eLife and PREreview partner to promote greater diversity in peer review | For the press | eLife

“eLife is pleased to announce today a new partnership with PREreview to engage more researchers from diverse backgrounds in peer review.

eLife and PREreview – an open project aimed at bringing more equity and diversity to the scholarly peer-review system – collaborated on a number of new initiatives last year. These included live-streamed preprint journal clubs, which brought together scientists globally for a series of virtual discussions around research posted as preprints. eLife also supported the pilot of PREreview Open Reviewers, an online peer review mentoring program that empowers early-career researchers to contribute to scholarly review.

With eLife at the cusp of exclusively reviewing manuscripts deposited as preprints, the two organisations are now continuing their joint efforts to involve more early-career researchers, and researchers from communities that are traditionally underrepresented within the peer-review process, in the public review of preprints. PREreview will work with eLife to extend the series of preprint journal clubs and develop a framework for scaling the PREreview Open Reviewers program to reach more research communities globally. They will also help create new ways to increase the engagement and use of eLife’s early-career reviewer pool….”

What is “Open Access,” Really? – A Comic – HAZINE

“As a movement in information sciences, [OA] has been praised, but in our particular contexts, in mine as someone who lives in the Arabic-speaking world, I wonder about its limitations. What does “available for all” truly mean? 

What open access is can be defined by cultural factors, like language, history and even the significance of computer literacy. I presented on this with N.A. Mansour at the Digital Orientalisms Twitter Conference in 2020 in both Arabic and English. But we thought a visual medium might help us provoke thought on this issue even more. …”

What is “Open Access,” Really? – A Comic – HAZINE

“As a movement in information sciences, [OA] has been praised, but in our particular contexts, in mine as someone who lives in the Arabic-speaking world, I wonder about its limitations. What does “available for all” truly mean? 

What open access is can be defined by cultural factors, like language, history and even the significance of computer literacy. I presented on this with N.A. Mansour at the Digital Orientalisms Twitter Conference in 2020 in both Arabic and English. But we thought a visual medium might help us provoke thought on this issue even more. …”

It’s The End Of Citation As We Know It & I Feel Fine | Techdirt

” ScholarSift is kind of like Turnitin in reverse. It compares the text of a law review article to a huge database of law review articles and tells you which ones are similar. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that machine learning is really good at identifying relevant scholarship. And ScholarSift seems to do a better job at identifying relevant scholarship than pricey legacy platforms like Westlaw and Lexis.

One of the many cool things about ScholarSift is its potential to make legal scholarship more equitable. In legal scholarship, as everywhere, fame begets fame. All too often, fame means the usual suspects get all the attention, and it’s a struggle for marginalized scholars to get the attention they deserve. Unlike other kinds of machine learning programs, which seem almost designed to reinforce unfortunate prejudices, ScholarSift seems to do the opposite, highlighting authors who might otherwise be overlooked. That’s important and valuable. I think Anderson and Wenzel are on to something, and I agree that ScholarSift could improve citation practices in legal scholarship….

Anderson and Wenzel argue that ScholarSift can tell authors which articles to cite. I wonder if it couldn’t also make citations pointless. After all, readers can use ScholarSift, just as well as authors….”

Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication | helsinki-initiative.org

“Research is international. That’s the way we like it! Multilingualism keeps locally relevant research alive. Protect it! Disseminating research results in your own language creates impact. Endorse it! It is vital to interact with society and share knowledge beyond academia. Promote it! Infrastructure of scholarly communication in national languages is fragile. Don’t lose it!

The signatories of the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication support the following recommendations to be adopted by policy-makers, leaders, universities, research institutions, research funders, libraries, and researchers:…”

Burying Information: Big Tech & Access to Information

“As digital information becomes the primary source of information, particularly during the pandemic, sources of information can be blocked or amplified. Information can be used as a means for social mobility, economic and educational opportunities, and civic engagement. There are tools that can be used to help information flow. There are also effects afoot by big tech and biased AI to bury information. Join the conversation about the importance of using information to fight digital inequities, support democracy, and improve social justice. Specifically, learn about fighting misinformation with information through tools like CDL (controlled digital lending) & how technologist can create inclusive and empowering tools to provide access to information for disadvantaged and marginalized communities.”

 

Open Editors

“Open Editors collects publicly available information about the editors and editorial boards of scholarly journals through a technique called webscraping, whereby a script accesses the websites of the publishers to extract the relevant information. The codes (programmed in R) are available at GitHub….”

Open Editors: A Dataset of Scholarly Journals’ Editorial Board Positions

Abstract:  Editormetrics analyse the role of editors of academic journals and their impact on the scientific publication system. However, such analyses would best rely on open, structured and machine-readable data on editors and editorial boards, whose availability still remains rare. To address this shortcoming, the project Open Editors collects data about academic journal editors on a large scale and structures them into a single dataset. It does so by scraping the websites of 6.090 journals from 17 publishers, thereby structuring publicly available information (names, affiliations, editorial roles etc.) about 478.563 researchers. The project will iterate this webscraping procedure annually to enable insights into the changes of editorial boards over time. All codes and data are made available at GitHub, while the result is browsable at a dedicated website (https://openeditors.ooir.org). This dataset carries wide-ranging implications for meta-scientific investigations into the landscape of scholarly publications, including for bibliometric analyses, and allows for critical inquiries into the representation of diversity and inclusivity. It also contributes to the goal of expanding linked open data within science to evaluate and reflect on the scholarly publication process.

Podcast – Knowledge Equity Lab

“Introducing Unsettling Knowledge Inequities, a new podcast series exploring issues related to the politics of knowledge production, exchange and circulation and the structural, global power dynamics that shape it.

The Unsettling Knowledge Inequities podcast is presented by the Knowledge Equity Lab and SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)….”

The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Abstract:  Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of  sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.