The Scholarly Communication Notebook | OER Commons

“Welcome to the Scholarly Communication Notebook (SCN), an in-development repository of community-designed and curated open resources for teaching about scholarly communication and for doing scholarly communication work in libraries. We intend the SCN to be the locus of an active, inclusive, empowered community of practice for teaching scholarly communications to emerging librarians, where practitioners, LIS educators, and library students work together to increase knowledge and skills on topics of growing importance in librarianship and beyond; topics such as copyright, open access, open education, and library publishing (see Collections below for more topic areas). We hope these resources will be regularly refreshed by librarians and allies as well as by LIS faculty and by students completing coursework on these topics, and that mutually beneficial relationships and bridges are built between users. The SCN, and the resources collected here, complement an open book that is in production, Introduction to Scholarly Communication Librarianship: Law, Economics, and Culture.

The SCN is explicitly intended to support, educate and represent a diversifying workforce of LIS professionals. It intends to extend social justice values to all participants by intentionally and thoughtfully reflecting the broad range of people, institution types, and service models engaged in scholarly communication work. For more background see the OER + Scholarly Communication project site. We’re also reachable via email and on Twitter.

Anyone is welcome to use and contribute openly licensed content to the SCN. For more information, see Getting Started below. The SCN is in a phase of active development and evolution, so your content and feedback is very welcome.”

Embracing Open Science: A Pathway to an Inclusive and Collaborative Society – Open and Universal Science (OPUS) Project

“Transitioning to an open science society is a collective effort that requires the involvement of researchers, policymakers, institutions, and the public. By embracing open access publishing, sharing research data and code, promoting open collaboration, adopting open educational resources, encouraging open review and pre-registration, and advocating for open science policies, we can create a more inclusive, transparent, and collaborative scientific landscape. Embracing open science has the potential to revolutionize research, accelerate scientific discoveries, and address global challenges more effectively. Let us work together to pave the way towards an open science society and unlock the true potential of scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity.”

World’s first completely open- and crowd-sourced neuroscience experiment launched

“Today, scientists from the Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics, a division of the Allen Institute, launched the world’s first completely open- and crowd-sourced neuroscience experiment-;inviting researchers from around the world to publicly design a shared experiment that will run on the Allen Brain Observatory, as part of the Institute’s OpenScope program. Experiments will probe the dynamic functions of the brain and how cells interact and communicate to produce thoughts and actions and shed light on how we make complex decisions….

Any scientist is now able to join the public forum ( and suggest research questions and experimental methods to be discussed amongst the community. The community will then vote to select one OpenScope project to be conducted by the Allen Institute. Every phase of design, implementation, and data output will be completely open….

Launched five years ago, OpenScope was inspired by shared astronomical observatories like the Hubble Space Telescope where outside researchers can conduct cutting edge experiments too expensive for individual labs using NASA’s powerful tools and technology. Likewise, OpenScope aims to bring the large-scale standardization of the Allen Institute’s neuroscience platforms to scientists around the world….”


“Scifind is a place for experimentation beyond the publication. We are a growing collaborative community of scientists and experimentalists from around the world who believe science is better when we work together.

Help us keep Scifind a safe space for productive and collaborative conversations. Please be kind and respect your fellow community members. If you see abusive or alarming content, please report it to, and our team will take appropriate actions.
All information posted to this page is public and Open Access. Learn more about our commitment to Open Access by visiting our Docs….”

ASAPbio Crowd preprint review 2023 sign-up form

“Following our activities the last two years, ASAPbio is running further preprint crowd review activities in 2023. Our goal is to provide an engaging environment for researchers to participate in providing feedback on preprints and support public reviews for preprints.

In 2023, we will be hosting three groups that will collaboratively review preprints in the disciplines below: 


Meta-research: Practices, policies & infrastructure on open science and scholarship e.g. preprints, open access, open education, research impact
Molecular and cellular neurobiology: focus on neurodevelopment and neurodegeneration
Computational neuroscience: Computational, theoretical and data-driven approaches in understanding brain function, neuroinformatics and bioinformatics
Cancer biology: Biochemical, molecular and cellular studies in relation to cancer…”

Crowd preprint review – ASAPbio

“While there is increasing interest in preprint review activities, the level of public commenting and reviewing on preprints remains low overall. To explore review modalities that may foster participation in preprint review, in 2021 ASAPbio started activities to facilitate public reviews on preprints inspired in the crowd review model pioneered by the journal Synlett. We coordinated a group of researchers who commented on cell biology preprints resulting in 14 public reviews – you can read more about last year’s trial here. We saw a high level of reviewer engagement, so we continued the activities in 2022, when we involved three groups focused on cell biology (bioRxiv preprints), biochemistry (bioRxiv preprints) and infectious diseases preprints in Portuguese from SciELO Preprints. Our activities resulted in 27 public reviews for bioRxiv preprints and 13 reviews for SciELO Preprints.

Motivated by the positive response, we will pursue further crowd preprint review activities in 2023, involving several groups lead by 2023 ASAPbio Fellows….”

Science Publishing Innovation: Why Do So Many Good Ideas Fail? – Science Editor

“Over a decade ago, BioMed Central (BMC) recognized the importance of postpublication discussion. Prepublication review can improve papers and catch errors, but only time and subsequent work of other scientists can truly show which results in a publication are robust and valid. Unlike a print journal (or print as a medium, in general), the Internet permits the readers to comment on published papers over time. So in 2002 BMC developed and enabled commenting on every one of its articles across its suite of journals. Not only does this allow for postpublication review, but it enables readers to easily ask authors and other readers a question, with public responses enriching the original manuscript, clarifying, and helping to improve the comprehension of the work.

