MATRIZ DE PROBLEMÁTICAS
RESPETO AMOR COMUNICACIÓN CARIÑO
2. Recursos: Presentación de diapositivas
Atkinson, R. D., & Andes, S. M. (2010, November). The 2010 state new economy index: Benchmarking economic transformation in the States. Washington, DC: The Innovation & Information Technology Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.
itif.org/files/2010-state-new-economy-index.pdf
Barkley, D. L., Henry, M. S., & Li, H. (2004). Does human capital affect rural economic growth? Evidence from the south (Research Report No. 03-2004-02. Clemson University, Regional Economic Development Research Laboratory, Clemson, SC. Retrieved from http://www.clemson.edu/redrl/redrl_
rpt11.pdf
Bedford, D. A. D. (2011). Enabling personal knowledge management with colla-borative and semantic technologies.Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 38(2), 32 39. Retrieved from http://faculty.kent.edu/dbedfor3/
Publications/Bulletin_DecJan12_Final.pdf
Bedford, D. A. D. (2012, April). Expanding the definition and measurement of knowledge economy: Integrating triple bottom line factors into knowledge econ-omy index models and methodologies. Paper presented at the ECIC 2012 4th European conference in intellectual capital, Arcada University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland (pp. 67 74).
Bedford, D. A. D. (2013a). Business capability modeling as a foundation for deter-mining the value of intellectual capital assets. Proceedings of the ICICKM 2013:
The 10th international conference on intellectual capital, knowledge management and organisational learning, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, October 24 25 (pp. 60 67). Retrieved from http://faculty.kent.edu/dbedfor3/
2013_Refereed_Conference_Proceedings/Bedford_ICICKM_2013.pdf
Bedford, D. A. D. (2013b). Framework and indicators for a new knowledge econ-omy index.Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing,9(2), 278 286. Retrieved fromhttp://www.davidpublishing.com/show.html?11947
Benbya, H., & Van Alstyne, M. (2010). How to find answers within your company (Boston University School of Management Research Paper Series No. 2010-24 &
MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5072-10).MIT Sloan Management Review,52(2), 65 77. Retrieved fromhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1652432
Benneworth, P., Hospers, G. J., & Timmerman, P. (2009). Who builds ‘science cities’ and ‘knowledge parks’?New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium, 7, 147 163.
Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41 60. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00053
Bontis, N. (2002). National intellectual capital index: A United Nations initiative for the Arab region.Journal of Intellectual Capital,51, 13 39.
Bounfour, A., & Edvinsson, L. (2005). Intellectual capital for communities: Nations, regions and cities. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Boydell, L., Hoggett, P., Rugka˚sa, J., & Cummins, A. M. (2008). Intersectoral partnerships, the knowledge economy and intangible assets. Policy & Politics, 36(2), 209 224. doi:10.1332/030557308783995035
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,17(2), 245–264. doi:10.1080/09585190500404614
109 Librarians in a Knowledge Society
Carlaw, K., Oxley, L., Walker, P., Thorns, D., & Nuth, M. (2006). Beyond the hype:
Intellectual property and the knowledge society/knowledge economy. Journal of Economic Surveys,20(4), 633 690. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2006.00262.x Carrillo, F. J. (Ed.). (2011). Knowledge cities: Approaches, experiences and perspectives.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Carter, A. P. (1996). Measuring the performance of a knowledge-based economy. In D. Foray & B. A. Lundvall (Eds.),Employment and growth in the knowledge-based econ-omy(pp. 61 68). Paris: Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development.
Castells, M. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restricting and the urban-regional process. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2000).The rise of the network society(2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994).Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.
Chen, D. H. C., & Dahlman, C. J. (2005).The knowledge economy, the KAM methodol-ogy and World Bank operations.World Bank Institute Working Paper No. 37256.
The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Chen, S., & Choi, C. J. (2004). Creating a knowledge-based city: The example of Hsinchu Science Park.Journal of Knowledge Management,8(5), 73 82.
Choo, C. W. (1998).The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Collins, D. (1998).Organisational change: Sociological perspectives. London: Routledge.
Collins, J. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2006). Leveraging tacit knowledge in alliances: The importance of using relational capabilities to build and leverage relational capi-tal. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(3), 147 167.
doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.06.007
Cornish, E. (2004). Futuring: The exploration of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.
