[OpenAccess] Fwd: [FreeOurKnowledge/website] Platinum Open Access Pledge (#5)

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 &lt;rudy.patard(a)gmail.com&gt;* *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 &lt;rudy.patard(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&gt;gt;, < daaronr(a)gmail.com&gt; Cc: FreeOurKnowledge/website &lt;website(a)noreply.github.com&gt;om>, Mention < mention(a)noreply.github.com&gt; 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 &lt;rudy.patard(a)gmail.com&gt;* *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 &lt;notifications(a)github.com&gt; wrote: