"As-you-go" instead of "after-the-fact": A network approach to scholarly communication and evaluation

Science Lab, Mozilla, The Web, The Internet
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.26462v2
Subject Areas
Science and Medical Education, Science Policy
Keywords
evaluation, network, communication, paper, metaresearch, decentralization, publishing, decentralisation
Licence
This is an open access article, free of all copyright, made available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication. This work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
Cite this article
Hartgerink CH, van Zelst M. 2018. "As-you-go" instead of "after-the-fact": A network approach to scholarly communication and evaluation. PeerJ Preprints 6:e26462v2

Abstract

Scholarly research faces threats to its sustainability on multiple domains (access, incentives, reproducibility, inclusivity). We argue that "after-the-fact" research papers do not help and actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. We propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native "as-you-go" alternative. In this design, modules of research outputs are communicated along the way and are directly linked to each other to form a network of outputs that can facilitate research evaluation. This embeds chronology in the design of scholarly communication and facilitates recognition of more diverse outputs that go beyond the paper (e.g., code, materials). Moreover, using network analysis to investigate the relations between linked outputs could help align evaluation tools with evaluation questions. We illustrate how such a modular "as-you-go" design of scholarly communication could be structured and how network indicators could be computed to assist in the evaluation process, with specific use cases for funders, universities, and individual researchers.

Author Comment

This preprint is updated based on a revision round at the journal Publications.

Supplemental Information

Track changes from previous preprint

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26462v2/supp-1