(Baseball) Bibliometrics: Calculating the Scoreboard

A small stack of baseballs, a helmet, and a baseball bat resting in the sand near a base.

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester. This is the second part of a three-part series. Read Part 1 here.


In our last post, we discussed what makes a journal the best team for a scholarly player (sort of). Today, we are looking at scores that are used to directly measure the impact of scholarly articles and the authors themselves.

H-index

Now this score is a bit trickier to calculate. But first, it’s probably best to explain what it is and what it does. H-index focuses on a specific researcher’s own output, in both the form of their most cited papers and also using the number of citations of their work that others have used. Yeah, this is a curve ball.

Now if we were really going to spend an afternoon at the ballpark learning about scholarly measurements, then we would go into the nitty gritty of how to figure out the most cited papers, and also how to actually figure out an h-index. But in simple terms, you need to list the number of publications with the most citations in descending order. Next, you go down the list until the number of citations is no longer greater than or equal to its position in the list. The last citation that is greater than or equal to its position in the list is the h-index. Check out this Waterloo library guide for an example.

Otherwise, you can also just look it up. The scores might vary between websites because of the differences in their content, but Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus all give an h-index.

If none of this made sense, here’s a plug for the Wikipedia page that informed my basic understanding.

There is not a metric in baseball that’s like this. Maybe if our baseball team had a starting line up where the players with the most home runs started and went down the order in descending number of home runs, but cut off when the the lineup reached the last player that had a greater or equal number of home runs as the position that they were in? There is more strategy than that to batting order, so that is clearly not how it works, but you knew coming into this that this was going to be a stretched metaphor, anyway.

So what’s next?

G-index and i10-index

Both of these indices are not as widely used as the h-index.

The g-index is supposed to be an updated version of the h-index that places more value on highly cited articles.

i10 is only used on Google Scholar, and can be remembered by its name: it is the number of articles that an author has that have 10 citations or more each.

Okay, I think we’ve lost focus on the game, but we will come back to it in the next post.

Don’t worry, we’re in the seventh inning stretch. The game is about to get a whole lot more exciting, but I promise we won’t go into extra innings.

(Baseball) Bibliometrics Broken Down: A Series

A box of baseballs.This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester. This is the first part of a three-part series.


No matter what game, everyone wants to be the best. Play for the best team, have the highest score, whatever. The game of research is no different. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that research and publishing should not be taken seriously by calling it a game, but there are still high scores involved that may be the deciding factor in the end result, which could be tenure or a higher paycheck or just negotiating power. You have probably heard of some of these scores, like the h-index or altmetrics. Even if you know what they mean, you might not know their significance or how they are calculated. And if you do know all of that, your time might be better spent elsewhere, unless you enjoy a super-stretched sports metaphor.

Yes, to further extend this game metaphor, we’re going to spend an afternoon at the ballpark. I’m visualizing Wrigley, but we can go wherever your favorite team plays, as long as it’s a Major League team. I know that I might be losing you at this point, and I might get lost in this imperfect metaphor myself, but if we make it through, there’s sure to be a win at the end.

In this game, our scholarly authors (professors) are our players (professionals). This could be humorous, but don’t laugh yet, because these scholars are playing a serious game. Even though getting on the starting line up does not guarantee a spot later in the season, I am going to equate that with gaining tenure for professors, as they are both goals that take hard work and dedication to achieve.

Journal Impact Factor

In order to have a good career, being on a highly ranked team is an automatic boost. They’re usually good for a reason, and fans will think that you must be good if you started off on such a prestigious team.

Picking a journal to publish in is a similar process, at least for the sake of this argument. While journals don’t go out and recruit, they are ranked in different ways, just like baseball teams. One way is through journal impact factor, which ranks the journals based on the average number of citations that a typical article has had in the last two years.

The formula works like this: take the number of cited articles from the journal that is in question during a two year period that were indexed during the following. Next, find out how many articles there were that were published and citable during that same two-year time period. Divide the first number by the second number, and you’ve got journal impact. This is formula is actually easier than figuring out the top ranked baseball teams in terms of math, but if you are really up for a challenge, you can try that, too.

If you didn’t get that math, that’s just fine, because there are websites that do it for you. Journal Citation Reports puts out the scores every year, and, as in most sports, the higher the better.

Originally, Impact Factor was not supposed to be used to judge how good an author or an article was was, but this is one way that many judge those authors now. If you can play for a good team, if you can get your article published in a highly ranked journal, you must be good, right?

