General Description of Each Paradigm
The paradigm shift associated with dissemination of research
and new knowledge continues to be an ongoing process characterized by movement
from a relatively closed system to one of openness, broader access, and wider
acceptance of innovative interactive ways of communicating. Previously,
research dissemination consisted primarily of traditional print journal
manuscripts that were published in professional / trade journals typically read
by other scholars and sometimes practitioners who were interested in a specific
topic. While online access was available, it was predicated upon costly journal
subscriptions that were purchased by institutions and healthcare organizations.
The current paradigm shift consists of movement toward innovative means of
communicating, such as social media, and an emphasis on openness in access of
materials that were previously only available to a limited audience.
Common Assumptions
Examining the underlying assumptions related to research
dissemination can provide insight into the current shift. Previously, the
purpose of dissemination was essentially to cast knowledge out into the
practice world with the assumption that a good idea would eventually be used.
Under the common dissemination models of that time, the flow of knowledge was
considered a linear, one-way top-down process of information flow from the
“experts” to a passive audience. In many ways, research and development of
knowledge was in itself a focused objective that culminated with a linear
process of dissemination. However, with the shifting focus on knowledge / research
utilization and translation into practice, new models of dissemination have
emerged. The interactive complex nature of dissemination and information flow
is recognized as foundational and shifts the focus to include users of research
and information with particular consideration on how they mediate that
knowledge and give it meaning in their specific settings. These new assumptions
view research and new knowledge not as an object sent and received, but as
fluid understandings that are molded by those who create it as well as those
who use it. The user is no longer considered a passive receiver of information
or expertise, but as an active learner who will use the knowledge and
information to solve problems and create their own knowledge. In addition,
assumptions regarding who the users are have shifted. In the new paradigm, end users
consist of other researchers and scholars, clinicians, policy makers,
administrators, and patients and families. Both the old assumptions and the new ones
provide a particular perspective of dissemination and therefore, inform how
researchers communicate their studies and what strategies are selected for
dissemination.
Examples from Old and New Dissemination Paradigms
Traditional
Dissemination Model
|
Transition
Dissemination Model
|
Print Based Journals, Textbooks
Research Conferences Poster/Podium
Reader “pulls” out information
Subscriber Pays for Access
Private Peer Review and Feedback Process
Focused Impact Factor of the Journal
Fixed Formatting
Primarily text per journal standards
Slower Dissemination
History of prolonged delay before
integration into clinical practice
Viewed and upheld as more rigorous due to referee/peer review process
Limited access
Oriented to the Scientific Community
|
Hybrid of Print with Increasing
Digital Availability
Social Media, Open Access
Researcher “pushes” out
information
Researcher Pays to allow Access
Public Feedback/Response Process
Increased Focus on Article Metrics
Customizable Format
Increased Pictorial/Graphic Format
with Language Translation opportunity
Rapid Dissemination
Anticipated to hasten the time
to integration into clinical
practice
Viewed by some as less scholarly
with concern for the peer review process
Global access
Oriented to a broader audience
|
This table provides some examples of key differences
between the traditional and transition models of research dissemination.
The shifting paradigm of dissemination is a process that
will not necessarily eliminate traditional print journals but will push the
boundaries of traditional methods to be more open and accessible. The example
of a traditional model of publishing a scientific manuscript involved sending
it to the journal and having the journal manage the review process,
typesetting, printing, and distribution of one’s work. This process was costly
and slow. Journal subscriptions were and still are expensive, yet the journals
do not employ the authors of the manuscripts or the peer reviewers who do the
bulk of the work. Other examples of traditional dissemination include paper and
poster presentations at professional conferences, publication of books and
chapters, and publications of monographs.
Online formatting with social media removes the cost of
producing a physical copy of the journal and research article and increases the
interactive experience of reviewing and discussing the literature. The authors
and reviewers still are not compensated for their work-in fact the authors pay
a fee for open access publication.
Driving Forces Leading to the Shift
A number of driving forces have precipitated the
paradigmatic shift related to research dissemination. These forces have
occurred in different arenas, however converge to create the context for the
shift away from traditional methods of scientific dissemination. The
development and ongoing improvements in digitization and networked technology
has dramatically changed the communications environment and availability of
information across the world. Concurrently, the increasing cost of traditional
journal subscriptions has outpaced inflation by 50% and made ongoing
subscriptions prohibitive for some organizations; making the use of open access
more feasible and cost effective. In
addition, the prevalent individual use of technologies such as personal computers
and smart phones has increased access to information for healthcare
professionals as well as consumers. Technology and digitization provides
near-immediate access in comparison to the lengthy time-lines required for
publication processes in the traditional model of dissemination. The new
technologies and web 2.0 services found on the internet have brought about
changing practices in communicating and producing information, emphasizing a
type of decentralization and collective generation. Information and knowledge
can be co-created. Involving the
original developer, other researchers, and end users, in some ways similar to
crowdsourcing, brings into question whether
traditional peer review is an outdated process. Given the protracted timeframe
for translation of research into practice, the ability to disseminate quicker
and more broadly provides a means to address problems through a type of open
science that develops collaborative solutions for those who would benefit the
most (patients and families).
