Cadmore media player playing video Session 2E: Charleston Trendspotting Initiative: Setting the Course
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Session 2E: Charleston Trendspotting Initiative: Setting the Course
Description:
Session 2E: Charleston Trendspotting Initiative: Setting the Course
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/947ec7ed-2fd9-4e1b-ae14-9843c8874d95/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H26M47S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/947ec7ed-2fd9-4e1b-ae14-9843c8874d95
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/947ec7ed-2fd9-4e1b-ae14-9843c8874d95/session_2e__charleston_trendspotting_initiative__setting_the.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=qZGpJWIpNzYlkmKy%2FtjIIG3L6higPgb6A3IrsZuasQQ%3D&st=2025-04-29T19%3A49%3A50Z&se=2025-04-29T21%3A54%3A50Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-12-03T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
I'm Leah Hynes, executive director of the Charleston hub, and it is my privilege to welcome all of you to today's Charleston, trendspotting session. Thank you so much for being here. I'd like to start off with just a bit of context and background. For those of you who may not be familiar with Charleston. The Charleston hub is the umbrella organization that includes the Charleston library conference, the journal against the grain, and several other resources for librarians, publishers, and vendors in the scholarly communication industry.
The conference was founded in 1980 by Katina strauch. At the time, she was a newly hired collection development librarian at the College of Charleston with no travel budget to attend meetings, so she invited a group of around 25 thought leaders to join her in Charleston. And that tradition continues. Every year, we have a instead of a group of 25, we had around 2,300 people that attended last year's event. So we also have virtual events and webinars throughout the year on the same sorts of topics that we cover in Charleston and against the grain is our journal.
We like to call it ATG as a fond little nickname. It grew out of the conference as a way to continue those conversations that happen, rather than limit them to one week a year in Charleston. So it's published five times a year, and on the same sorts of topics that people come to Charleston to discuss. And then our website, the Charleston hub, is a collection of all of those resources and materials for, again, librarians, publishers and vendors.
So we have Daily News and updates. We have a blog, we have several different publishing projects. And then against the grain and the conference, as some of you may we were acquired by nonprofit publisher annual reviews last year in October, and we are super happy to be on board with them. Happy to be part of the group and to have the additional resources and support that they provide for us.
So the goals of both the Charleston conference and against the grain and Charleston hub. It's all to bring together librarians, publishers, and vendors to discuss issues of importance to us all and to develop strategies and ways to address those issues together. So it really all of this background is important to understand how the goals of this Charleston trendspotting initiative is a direct output of the goals of the Charleston hub to bring everyone together to discuss these issues.
The trendspotting initiative started in 2017 for the first time, as we called it, the future lab project. And then we reorganized and reformatted with a new topic in 2018. The Charleston trend lab. So in its current iteration, we've been going we've had meetings in Charleston and at each of those annual meetings since 2018 with different activities, different groups, different topics of discussion.
But the goal remains the same to discuss the potential impacts of trends on the information industry and scholarly communications with a group of our peers. And how many of you have attended a trend spotting session before. We have several. Yeah so it's so great to see those of you coming back and see how those trends and changes are happening over time.
So some things are new each year. Some things are a bit more evergreen. So you'll see some of the same topics coming up. But I just really think it's important to have a time to come together, to pause and think deeply about these trends and to use these futures thinking activities to discuss those together. In his remarks in today's luncheon, the awards luncheon, Randy Townsend was reflecting on the theme of inflection point for this year's meeting.
The setting, the course for the future of scholarly communication. He said that one of sjp's most profound traditions is that they are constantly preparing for change, and quoted the classic Sam Cooke lyric about how a change is going to come. We used a portion of this year's meeting theme and the title for this session, setting the course, and I really appreciate how the goals of these trendspotting sessions are oriented to do just that, to take these trends and issues and discuss them, and use the output of those discussions to set a course for the future.
So our agenda today, we're going to cover after my short welcome and introductions portion here, Lisa will do futures thinking 101 to set the stage and do a background and information about how to go about thinking about the future. Then we'll do two group activities flip the facts and headlines from the future, followed by a report back to the group with discussion and wrap up. And with that, I'm going to turn things over to Lisa and let her get started.
So, Lisa. Sorry Lisa. Janet Janet. I can't talk all of a sudden. Lisa she's. Lisa here she is. Thank you. Thankfully so I'm Lisa janicke Hinchliffe.
