Re: [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 15/04/2020 16.52, Kathleen Shearer wrote:
> To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders,
> service providers, universities and libraries from around the world to
> work together to address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly
> communication.
> 
> Read the blog post here
> 
>  and full
> paper here 


That is a great goal, which has had my full support for years. I still
think a more fundamental shift in thinking in the community is required
to make real progress.

For instance, OA publishing in practice requires actors in the ecosystem
to go through third-party actors and systems.

It is hard to see the transition if we factor in the control dimension
and power dynamics. The question of what constitutes a contribution or
how people can participate quickly turns into understanding what works
for the third-parties as opposed to content creators. As I see it,
whether third-parties are non- or for-profit is not as significant as it
may seem for the "big picture".

If we genuinely want to realise a diverse and inclusive ecosystem, we
need to acknowledge and enable different entry points. That doesn't
happen by locking things down, whether that's done through using
specific kinds of identifiers, data shapes, or applications.

The fact of the matter is that at this point in time, the machinery and
policies underlying scholarly communication is mostly a soup of vendor
lock-in solutions.

Until "self-publishing" through open Web standards (which does *not*
preclude peer review etc) is acknowledged on equal grounds in the
ecosystem, we will continue to ask ourselves the same questions about OA
simply because we haven't addressed the core issues pertaining to
autonomy and universal access.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 01/04/2020 01.12, Thomas Krichel wrote:
>   Sarven Capadisli writes
> 
>> Does the "the right way" to contribute to scientific communication in
>> context of OA require the use of (non- or for-profit) third-party
>> services as opposed to self-publishing?
> 
>   Yes, it does
> 
>> If so, why?
> 
>   because there needs to be persistency to the published output that a
>   person can not provide. However that persistency layer could be
>   constructed in such a way that it cost way less than what is paid,
>   mainly by libraries, to keep the current system going.  I'm
>   currently working on building a persistency layer for RePEc. It's
>   work funded with a 3000 Euro grant by the French central bank 
>   foundation for economic research.
> 


By persistency, I assume you mean archival ie. a source deemed to be
trustable as it promises to preserve knowledge for long-term. Along the
lines of [1].

Isn't archiving an independent and an external function that any actor
should have read-write access to ie. to create snapshots and read
existing ones?

Third-party (non- or for-profit) publishing services neither provide the
archival service or expected to, but merely act as a proxy. So then why
is it expected that self-publishers are required to fulfil the archiving
function?


[1]

* any Web-wide publicly usable archival services, eg. Internet Archive,
archive.is, WebCite, Perma.cc, Webrecorder;

* dedicated digital preservation organisations, eg. Portico;

* libraries, eg. LOCKSS;

* global archives preserving content on behalf of all libraries, eg.
CLOCKSS;

* subscription based service for all kinds of libraries, federal
institutions, state archives, NGOs, eg. Archive-It;

* state or federal archives, eg. Swiss Federal Archives, Library and
Archives Canada;

* institutional-run digital archives, eg. TIB, Zenodo


-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Sarven Capadisli]

Does the "the right way" to contribute to scientific communication in
context of OA require the use of (non- or for-profit) third-party
services as opposed to self-publishing? If so, why?

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

On 31/03/2020 17.17, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
> I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is simply
> a pity to see greed trump principles.
> 
> One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape
> OA the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in
> their view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme
> cases. The reality is that the Great Conversation of science constantly
> needs it.
> 
> The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means
> that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific
> research is subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part
> of scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).
> 
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> 
> Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>> I agree with Peter. 
>>
>> Eric has gone over to the devil. 
>>
>> This is a shameful time for token measures.
>>
>> Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for the
>> public good and who are in it for themselves. 
>>
>> OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an
>> abstraction, and it did not succeed. 
>>
>> Here it’s about survival.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>> Editor,Animal Sentience
>> 
>> Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal
>> 
>> Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill University
>> 
>> Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton
>> 
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
 Peter,

 Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at
 Elsevier to make available as much as possible of the scholarly
 literature on coronavirus research easily discoverable and
 freely accessible.

 At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:

>>> Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the
>>> scientific , medical and citizen community decide what they want?
>>> Elsevier can't guess what we want.
>>>
>>> The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it. 

 If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it
 for two months and we continue to evaluate options to help the
 research community.

>>> My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
>>> software,  is spending most of his time working making masks in
>>> Cambridge Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes
>>> to the literature to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use
>>> and construction he finds paywall after paywall after paywall after
>>> paywall  Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier paywall. 
>>>
>>> Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.
>>>
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>>
>>> Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisis.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract
>>> I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the
>>> same".
>>>
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>>
>> ___
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Linked Research

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 28/11/2019 19.27, Scott Abbott wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I’d like to share this work to this list in the hope of generating
> awareness and discussion. 
> 
> I’m not an author or connected to the project in any way beyond my keen
> interest in open scholarship and advocacy for open/FAIR research. 
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20190729131202/https://csarven.ca/linked-research-scholarly-communication


Thank you for sharing. I am one of the authors.

That article was one of the early attempts at describing the work around
"Linked Research".

Fast forward a few years, the underlying work is part of my PhD thesis.

Linked Research on the Decentralised Web:

https://csarven.ca/linked-research-decentralised-web

"This thesis is about research communication in the context of the Web.
I analyse literature which reveals how researchers are making use of Web
technologies for knowledge dissemination, as well as how individuals are
disempowered by the centralisation of certain systems, such as academic
publishing platforms and social media. I share my findings on the
feasibility of a decentralised and interoperable information space where
researchers can control their identifiers whilst fulfilling the core
functions of scientific communication: registration, awareness,
certification, and archiving."

Feedback most welcome.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal