Open access in an age of surveillance technology – erin rose glass

“The free, public exchange of knowledge, scientific and academic knowledge in particular, is precisely the aim of the open access movement. It is a noble goal, and given advances in computing technology and its availability, it is a more realistic goal than ever before. However, as the movement continues to grow, I think the open access movement should be looking very carefully at the way information is being managed, instrumentalized, shaped, and monetized in the broader information landscape. Because academic knowledge of course, is a species of information, and thus it will be subject to the same pressures and instrumentalization….”

Researchers concerned as tech giants choke off access to data | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Social scientists should be skipping through a data paradise, delving deeper than ever before into the workings of our parallel, online world using billions upon billions of likes, shares, comments and emojis.

But researchers are sounding the alarm that the opposite is happening. They fear that their freedom to access and study this global data explosion is being steadily narrowed by the social media companies and platforms that hold the information.

 

The restrictions means that academics – and by extension regulators, the public and politicians – have little idea what is really going on online, be it fake news, extremist propaganda or Russian disinformation….”

Researchers concerned as tech giants choke off access to data | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Social scientists should be skipping through a data paradise, delving deeper than ever before into the workings of our parallel, online world using billions upon billions of likes, shares, comments and emojis.

But researchers are sounding the alarm that the opposite is happening. They fear that their freedom to access and study this global data explosion is being steadily narrowed by the social media companies and platforms that hold the information.

 

The restrictions means that academics – and by extension regulators, the public and politicians – have little idea what is really going on online, be it fake news, extremist propaganda or Russian disinformation….”

A Crisis in “Open Access”: Should Communication Scholarly Outputs Take 77 Years to Become Open Access? – Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan, Hadi Khaniki, Abdolhosein Kalantari, Mehrnoosh Akhtari-Zavare, Elaheh Farahmand, Ezhar Tamam, Nader Ale Ebrahim, Havva Sabani, Mahmoud Danaee, 2019

Abstract:  This study diachronically investigates the trend of the “open access” in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “communication.” To evaluate the trend, data were collected from 184 categories of WoS from 1980 to 2017. A total of 87,997,893 documents were obtained, of which 95,304 (0.10%) were in the category of “communication.” In average, 4.24% of the documents in all 184 categories were open access. While in communication, it was 3.29%, which ranked communication 116 out of 184. An Open Access Index (OAI) was developed to predict the trend of open access in communication. Based on the OAI, communication needs 77 years to fully reach open access, which undeniably can be considered as “crisis in scientific publishing” in this field. Given this stunning information, it is the time for a global call for “open access” by communication scholars across the world. Future research should investigate whether the current business models of publications in communication scholarships are encouraging open access or pose unnecessary restrictions on knowledge development.

A Crisis in “Open Access”: Should Communication Scholarly Outputs Take 77 Years to Become Open Access? – Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan, Hadi Khaniki, Abdolhosein Kalantari, Mehrnoosh Akhtari-Zavare, Elaheh Farahmand, Ezhar Tamam, Nader Ale Ebrahim, Havva Sabani, Mahmoud Danaee, 2019

Abstract:  This study diachronically investigates the trend of the “open access” in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “communication.” To evaluate the trend, data were collected from 184 categories of WoS from 1980 to 2017. A total of 87,997,893 documents were obtained, of which 95,304 (0.10%) were in the category of “communication.” In average, 4.24% of the documents in all 184 categories were open access. While in communication, it was 3.29%, which ranked communication 116 out of 184. An Open Access Index (OAI) was developed to predict the trend of open access in communication. Based on the OAI, communication needs 77 years to fully reach open access, which undeniably can be considered as “crisis in scientific publishing” in this field. Given this stunning information, it is the time for a global call for “open access” by communication scholars across the world. Future research should investigate whether the current business models of publications in communication scholarships are encouraging open access or pose unnecessary restrictions on knowledge development.

