PressForward: A Hub for Decentralized Scholarship

The exponential growth of information has been tracked for years now, the process of information generation and communication having been expedited by the web.  It turns out that a sizable wave of this data tsunami is scholarly in nature and has use to other scholars around the world.  The internet has increased the opportunity to easily communicate with others but doesn’t always lend itself to users discovering such communication simply due to its size.  PressForward is aiming to change that.  By collecting scholarly content that is not in the traditional peer-reviewed journal format, often referred to as “grey literature,” PressForward will screen and re-disseminate this content, providing centralized distribution.

PressForward is a grant funded project from the  Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, which has offered other exciting, Open Source tools such as Omeka and Zotero.  The aim is to debut new publications that will aggregate scholarly content from the open web while supporting and collaborating with online distributors of scholarly communication.  While Institutional Repositories, like IDEALS, are often tasked with collecting this scholarly output, it may still be “trapped” within the institution that collects it because finding it can be a challenge.  A service like PressForward has the potential to free this information from its home institution and share it with the world.

PressForward is also releasing its own content, reviewing both the process of aggregating content form the open web as well as resources that already provide this service.  A few content aggregators which PressForward points to as successful models include The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, The Browser, PLOS Hubs, and Digital Humanities Now. Each of these sites uses different methods of aggregation and a range of editorial intervention and screening with different content area foci.  Non-traditional publishing models are proliferating, requiring somebody or something to capture, preserve, and provide a centralized portal of access to this material.  The PressForward initiative may provide just that.

Speaking of Omeka and Zotero, the Scholarly Commons supports training with both of these tools.  Check out the Libguides for both Omeka and Zotero from the University of Illinois to learn more about them and see if they might prove useful throughout the course of your research.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS: An Alternative Tool for Less

If you have experience using Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS software (CAQDAS) in your research, or are considering it, then you probably know about the biggies: NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and QDA Miner, among a host of others.  You may also be familiar with the price, which can generally be prohibitive for many researchers, especially if you are a student.  There are alternative options out there for great CAQDAS platforms that are very affordable.  Enter Dedoose.

Dedoose (as in deductive reasoning) is a relatively new platform, evolving from what was once EthnoNotes.  Designed  ”for researchers, by researchers,” Dedoose is an inexpensive, web-based software platform that functions in the same basic way all CAQDAS programs function: the user imports documents, reads them, and creates “codes,” or higher level conceptual themes, and applies them to excerpts of the documents.  As the user codes their documents to identify themes, they are aggregated by the program so you can generate quantitative data to better understand where those themes exist, how they may relate to each other, as well as the potential implications of those relationships.  This is where Dedoose really shines through.  The interface is much more visual than other platforms, and the integration of quantitative data with qualitative data to generate interactive visualizations can really help the researcher see their data from a multitude of angles.

The data management aspects of all CAQDAS, including Dedoose, make these platforms great for any kind of textual analysis such as literature reviews for dissertations, as you can keep all of your insight organized, pull out and save “gold dust” quotes that you would like to highlight in your writing, as well as annotating articles.  Speaking of Data Management, Dedoose allows you to export your project so you can save a backup on your local machine.

dedoose1

PROS:

1.  Very low in price: starting at ~ $13 per individual user with a gradient price reduction as you add more users.  Additional discount if you subscribe for 6 or 12 months in advance.

2.  Great documentation and intuitive user interfaces reduce any learning hurtles and will have you up and running very quickly.

3.  Because Dedoose is web-based, collaboration is much easier.

4.  Dedoose is not restricted to a certain operating system, which means Mac and Windows people can work together (QSR will be releasing a Mac version of NVivo soon).

5.  Dedoose is very visual; it tracks user usage of codes, which documents are being annotated more than others, where those codes and annotations are being used, and integrates quantitative data in tandem with your qualitative data.

CONS:

1.  Dedoose cannot import and read PDFs, which is somewhat of a nuisance.  You can convert files from PDF to either plain text or docx, but you will likely lose the nice formatting PDFs offer, making it slightly difficult to read your documents, as well as having to take the time to convert them.  ATLAS.ti and NVivo both allow for importing PDFs.

2.  Dedoose does not support GIS data or data sheets, either tab delimited or cell based (think excel file).

3.  Being web-based, Dedoose benefits from and is hampered by all the ups and downs other web-based services experience.  For example, if you don’t have an internet connection, you can’t use Dedoose.  If, for some reason, Dedoose’s servers go down, so may your project (unless you backed it up!).

4.  The file type for A/V are very limited (mp3 and wav for audio, mp4 for video).  Converting to these formats can be done fairly simply with tools such as VLC, but it takes a few minutes and is one extra thing to do.

All told, Dedoose is a great mixed-methods research tool that is probably best for those looking to analyze solely text based data, such as interviews, focus group answers, or articles from journals that have been converted to a supported file type.  They offer a free, 1 month trial period preloaded with a project so you can get an idea of how the program functions.  You can also start your own project during this trial period.