I'm a professor and the coordinator for research professional development in the University library at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign. I'm also a chef in the scholarly kitchen where some of you see my photo, if nothing else. And I have to also say I'm currently the chair of the Board of orcid. So if you want to talk personal identifiers at any point, I'm very happy to.
And so O'Brien in the back. So I really love the work that we're doing here with the futures thinking. And I'm particularly really chuffed to hear, see so many people come back again. Trying it out one time is one thing. But when you come back, it says that there was something really valuable for you here. So I like to give us just a quick reminder of what we're doing when we're doing futures thinking, because I think there's a lot of people out there that will try and sell you that they know what the future is.
And if you get their consulting services, then they'll tell you, for a low price of whatever. That's not what we're doing. We're not trying to predict a particular future. Here we are trying to think about possible futures. How could things develop, they might develop and how likely are certain futures right. And what are those futures contingent upon just having a conversation about, the impact of the forthcoming presidential election and what that will mean for science policy in the United States.
And it's not a simple. It means x It means x, y, z, maybe a, BC and probably hy. It's not simple, but we need a mechanism that helps us generate thinking and focus at the same time that we're considering. So many different possibilities. So our goal today isn't like you have no metaphor here of crystal ball. Like, let's look in and we'll see what's going to happen.
We're trying to help think about the ways that we can have policy strategies and actions that promote what might be a desirable future and maybe also stave off anything that might be undesirable that comes up in our thinking. So our goal is dialogue, widening our understanding, informing our decision making. So the goal is to identify, assess, and perhaps shape the way that systems and relationships develop over time.
So the aspects of this are careful and thoughtful analysis of our current conditions, pressures on the system, risks, resources and potential implications of current trends. It's a process that reveals potential futures. It doesn't predict a particular future, and it lets us be prepared to develop strategies, policies, action plans, et cetera that move us towards things that are desirable while also avoiding what is undesirable. It helps us design purposeful action to increase the probability, plausibility and feasibility of what's desired.
Now, I want to give a little bit of a caveat here today. The first is a common mistake that is made in futures. Thinking that we're going to try and avoid is conflating our values and theories about how the world should be with how the world currently is. So we have to stay really grounded in what is and we can have what we want it to be. But we have to know what is because that is the world from which we will create whatever comes to be, and then hopefully it'll be what we want it to be.
The other caveat I'll say is it's a little bit more difficult to do this work absent a common context. So in a given company or a given University, you've got your context right and you share that context. Whereas I'm looking out at the tables and I see tables where there's librarians, publishers, et cetera. So we're going to have to create a context at our tables, and maybe we'll have to agree to some disagreements, but so we aren't going to get to the developing strategies, because we're not going to develop a strategy for a company, especially if it's just like one person from the company here today.
But it sets you up to see how you might do this in your own organization. So with that, we're not going to belabor anymore. We're going to get to the fun part. So this year's activity, we pick an activity every year that helps us do this in a different way, and partly because we have repeaters. But I think we like to see different activities and the different things that come out of it.
So we're going to do one this time called flip the future. I had the fortunate of attending a three day intensive, all day, every day training in New York City for a week in April with the Institute for the Future, and they have this foresight essentials toolkit where we work through like 26 different exercises. It was amazing. And I thought this one was really good for us because it really asked to ground us in what is true today that we can agree in the industry this is true, but then it immediately asks us to think in a really wild way.
So we're going to flip today's fact facts on their heads to wake up our imagination and challenge our mental models about how things will work in the future, and the time span that we're working with here is about a decade, so put yourself forward to 2034. It's far enough out that we kind of instinctually know it won't just be more of what it is right now, but it's not so far out that we end up with things that are just sort of like impossible to really get our heads around.
So the Institute for the Future sort of says that there's this, like, sweet spot of about 10 years. Now, if you want to have 587, 13, but just around a decade. So your activity today at your table, you're going to choose a topic for your central focus. So your topic could be peer review. It could be open access mandates. It could be transformative agreements. It could be research integrity.
Like just something that you can agree at. Your table will be the core. And then you are going to put that on your flip chart in the middle as your topic. And then you're going to individually and collectively brainstorm a set of true facts about that topic and things that are generally true today. And you're going to grab a post-it note and you're going to write that true fact on it.