The overarching emphasis on research utilization and
evidence-based practice has elevated the need for information and research
access for the clinician. Over the last decade, the focus on patient and family
centered care has shifted the view from a provider-centric perspective to one
that values the consumer and their preferences to care. This framework
considers the patient as an equal partner, valuing their perspective in
decision-making processes, thus requiring they have access to current
information and research.
From a global perspective, in many countries access and
availability to research and information is often too costly even for
institutions of higher learning and require resources that are simply not
available. Therefore, student education is significantly compromised due to lack
of access. The common need across the world in a number of academic
institutions to gain access to the most current information and research is an
additional driving force toward a more open model of dissemination.
Sources that provide much needed funding for research are
additional stakeholders in the dissemination process as their interest in
equity and access encompasses policy-makers, governmental agencies,
professional organizations, and consumers. In the case of government sponsored
research, tax dollars often provide the resources for grants and other funding
mechanisms, adding the public interest as an additional stakeholder and driving
force for a more open dissemination model.
Conflict, Controversy, and Tension between
the Paradigms
Study findings
can be viewed as an intellectual commodity and researchers are voicing their
concerns that the open access format is not as well regulated as print journals
to handle this commodity and this creates tension in moving from the old
paradigm of dissemination to the new paradigm. The perception is that the regulation
of the quality of the manuscripts is managed through feedback of peer reviewers,
who are regarded as experts in their fields and trained for the responsibility.
The concern is that in moving to an open access model there will be a loss of
this regulatory mechanism and instead the reading audience will take on this
responsibility and they may be unequipped to fill this role. Relying on the
reading audience for content regulation can become increasingly problematic in
an open digital forum if the comments become a distraction from the manuscript
because they are off subject or malicious in nature.
Also, tensions
exist over the best way to determine the quality and influence of research
journals and articles. Traditional models emphasize impact factors (IF), a
measure of citation frequency which was intended to rate journals http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_impfact.htm.
However, academic settings have used IFs in their evaluation of
researchers / faculty and institutions. While impact factors (IF) assume
the most cited journals are the higher quality, IFs can be manipulated,
distorting the reliability of this metric. Open access and social media provide
new and different evaluation strategies at the article level. The digital environment provides the ability
to collect information on more than just citations as an indicator of quality
of the research product. Altmetrics (article level metrics) quickly captures
social media references not available in traditional metrics and reflect a
broader more public engagement. Despite these advantages, altmetrics are not
yet fully understood or utilized, hindering their widespread adoption. Here is
an example of one article’s metrics:
Source: The Current Landscape of Open Access by Heather Joseph (ALA
Midwinter Meeting Seattle, WA
January 26, 2013). http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/current-landscape-open-access
Controversy also exists over the publication of fabricated
studies in OA journals which can contribute to the perception that the peer
review process used by OA journals is less structured and rigorous than in
traditional print journals. The recent “sting” operation involving the
acceptance of a spoof study in a number of OA journals was described in Science as a definite indication of poor
peer review processes in OA journals. This led to a concern about the
preponderance of poor quality studies that may dilute or overwhelm the
scholarly articles that are present in OA journals or social media sites. OA
and social media dissemination avenues can overcome the perception of poor
quality through increased representation of high quality research articles
becoming dominant over all others to improve the reputation of these avenues;
otherwise the perception will persist.
Journals attempt to increase their impact factor which
may increase publication of articles that focus on popular topics over other
important works. Conflicts of interest for the editors may create unfair bias
for acceptance of articles based on the relationship of the editors to the
contributor.
Source: Brazilian Citation Scheme Outed by Richard Van
Noorden (Nature News 27 August 2013). http://www.nature.com/news/brazilian-citation-scheme-outed-1.13604
Controversy may develop over copyright issues and bring
into question who owns the research information. In traditional models of
dissemination, authors sign over copyright to the publishing journal. However,
in OA, the public is free to use and re-use the materials and often a creative
commons license is developed, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
for information on these licenses. Other conflicts can develop as the funding agency may establish that
the knowledge generated becomes their own intellectual property and not that of
the researcher. This information may be considered proprietary and legal
ramifications that can follow dissemination outside of contractual agreements
of who owns the information and how it should be disseminated.
There is
concern about misinterpretation of information that becomes readily available
in social media and Open Access articles. The audience becomes very broad and
will include researchers and non-researchers alike. The ability to critically appraise
the information presented in research articles may be much more difficult for
the lay person who is less practiced in understanding all of the finer points
of evaluating the information which creates the space in which misunderstanding
can occur.
Barriers to Adoption of New Model
While progress continues toward a more open, accessible,
and interactive model of dissemination; barriers to adoption include time
constraints, misconceptions and lack of understanding of new strategies,
bureaucratic and organizational limitations, prevailing attitudes and policies in
academia, and lack of resources. Certainly, time and prioritization of time for
academics and researchers is an ongoing challenge and will vary depending on
the familiarity and comfort level with the new dissemination strategies. The
time and effort required to learn new methods and maintain social media
strategies such as blogs and twitter may be perceived as an additional
responsibility and add a sense of burden to an already heavy workload.
Perceptions related to the business model associated with
Open Access and lack of understanding of the related peer review processes can
also serve as barriers. The shift of cost from subscribers to the publishing authors
in Open Access journals maybe be perceived as a kind of quid-pro-quo and be
considered unethical and distasteful. This new business model is particularly difficult
to socialize in an environment such as academia given the objective scientific
focus and attention to avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Prevailing attitudes in academia surrounding issues of
tenure and promotion are often founded on traditional methods of dissemination
with special consideration given to publishing in high impact journals. Editors
of high impact journals may be less likely to feel the need to publish in Open
Access, thus affecting faculty dissemination and publication plans. Researchers
may be concerned about the prevailing attitudes among their peers related to
Open Access and use of social media and be less inclined to use these
strategies based on these concerns. In addition, while the benefits of using
Open Access and social media include broader and timelier dissemination, the
associated sense of exposure and vulnerability may be a barrier. Having a
broader audience who can respond interactively to one’s work certainly requires
a kind of openness to public peer review and criticism on a considerably larger
scale.
Finally, while Open Access repositories are growing and
use of social media continues to trend upward, these strategies and formats
remain relatively new for academic environments. New quality assurance measures
and intellectual property (copyright) methods are under development. University
resources may not be available to support faculty’s social media work. Given
that some questions and lack of understanding remain for a number of
researchers and academics and acknowledging the slow movement of the scientific
community to adopt new methods, some individuals remain disinclined to progress
toward new models of dissemination.
Current Outcome
A direct outcome of open access and use of social media
for dissemination is that the work of researchers and other academics reaches
more people in a faster timeframe. Researchers are able to connect and
collaborate with others outside of their usual networks, thus increasing the
potential for working groups and multi-authored, multisite work. Participating
in an academic online community provides opportunities to publicize studies, exchange
ideas, and provide timely feedback and interaction regarding publications and research.
For practicing clinicians and consumers (patients and families), having the
most current research and information available allows for faster, more
efficient translation as the user has direct access to the information and the
source.
Source: Tweet and Download Trends by Kaisa Puustinen and
Rosalind Edwards (LSE Impact Blog, CC BY
While traditional dissemination requires end users to
“pull” or intentionally search out information or research evidence, social
media-based strategies “push” out information or knowledge based on interests
previously identified and indicated by participants in specific blogs, twitter,
or other web-based approaches. This means researchers have a better chance of
having their studies disseminated to those most interested in their work and
users are able to receive the latest information based on their own identified
requirements.
Status of the Shift and Unintended Consequences
The current status of open access and use of social media
in research dissemination has progressed to include over 8600 OA journals with
a number of related repositories and publishing organizations. Several
prominent organizations include:
Directory
of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) http://doaj.org
- a database of indexed and accessible peer-reviewed OA journals covering a
variety of subjects;
Public
Library of Science (PLOS) http://www.ploscollections.org/-
a nonprofit open access scientific publishing project aimed at creating a
library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open
content license;
SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition) http://www.sparc.arl.org
- an international collaboration of academic and research libraries that
support the emergence of new scholarly communication models that expand
dissemination and reduce financial burden on libraries.
Online services such as Mendeley
http://www.mendeley.com/provide free
reference manager and academic social networks with the ability to showcase
researcher’s studies and collaborate with others to follow their research and
share feedback. Similarly, Pub Med Commons is a pilot project that allows
researchers to comment on other Pub Med abstracts, providing a forum for
scientific discourse http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/.