In addition to learning more about  Dedoose, the Scholarly Commons can help get you started with other qualitative data analysis software such as NVivo 10 and ATLAS.ti 6.  Either stop in anytime Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 1-5 or Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10-5 or email us at sc@illinois.edu.

Visit Dedoose’s website to learn more.

 

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Day of DH 2013

If you are a digital humanist, or are interested in the digital humanities, check out the upcoming Day of Digital Humanities, taking place April 8. This is an open community publication project that invites participants to document a day in the life as a digital humanist with photos as well as textual descriptions.  The project seeks to answer the question “Just what do digital humanists really do?”  After all submissions have been gathered and grouped accordingly, the data will undergo some “light semantic editing” before being released for the community to study.

You can find more information and instructions at the Day of DH Site, hosted this year by Michigan State University.  The previous year’s event is available here.  If you are interested in learning more about the digital humanities, stop by the Scholarly Commons or set up an appointment with an expert to discuss digital research or how new technologies can help further your own research.  Email us at sc@library.illinois.edu or stop in anytime Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 1-5 or Tuesday and Thursday from 10-5.

Check out the website: dayofdh2013.matrix.msu.edu

Follow Day of DH on Twitter: #DayofDH

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Life After Google Reader

Google’s much lamented decision to pull the plug on Google Reader has produced more than petitions from frustrated users. A number of competing services have stepped into the limelight and are touting their viability as replacements. In this post, we offer a look at some of the top contenders:

Feedly:

Feedly_photo_final

Feedly is a reader with a clean, newspaper-like layout that blurs the experience of using a RSS feed reader, with that of reading a news site. Like many RSS readers, Feedly used Google Reader’s API to provide code for synchronizing its feeds, but Feedly is using its resources to develop a custom syncing engine and, in doing so, is aggressively vying for its share of Google Reader’s market.

  • Browser Plugin for Firefox and Chrome.
  • Not dependent on Operating system.
  • Currently developing a custom syncing engine.
  • Allows importation of feeds from Google Reader.

The Old Reader:

The Old Reader is a new RSS reader that began development after Google Reader began to integrate its sharing functions with Google+. The service is still in Beta and reviews from the Web are that it’s a worthy successor. Importing your Google Reader feeds is currently supported, but since the announcement that Google Reader was shutting down hit the web, their servers have been congested and users have reported waits of up to a week before have their Google Reader feeds are fully integrated.

  • Fully online service, accessible anywhere.
  • Designed as a replacement for Google Reader.
  • Still in Beta.
  • As of this writing, there is a still a long wait for importation of Reader feeds.

NetVibes:

NetVibes

NetVibes is a service that provides a personalized dashboard from which to observe multiple aspects of the Web, including RSS feeds, news, weather, and Social Network accounts through a customizable dashboard. NetVibes’ target users are businesses and organizations with the goal of building and monitoring online brand notoriety, but it’s easy to understand how such a dashboarding service could be useful to individuals.

  • Fully featured social network dashboard.
  • Allows import from Google Reader.
  • Integration with many other services.
  • Good choice for users who regularly use many different social networking services.

Other RSS Readers:

Another popular web-based option is NewsBlur, but, due apparently to heavy traffic, it has stopped offering free accounts. It was designed as a news reader, but works for blogs and other types of web resources as well. Besides the cloud-based options mentioned so far, desktop applications exist also for Mac and Windows. The most popular Windows option, FeedDemon, will be retired with Google Reader (on which it is dependent), but other options are available including Microsoft Outlook itself. The premier RSS reader for Mac, Reeder, will continue to be available for $5 from the Mac App Store.

If you have questions about software use in research and teaching, email us at sc@library.illinois.edu or stop in at the Scholarly Commons from 1 to 5, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and 10 to 5 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Extending R

It’s no secret that we at the Scholarly Commons are big fans of the statistical analysis package R. It’s free, open-source, and has a large base of users who develop extension, called “packages,” that provide function libraries for specific applications.

These packages are available for free through R’s package repository. Installing a package is easy. If you want to install the package “ggplot2,” for example, just open the R console, and type install.package(“ggplot2″). You’ll then be prompted to set up a directory where the package will be sent, after which R downloads and installs it automatically.

Below we’ve listed and provided links to some of the most popular R packages.

ggplot2: Provides extended control over color and layout of graphics with a simplified syntax.

plyr: A set of tools for dealing with large datasets

sqldf: Allows manipulation of data using SQL commands.

rmysql: Connect to a mysql Database through r (similar packages exist for Oracle, MS Sql Server, Sqlite and Postgresql).

zoo: Extends R to more easily deal with time-series.

If you’d like to learn more about R or just need a quick introduction stop in at the Scholarly Commons Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 1 to 5 or Tuesday and Thursday from 10 to 5.