Well, not everyone thinks that this is a representative way to measure academic impact, so there are other specific measures for the players and their articles, which will be discussed in the next post. Don’t worry, we’re just getting started.

Open Access Button v. Unpaywall: Is there a Winner?

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester.


A few months back, the Commons Knowledge blog featured a post about a new feature from Impactstory called “Unpaywall.” Read that article here. This is still a relatively new tool that aims to find open access versions of articles if they are available. You can click on the lock that shows up on an article’s page if it is green or gold, and Unpaywall will take you to an OA version of that article. If only a grey lock shows up, then there is no OA version of that article that this feature can find.

Similarly, the Open Access Button’s goal is to get you past paywalls. This is an older extension than Unpaywall, but is still being updated. This one works by bookmarking the button, and once you happen upon a paywalled article, you click on that bookmark. It also has a feature for when the article is not available: emailing the authors directly. The authors are then encouraged to deposit their articles in a repository, and either send a link to that or send the article directly to OAB so that they can upload it to a repository. Of course, if the author’s rights contract does not allow them to do this, then they can decline. OAB is also working with interlibrary loan departments in order to utilize this tool in those systems, which is supposed to eventually reduce the cost of sending articles between libraries.

I decided to test out the Open Access Button in order to write a fantastic blog post about it and how it compares to Unpaywall, and honestly, I came out a bit disappointed.

Maybe I just picked the wrong articles or topic to search for, or I’m just unskilled, but I had little success in my quest.

My first step was to install OAB, which was easy to do: I just dragged the button to my bookmarks for it to chill there until I needed it.

I used Google Scholar to search for an article that I did not have access to through the University. We do have a lot of articles available, but I did manage to pin one down that I could not get the full text for.

The Google Scholar results.

So I went to the page.

And opened my bookmarks to click on the

Open Access Button.

A screenshot of the bookmark for Open Access Button.

And then it loaded. For quite a while.

A screenshot of the loading screen.

And then…

A screenshot of how to request an article.

The article wasn’t available. But it gave me the option to write a note to the author to request it, like I mentioned above. Awesome. I wrote my note, but when I went to send it off, I arrived at another page asking me to supply the author’s email and the DOI of the article.

Screenshot of the website asking for a DOI.

An unexpected twist.

Okay, fine. So I searched and I searched for the first author but to no avail. I did, however, find the second author’s email, so I put that in the box. Check.

Next, the DOI. I searched and I searched and I looked up how to find an article’s DOI. Well, my article was from 1992 so the reason I couldn’t find one was probably because it didn’t have one. There was no option for that, so what next?

I installed Unpaywall to see if I would have more success that way. First, I had to switch from Safari to Chrome because Unpaywall only works on a couple of browsers. It was also easy to install, but I could not get the lock to show up in any color on the page, which is something that has happened to me many times since, also.

I ended up interlibrary loaning that article.

Additional experiences include OAB saying that I had access to an article, but sending me to an institutional repository that only members of that school could access. Unpaywall was more truthful with this one, showing me a grey lock. Another article let me send a message to the author in which they had thankfully found the author’s emails themselves, but I never heard a response back. Unpaywall would not show me any type of lock for this one, not even grey.

Both of these applications are still rather new, and there are still barriers to open access that need to be crossed. I will continue to try and implement these when I come across an article that I don’t have access to because supporting open access is important, but honestly, interlibrary loan was much more helpful to me during this venture.

Where Does Sci-Hub Fit In?

A circular and messy pile of books and papers.

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester.


Open access is not as simple as it may seem. In addition to conflicting definitions of open access itself, there are many different kinds, which may or may not follow the definitions previously put forth. There are three basic types that scholars discuss: gold, green, and hybrid, which are defined in this LibGuide.

There are also the colors that authors utilize to describe a category that does not fall under the three listed above, including but not limited to: bronze, diamond/platinum, and blue, white, and yellow.

And then there’s a whole category, black, just for Sci-Hub.

Okay, it’s not just for Sci-Hub, it also includes other platforms like ResearchGate and the like, where articles are freely shared by authors, but mainly, it’s for Sci-Hub.

Now keep in mind that most of these terms and definitions are up for debate, so take it all with a grain of salt.

The first question is: is Sci-Hub even open access?

