2012). Who is authoritative? Understanding reputation mechanisms in Quora. In Collective Intelligence Conference. doi: arXiv:1204.3724.
Pochoda, P. (2012). The big one: The epistemic system break in scholarly monograph publishing. New Media and Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444812465143.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019.
Rice, C. (2013). Science research: Three problems that point to a communications crisis. Theguardian. Higher Education Network. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2013/feb/11/science-research-crisis-retraction-replicability.
Schneider, J. (2011). Beyond the PDF. Ariadne, 66(January). Available at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue66/beyond-pdf-rpt.
Taylor, M. (2012). What is the difference between a paper and a blog post? Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Available at http://svpow.com/2012/10/14/what-is-the-difference-between-a-paper-and-a-blog-post/.
- Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring
in-adhesives, MKVS, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH, Zühlke/© Zühlke