Hello,
The Budapest Open Access Initiative, which first defined open access, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary next year. We are working on a new set of recommendations for the anniversary and are soliciting input from the community. For more information please see - https://eifl.net/news/boai-20th-anniversary-questions-oa-community. Please share your thoughts by October 22nd.
Many thanks,
Melissa
Melissa Hagemann
Senior Program Officer
Information Program
Open Society Foundations
1730 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #700
Washington, DC 20006
U.S.A.
'
Our Privacy Policy<https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/policies/privacy> sets out how and why we collect, store, use, and share your personal data, and it explains your rights and how to raise concerns with us.
'
Hi,
As I just got the idea while writing to FreeOurKnowledge, I quickly forward
my interrogations.
I'd be curious to ear wikimedians on this idea : *a review on science
making and disseminating through a SMW analysing journals and initiatives*
(developed below).
Would wikimedia host such a project (OA group supporting it on META) ?
How many researchers on the OA list ? (any with the specialties mentioned?)
Chris (or anyone behind OpenMod's list) ? Any experience to share related
to ENIPEDIA/OpenMod to this idea of a "Semantic-Research-PEDIA" ?
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
*06 38 02 53 12*
[hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] *{{u|RP87
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* [peertube
<https://videos.lescommuns.org/accounts/rp87/video-channels> youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGZp376V8jf1gp1I9E9OBA>]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:52
Subject: Re: [FreeOurKnowledge/website] Platinum Open Access Pledge (#5)
To: FreeOurKnowledge/website <
reply+ADA7BNDKVFXUT6SLNUXPZKV7JY2GNEVBNHHCPC4QOA(a)reply.github.com>, <
daaronr(a)gmail.com>
Cc: FreeOurKnowledge/website <website(a)noreply.github.com>, Mention <
mention(a)noreply.github.com>
Hi David,
I quickly red your unjournal. From my "designer-engineer-researcher" view,
I believe the reviewing process of existing initiative (your airtable),
could gain a grid update/review. Assessment is the combination of
observation and judgment. The current table is mixing the two. I believe it
would be a gain to community to separate the two (and make the debate on
"dimensions and numbers/scales open).
*dimension and scales proposals*
* writing (open from start / from protocol - before results etc. / to whom
is it open ...)
* review (1 blind (b) / 2 b / 3b ; with blind waver ; continuous ; open to
all ; rated reviews ; review as article)
* "quality / rating" (filtering VS labelling ; rating / ranking) (RQ
possible 2bl dimension with "academia's social money")
* "academian social money" (career recognized [y/n] / [0 to 9]scale? /
tenured-stats-based) (RQ : hugge work here as journal lists range with
different institutions, disciplines AND it's an historical situated
assessment, for instance JMLR history IF etc.)
* disseminating / access (closed - private / paywalled / open "at pearl
stage" / pre-print open / continuously open / + translations /
+"vulgarization") [maybe 2 dimension here]
* economical support (private ; club - association - union ; socialized) [!
different from économical purpose]* business [for profit / non-profit]
* licence (from Copyright to Copyleft with all the CC specific ; debate on
ordoning virality)
* content (from article to full notes and data)
* readability (human / machine - readable)* discipline (all ; specialised
[name])* localisation (region / nation [list])
* starting (is the problematics / research questions [from researcher /
from private company / from a public organisation / from NGO / sampled on
population interviews] [yeah more a research axis than 'journal' axis, but
I tend to see the activity more than the 'journal' part ;)
For instance a 3D Economic support / Business / Access display may exposed
how "public money" is used to what end (my guess : for profit club good _
paywalled articles_ and Gold OA).
(black box "classified" [private research ; socialized -> privatized] ;
club good [paywalled or APC : capitalist ; unionized] ; common goods [OA
with ; unionized _ a union pays; socialized _ a 'nation' pays];)
Using starting point instead of access or business gives the "for who" is
used the research money.
A 3D Review / Licence / Readability after filtering OA, would expose
"priorities" followed by our communities (are these priorities altruist
effective ?) ...
Making it an open research with a semantic mediawiki [probably an ontology
or several to be re-used], could be quite useful as it's a massive work.
(Funny thing, proposing it as a future article may attract attention and
participation, but Where would it be published would probably divide
volunteers ;) ok not a so funny thing). The "altruist team" (I let you
forward David) ?
Making it an open dataset could enable different visualisation and
understand the different dynamics at play. Reviewing this with a
communities ("FOK pledgers" ; EA ; OA enthusiasts groups ?) we could add
nationals / disciplines orientations (are there nations with more engaged
scientific communities ; are there disciplines with experiences on these
matters _ examples to follow and developp for instance BrainHack / JOSS /
Liège-ORBI).
I've no idea how many are reading so XD
Team building needs : data-scientist with experience on SPARQL / SMW ;
Ontologist-Math reviewer for the grid and coding data for assessment use ;
scientific information and communication specialist ; research institution
specialist ; a few tenured with hosting capacites for SMW, endpoint and
triple stores* (multiple hosting please) ; tons of volunteers filling SMW
forms on initiatives and journals ;)
BR
Rudy
PS: If we could avoid the hosting end that ENIPEDIA suffered...
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
*06 38 02 53 12*
[hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] *{{u|RP87
<https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* [peertube
<https://videos.lescommuns.org/accounts/rp87/video-channels> youtube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGZp376V8jf1gp1I9E9OBA>]
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:11, David Reinstein <notifications(a)github.com>
wrote:
> I'll try to do this even unconditionally, but co-authors and (?funders)
> may want the traditional publications on occasion .. thus I put a 20%
> threshold.
>
> Sad truth is there seems to be nothing 'highly valued' in Economics that
> is in this category.
>
> Ideally I'd like to find ways to get beyond the traditional 0/1
> reject/accept static endpoint journal system (see my unjournal thoughts
> <http://bit.ly/unjournal> and discussion). I think these initiatives and
> pledges are helpful to this end.
>
> Great initiative.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/FreeOurKnowledge/website/issues/5#issuecomment-920341996>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADA7BNEZ63U2VJ7JBSCQJXTUC…>
> .
> Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
> <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&m…>
> or Android
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=u…>.
>
>