RE: https://wikis.world/@samwilson/116494104680605008
Very interesting and positive story on some actual deshittification.... @pluralistic@mamot.fr
Remote
Jeroen Bosman
@jeroenbosman@akademienl.social
mastodon 4.7.3Immigrant | open science advisor & geoscience librarian @ Utrecht University Library | #OpenScience #OpenAccess #visualization #RecognitionRewards #ScholarlyCommunication #cycling #photography #documentaries #KnowledgeEquity #zeroAI
1309 Followers
524 Following
43 Posts
Joined November 02, 2022
Replying to
@Datagraver@mastodon.social Heel originele, rijke én inzichtelijke 'één-oog-opslag' visualisatie!
The fact that 10 years after @MsPhelps@akademienl.social and I included equity in our working definition of #OpenScience in the form an 'open to participation' pillar (see https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/) we are now at #FOR2026 conference discussing how to include equity in OS means that this change moves at glacial speed and there may be strong incentives against it. One of these might be #universityrankings with their huge inbuilt colonial legacy.
Important questions on what ACM (with many publications and conferences like @acm_ccs@mastodon.acm.org) should or could be: a publishing house *or* a professional society? https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3815435. I guess this dilemma is relevant for many scholarly societies with big publishing programmes, including ACS and APA.
RE: https://mastodon.social/@waltcrawford/116223939720090295
I really like and appreciate how Walt Crawford steadfastly keeps analysing open access journals, year on year, reliably, manually. Thanks so much, Walt for doing this! Your work is an essential addition to @DOAJ@masto.ai data. #openaccess #journals #doaj
Will be in Munich the next few days for the FOR2026 conference on open science and equitability. Full Programme now avialable:https://opensciencestudies.eu/for-2026-conference/. Looking forward to meet @cameronneylon@hcommons.social @chartgerink@akademienl.social @egiglia@mastodon.social @ismaelrafols@mstdn.social @tonyRH@mstdn.social @mariannenoel @Samuelmoore@hcommons.social @LudoWaltman@social.cwts.nl @pgroth@sigmoid.social Katja Mayer and many, many others, especially anyone I haven't met before ;-)
We have shared our updated set of now 237 Open Science and Open Education practices. It was checked and updated as teamwork during the recent Open Science Retreat in the Netherlands and lives on @ResearchEquals@akademienl.social. It is CC0, to be used by anyone without asking. It contains formatted cards that can be printed for use in workshops etc. @MsPhelps@akademienl.social https://doi.org/10.53962/m4v0-4jt6
UNESCO has launched a consultation on a proposal to make scholarly communication more equitable: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/launch-global-consultation-equitable-scholarly-communication-implementation-open-science. Deadline 20260413
A beautifully balanced overview of discussions and insights from the recent Global Summit on diamond open access in Bengaluru. Diamond OA is global, diverse and alive but in places also fragile, in need of political support and depending on research assessment reform. By Makavika Legge from OASPA. https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2026/abcs-of-diamond-oa-third-global-summit
Save the date and express your interest: 19-21 May 2026. Knowledge Equity and Open Scholarship Week. With exciting co-creation of contributions. See https://knowledgeequitynetwork.org/casestudies/knowledge-equity-and-open-scholarship-week-2026-save-the-dates-and-join-our-co-creation-experiment/. By the Knowledge Equity Network (#KEN) https://knowledgeequitynetwork.org/. #knowledgeequity
Replying to
@Aschniedermann@fediscience.org @chartgerink@akademienl.social Yes, will also be there. Heading towards the station now--ish. See you there.
The slides of my presentation on Resilience of (open) science at a recent @cwts@social.cwts.nl workshop are now permanently available in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17558232. In it I propose 10 resilience strategies to inspire and be applied by academic stakeholder groups. We have to stop breakdown of science by authoritarian regimes, skepticism and big commercial and political interests enshitting the internet
Replying to
@jpaulgibson@mastodon.ie "Sure there are these issues with genAI destroying the earth, democracy and our brains, but we have to be realistic and embrace it. We'll do a communication campaign using the word responsible several times though. Now be a good academic and take a nuanced and balanced stance."
