Show newer

When scholars without expertise in infrastructure reform encounter the goals of the reform movement, such as e.g., replacing academic journals,

doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526634

they sometimes reflexively defend the status quo that served them well, e.g.:

“You ‘open’ wackaloons are forcing your revolution on us, against our academic freedom!”

I was asked to write a *one-page* cheat sheet with the evidence to counter such a reflex:

docs.google.com/document/d/1vj

Can you/we improve on that?
#openscience

Replacing academic journals

A major factor underlying several of scholarship's most pressing problems is its antiquated journal system with its trifecta of reproducibility, affordability and functionality crises. Any solution needs to not only solve the current problems but also be capable of preventing a takeover by corporations. Technically, there is broad agreement on the goal for a modern scholarly digital infrastructure: it needs to replace traditional journals with a decentralized, resilient, evolvable network that is interconnected by open standards under the governance of the scholarly community. It needs to replace the monopolies of current journals with a genuine, functioning and well-regulated market. In this new market, substitutable service providers compete and innovate according to the conditions of the scholarly community, avoiding further vendor lock-in. Redirection of funding from the legacy publishers to the new framework may be realized by a tried-and-tested incentive system: Funding agencies have ensured minimum standards at funded institutions by requiring specific infrastructures. These requirements, updated to include the new framework, provide exquisite incentives for institutions to redirect their infrastructure funds from antiquated journals to modern technology. At the same time and enabled by this plan, new, modern and adaptable reputation systems, long demanded by the scientific community, can finally be implemented. Ownership involves socially recognized economic rights, first and foremost the exclusive control over that property, with the self-efficacy it affords. The inability to exert such control over crucial components of their scholarly infrastructure in the face of a generally recognized need for action for over three decades now, evinces the dramatic erosion of real ownership rights for the scholarly community over said infrastructure. Thus, this proposal is motivated not only by the now very urgent need to restore such ownership to the scholarly community, but also by the understanding that through their funding bodies, scholars may have an effective and proven avenue at their disposal to identify game-changing actions and to design a financial incentive structure for recipient institutions that can help realize the restoration of ownership, with the goal to implement open digital infrastructures that are as effective and as invisible as their non-digital counterparts.

doi.org

Just saved myself a lot of space in this application I'm writing with the DOI shortener tool from the DOI Foundation 👍

@greenescientist
Any chance you can add OSF.io preprints?
E.g. DOI 10.31219/osf.io/bv86n

Vaughn Cooper  
Just (re)discovered Casey Greene's super "preprint similarity search tool". It did a great job for our recent #preprint. It uses a language learnin...

Why not "whenever they're not disorders of the thymus or gut or uterus or whatever other organ"?

Awais Aftab  
When are we justified in calling mental disorders “brain disorders”? I discuss Anneli Jefferson's excellent philosophical work on answering this qu...

RT @DrTomFrieden
People who received an Omicron booster were more than 18 times less likely to die from Covid and 3 times less likely to be infected compared to unvaccinated people, according to the latest CDC data.

How to slow down scientific progress

"Leo Szilard—the physicist who first conceived of the nuclear chain reaction and who urged the US to undertake the Manhattan Project—also wrote fiction. His book of short stories, The Voice of the Dolphins, contains a story “The Mark Gable Foundation,” dated 1948."

You can see the full thing at this link, but I've also taken a screenshot of an excerpt. 😬 🤔 😢

rootsofprogress.org/szilard-on

The scholarly "community should demand longer-term solutions that break up the monopoly of academic publishers"

From an ex-Nature editor:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/307095

even before we wrote that we need to replace academic journals:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526634

#openscience #OpenAccess

Very next day after the domestic terrorist attack in Brasilia:
- 400 arrests
- clear statement with the law and decree that are being put in place
- total condemnation of the terrorists by the conservatives
- "we're going after everyone involved: organizers, sponsors and politicians!"
- the governor of Brasilia was fire

Who's the banana republic now?
#arrestTheTerrorists #January6th

RT @nutlope
Building an AI web app that helps restore old blurry photos!

Dropping tomorrow and as usual, it'll be free and open source.

By @NeuroMinded !
---
RT @brembs
"we have conceded the curation and dissemination of scientific knowledge to those for whom science will be their second priority and who value important results over rigorous process."
Says former Nature editor:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/307095
#openscience
twitter.com/brembs/status/1612

The bivalent booster in people age 65+ compared with those who did not receive it, among >622,000 participants
81% reduction of hospitalizations (Figure)
86% reduction of deaths
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf

A very nice position paper by the ever-reliable Brembs et al

*Replacing academic journals*
zenodo.org/record/5793611#.Y71

"a modern scholarly digital infrastructure... needs to replace traditional journals with a decentralized, resilient, evolvable network that is interconnected by open standards under the governance of the scholarly community"

Replacing academic journals

A major factor underlying several of scholarship's most pressing problems is its antiquated journal system with its trifecta of reproducibility, affordability and functionality crises. Any solution needs to not only solve the current problems but also be capable of preventing a takeover by corporations. Technically, there is broad agreement on the goal for a modern scholarly digital infrastructure: it needs to replace traditional journals with a decentralized, resilient, evolvable network that is interconnected by open standards under the governance of the scholarly community. It needs to replace the monopolies of current journals with a genuine, functioning and well-regulated market. In this new market, substitutable service providers compete and innovate according to the conditions of the scholarly community, avoiding further vendor lock-in. Redirection of funding from the legacy publishers to the new framework may be realized by a tried-and-tested incentive system: Funding agencies have ensured minimum standards at funded institutions by requiring specific infrastructures. These requirements, updated to include the new framework, provide exquisite incentives for institutions to redirect their infrastructure funds from antiquated journals to modern technology. At the same time and enabled by this plan, new, modern and adaptable reputation systems, long demanded by the scientific community, can finally be implemented. Ownership involves socially recognized economic rights, first and foremost the exclusive control over that property, with the self-efficacy it affords. The inability to exert such control over crucial components of their scholarly infrastructure in the face of a generally recognized need for action for over three decades now, evinces the dramatic erosion of real ownership rights for the scholarly community over said infrastructure. Thus, this proposal is motivated not only by the now very urgent need to restore such ownership to the scholarly community, but also by the understanding that through their funding bodies, scholars may have an effective and proven avenue at their disposal to identify game-changing actions and to design a financial incentive structure for recipient institutions that can help realize the restoration of ownership, with the goal to implement open digital infrastructures that are as effective and as invisible as their non-digital counterparts.

zenodo.org

If we shift from publishing in journals to posting preprints...how do we get feedback on our work?

One group's solution is to create "Preprint Clubs", where communities of academics host regular journal clubs where they review and then post their reviews online: preprintclub.com

Preprints rated most favourably by the group are then featured in a participating journal.

via doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.04.522
#OpenScience #AcademicPublishing #ResearchIntegrity @academicchatter

'cuz "novel" means "lower prior probability."

An anecdote supporting data showing that higher-JIF journals are more likely to publish later retracted work.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.