An assessment of transparency and reproducibility?related research practices in otolaryngology – Johnson – – The Laryngoscope – Wiley Online Library

Abstract

 

Objectives/Hypothesis

Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence?based patient care, and reproducibility of results is consequently critical. We sought to assess the transparency and reproducibility of research studies in otolaryngology by evaluating a random sample of publications in otolaryngology journals between 2014 and 2018.

Study Design

Review of published literature for reproducible and transparent research practices.

Methods

We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Specific indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices were evaluated in a blinded, independent, and duplicate manner using a pilot?tested Google form.

Results

Our initial search returned 26,498 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 286 met inclusion criteria and 14 did not. Among the empirical studies, 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%?3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3%?1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI: 2.7%?7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI: 1.7%?6.1%) were preregistered. None of the publications had a clear statement claiming to replicate, or to be a replication of, another study.

Conclusions

Inadequate reproducibility practices exist in otolaryngology. Nearly all studies in our analysis lacked a data or material availability statement, did not link to an accessible protocol, and were not preregistered. Taking steps to improve reproducibility would likely improve patient care.

Disruption Disrupted: The Great MOOC Die-Off –

“[W]e have an overpopulation of MOOCs that are in the midst of a die-off. I’m not saying that MOOC companies are dying off. As far as I can tell, Coursera seems to be healthy. (I have less visibility into EdX’s financial status.) What I mean is that previous generation of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard-style xMOOCs, having failed to achieve either their mission or their sustainability goals, are now being repurposed into other things. Because we don’t have better names for those things, we still call them “MOOCs.” But they don’t meet the definition of Massively Open Online Courses. Even the Stanford/Harvard/MIT definition….”

Disruption Disrupted: The Great MOOC Die-Off –

“[W]e have an overpopulation of MOOCs that are in the midst of a die-off. I’m not saying that MOOC companies are dying off. As far as I can tell, Coursera seems to be healthy. (I have less visibility into EdX’s financial status.) What I mean is that previous generation of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard-style xMOOCs, having failed to achieve either their mission or their sustainability goals, are now being repurposed into other things. Because we don’t have better names for those things, we still call them “MOOCs.” But they don’t meet the definition of Massively Open Online Courses. Even the Stanford/Harvard/MIT definition….”

Blogging as an Open Scholarship Practice | W. Ian O’Byrne

“I’ve found that blogging helps me in my scholarship in a variety of ways. There are also challenges as I strive to embed these practices in my everyday work….

When I submitted my materials for third year review at UNH, the first page of my binder included the URL and a QR code to the address for my main blog. I indicated that my binder would contain my publications, teaching evaluations, and service documentation. But that I believed my best work lived on my website, and it was an example of how I viewed my role as a scholar. My dean at the time ripped out the page at my review meeting and threw it away. She indicated that none of that mattered, and would only serve to confuse reviewers and my colleagues.

I learned a lesson that day. My work blogging as an open scholar was set aside from my work at the institution. If I chose to continue this work, it would (for the most part) not be valued in most/all of my evaluations. I have continued this practice, and have been motivated by others as they continue to write, share, and document their thinking….”

ScholarlyHub: Final Newsletter — ScholarlyHub

“Over the last two years we have tried and failed to raise the funds necessary to make a major and urgent change in the world of scholarly communications. That failure, we think, has more to do with our strategy rather than a lack of vision, desire, people, or material means to use the internet’s full potential for liberating scholarly knowledge from the chains of private interests and greed. Other initiatives are blooming and still others are sure to come. Perhaps in due time the right formula will be found to bring them all into fruitful communication with one another, which was in essence our plan.

We are grateful for your support and for allowing ScholarlyHub to become an important voice in discussing the future of shared infrastructures and pointing out what is currently undermining them, including a dangerous addiction on scholars’ part to prestige and facile metrics for gauging the quality and importance of science. We hope more people take stock of this situation and come up with more and shareable solutions.

BodoArXiv will transition into an independent service under its standing steering committee.

Our final balance will be available on our website until it shuts down in early October. Feel free to use any and all materials on the site, now or in the future….”