What is the Democracy’s Library? – Internet Archive Blogs

“Democracies require an educated citizenry to flourish– and because of this, Democratic governments, at all levels, spend billions of dollars publishing reports, manuals, books, videos so that all can read and learn. That is the good news.  The bad news is that in our digital age, much of this is not accessible.   Democracy’s Library aims to change this.   

The aim of the Internet Archive Democracy’s Library is to collect, preserve and make freely available all the published works of all the democracies– the federal, provincial, and municipal government publications– so that we can efficiently learn from each other to solve our biggest challenges in parallel and in concert….

Yes, this will cost a small fortune– but it is within our grasp– to collect and organize billions of documents and datasets, preserve the materials for the ages and make them available for many purposes.  While scoping projects in the United States and Canada have now begun, we estimate this project will cost at least $100 million dollars. The big money has not been committed yet, and we’re still fundraising. But to get things kicked off, Filecoin Foundation (FF) and Filecoin Foundation for the Decentralized Web (FFDW), are supporting the project. The Internet Archive has ramped up government websites and datasets as well as digitizing print materials with many library partners.

Thankfully, we do not have the rights and paywall problems that have been strangling the Internet’s best feature: an essentially free information distribution system.  …”

Texas Universities Reach Historic Deal with Elsevier: TLCUA Saves Texas Universities Millions Collectively

Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA) is pleased to announce that it has concluded negotiations with Elsevier, and all TLCUA members have signed or are finalizing new agreements for subscription journal access. In 2019, 44 public and private university campuses across Texas joined together to form TLCUA to think creatively about access to faculty publications and the sustainability of journal subscriptions. TLCUA has negotiated with Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of scientific journals, including The Lancet and Cell and over 2,500 other journals covering topics in medicine, biology, psychology, engineering, business and more. The TLCUA effort aligns with other libraries across academia that have sought to evolve the relationship between libraries and publishers and find new ways to thrive together.

All TLCUA members will receive a discount on journal subscriptions—some as high as 30%—while still maintaining significant amounts of access to journals and combined, will realize a savings of over $4.75M annually. Beyond initial cost savings, Elsevier agreed to a maximum annual increase of 2% over the course of the license agreement, with some years as low as 0%, which is significantly lower than industry standard.

New Publishing Arrangements for “Thought: A Journal of Philosophy” | Daily Nous

“We are delighted to announce that the Thought Trust has now concluded new publishing arrangements with the Philosophy Documentation Centre. We are most grateful to have the opportunity of continuing production of the journal.

We would like to take the opportunity to record our thanks to Eric Piper and the team at John Wiley Inc. for their role in bringing Thought into existence just over a decade (and just under 400 published original articles) ago, and for their sustained high standards in its production hitherto. We are confident that the PDC will maintain those high standards going forward. 

We would also like to make special mention of and express our gratitude to our authors who have been infinitely patient whilst the change in publisher has been underway. During this period, our systems have moved very much slower than the normal Thought processes, frustratingly for all concerned. We are exceptionally grateful for your patience and understanding throughout. 

Our submissions and editorial processes are going to remain unaltered, but one significant change is that Thought will now be an Open Access journal. The PDC will collect a fee of US$1500 for publication of each article. Authors of accepted papers should note that, in cases where they have no recourse to funds to meet this cost from their own institutions, research sponsors, or other outside source, the Thought Trust itself and generously, the PDC, will make every effort to cover the costs of publication….”

 

Diamond open access – an exciting new era for Aquatic Living Resources with Ifremer and IRD

“We are pleased to announce a new chapter in our longstanding partnership with Ifremer (French National Research Institute for Ocean Science) and IRD (French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development). These two leading marine science organisations have committed to sponsoring Aquatic Living Resources (ALR) as a diamond open access journal with immediate effect. Diamond open access enables all papers to be freely available without any subscriptions or publication fees for authors thanks to the support of Ifremer and IRD. The ALR archives are also now freely available….”

University of Twente launches eSports Ladder

The world of competitive gaming is incredibly popular and has mushroomed into a billion-dollar industry. In 2019, over five thousand tournaments were organized around the world with 28,000 players participating. And that’s just the tournaments that are played for prize money. It is expected that gaming will gain even more popularity over the coming years. Nevertheless, many companies and institutions are not yet taking this trend seriously. This is not the case with the University of Twente.