So I'll just give you an example. So let's say we chose peer review. A mostly true fact, today is that it's hard to get reviewers OK. And it certainly become harder. Another mostly true fact about peer review is that there are widely divergent practices across journals in the industry. OK from maybe people doing very, very lightweight peer review to some very, very rigorous processes.
So just to examine this is a mostly true fact. Peer review is also managed by the publisher. OK right. So then you are going to take another post-it note and you're going to flip that fact. You're going to write an opposite of that fact. So what if instead of peer reviewers being hard to find, people were competing to peer review. That would be very opposite.
OK what if rather than publishers running peer review, institutions ran peer review. So something that's the inverse of what it is today. Now it doesn't have to be an inverse that you like maybe. I mean there's another inverse of peer reviewers are hard to find, which is we no longer have peer reviewers. So there's lots of inverses. And then so this is the big process I'll. You're going to say like OK let's pick one of these flip facts and figure out what would it take to get from here to there over the next decade, if the current thing that is true was flipped to this other thing, what would happen in the intervening 10 years.
This making some sense generally. So if you mean if the future is undesirable, so then you would want to understand how did we get to that undesirable future. In part because if you were really doing this, then as a policy you'd be like, well, then we should try and prevent those things from happening, figuring out how to make them. No, it's trying to figure out if we got from A to B, what would have been the path from A to B.
If we like B, we can be like oh good, let's try and make that happen. If we don't like B, we can be like, OK, then let's not have that happen. OK Yeah. Good clarification. Appreciate that Douglas. So then we'll get to a little discussion around your one flipped fact that you choose of like why did this come to be true.
What's it like in this future, in 10 years when this thing is now true. What do we know about the industry and the way we're already changing that might support that. We could end up there, positive or negative. What are any trends or signals that make you think this could happen or might not happen. So there's a lot of ways you can have this discussion. It's a generative process.
I'd like to remind you, because we're all really good students. We're very highly educated people. There are no wrong answers here. It is about the process and engaging in the discussion. So at your table first task, you have to choose a central focus. So it'd be good if two or three people at your table were like, well, I'm interested in x Come to a quick consensus and then start brainstorming your mostly true facts about today.
And I'll just be monitoring and prompt you when. OK, time to flip those facts. You'll flip them. And then you'll choose one that you're going to focus on. Go OK. In the words of one participant, Wow, this goes really fast. So we are at the point of hearing about this future. So we are going to ask each table to share with us the current fact that you flipped and one headline from the future.
So you'll have to tell us your general topic area, one of your mostly true statements right now, the flipped fact and then a headline from that future. OK, so hopefully at each table there's somebody who has either volunteered or been conscripted into speaking for your table. I'll let you decide at your table how you're handling that. Leah will come around with the mic just to make sure that we have good accessibility.
And I will start by seeing if anyone's willing to go first. Oh, this table over here is right on. OK, David. And David's going. David, do you want to go. Yeah, I'll do it. I'll do it. David's going to do it. We could do it together.
Together? Oh, OK. Oh, OK. My publisher. So which one of these is our actual statement of fact here. So the topic was research or assessment. Basic statement of fact is publishing in high impact journals is necessary for career advancement.
So the flipped is no it's not. So what would happen. Put my reading glasses on. Let's see. So we came up with a bunch of headlines here. Journals folded record rates due to institutional repositories. Top universities collaborate on Article standards. UVA poaches top doctor from Harvard in record breaking deal. Google publishes everything and case reports come rolling back to journals.
OK good job group. So this group also the outlier of one of our two groups that did not do open access. Good job. So next I guess we'll just go around the room here. So this group right here. Yeah OK. Well, we did open access.
Yes but then we talked about the fact, we talked about was that it's difficult for early career researchers to get published. And the fact was, it's easy for early career researchers to get published. But we also talked about a lot of the challenges that early career researchers might face in an open access future if funding is constrained, if they're in an institution that can't pay for processing charges, or if they don't have the same kind of workforce development and disciplinary communities to support them.
And we wanted to think about to get to a future that we really wanted for early career researchers, we would want to be addressing all of these issues. So we came up with a couple, OK, a researcher story how early career researchers are benefiting from and thriving in the OA ecosystem. And another alternative headline, not fully formed, is something along the lines of all viruses cured by undergrad, whose research was funded by open access and immediately shared with everyone.
