Free Journal Network

“The purpose of this site is to promote scholarly journals run according to the Fair Open Access model (roughly, journals that are controlled by the scholarly community, and have no financial barriers to readers and authors – see the Fair Open Access Principles for full details). Such journals have a long history. Many are of high procedural quality, but  are less well known than commercial journals of similar or lower quality.

One main aim of this site is to help such journals to coordinate their efforts to accelerate the creation of a journal ecosystem that will out-compete the commercially controlled journals. Such efforts are complementary to the work of discipline-based organizations such as LingOAMathOAPsyOA, and the overarching FOAA, that focus primarily on converting commercially controlled subscription journals to Fair Open Access….”

Reducing Bias in Scientific Publication through an Open Access Repository

Abstract:  Heuristics (or intuitions), while quite often helpful, can lead to mistakes when they are not fit for a particular environment. As a result, heuristics can be detrimental to a scientific endeavor, where the researcher is expected to remain as accurate, impartial, and logical as possible. This tendency of individuals to use faulty intuitions is one of the main reasons for the existence of a peer-review process in academe. Due to the current system of journal publication and peerreview, however, there is a high potential for bias in scientific publishing. Researchers may be risk averse, attempting to research that which they think will receive funding and get published. “Salami-slicing” works to increase one’s publication count, only publishing novel and positive results, and overselling the impacts of results have all become common practices to get ahead. Referees in the journal peer-review process may also be biased in their assessments of what research meets their standards. Journals that do not accept replication studies, articles that go against the prevailing paradigm, or experiments that do not meet the .05 statistical significance cut-off inadvertently skew the scientific knowledgebase. Possible solutions to the biases in the current system of journal publishing and peer-review will be considered, particularly the acceptance of a centralized open access repository. If researchers utilize one repository that collects all research and publishes before the review process, biases concerning publication may be avoided entirely and the quality of research may be assessed after the fact. Instead of one bias that is enforced, postpublication review may allow for a proliferation of paradigms to emerge. One commonly used and agreed upon centralized open access repository would also allow for new journals to arise that are more domain-specific. Such a solution would increase the speed of discovery, innovation, and greatly facilitate scientific advancement.

Weaving a Semantic Web across OSS repositories: unleashing a new potential for academia and practice

Abstract:  Several public repositories and archives of “facts” about libre software projects, maintained either by open source communities or by research communities, have been flourishing over the Web in the recent years. These have enable new analysis and support new quality assurance tasks.

This paper presents some complementary existing tools, projects and models proposed both by OSS actors or research initiatives, that are likely to lead to useful future developments in terms of study of the FLOSS phenomenon, and also to the very practitioners in the FLOSS development projects, provided that interoperability is fostered at all places.

A goal of the research conducted within the HELIOS project, is to address bugs traceability issues. For that, we investigate the potential of using Semantic Web technologies in navigating between many different bugtracker systems scattered all over the open source ecosystem.

By using Semantic Web techniques, it is possible to interconnect the databases containing data about open-source software projects development, hence letting OSS partakers identify resources, annotate them, and further interlink them using dedicated properties, collectively designing a distributed semantic graph. Such links expressed with standard Semantic techniques are paving the way to new applications (including ones meant for “end-users”). For instance this may have an impact on the way research efforts are conducted (less fragmented), and could also be used by development communities to improve Quality Assurance tasks.

Weaving a Semantic Web across OSS repositories: unleashing a new potential for academia and practice

Abstract:  Several public repositories and archives of “facts” about libre software projects, maintained either by open source communities or by research communities, have been flourishing over the Web in the recent years. These have enable new analysis and support new quality assurance tasks.

This paper presents some complementary existing tools, projects and models proposed both by OSS actors or research initiatives, that are likely to lead to useful future developments in terms of study of the FLOSS phenomenon, and also to the very practitioners in the FLOSS development projects, provided that interoperability is fostered at all places.

A goal of the research conducted within the HELIOS project, is to address bugs traceability issues. For that, we investigate the potential of using Semantic Web technologies in navigating between many different bugtracker systems scattered all over the open source ecosystem.

By using Semantic Web techniques, it is possible to interconnect the databases containing data about open-source software projects development, hence letting OSS partakers identify resources, annotate them, and further interlink them using dedicated properties, collectively designing a distributed semantic graph. Such links expressed with standard Semantic techniques are paving the way to new applications (including ones meant for “end-users”). For instance this may have an impact on the way research efforts are conducted (less fragmented), and could also be used by development communities to improve Quality Assurance tasks.

Open Science Comes To Policy Analysis – CEGA – Medium

“This post is co-authored by Fernando Hoces de la Guardia, BITSS postdoctoral scholar, along with Sean Grant (Associate Behavioral and Social Scientist at RAND) and CEGA Faculty Director Ted Miguel. It is cross-posted with the BITSS Blog.