Dahlman, C. J., & Chen, D. H. C. (2002). Using knowledge for development: A general framework and preliminary assessment of China. In B. S. Grewal, L.
Xue, P. Sheehan, & F. Sun (Eds.),China’s future in the knowledge economy: Engaging the new world(pp. 35 66). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Danish Agency for Libraries and Media. (2010). The public libraries in the knowledge society: Summary from the committee on public libraries in the knowledge society. Retrieved from http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/fileadmin/publikationer/
publikationer_engelske/Reports/The_public_libraries_in_the_knowledge_society.
_Summary.pdf
Daugeliene, R. (2004). Peculiarities of knowledge-based economy assessment:
Theoretical approach. Kaunas University of Technology, Institute of Europe, Bergamo, Italy, May 17 21. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unibg.it/static_content/
ricerca/dipartimento_matematica/eumoptfin3_abstract/Daugeliene.pdf
David, P. A., & Foray, D. (2002). An introduction to the economy of the knowl-edge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 9 23. doi:10.1111/
1468-2451.00355
Dixon, N. M. (2000).Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Drotner, K. (2005). Library innovation for the knowledge society. Scandinavian Library Quarterly, 38(2). Retrieved from http://slq.nu/?article=library-innovation-for-the-knowledge-society
110 Denise A. D. Bedford et al.
Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.). (2011). Global information technology report 2010 2011: Transformations 2.0 (10th anniversary ed.). Geneva, Switzerland:
World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-information-technology-report/
Dvir, R. (2006). Knowledge city, seen as a collage of human knowledge moments.
In F. Carillo (Ed.), Knowledge cities: Approaches, experiences, and perspectives (pp. 245 272). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Dvir, R. (2011). Knowledge city, seen as a collage of human knowledge moments.
In F. Carillo (Ed.), Knowledge cities: Approaches, experiences, and perspectives (pp. 245–272). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Edvinsson, L. (2002). The new knowledge economics. Business Strategy Review, 13(3), 72 76. doi:10.1111/1467-8616.00225
Faye, M. (2013, December 5). Knowledge facilitation through COPs. The African ICT Week. African Union Conference Centre, Addis Ababa. Retrieved from http://au.int/en/sites/default/files/Knowledge%20Facilitation%20through%
20COPs.pdf
Garcia, B. C. (2006). Learning conversations: Knowledge, meanings and learning networks in greater Manchester. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(5), 99 109. doi:10.1108/13673270610691215
Garcia, B. C. (2007). Working and learning in a knowledge city: A multilevel development framework for knowledge workers. Journal of Knowledge Management,11(5), 18 30. doi:10.1108/13673270710819771
Goldberg, M., Pasher, E., & Sagi, M. L. (2006). Citizen participation in decision-making processes: Knowledge sharing in knowledge cities. Journal of Knowledge Management,10(5), 92 98. doi:10.1108/13673270610691206
Gregory, P. R., & Stuart, R. C. (2004). Comparing economic systems in the twenty-first century(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (2003).Sustainable cities. London: Routledge.
Hicks, R. C., Dattero, R., & Galup, S. D. (2006). The five-tier knowledge manage-ment hierarchy.Journal of Knowledge Management,10(1), 19–31. doi:10.1108/13 673270610650076
Houghton, J., & Sheehan, P. (2000). A primer on the knowledge economy. CSEF Working Paper No. 18. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Melbourne City, Australia. Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/59/1/wp18_2000_houghton_
sheehan.pdf
International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal wellbeing index (5th ed.).
Melbourne: Deakin University, Australian Centre on Quality of Life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/index.php
Khveshchanka, S., & Mainka, A. (2011). Informational cities as urban centers of the knowledge era. In S. Marni (Ed.),My ideal city: Scenarios for the European city of the 3rd millennium(pp. 117 122). Venice, Italy: Universita` Iuav di Venezia.
Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/836958/Informational_cities_as_
urban_centers_of_the_knowledge_era
Kostagiolas, P. A., & Asonitis, S. (2009). Intangible assets for academic libraries:
Definitions, categorization and an exploration of management issues. Library Management,30(6/7), 419 429.
Kra¨tke, S. (2011). The creative capital of cities: Interactive knowledge creation and the urbanization economies of innovation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
111 Librarians in a Knowledge Society
LaGanza, W. (2012).Knowledge facilitation and power: Breaking the knowledge ceiling.