Project Retain Preliminary Findings: Rights Retention, Licensing & Copyright

Did you know that over 60 European higher education institutions have policies covering the copyright of research publications and almost 45 institutions either have or will soon have rights retention policies […]

The post Project Retain Preliminary Findings: Rights Retention, Licensing & Copyright appeared first on SPARC Europe.

UT researcher Annemieke Witteveen receives KNAW Early Career Award

Twelve young researchers from all fields of science will receive a KNAW Early Career Award. The award, which is given annually, consists of a sum of 15,000 euros and a work of art for each of the laureates. The Award is intended for researchers in the Netherlands who are at the beginning of their careers and who have innovative, original ideas. UT researcher Annemieke Witteveen receives the award for, among other things, her research on a method to predict the risk of breast cancer recurrence. She is the first UT researcher to receive the award.

Chefs’ Selections: Best Books Read and Favorite Cultural Creations During 2022, Part 2

The beginning of the holiday season means it’s time for our annual list of our favorite books read (and other cultural creations experienced) during the year. Part 2 today.

The post Chefs’ Selections: Best Books Read and Favorite Cultural Creations During 2022, Part 2 appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Ratios for Evaluating Full-Text Journal Article Access: A Quantitative Study: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  This article proposes a methodology for systematically assessing the cost of journal subscriptions. The authors of the paper (hereafter “the researchers”) established ratios comparing the list costs of journal articles as advertised by publishers against the cost per article of journal articles available in aggregated collections in library databases (hereafter “aggregating databases”). The researchers propose that the ratios can be used by libraries wishing to apply a standard methodology for assessing journal packages containing full-text articles. The study may be helpful for those librarians who seek to supplement qualitative information and other quantitative data, such as usage statistics, in order to demonstrate the library’s rationale for providing journal access either by purchasing articles directly from a publisher as needed or by continuing to subscribe to an aggregating database. The aggregating databases reviewed in this study included representative aggregating databases commonly associated with the following fields of study: Social Sciences, Humanities, and Health Sciences; however, the methodology described in this article could be applied to other disciplines as well. The results of the study indicated that the ratios for Mean Cost/Package Subscription Price (MC/PSP), Median Cost/Package Subscription Price (MED/PSP) could be used in evaluating journal collections. The researchers suggest that future studies should be conducted to assess resource sharing and the availability of open access resource versions of articles as possible contributing factors to the purchase decisions associated with scholarly journal articles.

 

Self-organised network: does Mastodon have what it takes to become the “scholarly-owned social network”?

by ZBW MediaTalk-Team

Ever since Elon Musk, holding a sink in his arms (“Let that sink in!”), entered the Twitter headquarters in San Francisco at the end of October, a sense of dark foreboding has been spreading in the online world. The richest man in the world had orchestrated a hostile takeover of the short message service: It is rumoured to have cost him 44 billion US dollars to turn his hobby into a new enterprise, which he can add to his business empire (Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity, Neuralink and others).

The billionaire had previously assured the world that he is a “free speech absolutist”. His plan was now to make Twitter into a place of uncensored freedom of speech. Those who were sanctioned and blocked for violating the community rules, would sooner or later receive a general absolution and be able to return to the platform. Even Donald Trump – former president of the United States and co-instigator of the most spectacular attempted coup in the USA to date – would have the red carpet rolled out for him.

Toxicity 2.0

Now Twitter has never been a cosy refuge of mutual understanding, consideration and the cultured exchange of arguments. Twitter has polarised opinions for years. But as the increase in social division has continued, particularly in the west, hate and toxicity have been constantly increasing on the platform. They are expressed in threats, open racism, discrimination, fake news, doxing and cyber-bullying. More than a few German politicians have therefore recently pulled the plug and turned their backs on the network.

How Twitter will develop in future years is anyone’s guess. However, on the evidence of the few days since Elon Musk has been at the helm, it doesn’t look good. The new CEO appears to be nervously driven, almost erratic. His first act after taking the wheel was to fire the moderating powers within the company, thereupon to bark contradictory commands to the remaining workforce. In the meantime, Twitter Inc. has neither a press department nor a data protection officer, causing the data protection officers of German companies and organisations to break out in a collective sweat, because the operation of Twitter accounts under consideration of GDPR aspects can only be legally justified with a great deal of good will.

