Marek Nahotko

Model of scientific publishing as knowledge organization

process.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is exploration of possibilities of knowledge organization (KO) approach to

scientific publishing. Resulting research model of KO in publishing represents relations between data

organization (DO), information organization (IO) and KO in cycle of scientific research process. The role

and place of knowledge organization systems (KOS), meant as metadiscourse tools is underlined. It is close

to Hjørland’s broader sense of KO (Hjørland, 2008, 86), where it can be treated as a social activity aimed at

assigning a specific organizational structure to some knowledge resources that facilitates users’ access to the

knowledge. This activity means, for example, the organization of information in the form of documents -

scientific publications, artifacts of knowledge - in the process of codification of knowledge. Furthermore, it

also includes the organization of documents in the society, their types, functions and methods of formation.

In this case, not information stored in documents are organized by the KOS, as in the narrow sense of KOS,

but the information and knowledge are organized in the form of documents with use of the KOS specific to

them.

1. Introduction

Creating the correct theories and models is one of the most important and

challenging objectives of science. Modeling in the information science is a common

way of presenting entities, processes and relationships. Many models are created for

both the process of publishing scientific research results and process of modeling

knowledge. John Mackenzie Owen writes about two types of such models: the first are

models, in which the conduit metaphor is used, with assumption that information flows

from the sender to the receiver through a conduit or channel. The author presented

several of such models (Mackenzie Owen, 2007, 80). Another type of the model are

cognitive models in which scientific communication is perceived as the process of

applying information that reflects the mental state (knowledge) of the author, in order

to change the knowledge state of the recipient. In this regard, dozens of different

models were created. Only the models and theories in the field of information behavior

were counted in number exceeding 70 (Fisher, Erdelez, McKechnie, 2005), and

certainly they are not all the existing ones.

According to Case modeling is sometimes associated with the formation of a formal

theory (Case, 2007, 120). Models, by the fact that they are often presented in a graphic

form, are easier to understand than the theory; they may also refer to several theories

simultaneously. They often also apply to issues more specific than theories. Both are

simplified versions of reality.

Scientific communication, including publication of research is an important element

of knowledge transfer among the participants of the communication process, which is

implemented through the information. In the easiest way communication may be seen

2

as passing thoughts, ideas and meanings being the content of information from one

mind to another by means of language, what is called empiricism (Piaget, 1973, 10).

With the development of philosophical and psychological research in the twentieth

century, empiricism was abandoned and replaced by a new paradigm, generally known

as constructivism, on which I based my arguments. Sanna Talja et al. give the

definition of constructivism describing it as a view that reality is constructed by the

individual mind, but in close relations with the outside world (Talja, Tuominen,

Savolainen, 2005, 81). In information science constructivism is usually placed within

the so-called cognitive approach, which is based on cognitive psychology and research

methods in social sciences (Cisek, 2002, 109). The main difference between this

approach and cognitivism is that the former mainly emphasizes the way in which

knowledge is actively created by the knowing subject – individual mind, to organize

internal and external reality.

The paper presents a model of scientific publishing as a process of knowledge

organization. It combines the results of previous research on the modeling of scientific

publishing as part of the research process and knowledge process, including

information behavior. Apart from a general model describing the flow of knowledge,

information and data in the publishing as part of the research process, there will be

presented two detailed models, illustrating the processes of knowledge and

information. At the end the role of KOS in the knowledge conversion into information

and codification processes will be described.

2. Basic assumptions

Model presented in this paper is part of a larger work on innovation and changes in

scientific publishing. Changes in this area result in decreasing usefulness of conduit

models due to a significant increase in the number of entities required to take into

consideration and complexity of the relationship between them. Therefore, it became

necessary to move to a higher level of generality of the model, whart I accomplished by

presenting scientific publishing processes as processes of knowledge organization

(KO), and the scientific publishing system as a knowledge organization system (KOS).