The Royal Society’s motto, “Take nobody’s word for it,” reflects a key principle of scientific inquiry: as researchers, we aspire to discuss ideas in the open, to examine our analyses critically, to learn from our mistakes, and to constantly improve. This type of thinking shouldn’t guide only the creation of rigorous evidence?—?rather, it should extend to the work of policy analysts whose findings may affect very large numbers of people. At the end of the day, a commitment to scientific rigor in public policy analysis is the only durable response to potential attacks on credibility. We, the three authors of this blog?—?Fernando Hoces de la Guardia, Sean Grant, and Ted Miguel?—?recently published a working paper suggesting a parallel between the reproducibility crisis in social science and observed threats to the credibility of public policy analysis. Researchers and policy analysts both perform empirical analyses; have a large amount of undisclosed flexibility when collecting, analyzing, and reporting data; and may face strong incentives to obtaining “desired” results (for example, p-values of <0.05 in research, or large negative/positive effects in policy analysis)….”

A New Study Found OER to Match and Even Outperform a Commercial Textbook | eLearningInside News

“A new study conducted by researchers at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia, Canada examines the performance of students using open education resources (OER) in both print and digital formats compared to a traditional textbook from a commercial publisher. The study found that students using OER spent less time overall studying for the class while scoring comparably with those who used a commercially published textbook.”

Push Versus Pull | April 2018 | Communications of the ACM

“The best consequence of the proposed Pull Model is access for all. It also introduces a free market mechanism for scholarly publications, whereby publishers must compete for institution submission subscription fees, by establishing themselves to be worthy outlets for dissemination, maintaining their reputation for quality, and preserving the integrity of the peer-review process. Lastly, it encourages institutions and their faculty to work more closely in assessing publication quality. With these ends in mind, the future of publications will continue to change, and the Pull Model, though disruptive to the existing publishing ecosystem, is one step to initiate a discussion on such a transformation.”

Europe set to miss flagship open access target | THE News

“The European Union is set to miss its target of having all scientific research freely available by 2020, as progress towards open access hits a “plateau” because of deeper problems in how research is assessed. Sixty to 70 per cent of universities reported that less than a fifth of their researchers’ peer-reviewed publications are freely available, depending on the type of open access, according to a survey of more than 300 members of the European University Association. 

Only one in 10 universities said that more than 40 per cent of their research was published as “gold” open access, where there is no delay making it public. In 2016, EU member states’ science and industry ministers, supported by the European Commission, backed a move to full open access in just four years. This latest survey asks members about papers published in 2013, 2014 and 2015, so may not capture all progress made to date. But it still concludes that to hit the 2020 target “will require greater engagement by all of the relevant stakeholders”.

This chimes with an EU progress report released at the end of February which concludes that “100 per cent full open access in 2020 is realistically not achievable in the majority of European countries participating in this exercise in the foreseeable future”. Lidia Borrell-Damian, the EUA’s director for research and innovation, said that “unfortunately [full open access] is very difficult to achieve” and that “we have reached a plateau in which it’s very difficult to move forward”.

Open access had taken off in some subjects – like physics, where the open access arXiv pre-print platform is widely used – in which “traditional indicators” of journal prestige such as impact factors and other measures of citations were “less relevant”, she explained. But in most disciplines, these measures were still crucial for burnishing researchers’ career prospects, she added, making it difficult for authors to switch to less prestigious, lower impact factor open access journals. “As long as it [research assessment] is based on these proxy indicators, it’s impossible to change the game,” Dr Borrell-Damian said. Search our database of more than 3,000 global university jobs

This is backed up by the survey findings. The biggest barrier to publishing in an open access repository was the “high priority given to publishing in conventional journals”, a hindrance cited by more than eight in 10 universities. “Concerns about the quality of open access publications” were also mentioned by nearly 70 per cent of respondents. In some disciplines, to publish open access, “you have to be a believer or activist” and it comes “at the risk of damaging your own career”, Dr Borrell-Damian said.

Echoing a long-standing concern in science, she argued that “we need a whole new system” of research assessment that does not rely so heavily on citations and impact factors. The EU’s flagship Horizon 2020 funding scheme requires grant recipients to publish their findings openly, but this was a far from universal policy for national funding bodies, she added. A spokesman for the EU Council acknowledged that “more efforts will be needed overall to accelerate progress towards full open access for all scientific publications”.”

What sufficient conditions allow editors to be comfortable with following the example of J. Algebraic Combinatorics? (#20) · Issues · Publishing Reform / discussion · GitLab

Discussion point: “confidence that a new Fair OA-compliant publisher is at least as good technically as the current one”.