A500.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Exploring the Hunt Library

          In order to understand what makes a resource 'scholarly' in nature, we must define what it means to be scholarly. There are a number of definitions provided by online sources, but do any offer a scholarly definition? Some definitions are,concerned with or relating to formal study or research' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholarly); '(of a person) spending a lot of time studying and having a lot of knowledge about an academic subject' (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/learner/scholarly); 'a scholarly person studies a lot and knows a lot about what they study' (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scholarly). It appears that a scholarly resource would be one that has been recognized by the academic community for previous, extensive work on matters that have been acknowledged as credible in scholarship; someone who has conducted very in-depth study, analysis on a particular subject, and recognized as such by a group of scholarly academic peers, such that the work may be acknowledged as scholarly work by the nature of its definition.

          Scholarly information found in the Hunt Library is typically researched, studied, and enhanced with analysis and review for meeting specific standards for publication as scholarly work. Such a site would be the 'Scholarly Commons' (http://commons.erau.edu/). When conducting a typical search for work on a specific subject in Google, there is nothing saying that the search results will be that of scholarly work. Then, of course, the question is how scholarly is the information, meaning that there are degrees of being scholarly, and is usually determined by the supporting research, and community. Further investigation on that, or those results would be required to determine if similar standards have been met, and that the work is acknowledged by an academic community as scholarly. However, this realization of understanding the difference, leads me to inquire about the one who did the work on the 'scholarly' submission. Does it require an acknowledged scholar to submit work of a scholarly nature, or can anybody submit 'scholarly' work without being considered a scholar? I would tend to think the latter based on it's definition, that scholarly work can be submitted for and accepted for publication on the merits of the work itself. However, wether the submitter is considered to be a scholar, or not in their own right, depends perhaps on the requirements, or standards of a given academic community; that is to say, the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the submitter's previous work. Also, realizing that there may be degrees of what is considered to be scholarly, there then must be the awareness of those assuming what is scholarly based on the presentation, and, or the location of the work found. An example of this could be "Junk Science, where predatory journals are also enabling the publication of much 'activist science,' publishing articles that appear to be scientific, but that could never pass peer review and be accepted and published in authentic journals"(https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/).

References:

Beall, Jeffrey (November 2014)."Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science". Scholarly Open
          Access. Retreived 2014-11-10.