If we are defining OA as freely available, then the answer would probably be “yes.” However, if we are defining OA as “legally” and freely available, then probably not. It does not following licensing laws, it is often unavailable, and the content is usually from subscribed entities meaning that someone is still paying somewhere, according to this article by Angela Cochran, of The Scholarly Kitchen.

Actually, the real first question is: What is Sci-Hub?

Sci-Hub is a website that was started in 2011 by Alexandra Elbakyan, a then-Kazakhstani graduate student who was tired of facing paywalls for articles that she could not get access to (which is something we can all relate to, honestly). So she created a way around it with Sci-Hub, which grabs articles behind institutional and publisher paywalls and makes them freely available. If it does not already have an article, it will retrieve it for you and make it accessible to others.

This, of course, has varying consequences across the board.

So who is it hurting?

Obviously, publishers like Elsevier don’t like it. They aren’t getting paid for the articles that they provide access to. In fact, they have already sued Elbakyan and won, which caused the website to shut down temporarily, until it popped back up under a different domain. This is an ongoing battle.

Even open access Publishers may be harmed in the process, says Cochran again. Though open access articles are already openly available, open access platforms traditionally also informs readers of what they can do with the work, like reuse, revise, retain, remix, and redistribute. This information is valuable to both the reader and the publisher, as the reader knows the rights regarding the work, and the publisher does not get this work used unfairly. This is lost on Sci-Hub. Additionally, OA publishers lose income by not keeping people on their sites to buy other products or services, it hides the real costs of OA publishing, and Sci-Hub does not give researchers the full picture of the article, just the text itself, no comments or retractions (or stated rights) attached.

Authors and researchers seem to be stuck in the middle. They cannot get an accurate picture of their article’s citation impact because Sci-Hub does not provide download counts for the authors, and most reputable citation indices would not calculate Sci-Hub downloads into them, anyways. However, as many of the main users in the US appear to be around college campuses, in all likelihood, there are researchers who are accessing articles this way, if for nothing else than convenience.

Similarly, students are still utilizing this site even if their institutions do have access to the articles. This is true even when the articles are open access, which makes it very clear that part of the appeal is convenience–not having to log in using credentials, for example.

What next?

This is the trickiest question of all.

There are a lot of opinions about Sci-Hub, but there are not many answers. If you are for open access, then the best way to reduce the threat of Sci-Hub against open access is to publish and access articles through those OA routes. The OA model can’t sustain itself if it does not have support. But if the knowledge needed is not accessible through OA means, then that is another question entirely. Librarians are torn on this issue, and time will tell how the publishers come out in this legally. However, it is very unlikely that Sci-Hub, or sites like it, will go away anytime soon.


Sources:

Björk, Bo-Christer. (2017, February 7). Gold, Green, and Black Access. Learned Publishing. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1096/full

Bohannon, John. (2016, April 28). Who’s Downloading Pirate Papers? Everyone. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone

Cochran, Angela. (2017, June 6). Are Open Access Journals Immune from Piracy? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/06/06/open-access-journals-immune-piracy/

Geffert, Bryn. (2016, September 4). Piracy Fills a Publishing Need. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Piracy-Fills-a-Publishing-Need/237651

McKenzie, Lindsay. (2017, July 27) Sci-Hub’s Pirated Papers So Big, Subscription Journals Are Doomed, Data Analyst Suggests. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst

Ruff, Corinne. (2016, February 8). Librarians Find Themselves Caught Between Journal Pirates and Publishers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Librarians-Find-Themselves/235353

Waddell, Kaveh. (2016, February 9). The Research Pirates of the Dark Web. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/the-research-pirates-of-the-dark-web/461829/

Open Educational Resources: Who’s Paying?

A stack of books.

This post was guest authored by Scholarly Communication and Publishing Graduate Assistant Paige Kuester.


Who wants free textbooks? If you’re a student, you probably just jumped out of your seat, depending on how much you have spent on books during your college career. According to an article in The Capital Times, one study has shown that the majority of students have not bought a textbook for a course because of its high price.

If you’re not a student, and especially if you’re a faculty member, you’re probably thinking, “What’s the catch?” You know that everything has its price, and in this case, you’re right.

So what are we talking about?

According to the article “Breaking free: To save students money, colleges are looking to the Open Educational Resources movement,” there is a trend among higher ed to provide open access resources to students instead of requiring traditional textbooks. Though the article cites that during 2015 and 2016, only 5.3 percent of courses across the country used open education resources, this is likely to increase in the coming years.

