34 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2020
  2. Oct 2019
    1. WikiJournals publishes a set of open-access, peer-reviewed academic journals with no publishing costs to authors. Its goal is to provide free, quality-assured knowledge

      I'm not sure that WikiJournals are highly regarded...

  3. Sep 2019
  4. Apr 2019
  5. Mar 2019
  6. Feb 2019
    1. it does not operate by a thoughtful consideration of local/global tradeoffs, but through the imposition of a singular view as “best for all” in a pseudo-scientific sense

      Similar to how some would "fix" economic inefficiencies with a legible imposed system, instead of just letting the market work.

  7. Sep 2018
    1. I believe a model where commercial providers develop and maintain open scholarly communications infrastructure requires four basic principles of openness: Open Source, Open Data, Open Integrations, and Open Contracts.

      Hindawi CEO lays out the four elements he sees as key to proprietary companies participating effectively in building and providing infrastructure to support open science.

  8. Aug 2018
  9. May 2018
  10. Feb 2018
  11. Oct 2017
    1. What is the objective, what is the definition of success, as academia and its libraries engage in issues of scholarly communication? Answering this question crisply and with a clear sense of priority may allow libraries to evaluate their investments, and to organize, staff, and run their operations, with greater focus.

      Roger calls for clear scholcomm strategy.

    1. When is a Publisher not a Publisher? Cobbling Together the Pieces to Build a Workflow Business

      Roger on the pattern of productizing scholarly workflows.

    1. Red Light, Green Light Aligning the Library to Support Licensing

      Roger proposes a process for balancing costs and usage for libraries/scholcomm.

  12. Aug 2017
    1. Holtzbrinck’s Digital Science portfolio is, in effect, an ecosystem-in-waiting – a bet on the scholarly communication landscape of the near future.
  13. Jun 2017
  14. Oct 2016
    1. In general, humanities scholars have neglected editorial work because the reward structures in the academy have not favored editing but instead literary and cultural theory. Many academics fail to recognize the theoretical sophistication, historical knowledge, and analytical strengths necessary to produce a sound text or texts and the appropriate scholarly apparatus for a first-rate edition.

      Reasons why scholarly editions aren't valued in the academy (c 2008)

  15. Jun 2016
    1. a collection of Wikipedias

      FWIW, PLOS tried this with PLOS Currents. It didn't get much traction, but I think there were some good use cases around rapid communications for disease outbreaks.

    2. dynamic documents

      A group of experts got together last year at Daghstuhl and wrote a white paper about this.

      Basically the idea is that the data, the code, the protocol/analysis/method, and the narrative should all exist as equal objects on the appropriate platform. Code in a code repository like Github, Data in a data repo that understands data formats, like Mendeley Data (my company) and Figshare, protocols somewhere like protocols.io and the narrative which ties it all together still at the publisher. Discussion and review can take the form of comments, or even better, annotations just like I'm doing now.

    3. static historical museum snapshots

      Part of this is because the people, besides publishers, most involved in discussions of publishing formats are librarians, who have preservation on their mind. If your job to to curate and preserve the world's knowledge, you have to think very carefully about what needs to be kept. Preservation is a surprisingly tricky subject when you get into the details of what constitutes a new version, at what level you do preservation - bit level, file level, text level, etc.

    4. the role of journal editor as human traffic cop would largely fade away

      Yes, copyediting and managing review and such are valuable, and to some extent either already outsourced or replaceable by technology. However, getting your paper in front of the right people who need to read it still both requires a talented human in the loop and command of a large audience, which no one but the publishers can yet match.

    5. sites will host a PDF for free

      Of course, as the author returns to below, publishing is much more than just hosting a PDF online somewhere. Knowing that the right people will read what you publish is still worth quite a bit, and publishers command the largest audience. That's hard to replicate!

    6. many publishers still cannot include figures beyond 1MB

      Fair point, but this is changing. Have you checked out the submission flow at Heliyon?