---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rudy Patard <rudy.patard@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:52
Subject: Re: [FreeOurKnowledge/website] Platinum Open Access Pledge (#5)
To: FreeOurKnowledge/website <reply+ADA7BNDKVFXUT6SLNUXPZKV7JY2GNEVBNHHCPC4QOA@reply.github.com>, <daaronr@gmail.com>
Cc: FreeOurKnowledge/website <website@noreply.github.com>, Mention <mention@noreply.github.com>
From: Rudy Patard <rudy.patard@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 09:52
Subject: Re: [FreeOurKnowledge/website] Platinum Open Access Pledge (#5)
To: FreeOurKnowledge/website <reply+ADA7BNDKVFXUT6SLNUXPZKV7JY2GNEVBNHHCPC4QOA@reply.github.com>, <daaronr@gmail.com>
Cc: FreeOurKnowledge/website <website@noreply.github.com>, Mention <mention@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 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...
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:11, David Reinstein <notifications@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 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, or unsubscribe.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android.