Amen great job. Thank you. Open access, table number two. Yeah we also did open access. So let's see our fact or our original true fact was that Oh is a revenue loss for publishers. And then the flip of that it's a driver for publishers.
And our headlines were new cancer drug comes to market in 10 years through better scientific collaboration. Print is over. New metric displaces impact factor and tax dollars for research. OK good job. Every one of you, every one of your tables. Also get in my mind a little like special award.
And they definitely have the most organized award. Absolutely OK. Our group looked at publication funding models as our big topic. And our mostly true fact was publication funding models are evolving. The flip fact is there is a universally accepted model to fund publishing. And our headline was consensus library. Libraries and publishers agree on universal funding model.
Some of our scoops were mass layoffs in the publishing industry. Publishing execs adopt the four hour workweek and researchers celebrate. Awesome Thank you. All right. Open access three. Yes, we also did open access.
The one we talked about is that not all authors have the ability to pay for open access. And the way we flipped that authors don't have to pay for open access. And I swear we came up with some positive ways of doing this. But our headlines did not end up positive. So our major headline is academic authors flock to self publishing platforms. And then our sub scoops.
Our publishers announced mass layoffs. Thanks librarians call for return to subscription model and also member society enrollment booms. Colon quote. It's a reaction to all the bogus science being published today. Nice nice job and open access number four. So we did open access funding. Surprise and our fact was it is inequitable.
And the reverse of that is that it's not inequitable. And I'm not sure if I can read these. Doug will take over. These are not these are not well worded headlines. She's talking a lot. One headline published review, curate model makes publishing free. Peer review is done by community.
OK top 10 funders create new resources for underfunded researchers. Publishers commit to a minimum level of publishing for authors from less developed countries. I think that's as far as we got. Great Yeah. I mean did a lot in an hour. Honestly, like, this is the kind of process that we just basically we just kind of drove you through it.
I think it gives you a flavor for what kind of generative thinking this can be. Obviously, if you were in an actual company or something. You would also have more context, as I said before, that you would bring that context to the discussion. And so we get the advantage of multiple contexts, but we have the real challenge of multiple contexts. We do this with whoever shows up at 2:30 on a Thursday afternoon.
We want to invite any reflections, questions, comments in our last minute here together. If there were any things that people kind of want to take it not necessarily the specifics, but your thoughts about this process or your experience with these particular activities. There's somebody in the back. I'll bring the mic.
So our table was a little nervous when we were introducing ourselves that we might not find any commonalities, but I think we really did when we got into the topic. That's great. Yeah Thank you. Great that this is a really great exercise to do, and I definitely would want to bring this into my own company, mostly because people can be very scared to think about.
They know all the things that are wrong. Now It's very hard for them to open up their minds and be creative, and I think this is a great way into it without being too scary. Yeah Thank you. Yeah great. Yeah Yeah. I think sometimes we just need a little bit of a tool to help us get out of our blocks are, we spend a lot of time looking down right at today's problems.
And that ability to look out and say, well, what if things were quite different. And then to the question of do we like that different or do we not want that different. How could we make the different. So there's just one piece of a big generative process, Doug. So you have your finger on the pulse of all these trends in scholarly publishing, are you surprised that so many people picked 0 as a topic.
And did you think there are things that we've overlooked entirely. It's sort of interesting because last year when we did this at SSP, everyone picked artificial intelligence. Like, all but one group picked AI. So yeah. So it's interesting because I think it's a combination of both what's new as well as what people are fatigued about versus and AI.
So it just it almost always has come out with an SSP. We get a lot more commonalities in the topics chosen than at Charleston, which is kind of interesting in and of itself as well. But at different years we've done different activities. So when we did scenarios in each group was given a scenario, then people weren't choosing topics. And one year we did top 10:25. We did a video that was like 25 tech trends that people had to work with.
And so then it wasn't quite as Oh, it wasn't as industry based. So because we do different techniques, you end up with different things happening with these different techniques. So Oh Yeah. Camille was saying you were there. Yeah so as we wrap up today and we're happy to chat with you one on one and hear more about your experience, we also invite you to join us at the next two trend labs.
