White Paper · Quartz OA

“We are excited to share with you our vision for a more fair and sustainable future for independent open access publishing. In our white paper, we describe our learnings about the challenges of Open Access publishing and propose a new, cooperative, route to OA: Quartz Open Access….

We did our research and found the answers to our questions in many discussions and research pieces produced by our fellow academics as well as journalists. As we researched our way through the intricacies of the scholarly communication ecosystem, we became avid supporters of the open science movement and open access publishing. We also found that open access is not the same experience for everyone and some of the questions we asked above are more relevant for early-career researchers, those in the humanities and social sciences and those coming from less well-funded institutions as well as low- and lower-middle-income countries. We became increasingly aware of the existence of unintended consequences of the various OA policies resulting in increasing inequalities or perpetuating the same systems that have led to creating these inequalities in the first place. Independently, we came up with similar ideas to address these issues and then came together as a team to try and develop a solution to some of the barriers hampering the transition towards just, fair and sustainable open access publishing.

As newcomers, we looked into the different successful – and less so – initiatives, we explored the values associated with scholarly communication and academic research, we dug into the related publishing fields and found inspiration in some of the business models now applied in journalism and creative industries. We explored new technologies such as peer-to-peer networks and blockchain to see how these can help solve some of the problems in the transition towards open access academic publishing. We also drew inspiration from the proposed solutions to the crisis of accountability in big tech and the responsible innovation and value-sensitive design approaches to developing technological systems.

Our proposal to face these challenges is powered by three key components: 1) a platform cooperative allowing exchanges within the OA ecosystem, 2) a browser extension allowing readers to support open access content and communities, and 3) a crowdfunding infrastructure for OA….”

Open Future

“Numerous organisations and initiatives have been launched with a belief in openness and free knowledge. Their proponents placed their bets on the combined power of networked information services and new governance models for the production and sharing of content and data. We – as members of this broad movement – were among those who believed it possible to leverage this combination of power and opportunity to build a more democratic society, unleashing the power of the internet to create universal access to knowledge and culture. For us, such openness meant not only freedom, but also presented a path to justice and equality….

The open revolution that we imagined did not, however, happen. At least not on the scale that we and many other proponents of free culture expected.

Nevertheless, the growing Open movement demonstrated the viability of our ideas. As proof we have Wikipedia, Open Government data initiatives, the ascent of Open Access publishing, the role of free software in powering the infrastructure of the internet and the gradual opening of the collections of many cultural heritage institutions….

Over time, we have observed the significant evolution of our movement’s normative basis – away from a justification based on the voluntary exercise of rights by individual creators and towards a justification based on the production of social goods….

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a wholesale transformation of the networked information ecosystem. The web moved away from the ideals and the open design of the early internet and turned into an environment that is dominated by a small number of platforms….

The concentration of power in the hands of a small number of information intermediaries negates one of the core assumptions of the Open movement….”

A Study of the Quality of Wikidata | DeepAI

Abstract:  Wikidata has been increasingly adopted by many communities for a wide variety of applications, which demand high-quality knowledge to deliver successful results. In this paper, we develop a framework to detect and analyze low-quality statements in Wikidata by shedding light on the current practices exercised by the community. We explore three indicators of data quality in Wikidata, based on: 1) community consensus on the currently recorded knowledge, assuming that statements that have been removed and not added back are implicitly agreed to be of low quality; 2) statements that have been deprecated; and 3) constraint violations in the data. We combine these indicators to detect low-quality statements, revealing challenges with duplicate entities, missing triples, violated type rules, and taxonomic distinctions. Our findings complement ongoing efforts by the Wikidata community to improve data quality, aiming to make it easier for users and editors to find and correct mistakes.

 

Google AI Blog: A Step Toward More Inclusive People Annotations in the Open Images Extended Dataset

“In 2016, we introduced Open Images, a collaborative release of ~9 million images annotated with image labels spanning thousands of object categories and bounding box annotations for 600 classes. Since then, we have made several updates, including the release of crowdsourced data to the Open Images Extended collection to improve diversity of object annotations. While the labels provided with these datasets were expansive, they did not focus on sensitive attributes for people, which are critically important for many machine learning (ML) fairness tasks, such as fairness evaluations and bias mitigation. In fact, finding datasets that include thorough labeling of such sensitive attributes is difficult, particularly in the domain of computer vision.

