Browsing by Subject "publishing"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    INDF: Efficient Transaction Publishing in Blockchain
    (IEEE, 2021-06) Kumar, Valli Sanghami Shankar; Lee, John J.; Hu, Qin; Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology
    Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology based on the underlying peer-to-peer network. In this paper, we focus on improving the chances of a transaction being packaged into a valid block so as to be recorded on the main chain. Blockchain nodes typically broadcast transactions they receive to the whole network. Hence, for recording transactions on the blockchain more efficiently, it becomes essential to determine influential nodes to publish transactions, where influential nodes are more actively involved in mining, recording, or broadcasting transactions in the network. To that aim, we propose an Influential Node Determination Framework (INDF) using a series of significant factors, such as hash rate, latency, active time, and degree of a node. Specifically, INDF consists of two parallel schemes: the first scheme figures out influential pools according to their hash rates where a truth-telling mechanism design is employed to encourage the pool nodes to report their true hash rate values; the second one determines influential individual nodes based on an improved L-H index algorithm. Remarkably, the proposed truth-telling mechanism is proved to be incentive-compatible. Our improved L-H index algorithm is comparatively studied to reflect the impacts of different node parameters on the node’s ranking. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Library and Information Science Research Literature is Chiefly Descriptive and Relies Heavily on Survey and Content Analysis Methods
    (Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2015-12-17) Coates, Heather L.
    Objective – To compare the research articles produced by library and information science (LIS) practitioners, LIS academics, and collaborations between practitioners and academics. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English-language LIS literature from 2008 through 2012. Subjects – Research articles published in 13 library and information science journals. Methods – Using a purposive sample of 769 articles from selected journals, the authors used content analysis to characterize the mix of authorship models, author status (practitioner, academic, or student), topic, research approach and methods, and data analysis techniques used by LIS practitioners and academics. Main Results – The authors screened 1,778 articles, 769 (43%) of which were determined to be research articles. Of these, 438 (57%) were written solely by practitioners, 110 (14%) collaboratively by practitioners and academics, 205 (27%) solely by academics, and 16 (2%) by others. The majority of the articles were descriptive (74%) and gathered quantitative data (69%). The range of topics was more varied; the most popular topics were libraries and librarianship (19%), library users/information seeking (13%), medical information/research (13%), and reference services (12%). Pearson’s chi-squared tests detected significant differences in research and statistical approaches by authorship groups. Conclusion – Further examination of practitioner research is a worthwhile effort as is establishing new funding to support practitioner and academic collaborations. The use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the results, particularly to international and non-English LIS literature. Future studies could explore motivators for practitioner-academic collaborations as well as the skills necessary for successful collaboration. Additional support for practitioner research could include mentorship for early career librarians to facilitate more rapid maturation of collaborative research skills and increase the methodological quality of published research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Scholarship Project: Reinventing New ways to Publishing
    (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2014-04-11) Bharali, Reecha; Labai, Laura; Balde, Abdulrahmane; Rajappa, Thejesh
    Publishing models have been under pressure with the increasing costs of the publishing industry. Professional institutions, academic presses and scholars pay exponentially for access to research. They are trying to find better publishing models with economic pressures and new technological possibilities of the 21st century. The Open Scholarship Project has proposed to come up to this need of the academic society. It objects to build an open access editing and publishing system. Its four unique integrated features- Diamond Open Access, Versioning, Open Peer Review and Badging propose to solve the need of Open Access publishing and editing. OSP as a platform would create tools and processes to provide scholars ability to post and review research online with no financial obligations while maintaining high standards of professional review. Moreover, OSP as a platform can solve the issue of fundamental problems of traditional models of peer review as bias, slow publishing among others. OSP Project is currently working on its marketing model. OSP is investigating into the markets and conducting interviews with its stakeholders to come up with a marketing proposal for the final product. OSP is reviewing its special place in the market along with competitors present for a sustainable OSP. OSP is looking into specific target audiences, marketing platforms, business plan and financial plan for the launch.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Twenty-First Century Design Scholarship
    (AIGA Design Educators Community, 2016-06-15) Ganci, Aaron
    Scholarship is a tricky thing for design academics, especially for junior faculty who are trying to build a body of work towards tenure. To stay relevant in a quickly changing field, we often fluctuate between creative practice and more traditional scholarly pursuits, all while attempting to build a cohesive dossier. At the same time, we work in an especially turbulent environment. Our institutions are under increasing pressure to define their worth and, in turn, are heightening their expectations around scholarship. The field is trying to distinguish itself (or not) from fine art, architecture, and others, muddying our dissemination outlets. Digital media is facilitating new and unproven outlets for publication. And, increasingly, the validity of our creative practice as a form of scholarship is under constant scrutiny. On top of this, we often enter academia under-prepared for the reality of serious scholarship and have to figure out what good work looks like as we go. Unlike other fields, the scholarship—and most importantly the writing—we do as graduate students does not necessarily prepare us for work as a professional academic. These factors all add up to cause many new design academics to struggle as they attempt to build a sound body of work. Luckily, we are not alone in this struggle. Our community of educators are all trying to answer the same question: what is good design scholarship in the Twenty-First Century? This roundtable will attempt to answer this question by bringing together academics with various levels of experience and from a diverse set of institutions. By opening conversation through the roundtable format, we can start to uncover the range of scholarship that is currently being done, how faculty are framing their work in dossier narratives, and how different types of work are being received by T&P committees. Each of our institutions will have its own set of standards and criteria but this discussion will start a dialog about our work that can help us all move forward as a community. One outcome of the conversation will be a plan to start an online community (via LinkedIn or a similar service) where design academics can continue the conversation about scholarship and post questions as they arise.