Lee and I will be presenting a workshop. So three hours at the Lee bear conference in Cyprus in July. Sorry, when is that. Which is the European academic research AI4Libraries Conference, and then at the Charleston 2024 conference, you'll see another our session on the program. So we invite you to come back, do some more arts and crafts with us. Open your brain.
Bring somebody with you. It's always a highlight of my time to get to work with Lee on this and to work with all of you. So Thanks so much for coming today. Thank you, Lisa.
Segment:0 .
I'm Leah Hynes, executive director of the Charleston hub, and it is my privilege to welcome all of you to today's Charleston, trendspotting session. Thank you so much for being here. I'd like to start off with just a bit of context and background. For those of you who may not be familiar with Charleston. The Charleston hub is the umbrella organization that includes the Charleston library conference, the journal against the grain, and several other resources for librarians, publishers, and vendors in the scholarly communication industry.
The conference was founded in 1980 by Katina strauch. At the time, she was a newly hired collection development librarian at the College of Charleston with no travel budget to attend meetings, so she invited a group of around 25 thought leaders to join her in Charleston. And that tradition continues. Every year, we have a instead of a group of 25, we had around 2,300 people that attended last year's event. So we also have virtual events and webinars throughout the year on the same sorts of topics that we cover in Charleston and against the grain is our journal.
We like to call it ATG as a fond little nickname. It grew out of the conference as a way to continue those conversations that happen, rather than limit them to one week a year in Charleston. So it's published five times a year, and on the same sorts of topics that people come to Charleston to discuss. And then our website, the Charleston hub, is a collection of all of those resources and materials for, again, librarians, publishers and vendors.
So we have Daily News and updates. We have a blog, we have several different publishing projects. And then against the grain and the conference, as some of you may we were acquired by nonprofit publisher annual reviews last year in October, and we are super happy to be on board with them. Happy to be part of the group and to have the additional resources and support that they provide for us.
So the goals of both the Charleston conference and against the grain and Charleston hub. It's all to bring together librarians, publishers, and vendors to discuss issues of importance to us all and to develop strategies and ways to address those issues together. So it really all of this background is important to understand how the goals of this Charleston trendspotting initiative is a direct output of the goals of the Charleston hub to bring everyone together to discuss these issues.
The trendspotting initiative started in 2017 for the first time, as we called it, the future lab project. And then we reorganized and reformatted with a new topic in 2018. The Charleston trend lab. So in its current iteration, we've been going we've had meetings in Charleston and at each of those annual meetings since 2018 with different activities, different groups, different topics of discussion.
But the goal remains the same to discuss the potential impacts of trends on the information industry and scholarly communications with a group of our peers. And how many of you have attended a trend spotting session before. We have several. Yeah so it's so great to see those of you coming back and see how those trends and changes are happening over time.
So some things are new each year. Some things are a bit more evergreen. So you'll see some of the same topics coming up. But I just really think it's important to have a time to come together, to pause and think deeply about these trends and to use these futures thinking activities to discuss those together. In his remarks in today's luncheon, the awards luncheon, Randy Townsend was reflecting on the theme of inflection point for this year's meeting.
The setting, the course for the future of scholarly communication. He said that one of sjp's most profound traditions is that they are constantly preparing for change, and quoted the classic Sam Cooke lyric about how a change is going to come. We used a portion of this year's meeting theme and the title for this session, setting the course, and I really appreciate how the goals of these trendspotting sessions are oriented to do just that, to take these trends and issues and discuss them, and use the output of those discussions to set a course for the future.
So our agenda today, we're going to cover after my short welcome and introductions portion here, Lisa will do futures thinking 101 to set the stage and do a background and information about how to go about thinking about the future. Then we'll do two group activities flip the facts and headlines from the future, followed by a report back to the group with discussion and wrap up. And with that, I'm going to turn things over to Lisa and let her get started.
So, Lisa. Sorry Lisa. Janet Janet. I can't talk all of a sudden. Lisa she's. Lisa here she is. Thank you. Thankfully so I'm Lisa janicke Hinchliffe.
I'm a professor and the coordinator for research professional development in the University library at the University of Illinois at urbana-champaign. I'm also a chef in the scholarly kitchen where some of you see my photo, if nothing else. And I have to also say I'm currently the chair of the Board of orcid. So if you want to talk personal identifiers at any point, I'm very happy to.