Only two more days to participate in the UNESCO consultation on equitable scholarly communication: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/launch-global-consultation-equitable-scholarly-communication-implementation-open-science
Replying to
@sparc@mastodon.social The impact factors are the sympton of a culture favouring quantity and aiming for prestige rather than openness, collaboration and reproducibility. Culture change goes slow and that is fine, but what is lacking is academic leadership speaking out in very explicit ways, feeling responsible for following up on their signing of #DORA, and vocally supporting researchers and librarians that do want to change.
RE: https://mastodon.social/@yaelwrites/116571916006444049
To me this is an essential remark in Yael's post below: "In trying to preserve conversations, we make them harder to have."
@chartgerink@akademienl.social Nur für Gäste ;-) Zie je later.
Replying to
@petersuber @civodul It is good though to read in our (independent) university magazine that the editor will now scrutinize all articles in the journal that have Monsanto involvement: https://dub.uu.nl/nl/nieuws/onderzoek-naar-glyfosaat-van-voormalig-uu-hoogleraar-teruggetrokken (sorry in Dutch). The university board points at codes of confuct that should be upheld.
@Bibliothecaris @SURF Wow, thank you for doing this! You're setting a great example!
At the 20241022 Netherlands Open Science Festival we (@ludowaltman@akademienl.social, Ana Ranitovic and I) devoted an interactive session to challenges and solutions for (Dutch) institutions when signing up for and implementing the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research information (@barcelonaDORI https://barcelona-declaration.org/). This post is a write up of the process and results of that session. Most challenges identified are around policy, training and collaboration rather than technical. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/shaping-the-future-of-open-research-information-reflections-from-the-national-open-science-festival
RE: https://kolektiva.social/@KevinCarson1/115538346638511607
It seems people are seeing genAI for what it is. Quote from the article: "Americans understand they’re getting a raw
deal on this. A Pew Research Center poll in the spring found that only 17 percent of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years, while only 11 percent say they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life, compared to 51 percent who say the opposite."
Great to see that OpenAlex by OurrResarch is now also human readable in courageous alpha-version (so with bugs but allowing early input) here: https://alpha.openalex.org/works. This open source scholarly knowledge graph uses a.o. PIDs to connect works/authors/institutions/sources/concepts and more.
Replying to
@real_lilu@mastodon.social I ike to see library support for working with bibliometrics. But in this overview I somewhat miss open and critical approaches. What about @OpenAlex@mastodon.social, @DORAssessment@mastodon.world and @CoARAssessment@mastodon.social ?
Replying to
@Lambo@openbiblio.social @openscience@mastodon.social @MsPhelps@akademienl.social @nicebread@scicomm.xyz @cameronneylon@hcommons.social @HelmholtzOpenScienceOffice@helmholtz.social @meliimming@akademienl.social @CenterforOpenScience@fosstodon.org @kuf@mastodon.social @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @rmrahal@nerdculture.de Is that Denise J. Cai? One could conclude that from this post: https://mastodon.social/@openscience/106256496860643277 She's also still active on X. Also see: https://www.denisecailab.com/denise
Replying to
@LudoWaltman@social.cwts.nl thanks for sharing this. I recognize the various challenges. We can discuss the timelines of course. The openness challenge is ongoing, maybe half-solved, but without radical changes will take at least 10 more years. And then there's the AI challenge and the challenge of communicating results/output and their status with non-specialist and wider audiences.
