Gaming the Publishing Industry

“Despite the potential variances of method and mediation introduced to publishing via digital platforms, scholarly print publishing in established humanities disciplines continues to rely on a number of longstanding traditions and habits of practice. These habits still privilege academic journals and scholarly monographs or co-edited collections, many of which remain largely inaccessible for purchase to all but well-funded academic libraries. To encourage a broader distribution, exposure, and uptake of our work to expanded audiences, there is a pressing need to diversify publishing opportunities, to circumvent some of the less-accessible venues of scholarly communication, and to overcome restrictive barriers to augmenting and enriching textual content in scholarly work via the inclusion of visual and auditory material (especially when exploring multi-media and multi-modal forms of cultural expression). One potential alternative can be found in the emergent field of digital game scholarship and criticism, which has developed along unique communicative and community lines and which offers unconventional models and diversified potentials for scholarly communication….

Given the challenges that dominant forms of academic print-based scholarship introduce to open-access intentions, it is useful to look for other models of community-building, sharing, and knowledge-production which might be better suited to interdisciplinary, multi-media, multi-modal, open-access explorations of cultural expression, while still allowing for scholarly rigour, peer evaluation, and debate. I’m particularly interested in the way that scholarly critical work on digital games is not just limited to print-based output but has evolved along with the emergence of the internet and social media platforms. Exploring this evolution as well as some of the more successful experiments therein offers a unique perspective on the possibility of alternative, open scholarly communication strategies for scholars who are concerned with the restrictive aspects of traditional scholarly publishing models….”

[2011.07571] Software must be recognised as an important output of scholarly research

Abstract:  Software now lies at the heart of scholarly research. Here we argue that as well as being important from a methodological perspective, software should, in many instances, be recognised as an output of research, equivalent to an academic paper. The article discusses the different roles that software may play in research and highlights the relationship between software and research sustainability and reproducibility. It describes the challenges associated with the processes of citing and reviewing software, which differ from those used for papers. We conclude that whilst software outputs do not necessarily fit comfortably within the current publication model, there is a great deal of positive work underway that is likely to make an impact in addressing this.

 

Containers, genres, and formats, oh my: Creating sustainable concepts by connecting theory, research, practice, and education – Brannon – 2020 – Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  This interactive panel brings together researchers, practitioners, and educators to explore ways of connecting theory, research, practice, and LIS education around the issue of information format. Despite a growing awareness of the importance of information format to information seeking, discovery, use, and creation, LIS has no sound, theoretically?informed basis for describing or discussing elements of format, with researchers and practitioners alike relying on know?it?when?they?see?it understandings of format types. The Researching Students’ Information Choices project has attempted to address this issue by developing the concept of containers, one element of format, and locating it within a descriptive taxonomy of other format elements based on well?established theories from the field of Rhetorical Genre Studies. This panel will discuss how this concept was developed and implemented in a multi?institutional, IMLS?grant?funded research project and how panelists are currently deploying and planning to deploy this concept in their own practice. Closing the loop in this way creates sustainable concepts that build a stronger field overall.

 

A web-native approach to open source scientific publishing | Opensource.com

“This summer, eLife was pleased to launch Executable Research Articles (ERAs) in partnership with Stencila, allowing authors to post computationally reproducible versions of their published papers in the open-access journal.

The open source ERA technology stack delivers a truly web-native format that treats live, interactive code as a first-class asset. It was developed to address current challenges around reproducing and reusing published results—challenges mostly caused by the lack of infrastructure for publishers to showcase the richness and sophistication of the computational methods used by researchers in their work.

As part of its mission to transform research communication, eLife invests in open source technology innovation to modernize the infrastructure for science publishing and improve online tools for sharing, using, and interacting with new results. The organization began work on the concept of computationally reproducible papers in 2017, first in partnership with Substance and later, with Stencila, and announced a number of milestones along the road to delivering ERA….”

A web-native approach to open source scientific publishing | Opensource.com

“This summer, eLife was pleased to launch Executable Research Articles (ERAs) in partnership with Stencila, allowing authors to post computationally reproducible versions of their published papers in the open-access journal.

The open source ERA technology stack delivers a truly web-native format that treats live, interactive code as a first-class asset. It was developed to address current challenges around reproducing and reusing published results—challenges mostly caused by the lack of infrastructure for publishers to showcase the richness and sophistication of the computational methods used by researchers in their work.

