American Philosophical Association & Exact Editions Form Partnership For New Digital Book Project

“The new project comprises the digitisation of philosophy books written by APA authors and the posting of time-limited links to the complete books online through Exact Editions’ innovative Reading Room technology….”

Quantum Interest: Notre Dame restores forgotten letters of scholars’ physics debates

” “I had the whole series sitting in my basement,” Howard said, peering from behind stacks of books in his cluttered office on the third floor of Malloy Hall. And yet, “I hadn’t realized I had this rarity.”

He would know.

With a bachelor’s degree in physics and advanced degrees in philosophy, the former director and current fellow of the Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values at Notre Dame has spent his career exploring the history and philosophy of modern physics. He is a fellow with the American Physical Society. He co-founded the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science. And he is an expert on the works of the acclaimed physicists Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.

Still, a key piece of the collection — the first issue — was missing.

Leveraging his connections in the physics community, Howard issued a social media appeal for the fugitive newsletter. The appeal reached Howard Stein, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. A close personal and professional friend of Shimony, Stein happened to have two copies of the missing issue, Howard said, and gladly gifted one to Howard and Murgueitio Ramírez….”

Philosophers Assemble Archive of Obscure but Prescient 1970s Physics Newsletter – Daily Nous

“A Notre Dame philosophy graduate student, Sebastián Murgueitio Ramírez, who had heard of the newsletter, went looking for articles from it for research on a paper for a course, only to be unable to find it online, nor any hard copies of it.

Professor Howard had been a subscriber to the newsletter, and between his collection and the help of Howard Stein (University of Chicago), who supplied copies of the newsletter’s first issue, they had a complete set. Mr. Murgueitio Ramírez then decided the newsletter, which had been “‘printed in the crudest way,’ hand-assembled from mimeographs,” should be archived online, and began to scan them in. It took 18 months….

It’s a fun and interesting story, which can be read in its entirety here. The online archive of Epistemological Letters can be accessed here….”

PhilArchive: The Philosophy E-Print Archive

“PhilArchive is the largest open access e-print archive in philosophy. Formerly known as the PhilPapers Archive, it is built on and integrated with the PhilPapers database. Access to items on PhilArchive is free without a user account. PhilArchive is a non-profit project supported by the PhilPapers Foundation.

PhilArchive consists entirely of articles submitted by users. You can contribute by submitting your work….”

Why You Should Self-Archive and How to Do It | Blog of the APA

“First, self-archiving your AMs is good for philosophy. It makes it possible for researchers without journal subscriptions to access your work quickly and easily, which in turn helps them to make their own contributions to the field. For example, if there’s a paywalled article that I’m interested in, I’ll search for it in online repositories or check out the author’s website. If a self-archived AM is available, I can download it instantly and start reading and making connections with my own work. If no self-archived AM is available, then I email the author to see if they are willing to send me a copy. Sometimes the author is kind enough to send me their paper quickly, but other times my email goes unanswered and I never get to read the paper. This can slow down my progress on a project; I often need to email multiple philosophers who haven’t self-archived their papers. Some might say that the solution to this problem is to use Sci-Hub, but Sci-Hub distributes journal articles illegally and is allegedly involved in cybercrimes.

Second, self-archiving your AMs is good for you. It enables more people to engage with and cite your work and so can help you become well-known in your field. For example, if your paper’s title and abstract sound relevant to my work and I’m able to download your self-archived AM, then I can read it in full and potentially discuss your arguments in detail in my own paper. If you haven’t self-archived your AM, I might instead decide to discuss and cite ideas from a different paper that has been self-archived. Studies confirm that papers that are self-archived can have a significant boost in citations compared with papers that are not….”

Euporia

“Euporia is a platform aimed to foster the searchability and discoverability of Open Access philosophical resources and scholarly contributions on topics related to the philosophy of Open Science, digital culture and research ethics. Euporia pursues a twofold goal: to stimulate the use of Open Access philosophical literature and to intensify a critical discussion on Open Science and the impact of digitality on contemporary culture. Therefore the blog is intended to be a portal presenting, on the one hand, all the available Open Access primary and secondary literature in philosophy, and on the other hand all relevant contributions to the philosophy of Open Science, the philosophy of digital culture and research ethics….”

Euporia: a Portal and a Community under Construction. For the Philosophy, in Open Access | Euporia

“We are happy to introduce Euporia, the portal for Open Access philosophy and philosophy of Open science. The Euporia portal is still under construction but is you visit euporia.org can you can already get an idea of what this portal intends to be: a platform aggregating digital resources in philosophy for increasing their discoverability and fostering the dissemination in Open Access of new philosophical publications, as well as a place for discussing new developments concerning both traditional philosophical questions and, more specifically,  the impact of open science and digitization on academic work and human culture….”

Editorial: Open Science and Ethics | SpringerLink

“At first sight it seems to be self-evident that the ethics-community should embrace those open science principles unconditionally. Transparency, accessibility, and solving societal challenges are laudable goals. Understanding and solving societal challenges seems to be the core business of ethics: the theoretical branches of ethics aim for a better understanding of the practical and moral dimension of human life in general and applied ethics engages with possible solutions of urgent societal challenges. Thus, ‘open science’ seems to be the ideal context for ethical research to flourish. But as philosophers we should be a bit more reflective than just preaching the gospel of open science without critical remarks. In the following I want to highlight five possible pitfalls and problems around open science. The aim is not to frustrate the entire enterprise but to contribute to a responsible way of introducing the open science principles….

I think the opposition between academic freedom and open science is a misconception. Academic freedom is a necessary requirement for any research….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”