Category Archives: oa.humor

POSI business plan by ChatGPT | 2022-01-04

Posted on by
Reply

“Prompt: Write a new business plan for Elsevier that incorporates the Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).

ChatGPT response: Executive Summary: Elsevier is a global publisher of scientific, technical, and medical (STM) research, with a long history of publishing high-quality research and a strong reputation in the scholarly community. However, in recent years, there has been growing demand for open access to research and a shift towards more open and collaborative approaches to scholarly communication. In response to this shift, Elsevier is introducing a new business plan that incorporates the Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).

Key Elements of the New Business Plan: Increased support for open access: Elsevier will increase its support for open access publishing, including the establishment of a new open access journal platform and the expansion of its open access book program…….”

Instructions for Reviewer 2: How to reject a manuscript for arbitrary reasons

Posted on by
Reply

“Reviewing is an integral part of the academic enterprise, and reviewers play an important role in blocking other people’s work that they don’t like for arbitrary reasons. Recent developments in open science, such as preprints, have unfortunately been steps in the wrong direction. In order to restore science to its golden days of a Kafkaesque system full of traps and snares, I present eight strategies that all reviewers should apply in order to reject any paper they want, without the burdensome work of actually having to read it

“Transformative” Agreement Bingo | Brianne Selman

Posted on by
Reply

“Big Deal for APCs – Can’t unbundle/ researcher expectations

Fees are not transparent/ proportionate to work done

Convoluted models & management (especially w/ “pretansformative”)

Encourages and increases hybrid journals

Global rise in OA has been Green or Diamond

Can’t afford for every publisher

Adds publishing costs to Library budgets

Too expensive to do for smaller publishers

Where is the “Transformation”?

Even Sweden is out

Only an option for richer institutions/ countries

Shifts inequity to authors

PAY TO PUBLISH (FREE spot)

Contributes to APC hyperinflation

Makes OA the prestige option / incentives exclusion

May promote publishers w/ TAs over those without

Further locks in prestige for those who can pay

Locks in increasing profit margins

Encourages further market consolidation and increases dependency

Further redistribution of public money to private entities

Leads to an erosion of varied publishing methods

Pushes out diamond OA publishers

Publishing governed by shareholders, not scholars

Investing in unethical data companies

Seize the means of production”

 

You Want to See My Data? I Thought We Were Friends!

Posted on by

“Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer in the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London. His new book, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth, explains the ideas in this comic, by Zach Weinersmith, in more detail, telling shocking stories of scientific error and misconduct. It also proposes an abundance of ideas for how to rescue science from its current malaise….”

Research Fundermentals: Open Access: Europe’s Plan A-R Explained

Posted on by

“There was much excitement in Brussels this week with the publication of ‘Plan S’, the European Commission’s plan to make all scholarly publications resulting from public research funding open access from 1 January 2020.

But the big question is: what happened to Plans A-R? Robert-Jan Smits, Senior Advisor on Open Access within the European Political Strategy Centre, spoke exclusively to Fundermentals.

‘It was a long and difficult process,’ suggests, Smits, ‘and it took us many months and an awful lot of coffee.’

Smits set out the process that they had been through to reach Plan S, and the 18 previous plans that got them there.

Plan A: we began optimistically, and suggested that everything should be free. What we were suggesting was, if you will, a research ‘summer of love’. Nothing would be paid for. We’d live in open access communes, sharing everything. No hell below us, above us only sky. That sort of thing.

Plan B: …”

The first honest Baloney Journal – Netfuture

Posted on by

“We did it! The first honest Baloney Journal has been founded! It is available at kaese-journal.ch, the German equivalent of Baloney Journal. Submission is open now for the first issue, for anything already the author considers Baloney.

Have you ever wondered how your colleagues were able to submit their latest baloney in amazingly-sounding journals? And how little information was in there? Now, you can do this, too!

The Baloney Journal[1] is here to help. It is the first free Open Access journal committed to publishing every piece of baloney! …”

Open Access Journals Threaten Science – What’s Your Romesburg Number?

Posted on by

“I propose the Romesburg Number, which measures your collaboration distance from H. Charles Romesburg [who recently published “How publishing in open access journals threatens science and what we can do about it”]. The higher your number, the further removed you are from Romesburg. I don’t have all the data but I hopeful my Romesburg number is 12 or higher….”

The Tree of Life: AAAS and SnapChat collaborate to develop SnapScience to publish scientific papers transiently

Posted on by

“Kent Anderson, the newly appointed Publisher of AAAS (see http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-names-new-science-publisher) has announced his first action as Publisher – a partnership between AAAS and Snapchat (https://www.snapchat.com).

Anderson said “Although I will not officially assume the role of Science publisher until 3 November, this was too important a task to not carry out immediately. AAAS has always been looking for new ways to reduce the public availability of scientific publications. AAAS approached Snapchat a few months ago and in secret developed a new App “SnapScience” which allows the transient publication of scientific articles. Article longevity can be set to 1 minute, 5 minutes or 15 minutes.”

Anderson followed this with “This kind of thing I had always hoped to do in my role as president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing but the technology was just not available. Snapchat has developed the perfect platform for the future of AAAS and scholarly publishing in general with its ability to allow readers a glimpse of a scientific article but not allow them to keep it or reread it or redisplay it.”…”