Paris: Proactiv Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.proactivknowledge.com/
william-laganza-ph-d-knowledge-facilitation-and-power
Lankes, R. D. (2011).The atlas of new librarianship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated.
Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
Lin, B. C. (2007). A new vision of the knowledge economy. Journal of Economic Surveys,21(3), 553 584. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00514.x
Lor, P. J., & Britz, J. J. (2007). Challenges of the approaching knowledge society:
Major international issues facing LIS professionals. Libri, 57(3), 111 122.
doi:10.1515/LIBR.2007.111
Lundvall, B. A., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies,1(2), 23 42. doi:10.1080/13662719400000002
Lux, C. (2009).Libraries in the knowledge society: Visions for the future. Retrieved from http://www.ndl.go.jp/en/publication/ndl_newsletter/167/lux_167_673.pdf Mainka, A., Hartman, S., Orszullok, L., Peters, I., Stallmann, A., & Stock, W. G.
(2013). Public libraries in the knowledge society: Core services of libraries in informational world cities.Libri,63(4), 295 319. doi:10.1515/libri-2013-2014 Malhotra, Y. (2003).Measuring knowledge assets of a nation: Knowledge systems for
develop-ment. Research paper prepared for the United Nations Advisory Meeting of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management. United Nations, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan011601.pdf Mann, C. L., & Rosen, D. H. (2001).The new economy and APEC. Washington, DC:
Institute for International Economics.
Minton, S., & Glasheen, C. M. (2010). Information society index 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=224064
O’Mara, M. P. (2005).Cities of knowledge: Cold war science and the search for the next Silicon Valley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Oppenheim, C., & Smithson, D. (1999). What is the hybrid library? Journal of Information Science,25(2), 97 112. doi:10.1177/016555159902500202
Organisation for Economic Co-operative Development. (2002).Measuring the infor-mation economy. Paris: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/
1835738.pdf
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999).The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Public libraries of New Zealand. (2012). A strategic framework, 2012-2017.
Wellington, NZ: Local Government New Zealand and The Association of Public Library Managers. Retrieved from http://www.publiclibraries.co.nz/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/NZ_Public_Libraries_Strategic_Framework.pdf
Robertson, S. (2000). The digital city’s public library: Support for community building and knowledge sharing. In T. Ishida & K. Isbister (Eds.),Digital cities:
Technologies, experiences, and future perspectives (pp. 246 260). New York, NY:
Springer.
Roos, J. (1998). Exploring the concept of intellectual capital (IC). Long Range Planning: Journal of Strategic Management, 31(I), 150 153. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(97)87431-6
Roos, J., Roos, G., & Dragonetti, N. G. (1998).Intellectual capital: Navigating in the new business landscape. New York, NY: New York University Press.
112 Denise A. D. Bedford et al.
Roth, J., & Styhre, A. (2002). Knowledge facilitation at AstraZenica. European Academy of Management Conference Stockholm, Sweden, May 9 11. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ibrarian.net/navon/page.jsp?paperid=3320545&searchTerm=bc +offices
Schwab, K. (2010). Growth competitiveness report 2010 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.
org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf
Skyrme, D. J., & Amidon, D. M. (1998). New measures of success. Journal of Business Strategy,19(1), 20 24.doi:10.1108/eb039905
Smith, K. (2002).What is the ‘knowledge economy’? Knowledge intensity and distributed knowledge bases. Discussion Paper No. 2002-6. The United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies, Maastricht, Netherlands. Retrieved fromhttp://
eprints.utas.edu.au/1235/1/2002-6.pdf
Stewart, T. A. (1991). Brainpower intellectual capital is becoming corporate America’s most valuable asset and can be its sharpest competitive weapon.
Fortune, June 3, p. 44. Retrieved from http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/
fortune/fortune_archive/1991/06/03/75096/index.htm
Stewart, T. A. (1997).Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sveiby, K-E. (2000). Measuring intangibles and intellectual capital. In Knowledge management: Classic and contemporary works(pp. 337 354). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic and policy dimensions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thorhauge, J. (2010). Denmark: The public library in the knowledge society.
Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, 43(2), 4 7. Retrieved fromhttp://slq.nu/?
article=denmark-the-public-libraries-in-the-knowledge-society
Thornton, S., & McCracken, C. (2005). Putting the human touch into knowledge management.Vine,35(3), 149 155. doi:10.1108/03055720510700645
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?Journal of Management Studies,38(7), 973 993. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00268
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2002). Towards a knowledge-based economy: Regional assessment report, country readiness assessment report. New York, NY: UNECE. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unece.org/ie/enterp/documents/
coverpagregion.pdf
Wah, C. P., & N. L. Choh. (2008). Libraries without borders: Content delivery, Singapore style. Paper presented at the 74th IFLA General Conference and Council, Que´bec, Canada. Retrieved from archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/papers/074-Wah_Choh-en.pdf
Winkler, A. (2014). Arlington Virginia: Visualized as a knowledge city. Student Research Paper. Kent State University, Information Architecture and Knowledge Management, Kent, OH.
Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., & Rainie, L. (2014). From distant admirers to library lovers—and beyond: A typology of public library engagement in America. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/
13/library-engagement-typology/
113 Librarians in a Knowledge Society
This page intentionally left blank
Open Peer Review: Fast Forward for a New Science
Samir Hachani
Department of Library and Documentary Sciences, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Algiers’ University 2, Algeria
Abstract
Peer review has been with humans for a long time. Its effective inception dates back to World War II resulting information overload, which imposed a quantitative and qualitative screening of publications. Peer review was beset by a number of accusations and critics lar-gely from the biases and subjective aspects of the process including the secrecy in which the processes became standard. Advent of the Internet in the early 1990s provided a manner to open peer review up to make it more transparent, less iniquitous, and more objective. This chapter investigates whether this openness led to a more objective manner of judging scienti-fic publications. Three sites are examined: Electronic Transactions on Artiscienti-ficial Intelligence (ETAI), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), and Faculty of 1000 (F1000). These sites practice open peer review wherein reviewers and authors and their reviews and rebuttals are available for all to see. The chapter examines the different steps taken to allow reviewers and authors to interact and how this allows for the entire community to participate. This new prepublication reviewing of papers has to some extent, alleviated the biases that were previously preponderant and, furthermore, seems to give positive results and feedback.
Although recent, experiences seem to have elicited scientists’ acceptance because openness allows for a more objective and fair judgment of research and scholarship. Yet, it will undoubtedly lead to new questions which are examined in this chapter.
Keywords:Peer review; traditional review biases; Faculty of 1000; Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence; Atmospheric and Chemistry Proceedings
I. Introduction
Peer review has been with us as long as human beings have tried to commu-nicate. We all try to get approval from others just by talking, moving, and undertaking actions. If this kind of approval is done unconsciously on a daily basis, science on the other hand seeks such approval explicitly by
CURRENT ISSUES IN LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SCIENCE AND RELATED FIELDS ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP, VOL. 39
r2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN: 0065-2830
DOI:10.1108/S0065-283020150000039012 115
relying heavily on peer review to advance on a solid and agreed upon basis.
Scientists or researchers advance and are promoted on the basis of their work according to their papers, chapters, books, inventions, and research. It is like an intellectual competition in which only the brightest who present the most valuable works are rewarded. This is why editors, key players in the journal publication process, and referees have been called “the linchpin about which the whole business of Science is pivoted” (Ziman, 1968, p. 111) or “Gatekeepers of science” (Crane, 1967, p. 195). All of this shows the importance and ineluctability of peer review in the conduct of science.
Consequently, and also as a result of it, peer review has been subjected to a wide and quarrelsome body of literature, most of it criticizing its imple-mentation. Among the numerous issues mentioned are inadequacy of reviews, slowness of the process, rejection of innovative results, generally conservative biases, and the secrecy in which reviews have been conducted in a paper-oriented and pre-networked world.
When one says secrecy, one thinks automatically about impunity and cronyism. One thinks also about a possible old boy network exchanging favors to advance each other’s agendas. All this has changed with the advent of the networks, mainly the Internet, allowing for increased openness and less manipulation. Peer review, as a result, is performed practically live on the Internet by whole communities of researchers and not by chosen refer-ees. Has this new way of undertaking peer review changed the way it is con-ducted? Has it made it more equitable, just, and more fair? Does this openness allowed by the Internet consist only of advantages? This open pro-cess is quite recent and still in experimental stages, with only a few sites and domains having undertaken it. Among these, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), and Faculty of 1000 (F1000), have been highly active in promoting complete openness of the process. This chapter presents these three sites as prototypes of what peer review could be like in the future and which, in fact, have begun in some domains and areas of research.