Report with results from the Dutch survey of academics on recognition and rewards (65K, 12% response rate) now available. Most repondents haven't yet experienced positive (system, policy, culture) change from the programme aiming to improve R&R, and a majority still feels that not all their academic activities are equally rewarded. We need more concrete and lived changes of procedures and criteria. https://recognitionrewards.nl/culture-barometer/
This is where you can find most of the (preprints of) papers presented at the #sti2023 @sti2023@social.cwts.nl conference, including the open peer review: https://dapp.orvium.io/communities/641026cb2ebc4cd35f485898/view
Replying to
@RHoogstraat thanks for taking the initiative and for all the time and energy you have put in over the past few years! I'm fully confident it is in good hands now.
Replying to
First, praise for this #CWTS Leiden Ranking Open Edition. The Leiden Ranking was already, with U-multirank the odd one out among global rankings. Leiden is the first to try radical transparency and has put in a lot of hard and good work. It did this collaboratively, further improving data quality at OpenAlex. That is a huge. The openness extends to code, going beyond just open data and includes the algorithms for assigning topical clusters. I really like the open communication on the project!
Replying to
@LudoWaltman Yes. And ideally this should be part of a PID-linked output cloud of projects, tying together proposal, data, code, posters, preprints, articles, video, blogpost etc. That could/should be visible on the landing pages of any of the items involved. It would be nice if any steps to do the reciprocal preprint<>article link would be done in such a way that it would fit that bigger, longer term goal.
@ionica@mathstodon.xyz De rangorde data zijn idd altijd tricky in communicatie. Met de universitaire rankings is wel nog heel wat meer mis dan louter de gevaren van het meetniveau... Het streetlight effect is daar bv sterk: er wordt data gebruikt die makkelijk voorhanden zijn, niet data die staan voor wat men eigenlijk zegt/hoopt te meten.
Replying to
Then methodological issues. There are some inherent biases stemming from selected data sources and processing of the data. These hurt HSS and institutions strong in those fields. There's already biases in OpenAlex (built on crossref, pubmed and the former MAG) and the restriction to çore journals increases bias. Book chapters were included, but not monographs and again data will likely disregard much of the long tail important in humanities.
Replying to
@LudoWaltman@social.cwts.nl @digitalscience@sciencemastodon.com @springernature@bird.makeup very interesting indeed. It raises many questions, esp around stated peference, versus what we know about the actual uptake of practices in various fields. It also suggests that open peer review could catch on if it was more widely supported by authors.
Replying to
@Samuelmoore They can do both; withdraw funding and mandate preprinting. Should be entirely possible in their field. Perhaps use 10% of budget freed up to promote and support further development of journal independent reviewing platforms and communities.
Replying to
BTW although I like coverage to include chapters I wonder how that relates to the goal of trying to mimic the classic version as closely as possible.
And for some of the other indicators (collaboration, Open Access) restricting to core journals is not even necessary I would say. Also, of course this bias issue would be less of an issue if there would simply not be an option to compare universities on all fields combined. I’ll come back to that.
Replying to
@Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie Indeed, let's make some full hardcopy editions of the entire wikipedia as it was in 2021, in all language versions, and put them in libraries. Seriously.
Replying to
@jameswilsdon @briannosek @StephenCurry @RoRInstitute
Looking forward, thanks for organizing. Should prove to be a great meeting, and very important for the community, given the increasing headwinds.
Sorry, just one suggestion: would it be possible to treat talk and poster proposals as separate forms of scholarly communication, each with their unique role and unique pro's and con's for both audience and presenters, also for the sake of inclusivity? Posters are not second-rate talks.
Replying to
@StephenCurry @jameswilsdon @briannosek @RoRInstitute Ah, that explains things. The limitations of infrastructure. Thanks so much for replying and for addressing this!
Replying to
@pvanheus@mstdn.science @MsPhelps@akademienl.social Thanks. Indeed that is a very serious issue that the EU must address. Inject guarantees on equitable governance and sharing into open science policies. This is the ultimate test case for that, as explained for instance in this article: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/pandemic-talks-europe-is-blocking-health-equity-and-it-knows-it/
