eISSN: 3023-3267 editor@aimjournals.com
All Journals
Submit your article

Critique Open Research & Review

Open Access Peer Review International
Open Access

FROM STATIC TO DYNAMIC: THE LIVING LIBRARY AND THE FUTURE OF OPEN LITERATURE REVIEWS

DOI https://doi.org/10.55640/corr-v03i02-03
pdf
Dr. Emma Clark 1 ,
4 Co-Author & Open Access and Citation Management Expert, Institute for Knowledge Management, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

The Living Library is an innovative process-based tool designed to facilitate open literature reviews within the context of open science. Unlike traditional static reviews, the Living Library is a dynamic and continuously evolving repository of research, allowing for real-time contributions, updates, and collaborative synthesis. This tool harnesses the power of community-driven knowledge sharing, enabling researchers to contribute, annotate, and vet scholarly articles on an ongoing basis. The platform’s iterative nature ensures that the review remains current and relevant, addressing the fast-paced nature of modern scientific advancements. While the Living Library fosters interdisciplinary collaboration and accelerates the integration of new research, it also faces challenges related to information overload and maintaining quality control. This article explores the design, implementation, and potential of the Living Library to redefine the way literature reviews are conducted in open science, promoting transparency, accessibility, and continuous engagement in the research process.

Keywords

Living Library, Open Science, Literature Review

References

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Nielsen, M. (2011). Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton University Press.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22634
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175
Foster, E., & Traphagan, J. W. (2016). The Role of Open Science in Enabling Reproducibility and Transparency in Research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0006-6
Schmidt, B., & Gann, D. M. (2011). The Economics of Open Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Open data: Science in the open. Nature, 512(7513), 126-129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a
Rowe, M. P., & Cummings, P. (2017). Improving Research Reproducibility: A Community-Centered Approach to Open Science. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(2), 35-42.
Kraft, S., & Hitz, D. (2016). The Promise and Perils of Participatory Knowledge Production. Journal of Open Science, 4(2), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/jos.2016.11
Boulton, G., & Moedas, C. (2014). Open Science: A New Horizon for the EU. European Commission’s Science in Society Report.
Chen, C. J., & Langer, R. S. (2015). The Future of Science: Open and Collaborative Models. Nature Biotechnology, 33(5), 473-474. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3247
Wright, M., & Allen, L. (2017). Building an Open Science Infrastructure for Collaborative Research. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.035

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Similar Articles

1-10 of 24

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.