Open educational resources are just what they sound like: books are other items whose copyright makes them available online openly for educational purposes. Since books and materials are open, they can be shared between different institutions and updated more easily than a physical textbook. They can also be reused, revised, and remixed with other material to suit a professor’s needs.

But someone has to pay, right?

Right. In the case of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the school that is the focus of the article, the burden falls on the professors and instructors. Kristopher Olds, a professor of geography featured in the article, seized the opportunity to create an open textbook when it was presented with him, but it paying for it by patching together small grants, sabbatical funds, and other resources, and volunteering some of his own time. He feels his effort is worth it; however, after realizing that his students were not buying the expensive book he was assigning or were getting outdated information from older textbooks.

Surprisingly, Olds does not say that funding is one of the main barriers to institutions and professors implementing OER, but actually, awareness about OER and how to use them are bigger problems. However, the landscape is changing as knowledge about this type of resource spreads.

Here at the University of Illinois, we are encouraging professors and instructors to look into this facet of teaching. The University has just joined the Open Textbook Network, but data has not yet been gathered about its implementation on campus. Over the next few years, the library will be putting out more initiatives for OER as a part of joining the OTN. The Office of Information Literacy has put out a guide for helping instructors understand what it OER, how to use it, and how to find resources. Learn more at the Open Educational Resources LibGuide.

Schneider, P. (2017, August 9). Breaking free: To save students colleges are looking to the Open Educational Resource movement. The Cap Times. Retrieved from http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/breaking-free-to-save-students-money-colleges-are-looking-to/article_eebc0888-2f1f-5faf-ace3-6264b52b8512.html

Open Access Week at the University of Illinois Library

It’s that time of year again! Open Access Week is October 23-27, and the University of Illinois Library is excited to participate. Open Access Week is an international event where the academic and research community come together to learn about Open Access and to share that knowledge with others. In its eighth year, the U of I Library has a great week of events planned!

  • Monday: Workshop: “A Crash Course in Open Access”, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Tuesday: Workshop: Open Access Publishing and You, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Wednesday: Workshop: Managing Your Copyright and Author’s Rights, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Thursday: Scholarly Communication Interest Group Kickoff meeting, 12-1 PM, 106 Main Library
  • Friday: Workshop: Sharing Your Research with ORCiDs, DOIs, and open data repositories, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library

Fore more information on open access, visit the Scholarly Communication and Publishing website.

Meet Helenmary Sheridan, Repository Services Coordinator

Picture of Helenmary Sheridan

This latest installment of our series of interviews with Scholarly Commons experts and affiliates features Helenmary Sheridan, the Repository Services Coordinator at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library. Helenmary manages the Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS), a digital archive of scholarship produced by researchers, students, and staff at Illinois. She also conducts outreach with scholars interested in using Illinois’ other public repository, the Illinois Data Bank.


What is your background and work experience?

I graduated with a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science from the iSchool at Illinois in 2015. I earned my degree through the LEEP program and worked at Northwestern University as a metadata and digital curation assistant while I was in school, which was a wonderful experience. Before that, I worked in visual resources, primarily with the digital collections at Northwestern and prior to that at the University of Chicago where I did my undergrad. At U Chicago, I majored in art history and took significant coursework in geophysics, which was originally my major.

What led you to this field?

I came into this role primarily from a strong interest in metadata. I was creating metadata for digital objects at Northwestern. I had been working with an art historian, and the role developed into project management, working with software developers to build a repository. So I got into working with software developers, and my interest in metadata led me to being a sort of translator between librarians and developers. This led to my being interested in technical infrastructure, without being a programmer myself. But I do have some programming experience, which allows me to communicate more easily about what I’m doing.

What is your research agenda?

In general I’m interested in service management. I’m presenting at DLF (Digital Library Federation) in a couple of months on what it means to be a service manager in a library, museum, or archive setting when a lot of management systems are built for an IT environment. We often have people coming into service manager roles from something else, and I’m interested in seeing how this gets done practically.

I’m also interested in interfaces and how designers of technical systems conceptualize our users and how, through technology, it’s really easy to abuse users.

Do you have any favorite work-related duties?

I do! I love communicating with people and patrons outside of the university. At many academic libraries, you think of your patrons as being just part of the university. Running IDEALS, I communicate with lots of people all over the world, which is really satisfying. That is, both helping people here, and communicating with all sorts of people to spread Illinois scholarship worldwide.

