The Evolving Scholarly Record, an OCLC Research Report

A recent OCLC Research report, The Evolving Scholarly Record, attempts to frame both the content of the scholarly record as well as its stakeholders. Authored by Brian Lavoie, Eric Childress, Ricky Erway, Ixchel Faniel, Constance Malpas, Jennifer Schaffner, and Titia van de Werf, this report is a thoughtful exploration of what the scholarly record is, and how libraries can approach its curation.

The report begins by stating that the scholarly record is "the curated account of past scholarly endeavor" (p. 6), but then goes on to explain the difficulty in pinning the definition down. One of the problems is in setting boundaries about what is meant by "record." Does this mean only published materials, or does it include data sets, models, blog postings, and more? Another difficulty comes when we try to define "scholarly." To address some of these challenges, the authors developed a model that describes what constitutes the scholarly record (p. 10). At the center are the outcomes of research: publications such as books or journal articles. Contributing to the process of research are methods, evidence collected, and discussion prior to publication. Post-publication there is reuse, revision, and further discussion. They go on to provide examples of each of these elements of the scholarly record (p. 14). For example, a blog that is established at the same time as a monograph is published, which is intended to provide a forum for discussion of the book, could rightly be considered part of the scholarly record.

The authors go on to describe the "Stakeholder Ecosystem" (p. 16). They include roles that create scholarly output (researchers), "fix" it (publishers), collect it (libraries), and use it (other researchers). Traditional print scholarship goes through a cycle of create, fix, collect, and use (p. 18). E-resources may go through a cycle of create, fix, and use, bypassing the collection role (p. 19). Social media and storage may go through an even simpler process of create and use, bypassing the publisher and library role (p. 20).

The report concludes with some issues that merit further consideration. They include acknowledging a distinction between the scholarly and cultural record; understanding the dynamics of the scholarly record; supporting discovery, access, and use; selection of the permanent scholarly record; and stewardship models going forward.

While I don't think the models of the scholarly record presented in this report adds much to what is commonly understood about it, the issues presented in the conclusion include some important points. Of them, the most important are issues related to discovery, access, and use; selection; and stewardship. Libraries and other organizations need to develop a systematic way to collect and provide access to these resources for future researchers.