Dear all,
I've been a bit busy. To start off the week, I've shared three new
articles/preprints/perspectives on various elements of scholarly
communication/publishing.
The first is about creating a value-proposition for Open Science:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/k9qhv/
<https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/k9qhv/>
Abstract: Open Science has become commonly understood in terms of its
practices. Open Access, Open Data, and Open Source software are all
becoming commonplace in academia. However, unlike the Free and Open
Source Software movement, Open Science seems to have become largely
divorced from its pluralistic philosophical and ethical foundations,
which seem to have reignited from the humanities at the turn of the
Millennium. To close this gap, I propose a new value-based proposition
for Open Science, that is akin to the “four fundamental freedoms” of
Richard Stallman that catalysed the Free Software movement. In doing so,
I hope to provide a more common, unified, and human understanding to
notions of openness in science.
The second is about the exploitation of free academic labour during peer
review: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/6quxg
<https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/6quxg>
Abstract: Commercial publishing houses continue to make unbounded
profits while exploiting the free labour of researchers through peer
review. If publishers are to be compensated financially for the value
that they add within a capitalist system, then all others who add value
should be similarly, including reviewers. I propose that peer review
should be included as a professional service by research institutes in
their contracts with commercial publishers. This would help to recognise
the value of peer review, and begin to shape it into a functional form
of quality control.
The third is about creating a new type of funder mandate to accelerate
the shift towards openness: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9kjwp/
<https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9kjwp/>
It is time for a new type of mandate. Plan S has catalysed all sorts of
action, and confusion, in the world of scholarly publishing. But it
lacks teeth. Instead of encouraging libraries and research institutes to
continue to prop up a dysfunctional and out-dated system with taxpayer
money, research funders should mandate institutes to create a fully
open, modern, technical scholarly infrastructure. This would help to
overcome so much of the inertia behind the adoption of open research
practices, while simultaneously resolving outstanding issues with
reliability, affordability, and functionality in scholarly communication.
Each of them are currently undergoing review at a journal. In the
meantime, please do what you do best, and critique away! As they are all
on SocArXiv, anyone can add inline comments using the inbuilt
Hypothes.is annotation tool, should they wish. Thank you in advance for
any feedback.
Have a great start to your week,
Jon
--
Latest publications:
* *BOOK: The Open Science [R]evolution
<http://bit.ly/opensciencerevolution>*
* A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source
Software and Open Scholarship <https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8>
* The limitations to our understanding of peer review
<https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jq623/>
* Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology journals
<https://paleorxiv.org/qzycs/>
* Ten simple rules for researchers collaborating on Massively Open
Online Papers (MOOPs) <https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak>
* Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge
in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020)
<https://zenodo.org/record/3594635>
* Open Access: what we can learn from articles published in
geochemistry journals in 2018 and 2019
<https://zenodo.org/record/3659528>
*Personal website <http://fossilsandshit.com/> - Home of the Green Tea
and Velociraptors blog.*
*ORCID:* 0000-0001-7794-0218 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7794-0218>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