What are some of your favorite underutilized resources that you would recommend to researchers?

I think that a lot of people don’t look outside of their disciplines, which makes a lot of sense. As a researcher, you develop your most efficient ways to find information. But as a student, it can be really productive to go to sources outside of your own discipline. When I was an art history major as an undergrad, I wrote my thesis on scientific illustration and scientific representation through art. Can you trust an artist who has no scientific knowledge to represent what they see? I was consulting lots of scientific work and lots of technology studies stuff, as well as lots of art image databases.

The way these resources are organized is totally different. It broadened my horizons to see what a wealth of resources is out there. Stuff that isn’t necessarily in the libguide for art history, or science and technology studies.

That’s another satisfying part of my work. A diversity of stuff comes into IDEALS, so when I can’t help a patron directly, I can help them find a related resource that might be useful to them.

If you could recommend one book to beginning researchers in your field, what would you recommend?

Something I was thinking about the other day is Clifford Lynch’s 2003-2004 papers and talks on institutional repositories, about how they are going to help solve the crisis of scholarly communication. He suggested that they would become tools to provide researchers with alternative sources for dissemination of their work, or even a platform for new forms of scholarly communication, and he imagines this future where there’s a robust system of interconnected repositories that can all communicate with one another.

Contrast those with his 2016 updates, in which he addresses a trend of saying that the institutional repository has failed. He thinks it’s true that institutional repositories and the places that run them haven’t fulfilled all of these promises and that it might not be worth an institution’s time to develop a repository. But you can use repositories in different ways, and different ways of using them have emerged. He rejects the claim that IRs have proven to be a failure. So instead of seeing institutional repositories and other repositories as a solution that failed to solve a problem, Lynch’s work helped me think of them as solutions to problems that weren’t foreseen.

For instance, you’ll have family members who are looking up their great aunt’s thesis to have something to remember her by. This problem falls outside the traditional scope of academia, but institutional repositories prove very beneficial for people in these sorts of ways. This helps me think about digital libraries in general. We’re not just trying to solve a problem, but to help people. We should be user focused, rather than problem focused.

Helenmary Sheridan can be reached at hsherid2@illinois.edu.

Scholarly Smackdown: PowerPoint vs. Google Slides vs. Prezi

Everyone, at some point in their life, will be asked to give some kind of presentation to go along with a talk. For many of us, projecting a slide show along with a class report or talk has been something we’ve done since childhood. That being said, the nature of the presentation game is changing. While the PowerPoint remains the standard, new challengers are making a splash in the presentation world. In this article, I’ll go through the pros and cons of each of these platforms.

The PowerPoint logo.

PowerPoint

Microsoft PowerPoint is so ingrained in our idea of modern presentations that giving any sort of slide show is often called “giving a PowerPoint”. But at the same time, does PowerPoint hold up to its new competitors? Let’s take a closer look.

Price:

Microsoft has shifted towards yearly subscriptions for various packages. UIUC affiliates can download the suite on their home computer for free. Otherwise, packages range between $70-$100 per year, or a one-time purchase of $150, which does not include applications such as OneDrive. For more information on options, go to the UIUC Webstore or Microsoft’s website.

Usability:

Though it’s gotten better with time and my own familiarity with Microsoft Office, PowerPoint is not the most usable option of these. Part of that has to do with the sheer amount of options available in PowerPoint. That being said, the more you can customize your project, the greater the potential to misuse tools or make mistakes. Real problems arise when you want to do things that aren’t included in their preset slide layouts, and formatting images — while it has become simpler than in older versions of the software — remains, at times, an issue.

Web Capability:

Microsoft PowerPoint is first and foremost downloadable computer software. However, PowerPoint has recently come out with a competitor to online platforms called PowerPoint Online, which has most of the capabilities of PowerPoint software, but allows for you to collaborate in real-time with others. To log into PowerPoint Online one needs a Microsoft ID (UIUC affiliates can log in with their email). One cannot access or purchase access to PowerPoint Online without a Microsoft ID. PowerPoint Online is useful if you like the look of PowerPoint and want an easy-to-open and portable version, but I find that the interface is a little clunky, but it does integrate slideshows made on the desktop version easily. I think PowerPoint Online is an important addition to the Microsoft Suite because, with time, it will eliminate that awkward 15 minutes that happens during any and every presentation session where someone can’t get their jump drive to work.