As part of its mission to transform research communication, eLife invests in open source technology innovation to modernize the infrastructure for science publishing and improve online tools for sharing, using, and interacting with new results. The organization began work on the concept of computationally reproducible papers in 2017, first in partnership with Substance and later, with Stencila, and announced a number of milestones along the road to delivering ERA….”

Help me redesign the scientific paper | Dynamic Ecology

“If scientists spend taxpayer money to generate irreproducible results, the public’s logical response should be to either withhold funds or demand a new process that emphasizes reproducibility….

Collaborative Independent Review is one way that funders, journals and scientists could implement a more reproducible paper….

Welcome to a new ERA of reproducible publishing | Labs | eLife

“Since 2017, we have been working on the concept of computationally reproducible papers. The open-source suite of tools that started life as the Reproducible Document Stack is now live on eLife as ERA, the Executable Research Article, delivering a truly web-native format for taking published research to a new level of transparency, reproducibility and interactivity.

From today, authors with a published eLife paper can register their interest to enrich their published work with the addition of live code blocks, programmatically-generated interactive figures, and dynamically generated in-line values, using familiar tools like R Markdown and Jupyter in combination with Stencila Hub’s intuitive asset management and format conversion interface. The resulting new ERA publication will be presented as a complement to the original published paper. Very soon, a Google Docs plugin will also be made available to let authors insert executable code and data blocks into their documents using the cloud service.

Readers of ERA publications will be able to inspect the code, modify it, and re-execute it directly in the browser, enabling them to better understand how a figure is generated. They will be able to change a plot from one format to another, alter the data range of a specific analysis, and much more. All changes are limited to an individual’s browsing session and do not affect the published article, so anyone can experiment safely. Readers can also download the ERA publication – with all embedded code and data preserved – and use it as a basis for further study or derivative works….”

Introduction to Democratic Openbook Humanism and LODLIBs | Zenodo

“Hypothesis 1. If we humans create and share LODLIBs for free with the world, those books will make us free individually.

 

Hypothesis 2. If we humans connect our LODLIBs with each other’s LODLIBs, that will make us free socially.

 

Hypothesis 3. If we humans demand that enslaved digital books become LODLIBs, too, then that will make the whole world and almost all of its knowledge free.

 

Put all three into practice, and the vast majority of scientific and cultural knowledge can truly become universal, which is exactly what it should be. That’s one of the foundational principles of librarianship….

 

A LODLIB is a Linked Open Data Living Informational Book….”

Cambridge scientist ‘breaks up the old-fashioned academic paper’ | Research Information

“Over the past two years, Freeman has been working on Octopus, an alternative publishing model that divides the various elements of publishing into eight different steps. This model allows for all the complexities and failures that are part of research to be published as part of the final output. Researchers will no longer have to cram all their work, often accrued over many years, into simplified, easy-to-read articles.

Freeman says: ‘Each of these mini publications will be publishable instantly, rather than submitted for peer review and selected by editors first. This way, research can be instantly in the public domain to be both reviewed and rated by all, speeding up research and solving some of the problems of the existing peer review process. The model will also credit researchers for their individual contributions and offer a tangible solution to the reproducibility crisis.’

For instance, Octopus allows for people who are specialists in research design to publish stand-alone protocols, those who have collected data to publish it (regardless of the size of the data), and for researchers specialised in analysing data to publish statistical analyses of data published by others. Each of these publications would be reviewed independently. This creates quality control through greater collaboration, and specialisation related to each step….”

Cambridge scientist ‘breaks up the old-fashioned academic paper’ | Research Information

“Over the past two years, Freeman has been working on Octopus, an alternative publishing model that divides the various elements of publishing into eight different steps. This model allows for all the complexities and failures that are part of research to be published as part of the final output. Researchers will no longer have to cram all their work, often accrued over many years, into simplified, easy-to-read articles.

Freeman says: ‘Each of these mini publications will be publishable instantly, rather than submitted for peer review and selected by editors first. This way, research can be instantly in the public domain to be both reviewed and rated by all, speeding up research and solving some of the problems of the existing peer review process. The model will also credit researchers for their individual contributions and offer a tangible solution to the reproducibility crisis.’

For instance, Octopus allows for people who are specialists in research design to publish stand-alone protocols, those who have collected data to publish it (regardless of the size of the data), and for researchers specialised in analysing data to publish statistical analyses of data published by others. Each of these publications would be reviewed independently. This creates quality control through greater collaboration, and specialisation related to each step….”