And so O'Brien in the back. So I really love the work that we're doing here with the futures thinking. And I'm particularly really chuffed to hear, see so many people come back again. Trying it out one time is one thing. But when you come back, it says that there was something really valuable for you here. So I like to give us just a quick reminder of what we're doing when we're doing futures thinking, because I think there's a lot of people out there that will try and sell you that they know what the future is.
And if you get their consulting services, then they'll tell you, for a low price of whatever. That's not what we're doing. We're not trying to predict a particular future. Here we are trying to think about possible futures. How could things develop, they might develop and how likely are certain futures right. And what are those futures contingent upon just having a conversation about, the impact of the forthcoming presidential election and what that will mean for science policy in the United States.
And it's not a simple. It means x It means x, y, z, maybe a, BC and probably hy. It's not simple, but we need a mechanism that helps us generate thinking and focus at the same time that we're considering. So many different possibilities. So our goal today isn't like you have no metaphor here of crystal ball. Like, let's look in and we'll see what's going to happen.
We're trying to help think about the ways that we can have policy strategies and actions that promote what might be a desirable future and maybe also stave off anything that might be undesirable that comes up in our thinking. So our goal is dialogue, widening our understanding, informing our decision making. So the goal is to identify, assess, and perhaps shape the way that systems and relationships develop over time.
So the aspects of this are careful and thoughtful analysis of our current conditions, pressures on the system, risks, resources and potential implications of current trends. It's a process that reveals potential futures. It doesn't predict a particular future, and it lets us be prepared to develop strategies, policies, action plans, et cetera that move us towards things that are desirable while also avoiding what is undesirable. It helps us design purposeful action to increase the probability, plausibility and feasibility of what's desired.
Now, I want to give a little bit of a caveat here today. The first is a common mistake that is made in futures. Thinking that we're going to try and avoid is conflating our values and theories about how the world should be with how the world currently is. So we have to stay really grounded in what is and we can have what we want it to be. But we have to know what is because that is the world from which we will create whatever comes to be, and then hopefully it'll be what we want it to be.
The other caveat I'll say is it's a little bit more difficult to do this work absent a common context. So in a given company or a given University, you've got your context right and you share that context. Whereas I'm looking out at the tables and I see tables where there's librarians, publishers, et cetera. So we're going to have to create a context at our tables, and maybe we'll have to agree to some disagreements, but so we aren't going to get to the developing strategies, because we're not going to develop a strategy for a company, especially if it's just like one person from the company here today.
But it sets you up to see how you might do this in your own organization. So with that, we're not going to belabor anymore. We're going to get to the fun part. So this year's activity, we pick an activity every year that helps us do this in a different way, and partly because we have repeaters. But I think we like to see different activities and the different things that come out of it.
So we're going to do one this time called flip the future. I had the fortunate of attending a three day intensive, all day, every day training in New York City for a week in April with the Institute for the Future, and they have this foresight essentials toolkit where we work through like 26 different exercises. It was amazing. And I thought this one was really good for us because it really asked to ground us in what is true today that we can agree in the industry this is true, but then it immediately asks us to think in a really wild way.
So we're going to flip today's fact facts on their heads to wake up our imagination and challenge our mental models about how things will work in the future, and the time span that we're working with here is about a decade, so put yourself forward to 2034. It's far enough out that we kind of instinctually know it won't just be more of what it is right now, but it's not so far out that we end up with things that are just sort of like impossible to really get our heads around.
So the Institute for the Future sort of says that there's this, like, sweet spot of about 10 years. Now, if you want to have 587, 13, but just around a decade. So your activity today at your table, you're going to choose a topic for your central focus. So your topic could be peer review. It could be open access mandates. It could be transformative agreements. It could be research integrity.
Like just something that you can agree at. Your table will be the core. And then you are going to put that on your flip chart in the middle as your topic. And then you're going to individually and collectively brainstorm a set of true facts about that topic and things that are generally true today. And you're going to grab a post-it note and you're going to write that true fact on it.
So I'll just give you an example. So let's say we chose peer review. A mostly true fact, today is that it's hard to get reviewers OK. And it certainly become harder. Another mostly true fact about peer review is that there are widely divergent practices across journals in the industry. OK from maybe people doing very, very lightweight peer review to some very, very rigorous processes.
