tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post1188597776184474919..comments2024-03-14T21:04:42.902-07:00Comments on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: December 31, 2012 Dramatic Growth of Open AccessHeather Morrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-53061352244760093142013-01-13T19:16:01.970-08:002013-01-13T19:16:01.970-08:00Oops - much appreciated, I've double-checked a...Oops - much appreciated, I've double-checked and fixed this, Bryan! To clarify: Elsevier claims to serve .4% of the people open access claims to serve, not .04%. <br />Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-28071145196482062812013-01-13T19:00:21.274-08:002013-01-13T19:00:21.274-08:00Hi Heather, great article and I always love readin...Hi Heather, great article and I always love reading the quarterly posts but I think the math is a little off. If there are 30 million people getting access, it's .4%, not .04%. Sorry to be a stickler, love the site!Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06709912790608704374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-25128807687430297572013-01-05T15:22:41.261-08:002013-01-05T15:22:41.261-08:00Thanks for your comments, Jack. Normally I don'...Thanks for your comments, Jack. Normally I don't post promotional comments like this one, however I will make an exception when it comes to projects like JustPublics@365 which is aiming to further the public good.<br /><br />I am familiar with ImpactStory and am actively encouraging Jason, Heather, and everyone who works with them to take a critical stance on altmetrics, particularly those based on social media. For example, long before anyone decides "much-tweeted" means "important" or "quality" in an academic sense, we should consider things like this: what articles will a pharmaceutical company point to / tweet - the ones that show the benefits of their products, or the studies that either show no benefits or found those awful side-effects? I would fully expect such metrics to reflect and amplify social biases - the works of men tweeted more than those of women, the works of the wealthy majority more than the wealthy minority. Not to mention the ease with which such metrics could be deliberately manipulated by those with money. Think about how much money big oil has to hire people to tweet, facebook, etc., their preferred "science", i.e. climate change denial. <br /><br />If you hear of this kind of appropriately critical scholarship applied to altmetrics, please let me know as I'd be most interested.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-89029298351207080152013-01-05T14:59:51.741-08:002013-01-05T14:59:51.741-08:00Hi Heather,
Thanks for these really thoughtful a...Hi Heather, <br /><br />Thanks for these really thoughtful and incredible numbers. Have you considered doing data visualizations or maybe a short video to convey them? They're pretty mind-blowing. <br /><br />If you're in NYC, you should come to the MediaCamp of JustPublics@365 (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/justpublics365), a joint initiative of the Graduate Center CUNY and the Ford Foundation. #JP365 is helping academics build the capacity to learn all sorts of tools to share their work with the media and activists, and your work is especially so exciting. <br /><br />Also, you should chat with Jason and Heather at ImpactStory.org. That's some great work you would enjoy.<br /><br />Best, <br />Jack @jgieseking / @justpublics365Jen Jack Giesekinghttp://jgieseking.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-47749606891138024012013-01-03T04:15:41.847-08:002013-01-03T04:15:41.847-08:00Heather,
There are now Tables of Contents for the...Heather,<br /><br />There are now Tables of Contents for the latest issues of over 5,000 Open Access journals included in JournalTOCs http://www.journaltocs.ac.uk/index.php <br /><br />See http://roddymacleod.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/5000-open-access-oa-journals-now-in-journaltocs-the-free-current-awareness-service-for-researchers/ <br /><br />Roddy MacLeodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-85955192148147050732013-01-01T14:30:25.254-08:002013-01-01T14:30:25.254-08:00Thanks, Pablo! Your friendly informal peer review ...Thanks, Pablo! Your friendly informal peer review obviously requires some revisions in the post and spreadsheet, so I've made the changes and credited you as the reviewer. This is an example of the vision that I have of a future for open peer review to accompany a new form of scholarly communication. Because your comments are open and signed, it is easy for me to credit you. Now what we need is to figure out how to give people who do this appropriate credit. This is true of other kinds of useful input and feedback. The reason this comment follows your comment in particular is the easy comparison with peer review and revising the work.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-46917732134785719082013-01-01T12:41:02.696-08:002013-01-01T12:41:02.696-08:00Thanks for this comprehensive account of the level...Thanks for this comprehensive account of the level of success of OA in 2012. A couple of tiny adds to your figures: according to a quick calculation based on the 'browse by year' functionality, http://elis.da.ulcc.ac.uk/view/year/, the number of E-LIS items as of Jan 1st is 14,206. And: the growth rate mismatch between ROAR and OpenDOAR is due to an intensive database cleansing by the latter towards the end of 2012 that led to removal of a number of wrong/outdated entries.Pablo de Castrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08507478327613019011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-10449486913824622762013-01-01T09:11:07.277-08:002013-01-01T09:11:07.277-08:00Thanks @PubAdvisor. There is a growing flood of in...Thanks @PubAdvisor. There is a growing flood of information, however this has nothing to do with open access. De Solla Price in Little Science Big Science, for example, pointed out that the number of scientists and scientific journals and articles has been growing exponentially at a fairly steady rate since the first scientific journals were published in the 1600's. Publish or perish certainly contributes to this. I am more concerned about the negative impacts of filtering out, even accidentally, rather than the scholar's task of filtering in. I have been giving some thought to potential solutions. 3 possibilities that I'm considering at the moment:<br /><br />- research the correlation between quality of work and real quantity of publishing (I anticipate a negative, based on work with scholarly monograph publishers). That is, establish evidence that pushing scholars for high quantity of publication is not the way to quality scholarship, to help change the academic reward structure (e.g. allow a maximum number of publications for consideration by t&p committees)<br />- change the academic reward structure to reward contribution rather than results. Rewarding results gives incentive to find results - much important scholarly work involves checking out and rejecting false paths. <br />- work collaboratively rather than individually (fits well with the above). Writers on this topic include De Solla Price, Bruno Latour, and Fleck. Contributions need not be journal articles. If there are fewer journal articles, this would reduce the burden of reading for scholars, as well as reduce the likelihood of missing important work because no one has time to read all those articles.<br /><br />This is not a complete answer, but is an early version of an "open research agenda brainstorm" I'm thinking of publishing. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-61383815827650845062013-01-01T08:57:21.130-08:002013-01-01T08:57:21.130-08:00Hi Heather, this is a comment from @PubAdvisor in ...Hi Heather, this is a comment from @PubAdvisor in reference to your post: The dramatic growth of Open Access. I am a scientist who supports OA and its growth but who is also surprised by a peculiar narrative. That is: the rise of OA as a means to support exclusively the spreading of scholarly information. I am more concerned by the content of scholarly information rather than its instantaneous dissemination. Working at the base of scientific endeavour (in the lab) I know that a large amount of scholarly information is wrong. This problem will certainly increase with the growth of OA. What are your thoughts on the necessity of filtering reproducible information from the ever-increasing flood of data that has been and will be produced by the "publish or perish" paradigm in science? You seem to have noticed that discussion via blog commenting can be disruptive, useless and cluttering your site. Excluding this possibility, what else can be done to make use of filters? Are we going to move into a world of more information, including scholarly content, without the possibility to verify what is correct and what is not? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com