Establishing User Requirements for a Recommender System in an Online Union Catalogue: an Investigation of WorldCat.org

This project, undertaken in collaboration with OCLC, aimed to investigate the potential role of recommendations within WorldCat, the publicly accessible union catalogue of libraries participating in the OCLC global cooperative. The goal of the project was a set of conceptual design guidelines for a WorldCat.org recommender system, based on a comprehensive understanding of the systems users and their needs. Taking a mixed-methods approach, the investigation consisted of four phases. Phase one consisted of twenty-one focus groups with key user goups held in three locations; the UK, the US, and Australia and New Zealand. Phase 2 consisted of a pop-up survey implemented on WorldCat.org, and gathered 2,918 responses. Phase three represented an analysis of two months of WorldCat.org transaction log data, consisting of over 15,000,000 sessions. Phase four was a lab based user study investigating and comparing the use of WorldCat.org with Amazon. Findings from each strand were integrated, and the key themes to emerge from the research are discussed. Different methods of classifying the WorldCat.org user population are presented, along with a taxonomy of work- and search-tasks. Key perspectives on the utility of a recommender system are considered, along with a reflection on how the information search behaviour exhibited by users interacting with recommendations while undertaking typical catalogue tasks can be interpreted. Based on the enriched perspective of the system, and the role of recommendation in the catalogue, a series of conceptual design specifications are presented for the development of a WorldCat.org recommender system

Memories of the future

The year is 2020. Sheffield University’s MSc in Electronic & Digital Library Management has been running for 10 years. What paths have its graduates’ careers taken

A comparison of primary and secondary relevance judgements for real-life topics

The notion of relevance is fundamental to the field of Information Retrieval. Within the field a generally accepted conception of relevance as inherently subjective has emerged, with an individual’s assessment of relevance influenced by numerous contextual factors. In this paper we present a user study that examines in detail the differences between primary and secondary assessors on a set of “real-world” topics which were gathered specifically for the work. By gathering topics which are representative of the staff and students at a major university, at a particular point in time, we aim to explore differences between primary and secondary relevance judgements for real-life search tasks. Findings suggest that while secondary assessors may find the assessment task challenging in various ways (they generally possess less interest and knowledge in secondary topics and take longer to assess documents), agreement between primary and secondary assessors is high

Birt-Hogg-Dubé Syndrome and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome: An Effective Multidisciplinary Approach to Hereditary Renal Cancer Predisposing Syndromes

Aim: We aimed to describe and analyse clinical features, characteristics, and adherence to surveillance guidelines in an Australian Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD) and hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) cohort. Methods: All identified patients with a diagnosis of BHD or HLRCC at RBWH 01/01/2014-01/09/2019 were included (HREC/17/QRBW/276). All patients were initially assessed and counselled by a clinical geneticist and then referred to an adult nephrologist. Baseline and incidental clinical variables were extracted and analysed. Results: Fifty-seven patients were identified (28 BHD, 29 HLRCC) with a median age of 47 years. The median and cumulative follow-up were 1 and 99 years, respectively. Baseline renal MRI occurred in 40/57 patients, and 33/57 had regular MRI as per the national guidelines (eviQ). Of 18/57 without baseline imaging, nine were yet to have imaging, seven were lost follow-up, and two patients had logistic difficulties. RCC was diagnosed in 11/57 patients: two of 28 with BHD were diagnosed with RCC aged 73 and 77, both prior to commencement of surveillance. Nine of 29 patients with HLRCC were diagnosed with RCC (one of 29 during surveillance at 47 years of age) and eight of 29 prior to commencement of surveillance (11–55 years). Amongst BHD patients, cutaneous fibrofolliculomas were noted in 15 patients, lung cysts were detected in seven patients, spontaneous pneumothoraces in five patients, and parotid oncocytoma in two of 28. Amongst those with HLRCC, cutaneous leiomyomas were noted in 19/29, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma diagnosed in one of 29, and uterine fibroids in 13 female patients. Conclusion: Evidence-based RCC screening in BHD and HLRCC cohort is feasible and able to identify incidental renal lesions. Multidisciplinary patient management enables expedited genetic counselling, diagnosis, longitudinal screening, and RCC management. The success of this clinical model warrants consideration of undertaking longitudinal screening of BHD and HLRCC patients by nephrologists

“You’re Not the Police. You’re Providing a Library Service”: Reflections on Maintenance and Repair in/of Public Libraries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This paper explores how services gaps between public libraries, governmental authorities, and other institutions were addressed during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the labor of filling these gaps reveals the repair and maintenance work in and on the public good of the library. The site for this exploration is the project Australian Public Libraries During the COVID-19 Crisis: Implications for Future Policy and Practice, which used mixed-methods questionnaires and interviews to understand the library and information science (LIS) profession’s response to the pandemic. During the pandemic, public institutions labored to maintain services and repair any gaps arising from disrupted services. The extraordinary labor instigated by the pandemic can be used to theorize the ordinary labor of maintaining public institutions such as libraries and how notions of the public good are reaffirmed through individual and institutional acts of care. The maintenance and repair of public libraries as institutions with community service obligations reveals assumptions about essential services, which communities are disadvantaged, and the policing role of libraries. Understanding the repair role of libraries helps researchers and practitioners to theorize and conceptualize their work and service to the community in new ways

Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review

Purpose: Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focusing on scientific ‘soundness’ and eschewing judgment of novelty or importance. This paper examines the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and email discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings: While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value: This article represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised

Open-access mega-journals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: operational realities)

This paper is the second of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews, with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad-scope, open access journals, which take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. Based on interviews with 31 publishers and editors, this paper reports the perceived cultural, operational, and technical challenges associated with launching, growing, and maintaining a megajournal. We find that overcoming these challenges while delivering the societal benefits associated with OAMJs is seen to require significant investment in people and systems, as well as an ongoing commitment to the model

Open-access mega-journals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broadscope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in-depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits

"Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

Purpose: The aim of this research is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). Mega-journals typically operate a “soundness only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic Analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance. Findings: Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher-supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be ‘worthy’ of publication) and practice-driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to mega-journal submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance, and relevance remains problematic. Originality/value: The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the mega-journal phenomenon, and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the mega-journal approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review

Academic communities: the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

This paper provides insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: Biosciences, Astronomy/Physics, Education and History. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (for example PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/Methodology/Approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with Pro Vice-Chancellors for Research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/Value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy makers, research managers and academics