So just to examine this is a mostly true fact. Peer review is also managed by the publisher. OK right. So then you are going to take another post-it note and you're going to flip that fact. You're going to write an opposite of that fact. So what if instead of peer reviewers being hard to find, people were competing to peer review. That would be very opposite.
OK what if rather than publishers running peer review, institutions ran peer review. So something that's the inverse of what it is today. Now it doesn't have to be an inverse that you like maybe. I mean there's another inverse of peer reviewers are hard to find, which is we no longer have peer reviewers. So there's lots of inverses. And then so this is the big process I'll. You're going to say like OK let's pick one of these flip facts and figure out what would it take to get from here to there over the next decade, if the current thing that is true was flipped to this other thing, what would happen in the intervening 10 years.
This making some sense generally. So if you mean if the future is undesirable, so then you would want to understand how did we get to that undesirable future. In part because if you were really doing this, then as a policy you'd be like, well, then we should try and prevent those things from happening, figuring out how to make them. No, it's trying to figure out if we got from A to B, what would have been the path from A to B.
If we like B, we can be like oh good, let's try and make that happen. If we don't like B, we can be like, OK, then let's not have that happen. OK Yeah. Good clarification. Appreciate that Douglas. So then we'll get to a little discussion around your one flipped fact that you choose of like why did this come to be true.
What's it like in this future, in 10 years when this thing is now true. What do we know about the industry and the way we're already changing that might support that. We could end up there, positive or negative. What are any trends or signals that make you think this could happen or might not happen. So there's a lot of ways you can have this discussion. It's a generative process.
I'd like to remind you, because we're all really good students. We're very highly educated people. There are no wrong answers here. It is about the process and engaging in the discussion. So at your table first task, you have to choose a central focus. So it'd be good if two or three people at your table were like, well, I'm interested in x Come to a quick consensus and then start brainstorming your mostly true facts about today.
And I'll just be monitoring and prompt you when. OK, time to flip those facts. You'll flip them. And then you'll choose one that you're going to focus on. Go OK. In the words of one participant, Wow, this goes really fast. So we are at the point of hearing about this future. So we are going to ask each table to share with us the current fact that you flipped and one headline from the future.
So you'll have to tell us your general topic area, one of your mostly true statements right now, the flipped fact and then a headline from that future. OK, so hopefully at each table there's somebody who has either volunteered or been conscripted into speaking for your table. I'll let you decide at your table how you're handling that. Leah will come around with the mic just to make sure that we have good accessibility.
And I will start by seeing if anyone's willing to go first. Oh, this table over here is right on. OK, David. And David's going. David, do you want to go. Yeah, I'll do it. I'll do it. David's going to do it. We could do it together.
Together? Oh, OK. Oh, OK. My publisher. So which one of these is our actual statement of fact here. So the topic was research or assessment. Basic statement of fact is publishing in high impact journals is necessary for career advancement.
So the flipped is no it's not. So what would happen. Put my reading glasses on. Let's see. So we came up with a bunch of headlines here. Journals folded record rates due to institutional repositories. Top universities collaborate on Article standards. UVA poaches top doctor from Harvard in record breaking deal. Google publishes everything and case reports come rolling back to journals.
OK good job group. So this group also the outlier of one of our two groups that did not do open access. Good job. So next I guess we'll just go around the room here. So this group right here. Yeah OK. Well, we did open access.
Yes but then we talked about the fact, we talked about was that it's difficult for early career researchers to get published. And the fact was, it's easy for early career researchers to get published. But we also talked about a lot of the challenges that early career researchers might face in an open access future if funding is constrained, if they're in an institution that can't pay for processing charges, or if they don't have the same kind of workforce development and disciplinary communities to support them.
And we wanted to think about to get to a future that we really wanted for early career researchers, we would want to be addressing all of these issues. So we came up with a couple, OK, a researcher story how early career researchers are benefiting from and thriving in the OA ecosystem. And another alternative headline, not fully formed, is something along the lines of all viruses cured by undergrad, whose research was funded by open access and immediately shared with everyone.
Amen great job. Thank you. Open access, table number two. Yeah we also did open access. So let's see our fact or our original true fact was that Oh is a revenue loss for publishers. And then the flip of that it's a driver for publishers.
