Grassroots Review Journals @GrassrootsReview@fediscience.org

« #ImpactFactor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions » via Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01759-5

Join us on 7/22 for a live discussion with Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub, on her experience building tools for the open science community
https://www.crowdcast.io/e/a-discussion-on-open-science-with-alexandra-elbakyan/register
https://www.reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comments/oofyl8/join_us_on_722_for_a_live_discussion_with/?utm_source=ifttt

@OpenScienceDeutschland Auch interessant wie eine Forscherin aus Grünland den "horizontalen" Begutachtungsprozess der Literatur kontrastiert mit der "vertikalen" Begutachtung über Jahrhunderte von indigenes Wissen. Damit wäre post-publication Begutachtung 2-dimensional.

🇬🇧
In the above podcast (in German) a researcher from Greenland contrasts the "horizontal" review of the literature to the "vertical" review over centuries of indigenous knowledge. This makes post-publication review 2D review.

Are your friends still on #GitHub and other proprietary services?
Tell them about #Codeberg and other free alternatives to monopolistic SaaS solutions - they exist, and they improve with every user who joins them!
#FreeSoftware #UserFreedom

Announcing the Single Source Publishing Community Launch!
A number of people working in the intersection between open-source publishign tech for scholarly publishing and Open Science have come together to advocate for Single Source Publishing. You can find out what's happening with this community over at its discussion board https://github.com/singlesourcepub/community/discussions and read a blogpost here https://github.com/singlesourcepub/community/wiki/Announcement-Blog​https://preview.redd.it/x3mwy6pqws871.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=0af7274b2ebd54ff52b46d1de7e50e23e2140374
https://www.reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comments/oca2j7/announcing_the_single_source_publishing_community/?utm_source=ifttt

What it was like to be peer reviewed in the 1860s - https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.9098/full/

Since I now have a PhD-in-hand, I'm on the job market!

Skills: Art history & archaeology, digital humanities experience! Teaching! Intro-to-programming workshops! Programming in python, Racket, HTML, CSS! Open Access, FOSS connections, community management!

You can hire me!

"The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation." Peer review is not perfect. As a climatologist I can imagine some dumb article abusing my work. It would be nice to be able to signal you disagree with being cited.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03960-9
https://www.reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comments/nsx3pp/the_right_to_refuse_unwanted_citations_rethinking/?utm_source=ifttt

Do you like repository badges but don't like including them from someone else's server? Two days ago, I released ./badges - a generator for badges that you can download as a single, dependency-free, batteries-included binary (or build from source of course 😉). I have also published a number of generic badges under CC0. Check it out on @codeberg - https://codeberg.org/lhinderberger/dot-slash-badges #foss

Collusion Rings Threaten the Integrity of Computer Science Research https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/6/252840-collusion-rings-threaten-the-integrity-of-computer-science-research/fulltext

In computer science conference papers are like journal papers in most natural sciences; conferences are highly selective. (In the Earth Sciences basically everyone gets to present their work.)

Conference participants are also peer reviewers & can "bid" on paper that fit their profile. This is abused by groups bidding on each other's papers & giving a glowing review.

h/t @djoerd https://idf.social/@djoerd/106334834979642751

Shared technology needs for preprints.

Markup language conversion.
Linking from preprints to their journal version.
Preprint recommenders.
Support for preprint review.
Preprint server integration with review platforms.
Standardized review metadata.
https://zenodo.org/record/4700570

#preprints #PeerReview #MetaData #scholarlyPublishing

1) Familiar product

We have many dreams what we could do with ActivityPub, but maybe rebuilding existing social media sites better is not a bad start.

2) Low barriers to contribution.

Server selection should be easier. Make servers for existing groups? Like the Discord servers of Twitch channels?

3) It deemphasized attribution and social ownership of content.

May generalize to other projects less.

4) Focused on content.

We have many apps. Focus more on inviting people? @Invite2Fedi 2/2

https://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/the-contribution-conundrum-why-did-wikipedia-succeed-while-other-encyclopedias-failed/

Before Wikipedia was created there were seven attempts to create English-language online collaborative encyclopedia projects. Why did Wikipedia win?

1 Wikipedia modelled a familiar product (encyclopedia).

2 Low barriers to contribution.

3 It deemphasized attribution and social ownership of content.

4 Focused on content, not on technology.

These rules may also apply to collaborative efforts from the #Fediverse to #FOSS & @TranslateScience to @GrassrootsReview 1/2

RT @Des_Fitzgerald@twitter.com

Seeing lots of these takes,and am totally sympathetic, but the issue surely is not reviewers, it's the awful business model of (most) academic publishing. Overstretched people are less and less willing to do free, invisible work for huge, profitable companies. Who can blame them?

🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/Des_Fitzgerald/status/1390972709908230144