First, identify the basic propositions in the field or sub-field you want to cover. To start small, identify the basic propositions you want to defend in a given article.
Second, create a separate OA web page for each proposition. For now, don’t worry about the file format or other technicalities. What’s important is that the pages should (1) be easy to update, (2) carry a time-stamp showing when they were last updated, and (3) give each proposition a unique URL. Let’s call them “proposition pages”.
Third, start filling in each page with the evidence in support of its proposition. If some evidence has been published in an article or book, then cite the publication. When the work is online (OA or TA), add a link as well. Whenever you can link directly to evidence, rather than merely to publications describing evidence, do that. For example, some propositions can be supported by linkable data in an open dataset. But because citations and data don’t always speak for themselves, consider adding some annotations to explain how cited pieces of evidence support the given proposition.
Each supporting study or piece of evidence should have an entry to itself. A proposition page should look more like a list than an article. It should look like a list of citations, annotated citations, or bullet points. It should look like a footnote, perhaps a very long footnote, for the good reason that one intended use of a proposition page is to be available for citation and review as a compendious, perpetually updated, public footnote. …”
Openness is central to the research endeavor. It is essential to promote reproducibility and appraisal of research, reduce misconduct, and ensure equitable access to and participation in science. Yet, calls for increased openness in science are often met with initial resistance. The introduction of pre-print servers, open access repositories, and open data sets were, for example, initially resisted, but eventually adopted without adverse effects to the scholarly ecosystem. The launch of the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) is facing similar obstacles. This initiative has campaigned for scholarly publishers to make openly available the references found in articles from their journals. Many publishers, including most of the large ones, support the initiative and have opened their references. However, the initiative still lacks support from a minority of the large publishers.
“Professor Feng Zhang’s original 2013 gene editing paper on CRISPR/Cas amassed nearly 2,400 citations in its first four years (1). In addition to publishing in Science, Professor Zhang deposited the associated plasmids with Addgene. Since then, Addgene has filled over 6,500 requests for these plasmids. While clearly an outlier, this story had us wondering: is there a larger trend here? Do papers associated with Addgene deposits accumulate more citations than those without Addgene deposits? Even more interestingly, could we tell if depositing a plasmid with Addgene causes a paper to get cited more? …So what do we find [from Web of Science]? Lots more citations for the papers with plasmids deposited at Addgene – typically about four times as many as papers without plasmids deposited with Addgene….”
The analyses show that, of 956,050,193 references from journal articles stored at Crossref, 486,041,671 (50.84%) are now in the category “Open”, and are freely available for third parties to download and use for any purpose.
This is a significant milestone for the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC, https://i4oc.org/), which since early 2017 has been campaigning for scholarly publishers to open their reference lists, and a major gain for the world of open scholarship.
“A collection of studies that have investigated the potential Open Access citation advantage. The majority, to date, have concluded that there is a significant citation advantage for Open Access articles. Much of the data here is sourced from The Open Access Citation Advantage Service, SPARC Europe (accessed August 2017)”
“The LOC-DB project will develop ready-to-use tools and processes based on the linked-data technology that make it possible for a single library to meaningfully contribute to an open, distributed infrastructure for the cataloguing of citations. The project aims to prove that, by widely automating cataloguing processes, it is possible to add a substantial benefit to academic search tools by regularly capturing citation relations. These data will be made available in the semantic web to make future reuse possible. Moreover, we document effort, number and quality of the data in a well-founded cost-benefit analysis.
The project will use well-known methods of information extraction and adapt them to work for arbitrary layouts of reference lists in electronic and print media. The obtained raw data will be aligned and linked with existing metadata sources. Moreover, it will be shown how these data can be integrated in library catalogues. The system will be deployable to use productively by a single library, but in principle it will also be scalable for using it in a network….”
“The channels by which today’s scholars discover relevant content are varied and wide. In this increasingly complex environment, institutions are seeking strategies to make their students’ theses and dissertations as widely visible and cited as possible. With EBSCO Open Dissertations, institutions and students are offered an innovative approach to meeting these goals by driving additional traffic to ETDs in institutional repositories. The program is free for authors and participating institutions with the desired end of making significant open-access content more readily discoverable to end-users within and beyond academic institutions.”
“This report presents the first major comparative analysis of usage data for OA and non-OA scholarly books, and provides an informed view of how a book benefits from OA publication. It also highlights the challenges involved in measuring the impact of OA on scholarly books and suggests that there is much to do across the whole scholarly communications network in supporting authors and their funders.”