The first step in creating the model was to decide what to choose for the basic

entities necessary in the model, mainly data, information and knowledge and how to

define it. There is also a very rich literature on this subject (Bates, 2005). However it

was not my goal to create new definitions. For proper modeling of the organization of

knowledge in scientific publishing I have taken the following basic assumptions:

• Knowledge (scientific) is an inherent feature of the human mind, in such a

meaning, that it does not function in isolation from it; knowledge state is personal

characteristic of each individual and it changes all the time as a result of interaction

with the environment. Interactions are possible through data and information

internalization. Information becomes knowledge when it is processed in the mind of the

3

individual, and knowledge becomes information when it is articulated and materialized

in the form of text, graphic, oral or other code (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, 109).

• Data acquisition takes place in interaction with the environment without the need

for the participation of other researchers as senders. Stimuli from the environment,

including laboratories and experimentations are supplied to the researcher in the form

of data.

• Information is embedded in messages send between scientists (Wilson, 2002).

Due to the scope of my research the most interesting to me is the information contained

in the published messages: scientific publications, which are part of the formal

communication. However, an informal scientific communication also exist, based on

unpublished information.

• After the communication act is realized, the mental structures of sender and

recipient of information are always different, because of differences in the original

structures. Two people having identical structures of knowledge don’t exist (Wilson,

2002). In addition, reception of a message and the information contained therein is

affected by a lot of external factors, forming the so-called context of scientific

communication act (Courtright, 2008, 276).

• From the above definitions understanding of KOS arises: they are tools of so

called metadiscourse, used for the conversion of knowledge to the form that allows to

communicate it, namely to the form of information, utilized in preparation of

publication (text). The individual knowledge can be converted, disseminated and

assimilated with use of KOSs understood in such a way, in the sense becoming a social

knowledge. With this point of view KO covers an area of research that until now was

called scientific writing (Hyland & Salager-Meyer, 2008) and publishing.

• In the same way information organization systems (IOS) are tools for indexing,

retrieval and sharing of information contained in publications.

Model of data, information and knowledge transfer in the process of scientific

communication, presented in the text is a step towards abandoning the linear mapping

KO processes occurring in scientific publishing. Scientific publishing is treated here as

a process of codification and externalization of knowledge. During its implementation,

researchers must decide on the objectives, which the codified knowledge will serve,

evaluate knowledge because of its usefulness from the point of view of the objectives

and identify possible forms of information, useful for achieving the objectives. They

must identify the potential audience of the publication and appropriate medium for

codification of knowledge and information distribution and use of KOS appropriate for

this audience and medium. All these processes can be considered as the effect of the

application of KOS in scientific publishing.

Figure 1. presents the processes related to the organization of data, information and

knowledge in the course of the scientific process, mainly publishing, as part of

scientific communication. Processes related to the publishing were situated in the

4

center of the picture, within the yellow frame. They will be presented in more detail

hereinafter. In the model numerous transfers of data, information, metadata and

metainformation were included, as well as the role of context in the course of these

transfers. Scientific knowledge is the center of the proposed model, the transfers of

information and data are used to change of individual researcher’s knowledge state

(mainly its growth) and its distribution in the form of information. It is not a

hierarchical model, as most previously presented in the literature.

Fig. 1. Knowledge organization in publishing processes.

3. Knowledge

Figure 2. presents the research process described in terms of cognitive processes

occurring in the mind of the researcher. These processes can be described as being

performed in three stages: 1. information (data) → 2. knowledge (tacit ↔ explicit) →

3. information, what can be briefly summarized as follows:

1. Obtaining information (and/or data) on the basis of which analysis necessary

for the proper conduct of research are implemented by the researcher. Data

and information is usually derived from a variety of sources. While research

data are usually internal, i.e. are formed in the near vicinity of a scientist (eg.

5

in his/her laboratory), as it must be directly observed, and are not

communicated, the information is external, published resource, possible to

communicate. Data prepared for communication (processed) becomes

information.

2. Intellectual analysis and processing of the information and data obtained,

resulting in the formation of new structures of tacit knowledge. If the holder

of knowledge considers that it is properly worthwhile, he shows it to other

researchers (in the form of information) for the interpretation and external

evaluation (and for other purposes, resulting from publishing functions). The

stages of obtaining and analyzing are repeated many times, as shown by the

cyclic graph on the right of Figure 2.