Aesthetics:

When done well, a PowerPoint can look good. It isn’t going to be a beauty queen, but it will look good. However, people have a tendency to over-embellish a PowerPoint, or leave it so bare that it looks sad. There’s a happy medium when it comes to PowerPoint. Just make sure you include some images to spice up your PowerPoint and stay away from templates that include gradients — this isn’t a business convention in 2002.

The Google Slides logo.

Google Slides

Google Slides is Google’s online PowerPoint equivalent. Most notable for the ability to collaborate on presentations, it’s a simplified PowerPoint that you can access from anywhere (with Wifi).

Price:

Google Slides is free with your Google account. Your limiting factor here is memory. While the automatic Drive memory is typically more than enough for most people, you can add on extra memory or $2-$300 a month, depending on your needs.

Usability:

Google Slides is the most bare bones of these three programs and the easiest to use. This is a trade-off, of course, because it also means that it has the least options of these choices. Google Slides’ controls are generally pretty similar to Google Docs and easy to learn. Even for those who aren’t familiar with other Google Drive programs, the tools are pretty intuitive — more so than PowerPoint’s.

Web Capability:

Google Slides was built for the Web. It’s the easiest to access of these programs, and the most widely-recognized Web application. That being said, it lacks a good offline mode, which can be frustrating when you need to work on a presentation without Wifi. However, its connectivity with the other online components of Google Drive are worth it.

Aesthetics:

I give Google Slides a one-up on PowerPoint for aesthetics, because while they have fewer templates, they tend to be a little more modern and aesthetically pleasing than PowerPoint’s. Further, while there are fewer overall customization options for Google Slides, the result can end up more attractive because your time and energy is focused on getting the job done, as opposed to playing around.

The Prezi logo.

Prezi

Prezi is the newest presentation platform on the scene. Created as a more dynamic alternative to slideshow presentations, this web-based app uses zoomable canvases for presentations.

Price:

A basic account is free, and a basic student account (which includes privacy controls) is also free. Other individual packages range from $7 to $59.

Usability:

Honestly, I find Prezi difficult to use. Part of that can be attributed to my years of experience with PowerPoint and similar platforms and my comparative inexperience with Prezi, but I do think that there’s an element that isn’t entirely my fault here. Moving through your presentation can be cumbersome, even in the edit mode. Customization options are more limited, and can easily ruin the flow of your presentation if you’re not careful. I do think that the more closely you stick to Prezi’s pre-made options, the easier it is to use. Also, the shorter your presentation is, the less cumbersome Prezi is both as a creator and consumer.

Web Capability:

Prezi is a web-based application, and offline access must be paid for.

Aesthetics:

Prezi is, undoubtedly, pretty. I find it a little ironic that animation — which PowerPoint has been criticized for — is one of the major selling points of Prezi. When I watch a Prezi, I do have the tendency to feel a little seasick, especially if it’s a presentation with a lot of points that zoom in and out. But overall, the aesthetics are the most modern of any of the platforms, the most visually-striking, and the most impressive if you are able to handle them correctly and create a good presentation.

Overall:

Each of these have their merits and flaws, but I will be, personally, sticking with PowerPoint. Especially given the new online component of PowerPoint, it is a tried and true partner that may not produce the most striking results, but can accompany my work just fine. That being said, I’ll also look further into Prezi, maybe sign up for our Savvy Researcher workshop on it, and see if it does live up to its incredible reputation.

An Introduction to Traditional Knowledge Labels and Licenses

NOTE: While we are discussing matters relating to the law, this post is not meant as legal advice.