Today, we introduce the More Inclusive Annotations for People (MIAP) dataset in the Open Images Extended collection. The collection contains more complete bounding box annotations for the person class hierarchy in 100k images containing people. Each annotation is also labeled with fairness-related attributes, including perceived gender presentation and perceived age range. With the increasing focus on reducing unfair bias as part of responsible AI research, we hope these annotations will encourage researchers already leveraging Open Images to incorporate fairness analysis in their research….”

Public feedback on preprints can unlock their full potential to accelerate science.

“Public preprint review can help authors improve their paper, find new collaborators, and gain visibility. It also helps readers find interesting and relevant papers and contextualize them with the reactions of experts in the field. Never has this been more apparent than in COVID-19, where rapid communication and expert commentary have both been in high demand. Yet, most feedback on preprints is currently exchanged privately.

Join ASAPbio in partnership with DORA, HHMI, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to discuss how to create a culture of constructive public review and feedback on preprints….”

Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet? | PCMag

“[Q] Which brings us to Wikipedia. Many of us consult it, slightly wary of its bias, depth, and accuracy. But, as you’ll be sharing in your speech at Intellisys, the content actually ends up being surprisingly reliable. How does that happen?

[A] The answer to “should you believe Wikipedia?” isn’t simple. In my book I argue that the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of information ever created. Think about it—a peer-reviewed journal article is reviewed by three experts (who may or may not actually check every detail), and then is set in stone. The contents of a popular Wikipedia page might be reviewed by thousands of people. If something changes, it is updated. Those people have varying levels of expertise, but if they support their work with reliable citations, the results are solid. On the other hand, a less popular Wikipedia page might not be reliable at all….”

Glossary Organizing document – instructions for contributors (original doc) – Google Docs

“We invite all interested to: write definitions, comment on existing definitions, add alternative definitions where applicable, and suggest relevant references. If you feel that key terms are missing, please add it – you can let us know, or ask contact us with suggestions in the FORRT slack or email sam.parsons@psy.ox.ac.uk (please CC flavio.azevedo@uni-jena.de during the period Feb 12 to March 1st). The full list of terms will form part of a larger glossary to be hosted on https://FORRT.org, once all terms have been added, the lead writing team (Parsons, Azevedo, & Elsherif) will develop an abridged version to submit as a manuscript. We outline the kinds of contributions and their correspondence to authorship in more detail in the next section. Don’t forget to add your name and details to the contributions spreadsheet….”

Standard eBooks builds upon Project Gutenberg to offer a better reading experience – Good e-Reader

“Project Gutenberg has always been a commendable literary initiative that ensured the classic titles of yore lived on in the digital age. While that is great, the eBooks lack consistent typography. Cover art leaves something to be disired, in addiiton to many typos, that can mar the reading experience considerably.

It is here that the Standard eBooks come into the picture. As the name suggests, the Standard eBook refers to a set of guidelines that each of their eBooks is required to comply with. What that means is each of the books taken from Project Gutenberg re subjected to a laid-down procedure for publishing.

That includes formatting and typesetting with the help of a ‘professional-grade style manual.’ Also, each book is proofread with corrections made wherever necessary. It is only after this that a new digital edition of the book is created using the latest e-reader and browser technologies. This ensures each of the Standard ebooks thus created is compatible with almost all known e-reader devices currently in vogue….”

AcaWiki

“AcaWiki enables you to easily post summaries and literature reviews of peer-reviewed research. Many summaries on AcaWiki come up high on Google results. Please read our posting guidelines before proceeding. If you want to find summaries or literature reviews of peer-reviewed research, you can either browse summaries or search.”