3. The stage of knowledge externalization, where knowledge in a form suitable

for its externalization (explicit knowledge) is converted into information

possible for publication. At this stage, decisions are made regarding the use

of KOS appropriate for discourse construction.

Fig. 2. Tacit and explicit knowledge and place of KOS. Entities of FRBR model were used.

On the right side of the fig. 2 cognitive processes are shown in a more detail,

according to David Kolb (Kolb, 1984, 36) implemented in the mind of the researcher.

Acquiring knowledge is being done in the process of learning. Cognitive processes

implemented during the production of knowledge in learning are good described by

Experiental Learning Model (ELT) by Kolb (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, 195). This model,

6

representing the four main stages of solving problems and creating knowledge in the

human mind, is using the idea of constructivism, presented earlier. Two of the stages:

concrete experience and abstract conceptualization are associated with gaining

experience, two other: reflective observation and active experimentation are for

processing the experiences. Learning by experience is the process of knowledge

constructing, containing the creative tension between these four modules of the model,

corresponding to the requirements of the environment. According to James Zull, such a

model of knowledge creation is a reflection of the way the human brain operates and

the result of its structure (Zull, 2002, 18-19).

4. Information and data

The research process, regardless of the field of knowledge and research methods

cannot be considered completed until the results are disseminated. Scientific

communication, as a part of formal communication being an inherent part of every

scientific activity, may be executed only through messages containing information. The

information contained in distributed message (the publication) is then organized in the

process of organizing information, for what IOS are commonly used. Two persons who

have achieved similar understanding of the information and/or data, must have a

common basic knowledge, and thus the similarity of mental structures, although the

similarity is never exact.

Figure 3. represents the place of the IO and KO processes in a model of information

behavior; both in Fig. 1. are shown within the yellow rectangle. There are also three

stages: Knowledge → Information (Data) → Knowledge (new). This figure was based

on previously published models of information behavior, particularly the models of

Tom Wilson (Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1999), Brenda Dervin (Naumer, Fisher, Dervin,

2008), Barbara Niedźwiedzka (Niedźwiedzka, 2003) and Natalya Godbold (Godbold,

2006). It also has a resemblance to the DIK cycle (Tian, Nakamori, Wierzbicki, 2009,

79). Important role plays in the model the theory of anomalous states of knowledge

(ASK) by Belkin (Belkin, Oddy, Brooks, 1982, 65).

ASK theory explains the formation of informational need. According to the Belkin

theory, information retrieval occurs when the user finds the existence of the problem,

identifying the inadequacy of his knowledge. If the user’s state of knowledge is

adequate to the problems solved by him, the need for information does not occur. In a

similar way it is possible to explain the rise of researcher’s need for scientific

information creation. The state of a scientist knowledge who decides to become an

author is characterized by some type of anomaly, but this anomaly has opposite sign to

anomaly described by Belkin. As far as a scientist-user anomaly has a negative sign

(deficiency – a gap of knowledge) which the user is trying to compensate by seeking a

new information, scientist-author anomaly has a positive sign, because he/she obtained

the new knowledge.

7

Fig. 3. The place of KOS and IOS in model of the information behaviors.

In a typical situation, applied both to solve everyday problems, as well as research

problems Bertram Brookes equation is applicable:

K [S] + ΔI = K[S + ΔS] (Brookes, 1980, 131).

This equation expresses the functioning of interactive process between private,

inaccessible thoughts and mental structures of human and publicly available artifacts of

information (Todd, 1999, 11). Brookes equation in an interesting way was transformed

by Peter Ingwersen, who adopted some additional assumptions.

On the basis of the assumptions Ingwersen transformed the equation as follows:

pI → ΔI + K[S] → K[S + ΔS] → pI'

It means that the potential information pI is converted into information ΔI that is

mediated by the current state of knowledge K[S], transforming knowledge state into a

new state of K[S + ΔS] with effect (ΔS). Modified knowledge state can lead to the

creation of new information (pI'), potential for other users (Ingwersen, 1992, 31-32).