Overview

Fans of Mukurtu CMS, a digital archeology platform, as well as intellectual property nerds may already be familiar with Traditional Knowledge labels and licenses, but for everyone else here’s a quick introduction. Traditional Knowledge labels and licenses, were specifically created for researchers and artists working with or thinking of digitizing materials created by indigenous groups. Although created more educational, rather than legal value, these labels aim to allow indigenous groups to take back some control over their cultural heritage and to educate users about how to incorporate these digital heritage items in a more just and culturally sensitive way. The content that TK licenses and labels cover extends beyond digitized visual arts and design to recorded and written and oral histories and stories. TK licenses and labels are also a standard to consider when working with any cultural heritage created by marginalized communities. They also provide an interesting way to recognize ownership and the proper use of work that is in the public domain. These labels and licenses are administered by Local Contexts, an organization directed by Jane Anderson, a professor at New York University and Kim Christen, a professor at Washington State University. Local Contexts is dedicated to helping Native Americans and other indigenous groups gain recognition for, and control over, the way their intellectual property is used. This organization has received funding from sources including the National Endowment for Humanities, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Traditional knowledge, or TK, labels and licenses are a way to incorporate protocols for cultural practices into your humanities data management and presentation strategies. This is especially relevant because indigenous cultural heritage items are traditionally viewed by Western intellectual property laws as part of the public domain. And, of course, there is a long and troubling history of dehumanizing treatment of Native Americans by American institutions, as well as a lack of formal recognition of their cultural practices, which is only starting to be addressed. Things have been slowly improving; for example, the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 was a law specifically created to address institutions, such as museums, which owned and displayed people’s relative’s remains and related funerary art without their permission or the permission of their surviving relatives (McManamon, 2000). The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) has began to address and open up conversations about these issues in hopes of coming up with a more consistent legal framework for countries to work with; though, confusingly, most of what Traditional Knowledge labels and licenses apply to are considered “Traditional Cultural Expressions” by WIPO (“Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d.).

To see these labels and licenses in action, take a look at how how these are used is the Mira Canning Stock Route Project Archive from Australia (“Mira Canning Stock Route Project Archive,” n.d.).

The main difference between TK labels and licenses is that TK labels are an educational tool for suggested use with indigenous materials, whether or not they are legally owned by an indigenous community, while TK licenses are similar to Creative Commons licenses — though less recognized — and serve as a customizable supplement to traditional copyright law for materials owned by indigenous communities (“Does labeling change anything legally?,” n.d.).

The default types of TK licenses are: TK Education, TK Commercial, TK Attribution, TK Noncommercial.

Four proposed TK licenses

TK Licenses so far (“TK Licenses,” n.d.)

Each license and label, as well as a detailed description can be found on the Local Contexts site and information about each label is available in English, French, and Spanish.

The types of TK labels are: TK Family, TK Seasonal, TK Outreach, TK Verified, TK Attribution, TK Community Use Only, TK Secret/Sacred, TK Women General, TK Women Restricted, TK Men General, TK Men Restricted, TK Noncommercial, TK Commercial, TK Community Voice, TK Culturally Sensitive (“Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels,” n.d.).

Example:

TK Women Restricted (TK WR) Label

A TK Women Restricted Label.

“This material has specific gender restrictions on access. It is regarded as important secret and/or ceremonial material that has community-based laws in relation to who can access it. Given its nature it is only to be accessed and used by authorized [and initiated] women in the community. If you are an external third party user and you have accessed this material, you are requested to not download, copy, remix or otherwise circulate this material to others. This material is not freely available within the community and it therefore should not be considered freely available outside the community. This label asks you to think about whether you should be using this material and to respect different cultural values and expectations about circulation and use.” (“TK Women Restricted (TK WR),” n.d.)

Wait, so is this a case where a publicly-funded institution is allowed to restrict content from certain users by gender and other protected categories?

The short answer is that this is not what these labels and licenses are used for. Local Contexts, Mukurtu, and many of the projects and universities associated with the Traditional Knowledge labels and licensing movement are publicly funded. From what I’ve seen, the restrictions are optional, especially for those outside the community (“Does labeling change anything legally?,” n.d.). It’s more a way to point out when something is meant only for members of a certain gender, or to be viewed during a time of year, than to actually restrict something only to members of a certain gender. In other words, the gender-based labels for example are meant for the type of self-censorship of viewing materials that is often found in archival spaces. That being said, some universities have what is called a Memorandum of Understanding between a university and an indigenous community, which involve universities agreeing to respect the Native American culture. The extent to which this goes for digitized cultural heritage held in university archives, for example, is unclear, though most Memorandum of Understanding are not legally binding (“What is a Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement?,” n.d.) . Overall, this raises lots of interesting questions about balancing conflicting views of intellectual property and access and public domain.