TRIPLE Crowdfunding Questionnaire

“The following questionnaire is part of the research conducted for the European project TRIPLE. The questionnaire is aimed at the general public. In the following you will be asked mainly a number of questions about your attitudes about the funding of science and about crowdfunding, the practice of funding a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people who each contribute a relatively small amount, typically via the internet. Known crowdfunding platforms include kickstarter, Indiegogo or gofundme. This research will help the project in taking some decisions for the creation of a crowdfunding platform for supporting research in Social Sciences and Humanities….”

Developing an objective, decentralised scholarly communication and evaluation system – YouTube

“This is our proposal for how we might create a radically new scholarly publishing system with the potential to disrupt the scholarly publishing industry. The proposed model is: (a) open, (b) objective, (c) crowd sourced and community-controlled, (d) decentralised, and (e) capable of generating prestige. Submitted articles are openly rated by researchers on multiple dimensions of interest (e.g., novelty, reliability, transparency) and ‘impact prediction algorithms’ are trained on these data to classify articles into journal ‘tiers’.

In time, with growing adoption, the highest impact tiers within such a system could develop sufficient prestige to rival even the most established of legacy journals (e.g., Nature). In return for their support, researchers would be rewarded with prestige, nuanced metrics, reduced fees, faster publication rates, and increased control over their outputs….”

Repurposing Subscription Dollars for Open Access Investments: OACIP Pilot Opportunities

“If you are like many libraries, consortia, and academic units, you are interested in supporting open access publishing. You may be looking for ways to repurpose your subscription publishing dollars, but struggling with the administrative burden of evaluating how and where to reinvest precious funds.

 

In December 2020, we launched the Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP), a community-funded open access publishing project. OACIP’s goal is to help match libraries, consortia, and other prospective scholarly publishing funders with non-profit publishers and journal editorial boards that are seeking financial investments to sustain or transition to open access publishing of journals or books.

Do you want to get started in evaluating OA investment opportunities? The OACIP pilot phase has launched with crowd-sourced investment opportunities for two journals. We invite you to learn more about OACIP’s criteria-driven funding approach and determine if investing in these two journals is right for you. We are hosting a webinar about the OACIP pilot premised on engaging discussion with the editorial boards and publishers of the participating journals….”

Repurposing Subscription Dollars for Open Access Investments: OACIP Pilot Opportunities

“If you are like many libraries, consortia, and academic units, you are interested in supporting open access publishing. You may be looking for ways to repurpose your subscription publishing dollars, but struggling with the administrative burden of evaluating how and where to reinvest precious funds.

 

In December 2020, we launched the Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP), a community-funded open access publishing project. OACIP’s goal is to help match libraries, consortia, and other prospective scholarly publishing funders with non-profit publishers and journal editorial boards that are seeking financial investments to sustain or transition to open access publishing of journals or books.

Do you want to get started in evaluating OA investment opportunities? The OACIP pilot phase has launched with crowd-sourced investment opportunities for two journals. We invite you to learn more about OACIP’s criteria-driven funding approach and determine if investing in these two journals is right for you. We are hosting a webinar about the OACIP pilot premised on engaging discussion with the editorial boards and publishers of the participating journals….”

Crowdsourcing Scholarly Discourse Annotations | 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

Abstract:  The number of scholarly publications grows steadily every year and it becomes harder to find, assess and compare scholarly knowledge effectively. Scholarly knowledge graphs have the potential to address these challenges. However, creating such graphs remains a complex task. We propose a method to crowdsource structured scholarly knowledge from paper authors with a web-based user interface supported by artificial intelligence. The interface enables authors to select key sentences for annotation. It integrates multiple machine learning algorithms to assist authors during the annotation, including class recommendation and key sentence highlighting. We envision that the interface is integrated in paper submission processes for which we define three main task requirements: The task has to be . We evaluated the interface with a user study in which participants were assigned the task to annotate one of their own articles. With the resulting data, we determined whether the participants were successfully able to perform the task. Furthermore, we evaluated the interface’s usability and the participant’s attitude towards the interface with a survey. The results suggest that sentence annotation is a feasible task for researchers and that they do not object to annotate their articles during the submission process.