These equations relate to knowledge structures and the possibility of assimilation of

information by individuals. In science, however, it is necessary to look at these

processes in the context of the social environment where new information is created

when it has a novelty value not only from the point of view of the increase of

knowledge of the individual, but also some maximum state of knowledge in the area of

8

research. In the process of research data and information absorption is performed until

the increase of knowledge of researcher is so large that it exceeds the level of

knowledge of other people involved in the same research, which I marked as Kmax.

There is thus some critical knowledge level Kmax, beyond which the researcher decides

to complete the process of absorption of information (ASK-) and starts creating new

information (ASK+). Here data gathered in the research process is crucial, as it is the

value-added (new knowledge), as information allow to specify only until-critical

(current) state of the art. We can record the relationship:

Kmax[S] + ΔI + ΔD → K[S + ΔS] → ΔI'.

This means that if the ΔK > Kmax then I’ appears (a new information is created).

5. KOS

The main objective of this paper is to treat the tools employed to preparation of the

text for publication as KOS, allowing the externalization of author’s personal

knowledge through the creation and dissemination of information, transformed into the

knowledge of other people interested in the research subject. Despite the fact that

transfers of information are decoded individually, allowing for the development of

individual knowledge of recipients, the shared experiences within and across

disciplines (and therefore similarity of knowledge structures) are large enough to have

the opportunity to communicate (Bazerman, 1988, 26). In this sense, KOS in scientific

publishing are tools socially constructed in a particular community. Hence the growing

interest in academic writing has been accompanied by an interest in how academics

prepare texts rather than simply what they write about (Hyland & Salager-Meyer, 2007,

298). The question how is at the same time the question about KOS in scientific

publishing.

From this point of view, KOS is associated with the concept of metadiscourse, used

in research on the composition and structure of the text (Hyland, Tse, 2004, 156). It is

defined as a linguistic tools used for the organizing discourse or author’s position

definition with respect to both the content and the reader (Hyland, 2000, 109). Then the

creation of information is a social and communicational engagement between author

and reader, and metadiscourse is focused on ways used by the author in order to

determine his attitudes concerning both the content and recipients of the publication.

Ability to use KOS is part of the researcher profession. Every scientist is an author,

and every author must demonstrate familiarity with persuasive practices in his field of

expertise. It is necessary to know how to encode ideas, build justifications, construct

arguments in order to obtain a possibly large convince of potential recipients. It follows

that the appropriate use of natural language capabilities and in its particular subset –

specialized language of discipline can be regarded as the most basic KOS.

This type of conventional, socially recognized ways of using language in

metadiscourse theory are referred to as genres. The theory of genres is based on the

9

assumption, that based on the similarities and differences between texts, they can be

placed in different genres. In my opinion KOS can be treated as kind of genres. In such

a way KOS may relate to such text features, as adopted style, manner of presentation

and argumentation (Gross, Harmon, Reidy, 2009, 29). This assumption is based on two

postulates: 1) the similarity of the texts adopting the same KOS arise from the social

context of their creation and use, and 2) these features can be described in a manner of

binding similar texts with the choices and constraints of KOS affecting the creators of

texts. These assumptions are good reasons for arise, for example, analysis of the

structure of articles (=KOS), for distinguishing separate entities (like title, abstract…),

satisfying similar communication features (Harmon, Gross, 2010, 19). Every KOS is

associated with mind patterns known as schemata, constituting knowledge about text

types (Hyland, 1990, 67).

A method of operating of particular KOS depends on community of use. As

scientists create texts not to communicate with the whole world, but only with selected

individuals or groups, they apply methods and practices of communication common for

these groups (and distinct from other groups). This allows the conceptualization of

expectations, conventions and practices governing scientific communication.

Disciplinary conventions interact with the influences of national cultures, causing their

modifications.

6. Conclusions

The paper introduced the idea of KOS as tools for the creation, formulation and

spread of scientific knowledge – new ideas. These tools have already been the subject

of research, but treating them as one group serving specific purposes may facilitate the

development of the general theory. Putting in one model all processes associated with

the creation of data, information and scientific knowledge allows to indicate the

different stages of these processes and place of the elements taking part in them. At the

same time, the model proposed allows the rearrangement of the terminology used. Both

the KOS and IOS are the tools of knowledge used at different stages of knowledge-

creating processes, so they should to be studied separately, but with the awareness of

the proximity of these processes.