 

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference 2013 Focuses on Open Access

The Public Knowledge Project’s (PKP) Fourth International Scholarly Publishing Conference will be held this year at the National Autonomous University of Mexico from August 19-21. The Public Knowledge Project has arisen out of a coalition of North American Universities and Libraries with a commitment to open access. This is the first time the conference will be held in Latin America, but the PKP has taken the opportunity to invite speakers from the region given the prevalence of open access scholarly publishing there.

Find more information about the conference at the PKP conference website. To find out more about the PKP itself, you can access their main site at http://pkp.sfu.ca/

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

FASTR: A New Open Access Bill Before Congress

As of Feb. 14, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act. The bill’s purpose is to make the results of publicly funded research publicly available online. FASTR is a retooling of a past open access bill, the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), which has been considered several times since 2006, but has yet to reach the floor of either house (see this wiki page from the Harvard Open Access Project for a comparison of the two bills and other important information on FASTR).
A number of factors make FASTR more likely to reach the floor in the house or senate than past iterations of FRPAA. For one, Open Access to publicly-funded research has recently gained visible support from the public, as evidenced by the more the 64,000 signatures on this whitehouse.gov petition. This popularity is likely driven by the already-successful National Institutes of Health policy mandating that any research done with NIH funding be made publicly available online through the PubMed database, as well as the increase in public awareness of open access issues following last year’s high-profile boycott of Elsevier and opposition to the Research Works Act. There seems to be a wave of support building behind open access policies, and that support holds exciting possibilities for both advocates and researchers around the globe.

To consult with one of the Scholarly Commons experts on issues surrounding publishing, copyright, or making your publications in IDEALS (the University of Illinois’s open access repository) drop us a line at sc@library.illinois.edu or stop by the Scholarly Commons, Main Library 306 during our open hours.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

New Tool Ranks Cost Effectiveness of Open Access Journals

Typically, the model for open access publishing has been one of  “pay to be published” wherein scholars pay to have their work published after a peer review  process. This model has had some notable successes, producing high impact journals such as PLoS One. Predictably, the success of this  model has quickly been exploited by predatory publishers who publish articles, for a fee, but with little-to-no peer-review, poor editing, and zero impact. There are myriad journals that occupy the space between these extremes, and scholars, who may find the idea of open access appealing, are often left to wonder what the value of publishing in one of these journals might be. University of Colorado-Denver Librarian Jeffrey Beall has led an effort to publicize the existence of predatory publishers and has ferreted out some of the worst offenders on his blog, Scholarly Open Access, but, so far, the quality control efforts have focused on the scammers and spammers and has devoted relatively little effort to the evaluation or comparison of legitimate open access journals.

For these reasons, we wanted to share this data visualization tool that Wired Magazine recently publicized. The tool, which cross references the cost to publish with the relative impact of articles in OA journals, was created by developers at the scholarly publishing data engine “Eigenfactor.” Points in the plot can be highlighted to show the journals name and exact cost and impact. The journals are also listed further down on the page, ranked by their estimated cost-effectiveness. While it’s still in beta, the tool holds possibilities both for scholars seeking reliable information on open access journals and open access journals seeking greater exposure.

Interested in learning more about open access publishing? Set up an appointment by email at sc@library.illinois.edu or drop in during our open hours Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 1-5 and Tuesday and Thursday from 10-5.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Using Images: A Digital Humanities Workshop

Interested in learning more about digital humanities tools and research resources? Join us next Wednesday afternoon for “Using Images,” a digital humanities workshop in the Scholarly Commons:

Wednesday, February 13th
3-4 p.m.
308 Library (Scholarly Commons seminar room)

“Using Images”
Led by Michael Simeone, I-CHASS

Learn about a variety of visualization tools and other digital resources for working with images, and how they are used in digital humanities projects. Sign up for the workshop at the following link:

https://illinois.edu/fb/sec/6296607

If you have questions, please contact Harriett Green at green19@illinois.edu.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

ATLAS Workshops: A Great Way to Learn Stats and Data Software

Our partner organization, ATLAS (Applied Technologies for Learning in the Arts and Sciences), has posted their workshop schedule for the semester. In addition to the old favorites (SPSS, STATA, SAS, and ArcGIS), they’re adding new workshops on R, Qualitative data tool Atlas.ti, and survey design. To register or to learn more about ATLAS workshops, please visit  http://www.atlas.illinois.edu/services/stats/workshops/registration/ .

2/7/2013 – ArcGIS 1: Introduction to ArcCatalog and ArcMap
2/28/2013 – ArcGIS 2: Introduction to ArcToolbox

2/26/2013 – SPSS 1: Getting Started with SPSS
3/11/2013 – SPSS 2: Inferential Statistics with SPSS

2/4/2013 – Stata 1: Getting Started with Stata
2/25/2013 – Stata 2: Inferential Statistics with Stata

2/11/2013 – SAS 1: Getting Started with SAS
3/4/2013 – SAS 2: Inferential Statistics with SAS

2/21/2013 – R: Getting Started with R
4/8/2013 – Questionnaire Design

 

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email