Works Cited:

Does labeling change anything legally? (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.localcontexts.org/project/does-labeling-change-anything-legally/
Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/resources/faqs.html
McManamon, F. P. (2000). NPS Archeology Program: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). In L. Ellis (Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia. New York and London: Garland Publishing Co. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
Mira Canning Stock Route Project Archive. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://mira.canningstockrouteproject.com/
TK Licenses. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.localcontexts.org/tk-licenses/
TK Women Restricted (TK WR). (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.localcontexts.org/tk/wr/1.0
What is a Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement? (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.localcontexts.org/project/what-is-a-memorandum-of-understandingagreement/

Further Reading:

Christen, K., Merrill, A., & Wynne, M. (2017). A Community of Relations: Mukurtu Hubs and Spokes. D-Lib Magazine, 23(5/6). https://doi.org/10.1045/may2017-christen
Educational Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.localcontexts.org/educational-resources/
Lord, P. (n.d.). Unrepatriatable: Native American Intellectual Property and Museum Digital Publication. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/7770593/Unrepatriatable_Native_American_Intellectual_Property_and_Museum_Digital_Publication
Project Description. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/about/project-description/

Acknowledgements:

Thank you to the Rare Book and Manuscript Library and Melissa Salrin in the iSchool for helping me with my questions about indigenous and religious materials in archives and special collections at public institutions, you are the best!

If Creative Commons Licenses Were Cookies

A plate of cookies (not licenses). This image, however, is licensed under CC-0, and is part of the public domain.

NOTE: This post is not meant as legal advice, but as a humorous piece.

Creative Commons is a licensing scheme set up to supplement copyright and help creators allow others to use their work, and to have more control over the ways that the work is used. These licenses have become increasingly recognized in courts around the world and yes, people have gotten sued for not following the terms of CC licenses. Cookies, known to the rest of the English speaking world as biscuits, are delicious sugary circular wonderfulness. But what could they have in common? More than you may think.

CC-0 Public Domain:

A brigadeiro is technically a cookie because it’s round and sweet; however, it is more of a part of the greater category of desserts, much like saying something is public domain is less of a licensing statement than a revocation of the rights guaranteed under copyright law.

CC-BY:

When your content is under a CC-BY license you can build whatever you want out of it, much like gingerbread. This could include men, houses, reindeer, or whatever, but you still recognize your creation as gingerbread.

CC-BY SA:

Anzac Day cookies are a defining dessert in Australian cuisine and are used to celebrate either Anzac Day or Australian heritage, but you can add your own local twist on this favorite like frosting, much like using a CC-BY SA license, so your new creations have to be licensed the same way like how you wouldn’t make “Anzac Day” cookies for the Fourth of July.

CC BY-ND:

Like the famous or perhaps infamous Berger Cookies of Baltimore MD, this license will let you make your own content and even sell it, but the creator wants the content the same no matter what. Some people say trans fats are dangerous, but Berger Cookies says they are absolutely necessary and will fight you if you say they should change their recipe.

CC-BY-NC:

Similar to Speculoos, which are traditional and standardized cookies in regard to shape and flavor, but spawned a popular American cookie spread also called Speculoos, CC-BY-NC content can’t be commercial but the derivatives can be different and licensed differently from the original as long as they stay noncommercial.

CC BY-NC-ND:

Girl Scout Cookies have been around for exactly 100 years. The most restrictive type of CC license can, of course, be compared to the most restrictive type of cookie. The Girl Scouts retain a lot of control over their cookies: who can make them, who can sell them, what time of year they are sold, to the point where the recipes remain hidden, though they are presumably not made with real Girl Scouts.

Don’t forget to check out the CC licensing documentation to learn more and see examples that won’t make you hungry!

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/licensing-examples/

More Resources:

http://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/copyright/home

What are your thoughts on Creative Commons?  What are some other cookies that remind you of Creative Commons licenses? Are brigadeiros cookies? Let us know in the comments!

Works Cited:

100 Years of Cookie History – Girl Scouts. (2017). Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://www.girlscouts.org/en/cookies/all-about-cookies/100-years-of-cookie-history.html

Chase, D. (2017, January 25). Research & Subject Guides: Copyright, Fair Use & the Creative Commons: Home. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/copyright/home

Glyn Moody. (2016, July 13). Festival uses CC-licensed pic without attribution, pays the price. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/creative-commons-photo-misused-lawsuit/

Gorelick, R. (2013, November 22). FDA trans-fat ban threatens Berger cookies. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/dining/baltimore-diner-blog/bs-fo-berger-cookie-trans-fat-ban-20131122-story.html

Licenses and Examples. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2017, from https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-types-examples/licensing-examples/

Lynne Olver. (2015, March 18). Food Timeline: food history research service. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://www.foodtimeline.org/index.html