Model of scientific publishing as KOS aims to facilitate the description and

explanation of the changes taking place in scientific publishing as an innovation

activity from the perspective of the main actors: authors/users of published

information, who also are major providers of research. It must be assumed that their

needs will decide on the future application of new technologies in scientific

communication. At the same time ancillary roles of other participants in these

processes are also taken into account.

References:

10

Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy (2001). Review: Knowledge management and

knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues.

MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136.

Bates, Marcia (2005). Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for

information science. Information Research, 10(4).

[http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html]. Accessed 30 December 2013.

Bazerman, Charles (1988). Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the

experimental article in science. Madison: The Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Belkin, Nicholas; Oddy, Robert; Brooks, Helen (1982). ASK for information retrieval:

Part I. Background and theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2): 61-71.

Brookes, Bertram (1980). The foundations of information science. Part I. Philosophical

aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2(3/4): 125-133.

Case, Donald (2007). Looking for information. A survey of research on information

seeking, needs, and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Cisek, Sabina (2002). Filozoficzne aspekty informacji naukowej. Kraków: Wydaw. UJ.

Courtright, Christina (2008). Context in information behavior research. ARIST 41(1):

273-306.

Fisher, Karen; Erdelez, Sandra; McKechne, Lynne (2005). Theories of information

behavior. Medford, N.J.: ASIST.

Godbold, Natalya (2006). Beyond information seeking: towards a general model of

information behavior. Information Research, 11(4), art. 269.

[http://InformationR.net/ir/11-4/paper269.html]. Accessed 5 January 2014.

Gross, Alan; Harmon, Joseph; Reidy, Michael (2009). Communicationg science: the

scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette: Parlor

Press.

Harmon, Joseph; Gross, Alan (2010). The craft of scientific communication. Chicago:

Univ. of Chicago Press.

Hjørland, Birger (2008). What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? Knowledge

Organization 35(2/3): 86-101.

Hyland, Ken (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing.

London: Longman.

Hyland, Ken (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal

21(1): 66-78.

Hyland, Ken; Salager-Meyer, Françoise (2008). Scientific writing. ARIST 42(1): 297-

338.

Hyland, Ken; Tse, Polly (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal.

Applied Linguistics 25(2):156-177.

Ingwersen, Peter (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham

Publ.

Kolb, David (1984). Experiental learning: experience as the source of learning and

development. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, Alice; Kolb, David (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing

experiental learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 4(2): 193-212.

11

Mackenzie Owen, John Stuart (2007). The scientific article in the age of digitization.

Berlin: Springer Verl.

Naumer, Charles; Fisher, Karen; Dervin, Brenda (2008). Sense-making: a

methodological perspective. Sensemaking workshop. ACM SIG CHI

Conference. Florence 6 April 2008.

[http://www.dmrussell.googlepages.com/sensemakingworkshoppapers].

Accessed 25 November 2013.

Niedźwiedzka, Barbara (2003). A proposed general model of information behaviour.

Information Research, 9(1). [http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper164.html].

Accessed 5 January 2014.

Talja, Sanna; Tuominen, Kimmo; Savolainen, Reijo (2005). “Isms” in information

science: constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of

Documentation, 61(1): 79-101.

Tian, Jing; Nakamori, Yoshiteru; Wierzbicki, Andrzej (2009). Knowledge management

and knowledge creation in academia: a study based on surveys in a Japanese

research university. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2): 76-92.

Todd, Ross (1999). Utilization of heroin information by adolescent girls in Australia: a

cognitive analysis. Journal of ASIS, 50(1): 10-23.

Wilson, Thomas (2002). The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’. Information

Research, 8(1). [http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144]. Accessed 7 January

2014.

Wilson, Thomas (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of

Documentation, 55(3): 249-270.

Wilson, Thomas (1997). Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective.

Information Processing & Management, 33(4): 551-572.

Zull, James (2002). The art of changing the brain. Enriching teaching by exploring the

biology of learning. Sterling: Stylus Publ.