“Research experiences today are limited to a privileged few at select universities. Providing open access to research experiences would enable global upward mobility and increased diversity in the scientific workforce. How can we coordinate a crowd of diverse volunteers on open-ended research? How could a PI have enough visibility into each person’s contributions to recommend them for further study? We present Crowd Research, a crowdsourcing technique that coordinates open-ended research through an iterative cycle of open contribution, synchronous collaboration, and peer assessment. To aid upward mobility and recognize contributions in publications, we introduce a decentralized credit system: participants allocate credits to each other, which a graph centrality algorithm translates into a collectively-created author order. Over 1,500 people from 62 countries have participated, 74% from institutions with low access to research. Over two years and three projects, this crowd has produced articles at top-tier Computer Science venues, and participants have gone on to leading graduate programs.”
“There’s a vast trove of science out there locked inside the PDF format. From preprints to peer-reviewed literature and historical research, millions of scientific manuscripts today can only be found in a print-era format that is effectively inaccessible to the web of interconnected online services and APIs that are increasingly becoming the digital scaffold of today’s research infrastructure….Extracting key information from PDF files isn’t trivial. …It would therefore certainly be useful to be able to extract all key data from manuscript PDFs and store it in a more accessible, more reusable format such as XML (of the publishing industry standard JATS variety or otherwise). This would allow for the flexible conversion of the original manuscript into different forms, from mobile-friendly layouts to enhanced views like eLife’s side-by-side view (through eLife Lens). It will also make the research mineable and API-accessible to any number of tools, services and applications. From advanced search tools to the contextual presentation of semantic tags based on users’ interests, and from cross-domain mash-ups showing correlations between different papers to novel applications like ScienceFair, a move away from PDF and toward a more open and flexible format like XML would unlock a multitude of use cases for the discovery and reuse of existing research….We are embarking on a project to build on these existing open-source tools, and to improve the accuracy of the XML output. One aim of the project is to combine some of the existing tools in a modular PDF-to-XML conversion pipeline that achieves a better overall conversion result compared to using individual tools on their own. In addition, we are experimenting with a different approach to the problem: using computer vision to identify key components of the scientific manuscript in PDF format….To this end, we will be collaborating with other publishers to collate a broad corpus of valid PDF/XML pairs to help train and test our neural networks….”
The home page of the Open Access Tracking Project. “OATP uses social tagging to capture new developments on open access to research. The OATP mission is (1) to provide a real-time alert service for OA-related news and comment, and (2) to organize knowledge of the field by tag or subtopic. The project publishes a comprehensive primary feed of new OA developments, and hundreds of smaller secondary feeds on OA subtopics, one for each project tag.”
“Several studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable if not more reliable than more traditional encyclopedias. A 2012 study commissioned by Oxford University and the Wikimedia Foundation, for example, showed that when compared with other encyclopedic entries, Wikipedia articles scored higher overall with respect to accuracy, references and overall judgment when compared with articles from more traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia articles were also generally seen as being more up-to-date, better-referenced and at least as comprehensive and neutral. This study followed a similar 2005 study from Nature that found Wikipedia articles on science as reliable as their counterparts from Encyclopedia Britannica.”
“The Open Science Federation is a nonprofit alliance working to improve the conduct and communication of science. We are scientists and citizen scientists, writers, journalists, and educators, and makers of and advocates for Open Data, Open Access, and Open Source and Standards.
Get to know us at @openscience on Twitter, or in Google+, and elsewhere, with which we have connected the largest Open Science network in the world. We recently took up a count, deduplicated, and identified over 40,000 people and groups across our social network.
We do not intend to be at the centre of the Open Science community per se, though analyses often place us there….A network can be stronger than any one organization, and a federation of networks, stronger still. Thus we share access to our social media accounts with many individuals and organisations….”
“We are pleased to inform you that in May 2017, e-LIS : eprints in Library and Information Science migrated to a new hosting institution – the Federico II University of Naples (Italy). In 2018 e-LIS will celebrate its 15th anniversary ! Library and information science (LIS) researchers, librarians, students and research institutions are invited to search, browse and participate by depositing their own work in e-LIS !
Articles (pre- and post-prints), presentations can be in any language (abstracts and keywords should be also in English). Preferred formats are .pdf and .html, best suited for later retrieval.
All works deposited in the E-LIS server remain the property of the author who are responsible for the documents they archive. Authors have to ensure that the intellectual property of their deposited work is theirs and that no restrictions exist for digital distribution of the deposited work. The quality of the metadata of the submission is controlled by country editors.