This is a terrific idea, but it didn’t really catch on….

Remarkably, despite the creation of arXiv for physicists in 1990 and despite the enthusiastic embrace of preprints by the physics community, it has been assumed this is impossible for biology. The common argument is that biologists are different from physicists and the arXiv success is not informative. What many did find telling is the death of the 2007 preprint initiative from the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). NPG tried preprints with Nature Precedings, but adoption was low and in 2012 NPG pulled the plug on the experiment.3 This triggered some skepticism about the prospects of the bioRxiv preprint effort from Cold Spring Harbor Lab (CSHL) Press.4 Critics told the director of CSHL Press, John Inglis, that a preprint for biologists simply couldn’t work.5

Once again, we must ask the cause of the Nature Precedings failure. Did NPG kill it because biologists wouldn’t behave in the same way as physicists? We know that isn’t the case. Preprints in biology are all the rage today….

In the winter of 2012, Alexei Stoliartchouk and I came up with the idea for—a central place where scientists can share and discover science methods. We wanted to create a site where corrections and the constant tweaking of science methods could be shared, even after publication in a journal….

Few people know about, but many know about OpenWetWare (OWW) and Nature Protocol Exchange—both open-access community resources for sharing protocols. Both have been mentioned to me countless times as evidence that wouldn’t work. As with preprints, the problems that OWW and Protocol Exchange faced seemed to be proof that biologists would not share details of their methods on such a platform. As with bioRxiv, we are in the early days of, but judging from the growth in the figure below, it’s hard to argue that biologists don’t need this or that they won’t take the time to publicly share their methods….”

Networking the commons: creative commons project creators funding patterns in crowdfunding | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

Guided by the collective action theory, signaling theory and social identity approach, this study examines backing behavior by individuals who have created projects under CC licenses. Two motivational mechanisms were examined: (1) identification via common interests in the CC space; (2) resource signaling by other users via their diverse project creation experience, funding or commenting activity.


Data were collected from Exponential random graph modeling was used to examine how the two reviewed mechanisms influence the tie formation probability between Creative Commons (CC) project creators and other creators. The analysis was conducted on two subnetworks: one with ties between CC creators; and one with ties from CC creators to non-CC creators.


The study found that CC creators exhibit distinct backing patterns when considering funding other CC creators compared to non-CC users. When considering funding their peer CC creators, CC identity can help them allocate and support perceived in-group members; when considering funding non-CC creators, shared common interests in competitive project categories potentially triggers a competition mindset and makes them hold back when they see potential rivals.


This study makes three contributions. First, it draws from multiple theoretical frameworks to investigate unique motivations when crowdfunders take on dual roles of creators and funders and offered implications on how to manage competition and collaboration simultaneously. Second, with network analysis our study not only identifies multiple motivators at work for collective action, but also demonstrates their differential effects in crowdfunding. Third, the integration of multiple theoretical frameworks allows opportunities for theory building.

Explore how Europeana Subtitled increased access to audiovisual heritage | Europeana Pro

“Europeana Subtitled gathered seven major national broadcasters and audiovisual archives from seven European countries to provide high-quality audiovisual materials to Europeana. The project combined AI technology and audiovisual cultural heritage to produce high-quality closed captions and English subtitles for local video content, and created a platform to allow organisations to run crowdsourcing campaigns to revise captions using state of the art editing tools. 

Europeana Subtitled also supported cultural heritage professionals with the use of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) technologies in the cultural sector through an online training suite consisting of video tutorials, documentation and guidelines, and worked with teachers and museum educators to create learning resources with audiovisual content. 

Finally, the project engaged audiences through crowdsourcing events and editorial activities on the Europeana website, in particular, through the ‘Broadcasting Europe’ page and ‘Mass-media and propaganda’ online exhibition….

The Subtitled content is publicly available and videos can be enjoyed directly on the Europeana website, while you can also access freely reusable content with more than 3,000 records in the Public Domain….”

Open Food Facts – United States

“Open Food Facts is a database of food products with ingredients, allergens, nutrition facts and all the tidbits of information we can find on product labels.

Open Food Facts is a non-profit association of volunteers.

15000+ contributors like you have added 1 000 000+ products from 150 countries using our Android,iPhone or Windows Phone app or their camera to scan barcodes and upload pictures of products and their labels….

Data about food is of public interest and has to be open. The complete database is published as open data and can be reused by anyone and for any use. Check-out the cool reuses or make your own!…”

Peer Review (beta)

“Peer Review is an experiment in scholarly publishing currently in Beta. It is a platform that enables crowdsourced peer review and public dissemination of scientific and academic papers. For now, the platform can only handle pre-prints. It is and will remain open source and diamond open access. It is currently being maintained by a single developer as a side project.

Peer Review uses a reputation system to ensure that review and refereeing is done by qualified peers. Reputation is primarily gained from publishing, but can also be gained from giving constructive reviews. Review is separated into pre-publish “review” and post-publish “refereeing”. Review is entirely focused on giving authors constructive, supportive feedback. Refereeing is intended to help maintain the integrity of the overall literature by identifying spam, malpractice, and misinformation. To learn more, please read how it works.”

RAISE Project: a Game Changer for OS

The real value of open data for the research community is not to access them, but to process them as conveniently as possible in order to reduce time-to-result and increase productivity. RAISE project will provide the infrastructure for a distributed crowdsourced data processing system, moving from open data to open access data for processing. 

Open Communication Platforms – Google Docs

“The purpose of this document is to organise ideas about open communication platforms for big team science and open research coordination. It can serve as a primer for those looking to set up a platform, or for ideas when developing new platforms. Please add yourself to the Document Contributors list if you make a contribution (feel free to edit anything). …”