Fear of loss of reach

Ministries, authorities but also the science sector is now facing a dilemma. There is a strong moral obligation to pack up, shut down the account that you have been nurturing and maintaining for many years and bid farewell, softly but firmly, to Twitter. On the other hand, there is an understandable fear of loss of reach: How can politics stay in touch with the public? How can universities, museums and libraries fulfil their public mandate if, at the same time, they leave their online communities?

Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0

It is questions like these that, since the dimming of Twitter, have led to one name in particular being floated around: “Mastodon”. At the moment it’s individuals in particular, who are looking for a new home – and the short messaging service alternative seems to have a certain appeal to members of the science community especially.

Much has been written in recent days about this actually not-so-very-new platform. Started in 2016 by German software developer Eugen Rochko, it is a distributed micro-blogging service that lies completely in the hands of the community, thanks to its open source code. In contrast to Twitter, Mastodon is not a centrally organised entity but a network that is created from hubs “instances”. Every instance can function autonomously or alternatively stretch its arms out to the big network where it then becomes part of the large Fediverses that is home these days not only to social networks but also to video streaming services, image sharing services and the like. Theoretically, every imaginable service and every kind of content can be added to the Fediverse using compatible open source communication protocols – the possibilities are boundless!
Theoretically, at least.

Crisis as chance

Although the developments regarding the Twitter takeover are to be evaluated critically, they were – at the same time – a collective wake-up call for openness in the digital sphere. The idea of decentralised systems that are in the hands of the communities – such as for scientific exchange and scholarly communication – is closely aligned to the wish of many people for more openness in science. There is no gatekeeper; there are no paywalls, no evolved, incomprehensible hierarchies; just the self-organisation of the community.

ZBW MediaTalk succumbed to the charm of Mastodon at a quite early stage. In 2019 we set up the account for the blog; a few months ago we really got going and since then we have been posting content regularly from the library and Open Science world.

And it’s working.

But after several months of operation, maybe it’s time to do a stocktake – not a performance evaluation, though; it’s definitely too early for that. But a summary of the experiences we have made to date. Because naturally even this much lauded network (perhaps occasionally praised with too much uncritical euphoria) is not entirely free of problems. Let’s refer to them as unusually deep puddles that lurk out of sight, and that Mastodon newbies can easily put their feet into. Because they do exist.

At that time we decided to create our account on the Openbiblio Instance. Purely theoretically though, we could have decided to use any one of the dozens of official and even hundreds of unofficial instances. Or to operate our own server. So why Openbiblio? This instance has been operated by the Berlin State Library (SBB) since 2019, and we therefore know the team behind it. There is a data protection statement, server rules and thanks to the maintenance by the SBB IT department, one can assume that the accessibility of the server is relatively reliable. All this is not necessarily a matter of course. As a result of its decentralised nature, Mastodon and the Fediverse in general have been born with structural weaknesses that have still not been ironed out.

Three critical points

1. Data protection

Firstly the topic of data protection. Unlike commercial platforms that track, log and process the behaviour of their users down to the smallest detail in order to sell targeted advertising, Mastodon instances are exempt from such blanket data collection frenzy. Is data protection therefore automatically guaranteed in the Fediverse? Not at all. With one click, the administrator has an overview of everything at all times: on Mastodon, posts and messages are not even end-to-end encrypted, which is why most instances today pre-emptively warn that if someone wants to send a DM, “don’t share any sensitive information on Mastodon!” And the way in which private user data is protected from the eyes of third parties is also left to the discretion of each administrator. With some servers, there is no mention of a contact person for data protection issues; others completely neglected to provide a privacy policy worth mentioning at all.

2. Data security

Next keyword: data security. This too depends completely on the knowhow and commitment of the server administrator. It doesn’t take much to bring a Mastodon instance to life. But it doesn’t take much to destroy it again either. The founder of the Social.Bonn server found this out in the year 2017. When trying to install an update on his instance, the whole system crashed: all postings and all the accounts that had been previously set up were irretrievably lost. There was no backup.

