Objectives: A conceptual Knowledge Management System (KMS) framework has been developed for analyzing and evaluating repositories and platforms that support the advancement of open science. Library and communications higher degree students tested the KMS framework, at an online workshop, by analyzing Epistemonikos, Europe PMC, and ResearchGate during an online workshop. Did the students find the framework a useful tool? What improvements to the framework were proposed? How could health library and information services benefit from the adoption of the framework?
Methods: The KMS framework was derived from action research undertaken during a Ph.D. program. The KMS framework comprises nine processes that are the foundation for biomedical knowledge; these include discovery, creation, representation, classification, storage, retrieval, dissemination, transfer, and translation. The design and evaluation criteria are achieved from auditing and aligning the nine processes with people, process, technology, and content elements of information platforms. This presentation focuses on the final cycle of the action research, which involved twenty higher degree students in applying, reporting, and summing up their experience of using the framework. Students were provided with links to reading materials to prepare for the session and they were allocated to one of three groups to evaluate either Epistemonikos, Europe PMC, or ResearchGate. The findings were tabulated using Google forms and Google sheets.
Results: Students responded positively to all of the feedback questions. For example, all of them agreed that the KMS framework can help with designing, analyzing, and evaluating open scholarship repositories. Even so, the verbal student summaries given at the workshop did raise some contrasting findings. It was evident during the verbal feedback during the workshop that the students evaluated the typical information service processes rather than taking an expansive knowledge management approach. Students spoke of traditional areas such as retrieval and representation and did not refer to processes such as transfer and translation.
Conclusions: Even though the student worksheet feedback was positive, it was evident during the verbal feedback session that the students focused on traditional, information services processes, rather than appraising aspects such as content discoverability and interoperability. It would be beneficial to test the KMS framework further and explore the opportunity to help library students and librarian practitioners adopt a wider paradigm for the analysis of information platforms and repositories. The KMS conceptual framework presents a new tool to critique open science platforms and repositories.