From a policy perspective, significant progress has been
made toward a more open accessible system of dissemination. NIH has public
access policies requiring authors to submit their journal publications that
result from NIH funded research to PubMed Central which is openly accessible.
Other consumer groups are petitioning similar requirements for all federal
agencies that fund research.
Future Directions, Implications, and Unanswered
Questions
The
paradigm shift of research dissemination is happening and although the
traditional dissemination research model is not completely abandoned as an
antiquated system, there remains considerable concern about jumping into the
transition model as discussed above. Technological advances are improving the
efficiency of getting our research findings out into the world where they can
be usable and can be integrated into our clinical knowledge base to improve
patient care.
Consumers
have increasing interest in being actively involved in their own health care
decisions and becoming active participants in the process. Making research findings accessible to the
end user is an important part of creating a dialogue on what options exist or
should be addressed. Electronic access to medical records through secured
health portals is a requirement of policy and as individuals become more
accepting of this they are going to look for answers to their burning
questions. The barriers to understanding the content are going to come to the
forefront of the dissemination issue as there will be increasing demand for
reader friendly content.
The
idealized formatting for the “Journal of the Future” can be beneficial in
bridging the gap between the lay and scientific communities. The potential
capabilities of clicking a button for instant language translation, hovering
over scientific jargon and getting a definition, accessing imbedded links to
images and related content can make this information more obtainable regardless
of the knowledge base or formal training of the reader. The articles become
adaptable in ways that books have become when converted to an electronic
reading format. Examples of these articles can be explored at these links:
As we look
to the future, there are many unanswered questions to consider as this paradigm
shift occurs. Some to think about should include the following:
How does the scientific community create a system of
checks and balances that can address the critical need of evaluating the
methods of research dissemination? And also how are the needs and interests of
the public best addressed through improved dissemination processes?
How does the scientific community increase global
collaboration and research dissemination without out-pricing developing
countries or extending existing language barriers?
How do we continue to keep up with the all of the new
options for research dissemination created by social media and the internet
without being overwhelmed in the sea of choices?
Recommended Readings /Links
Developing a
Dissemination Plan
Elsevier:
Disseminate your research better http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/145048/Authors_Dissemination_Brochure_170912.pdf
Beyond Scientific
Publication: Strategies for Disseminating Research Findings http://www.yale.edu/bioethics/contribute_documents/CARE_Dissemination_Strategies_FINAL_eversion.pdf
Open
access
Open access
explained
The Current
Landscape of Open Access
What’s new in open
access
Open Access
Scholarly Publications Association
Public Library of
Science
Directory of Open
Access Journals: http://doaj.org
Global editorial
board members discuss open access
Frances Collins
and teen scientist discuss open access http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G55hlnSD1Ys&feature=youtu.be
The Berkeley Blog:
My take on Science’s peer review sting http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/
SHERPA/RoMEO:
publisher copyright & self-archiving policies
The Journal of
the Future
Kevin Sea from the
ACS (American Chemical Society):
discussion of desirable features for the future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRaafZxitQc&feature=youtu.be
Articles of the
Future – prototype articles to view
Social
Media, the web, impacts on research dissemination:
Spreading the
word: Disseminating research findings
The future of
academic impacts: Social media tools
Openness and
Impact in Academia using Social Media http://www.slideshare.net/JaneTinkler/using-social-media-to-disseminate-academic-work-edinburgh-2012-final
Who gives a
“tweet”?
Social Media
Release Increases Dissemination of Original Articles in the Clinical Pain
Sciences; http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0068914
Social media: a
guide for researchers (Case studies) Research Information Network: file:///C:/Users/u0919504/Downloads/case_studies%20(1).pdf
Social media links
and resources (1 pg): file:///C:/Users/u0919504/Downloads/links_and_resources%20(1).pdf
If you build it,
will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0: file:///C:/Users/u0919504/Downloads/web_2.0_screen%20(2).pdf
Analytics:
Impact factor and Google scholar
Impact story: https://impactstory.org/
Polit &
Northam’s article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21256359
Citation
managers and collaboration
Zotero: https://www.zotero.org/
Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/
UlrichsWeb Global
Serials Directory:
Created by
Participants in Nursing 7106 Context for Advancing Science (and Improving
Health)
University of Utah
College of Nursing PhD Program Summer 2014
Submitted by: Catherine
Dingley PhD and Mandy Snyder MSN
(Lead Authors)
No comments:
Post a Comment