Do the administrators of the chosen instance handle it with care? Do they install critical fixes to the code in a timely manner? Do they even install updates at all? Can they guarantee regular data security? From the outside, these questions can almost never be answered, which means that choosing an instance is reduced to a game of chance. The hint that you can change your instance at any time is no help here, because when would be the right time to do this? However much the world mistrusts the major commercial platforms: no-one seriously worries about a complete loss of data there.

3. Moderation

A third point of criticism concerns the climate – the social discourse on the platform. How can it be ensured that the instance is a place of civilised discourse? Mastodon is by default equipped with features that allow the members to report offensive or criminal content. But how and whether the administrators react to the reports is initially left solely up to them. The Fediverse does not have a common canon of values for content evaluation; there are no generally-valid community guidelines and no overriding committee that members can call on for clarity if no action is taken or suspicions are false. What mobbing is, what fake news is, where offensiveness stops and open hatred begins – all this is decided by the administrators of the respective server, initially under their own steam. Sometimes their rules are laid down specifically; sometimes not. Factors such as the size of an instance and the resources available can also make content moderation more difficult. The large commercial networks rely on artificial intelligence and outsourced moderation teams to fish out evil, dirty and forbidden content from the timelines. How can just one person take on this task round the clock if they are maintaining an instance with thousands of members? And the issue of toxicity is only one element of the supervision: we haven’t even mentioned how copyright-protected content is handled (German).

Cooperation is now called for

Data protection, data security and moderation – these are the three critical weak points that you need to bear in mind with Mastodon, when choosing an instance. There is always only an approximation of security (and at this point, thanks again to the SBB in Berlin), but no guarantees. If you want to play it safe, you logically have to rely on self-hosted instances.

Operating your own instances as an alternative to using the services of the major commercial players sounds like the promised land in a science environment that is becoming increasingly more open, transparent and independent. This is also true in the light of current efforts to have the operation of Open Science infrastructures completely in the hands of scientific communities (scholarly-owned) or at least under their control /scholarly-led). But in order for this plan to become a reality, institutions must cooperate more closely, come to agreements, and develop a common vision of what such a network could look like and the values it could reflect. And the time is now. Consolidation, clear responsibilities and transparency are required to minimise the three structural weak points. One idea could be to establish a consortium, within which several scientific institutions can join forces, either on an institutional or target group-specific basis, in order to jointly operate an instance that is secure for everyone. The fact that Mastodon is an open source project means that there is even the opportunity to actively push the development of the network forward or promote it in another way.

Alternatively or additionally, the development of a certification process is a possibility for existing and new instances such as those in the scientific sector. A joint criteria catalogue has been defined for this purpose – compliance with it offers registered users a certain degree of security. Are there specific contact persons? Is data protection maintained? Are data pools backed up regularly? Does moderation take place, and if yes, on the basis of which rules? If there was simply a seal, a formal certification, then outsiders would have many of their questions answered. Even today, timid attempts at an initial regulation have been made: For example, the official Mastodon website currently only lists those servers, who fulfil certain criteria, although this tends to concern merely rudimentary rules.

These are just a few suggestions. There are sure to be a few clever ideas out there on this topic that could help to make Mastodon a viable alternative to Twitter – or much more, perhaps. One thing is certain: the momentum to start thinking about it has arrived right now.

You may also be interested in:

The post Self-organised network: does Mastodon have what it takes to become the “scholarly-owned social network”? first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.

Developing connection standards for heart-on-chips

Heart-on-a-Chip devices are microfluidic devices that enable the replication of a human heart at the microscale. The adoption of these devices has not reached its full potential. For his doctoral thesis, Aisen Gabriel de Sá Vivas developed a fluidic circuit board with standard connections to connect Heart-on-a-Chip devices without tubes. He will defend his thesis on 30 November.

13 December 2022 Librarian Community Call | OpenCon

“2022 has brought us many changes. Some are good, some not so much. Join us on December 13 at 12pm ET/9am PT for a guided question and answer session to discuss how we’re all doing and explore some sticky schol comm topics. We will be using Etherpad which allows for full privacy and anonymity to shape a discussion….”