“In June 2018, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) charged a task force to look at Wikidata. The task force emerged from several years of discussion between ARL and the Wikimedia Foundation on where the two communities can effectively collaborate. The focus on Wikidata and Wikibase came from two points of alignment in particular: interest in linked open data for both library discovery systems and Wikipedia, and advancing a diversity and inclusion agenda in the cultures of both libraries and Wikimedia….”
We have built an astonishingly simple integrated system which combines those three distinct phases of the knowledge life-cycle. Besides being freely accessible to everyone, simpler and quicker than the current decoupled system, Qeios‘ most distinctive characteristic is that it’s been speci?cally designed to progressively increase the quality and comparability of the output produced with it….
Qeios can be read 100% free by anyone. There are no economic and technological barriers between knowledge and people with Internet access….”
“In this new Open Science article, we have explored an Open Source Database called Tabula Muris and how can it significantly contribute in the process of understanding disease for its prevention or cure….”
“After a coalition of European science funding agencies announced their Plan S initiative for open access, a number of researchers wrote an open letter criticizing the move, under the title “Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky”. To summarize, they fear that Plan S would increase costs, lower quality, and restrict academic freedom. In order to evaluate how seriously these fears should be taken, let me start with a 5-point analysis of the issues, before discussing the open letter’s specific concerns….
Why does the open letter worry so much about the “ranking and standing” of Plan S-subjected researchers, when the debate is about journals? The letter’s authors seem to accept the entrenched practice of judging researchers by the journals they publish in, although this is widely denounced as perverse. But it is not possible to significantly reform the publishing system without upsetting this practice, at least temporarily. If careers continue to be determined by numbers of articles in Nature or Science, then it is game over for open access and affordable publishing.
When it comes to open science, chemistry seems to lag behind fields such as physics and biology. The field’s leading publisher, the American Chemical Society, did not even join the Initiative for open citations. But chemists could welcome the opportunity to catch up. If you had no telephone and were offered a mobile phone, would you insist on installing a landline first?
The open letter has hundreds of signatories. Surely one could find among them enough well-respected researchers for building the editorial board of a new open access, affordable, high quality, generalist chemistry journal. They would not even need to do it from scratch: they could just start a new division of PeerJ or SciPost. Assuming of course that they really support open access, as the open letter claims in its first sentence.”
“As introduced in a previous blog post, COCI is the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI references, all released as CC0 material. It is our first OpenCitations Index of open citations, in which we have applied the concept of citations as first-class data entitiesto index the contents of one of the major databases ofopen scholarly citation information, namely Crossref, and to render and make available this information in machine-readable RDF.
We are now proud to announce a new release of COCI, the second, which now contains almost 450 million DOI-to-DOI citation links coming from both ‘the ‘Open’ and the ‘Limited’ sets of Crossref reference data. This represents an increase of 42% in the number of indexed citations, compared with the initial release of COCI on 4th June 2018, which indexed 316,243,802 citations involving 45,145,889 bibliographic resources. In addition, the data model for COCI has now been extended so as to state directly the presence of journal self-citations and author self-citations….”
One common criticism of the open access and open science movements is that they tend to take a standardised view of science and scholarship, and so propose one-size-fits-all approaches when advocating for ways of making research and the research process more open and transparent. This often poses significant challenges for, for instance, researchers in non-STEM disciplines. It is also often deeply problematic for those based in the global South.
“The architect of Plan S has argued that universities are to blame for early career researchers’ concerns about Europe’s proposed shift towards open access publishing.
Since being unveiled in September, Plan S has been backed by funding agencies in 15 countries across Europe and, most recently, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It will in effect ban researchers funded by these organisations from publishing in closed-access subscription journals, obligating them to make their work freely and easily available via open-access platforms.
But there is a growing backlash to the proposals, particularly among early career researchers who face particular pressure to publish in high-impact journals in order to further their careers….
One signatory of the letter told THE that she was considering moving to Germany or Switzerland – which are yet to sign up to the initiative – or even further afield in order to continue her academic career.
Eva Meeus, a master’s student at the University of Amsterdam and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said that she wanted to do a PhD in biochemistry “but it really concerns me that I won’t have the freedom to publish where I want if I stay here in the Netherlands”.
“While I support open access and believe it is a good thing, I think it could be delivered in a way which is less risky and destructive,” she said. “At the moment, I worry I will be ignored by international collaborators if my name is not published [in established journals] and excluded from projects because I cannot publish where they want to.”
But Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s open access envoy, disagreed that junior academics would be put at a disadvantage as a result of differences in global publishing cultures.
The real issue posing a threat to junior academics, he argued, was the “persistent culture” within institutions that encouraged evaluation of junior researchers based on where they have been published, not the quality of the actual publications….”
“As I have argued before, the post-journal academic world is here. We no longer have to build it. The post-journal era of academic publishing does not involve a radical change in the way we do our work, and it doesn’t involve a rejection of academic principles. On the contrary, it is an affirmation of those principles. It allows us to do more of what we have done in the past, and it allows us to do it better and more openly. Without journals, we can get more eyes on our scholarship to evaluate it and to drive our work and the work of others forward, and we can get our results and our thoughts out faster to those who need them.
The post-journal world is a natural evolution of the journal world, which itself was an evolution of the salon-science world. Each transition has allowed an increase in the number of participants in the scholarly process, an acceleration of our work, and an increase in the number of people who have access to its benefits. Journals reach more people than can fit in a salon, and blogs reach more people than can subscribe to journals. More, more useful, and timelier critique can come from a blog post than from a journal article or from a salon presentation….
The post-journal academic publishing landscape allows more diverse types of publication. The expense and the competition now involved in securing a slot in a respected peer-reviewed journal all but precludes several classes of publications that would otherwise be very important:
It is now next to impossible to publish a small interesting, and useful result. It must be part of a larger work which justifies the monopolization of a valuable slot.
Journals are notoriously uninterested in negative results. Yet, these are often very informative, and critically, they are often encountered by graduate students working as part of larger teams. Allowing the publishing of negative results overwhelmingly helps grad students who are starting to establish their academic credentials.
Replication studies are dangerously difficult to publish in traditional journals. …”