The topic of open citations was presented at the PIDapalooza conference and represents a third component in the increasing corpus of open scientific information.
After launching Flockademic, a service to help researchers start alternatives to the traditional publishers, one of the most frequent questions I received was: how is it different from Open Journal Systems, the Open Science Framework, arXiv, and other initiatives?
Sometimes it’s easiest to understand a project by comparing it to others. So with that in mind: let’s do a comparison. Continue reading “I want to create alternatives to traditional publishers. What platform do I use?”
Some folk are confused, but OpenCitations and the Initiative for Open Citations, despite the similarity of their names, are two distinct organizations.
OpenCitations (http://opencitations.net) is an open scholarly infrastructure organization directed by Silvio Peroni and myself, and its primary purpose is to host and build the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), an RDF database of scholarly citation data that now contains almost 13 million citation links. Continue reading “OpenCitations and the Initiative for Open Citations: A Clarification”
Half a year ago I quit my job to figure out what I could contribute to making academic articles freely available to all. In that time, I learned a lot, much of which I’ve documented on this blog. And now, I’m putting those learnings into practice. Continue reading “Announcing Flockademic: academic-led publishing”
Open access and the versioning issue — do we need to solve this?
One of the major issues with institutional repositories is that it is difficult to get researchers to self-deposit their work. Assuming one could wave a magic wand and solve that, institutional repositories still have another barrier to overcome — the discovery barrier.
With content scattered across thousands of sites, one would need an aggregator site to provide a one-search across all of them. Continue reading “Open access and the versioning issue — do we need to solve this?”
Two significant barriers prevent comprehensive reference availability through Crossref. Continue reading “Barriers to comprehensive reference availability”
Since 1st January 2018, Crossref has had a new reference distribution policy, described at https://www.crossref.org/reference-distribution/.
There are three possible options for setting the reference distribution preference from which a publisher can choose, these being ‘Closed’, ‘Limited’ and ‘Open”. Continue reading “The new Crossref reference distribution policy”
“As usual the open access movement has much to celebrate as 2017 draws to a close, and the whole world has much to look forward to from open access in 2018. As of today there are 4.6 million articles in PubMedCentral, thanks in large measure to constantly increasing participation by scholarly journals; sometime in 2018 this is likely to exceed 5 million. DOAJ added a net 1,272 journals (3.5 / day) and showed even stronger growth in article searchability; a DOAJ milestone of 3 million searchable articles in likely to come in 2018. The Directory of Open Access Books nearly doubled in size and now has more than 10,000 books from 247 publishers. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, the best surrogate for overall growth, continues to amaze with over 120 million documents, growth of 17.3 million in 2017, a 17% growth rate on a very substantial base; a 20% growth in content providers is an indication of the overall growth of the repository movement. arXiv’s growth rate was 10% while newcomer arXiv clones socRxiv grew by 187% and bioRxiv by 151%. REPEC grew by 13%, SCOAP3 by 32%. Internet Archive grew by 31 billion web pages, 4 million texts, 2.4 million images, 800,000 movies, and 600,000 audio recordings. Following are selected details indicating the content numbers at the end of 2017, 2017 growth by number, percentage, and where warranted, by day.”
Full data can be downloaded from here: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa
The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.
The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.
Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.
The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.
(2018) ““Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 74 Issue: 1, pp.137-161, https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092
Moving Beyond Open Access to Digital Fluency : The Opportunities to Create an Information Environment for Tomorrow’s Scholars
Mary Lee Kennedy, December 31, 2017
In my final blog post of the year, I’m going to talk about some of the developments in librarianship and the related domains that caught my eye. Of course, this is by necessity going to be personal and idiosyncratic from my point of view
“Obi-Wan: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!
Anakin Skywalker: From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” – Revenge of the Sith (2005) Continue reading “My roundup of developments in 2017 that caught my eye.”
While you may not be familiar with the term “Blockchain,” I’m willing to bet you’ve heard of bitcoin. The crypto-currency is getting a lot of attention lately, as some early adopters and investors are seeing massive returns.
Blockchain is the technology behind bitcoin, the system used to secure the currency. Rather than belaboring the details of how Blockchain works, suffice it to say that the system creates a secure ledger for the tracing of individual pieces of content or data. This article from Harvard Business Review goes into more detail – The Truth About Blockchain. Wikipedia also features an extensive and well-sourced entry on Blockchain. Continue reading “Microtransactions, Blockchain, and the Future of Publishing”
One of the major issues with institutional repositories is that it is difficult to get researchers to self-deposit their work. Assuming one could wave a magic wand and solve that, institutional repositories still have another barrier to overcome – the discovery barrier. With content scattered across thousands of sites, one would need an aggregator site to provide a one-search across of all them. Fortunately, Institutional (and subject) repositories were not only designed to collect deposits on a local level but it was envisioned that aggregators could be built to centralize all this work together using OAI-PMH. The unfortunate problem is that this proved to be not a simple thing. Continue reading “Open access and the versioning issue – do we need to solve this?”
With 2017 drawing to a close, it seems like the right time to reflect on what the year brought us at Hindawi. Continue reading “2017 in review: 12 months of new initiatives”