Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.4

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Editorial

Can Scholarly Communication be Evidence Based?

Denise Koufogiannakis
Editor-in-Chief
Collections & Acquisitions Coordinator, University of Alberta Libraries
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Email: denise.koufogiannakis@ualberta.ca

2010 Koufogiannakis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/2.5/ca/

), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is
redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.

This issue of Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice includes three papers from
the Evidence Based Scholarly Communication
Conference (EBSCC) that took place in March
2010i

. Kroth, Philips and Eldredge have
written a commentary that gives an overview
of the conference, and introduces us to the
research papers that were presented. As well,
two research presentations from the
conference appear in this issue, an article by
Donahue about a potential new method of
communicating between scholars, and a paper
by Gilliland in our Using Evidence in Practice
section, detailing a library’s Open Access Day
preparations.

Kroth, Philips and Eldredge note that “The
EBSCC brought together librarians and
information specialists to share evidence-
based strategies for developing effective local
scholarly communication support and training
and, hopefully, form new coalitions to address
this topic at a local and national level.” (p 108).
This conference focused on translational
medicine, and looked at how to promote new
methods of scholarly communication, partially
through the inclusion of research papers at the
conference.

The inclusion of these articles and the
evidence based focus of the EBSCC
conference, made me ask myself, can scholarly
communication be evidence based? At its core,
scholarly communication is anything but a
scientific issue. It is charged with emotion;
from authors, publishers, librarians and others
involved in the business of publishing. The
recent shift to look at new models of scholarly
communication has been a threat to many of
the established models and sparked much
debate in the academic world, especially in
relation to open access. In her 2006 EBLIP
commentary on evidence based practice and
open access, Morrison notes, “Open Access
and evidence based librarianship are a natural
combination” (p. 49), and outlines her
perspective on many of the reasons why.
Debate continues to rage, however, regarding
how authors should disseminate their work,
the role of research funding bodies that use
public funds, the added value brought to the
work by publishers, the role of peer reviewers,
the economics of various models, and simply
what works best.

Research has been done on many of these
issuesii and much of that work has then been

mailto:denise.koufogiannakis@ualberta.ca�

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.4

critically appraised and debated post-
publication on mailing listsiii and social
networking media such as blogs.iv

The BMJ is
one scholarly publication that has committed
itself to becoming an “evidence based
publisher” and is carrying out research on
aspects of scholarly publishing to help guide
their processes (Schroter, n.d.). Research on
scholarly communication is a hot topic indeed;
and for librarians, an area of information
overload if there ever was one. How to sort
out the good from the bad; the research that is
high quality from that which is biased?

At this point in time, it is my view that the
research does not yet provide a definitive
answer for how libraries should approach new
models of scholarly communication. We are in
the middle of a debate, in the middle of a
surge of research, and an ever-changing lens
in which we view and approach this topic. But
evidence based practice has always been about
more than just research – it considers what is
needed by our users, and is guided by our
professional judgement. Putting those
elements together allows us to sort through
the research and make informed decisions
about our approach to collections, and how we
do liaison work. For anyone looking for a
research idea, there are certainly a couple of
systematic reviews possible on these issues
that would benefit practitioners immensely.

The decision to start EBLIP was not an
evidence based one. It was based in a desire to
give the topic a home for discussion, and that
in order to facilitate discussion, the widest
audience possible must be reached. Hence,
barriers such as cost needed to be reduced,
and the decision to be open access was made.
This was a decision based on principles of
access, sharing and broad communication.
And so far it has worked, with a parade of
volunteers who contribute their time, energy
and talents. It was really about taking a chance
on something that seemed worthwhile, but
which the community of LIS professionals
would determine the worth of by their
contribution. That contribution has exceeded
expectations, both from the perspective of
submissions received, and the ever-increasing

number of volunteers who inspect and polish
the content to make it shine. So, EBLIP is a
case where open access has worked. It is one
drop in the ocean of conflicting evidence on
the topic.

My conclusion, then, is not straightforward.
Decisions around scholarly communication
can be evidence based, but the political,
personal, economic, and social factors all make
the issue a complicated one. This seems to be
an area where the best research is not
necessarily the main concern. Ensuring that
quality research remains a part of the
conversation is what journals such as this one
can do to help provide answers, but in the end
those who contribute intellectual content to
the process, and those who spend money to
enable access to that content for their
communities, will ultimately decide what
happens. I hope research evidence will be part
of that determination.

References

Morrison, H. (2006). Evidence based
librarianship and open access. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 1(2), 46-50.
Retrieved from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/
EBLIP/article/view/49/117
Schroter, Sara. (n.d.) The BMJ’s ongoing
programme of editorial research. Retrieved
November 5, 2010, from
http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-
bmj/evidence-based-publishing

i Evidence-based scholarly communications
conference: Empowering information
professionals to unlock translational research
for our communities.
http://hsc.unm.edu/library/ebscconference/ind
ex.shtml
ii Two sources noting recent research are the
monthly SPARC Open Access Newsletter
which emphasizes open access
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/; and
Charles W. Bailey, Jr. produces a yearly
bibliography on scholarly electronic

http://hsc.unm.edu/library/ebscconference/index.shtml�
http://hsc.unm.edu/library/ebscconference/index.shtml�
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/�

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2010, 5.4

publishing http://www.digital-
scholarship.org/sepb/annual/annual.htm.
iii Liblicense-L is one example of a mailing list
with heavy discussion of scholarly
communication issues, with contributions
from a variety of perspectives.
iv As examples, see ,
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/,
http://oalibrarian.blogspot.com/,
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/,
http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/,

http://www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/annual/annual.htm�
http://www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/annual/annual.htm�
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/�
http://oalibrarian.blogspot.com/�
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/�
http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/�

/ Evidence Based Library and Information Practice