And our headlines were new cancer drug comes to market in 10 years through better scientific collaboration. Print is over. New metric displaces impact factor and tax dollars for research. OK good job. Every one of you, every one of your tables. Also get in my mind a little like special award.
And they definitely have the most organized award. Absolutely OK. Our group looked at publication funding models as our big topic. And our mostly true fact was publication funding models are evolving. The flip fact is there is a universally accepted model to fund publishing. And our headline was consensus library. Libraries and publishers agree on universal funding model.
Some of our scoops were mass layoffs in the publishing industry. Publishing execs adopt the four hour workweek and researchers celebrate. Awesome Thank you. All right. Open access three. Yes, we also did open access.
The one we talked about is that not all authors have the ability to pay for open access. And the way we flipped that authors don't have to pay for open access. And I swear we came up with some positive ways of doing this. But our headlines did not end up positive. So our major headline is academic authors flock to self publishing platforms. And then our sub scoops.
Our publishers announced mass layoffs. Thanks librarians call for return to subscription model and also member society enrollment booms. Colon quote. It's a reaction to all the bogus science being published today. Nice nice job and open access number four. So we did open access funding. Surprise and our fact was it is inequitable.
And the reverse of that is that it's not inequitable. And I'm not sure if I can read these. Doug will take over. These are not these are not well worded headlines. She's talking a lot. One headline published review, curate model makes publishing free. Peer review is done by community.
OK top 10 funders create new resources for underfunded researchers. Publishers commit to a minimum level of publishing for authors from less developed countries. I think that's as far as we got. Great Yeah. I mean did a lot in an hour. Honestly, like, this is the kind of process that we just basically we just kind of drove you through it.
I think it gives you a flavor for what kind of generative thinking this can be. Obviously, if you were in an actual company or something. You would also have more context, as I said before, that you would bring that context to the discussion. And so we get the advantage of multiple contexts, but we have the real challenge of multiple contexts. We do this with whoever shows up at 2:30 on a Thursday afternoon.
We want to invite any reflections, questions, comments in our last minute here together. If there were any things that people kind of want to take it not necessarily the specifics, but your thoughts about this process or your experience with these particular activities. There's somebody in the back. I'll bring the mic.
So our table was a little nervous when we were introducing ourselves that we might not find any commonalities, but I think we really did when we got into the topic. That's great. Yeah Thank you. Great that this is a really great exercise to do, and I definitely would want to bring this into my own company, mostly because people can be very scared to think about.
They know all the things that are wrong. Now It's very hard for them to open up their minds and be creative, and I think this is a great way into it without being too scary. Yeah Thank you. Yeah great. Yeah Yeah. I think sometimes we just need a little bit of a tool to help us get out of our blocks are, we spend a lot of time looking down right at today's problems.
And that ability to look out and say, well, what if things were quite different. And then to the question of do we like that different or do we not want that different. How could we make the different. So there's just one piece of a big generative process, Doug. So you have your finger on the pulse of all these trends in scholarly publishing, are you surprised that so many people picked 0 as a topic.
And did you think there are things that we've overlooked entirely. It's sort of interesting because last year when we did this at SSP, everyone picked artificial intelligence. Like, all but one group picked AI. So yeah. So it's interesting because I think it's a combination of both what's new as well as what people are fatigued about versus and AI.
So it just it almost always has come out with an SSP. We get a lot more commonalities in the topics chosen than at Charleston, which is kind of interesting in and of itself as well. But at different years we've done different activities. So when we did scenarios in each group was given a scenario, then people weren't choosing topics. And one year we did top 10:25. We did a video that was like 25 tech trends that people had to work with.
And so then it wasn't quite as Oh, it wasn't as industry based. So because we do different techniques, you end up with different things happening with these different techniques. So Oh Yeah. Camille was saying you were there. Yeah so as we wrap up today and we're happy to chat with you one on one and hear more about your experience, we also invite you to join us at the next two trend labs.
Lee and I will be presenting a workshop. So three hours at the Lee bear conference in Cyprus in July. Sorry, when is that. Which is the European academic research AI4Libraries Conference, and then at the Charleston 2024 conference, you'll see another our session on the program. So we invite you to come back, do some more arts and crafts with us. Open your brain.
Bring somebody with you. It's always a highlight of my time to get to work with Lee on this and to work with all of you. So Thanks so much for coming today. Thank you, Lisa.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode