Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-10-05 Thread Loet Leydesdorff 
Dear Mark, 

 

The redundancy is apophatic. Redundancy is not "given", but generation by the 
specification of a model: what is specified as a system. Redundancy can also be 
considered as options other than the ones realized. As we argued in our 
Kybernetes paper, technological developments may enlarge the number of options 
by orders of magnitude. The redundancy and maximum entropy can then proliferate 
much faster than the realizations. This development of the economy is knowledge 
based. 

 

How can we study and operationalize redundancy or the apophatic? By studying 
and improving our models which generate them in the reflection. In operational 
terms, by the specification of informed hypotheses. Our imagination enables us 
to envisage options other than the ones realized and the communication 
(discourse) can entertain models that provide a phase space of options, other 
than realized or imagined. Hypotheses can be tested and modified.

 

Best,

Loet

 


Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The Communication of 
Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of 
Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791> , 
Kybernetes 43(9/10) (2014) 1362-1371.

 

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; 

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:04 AM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

 

Dear Sergej, Rafeal, Loet, Dai and list,

 

First of all, thank you very much for the references – Gieryn looks fascinating 
(thanks Loet), and I will check out the Hobart and Schiffman (thanks to Pedro). 
It always strikes me how powerful acts of intellectual generosity are, and how 
much difference there is between pointing to a reference as if to say “This is 
the gang of academics who either agree with me or I disagree with them!” and 
“As someone who’s travelled along a similar path to you, I believe you might 
find this enlightening”. When we write academic papers, we tend to (indeed, 
have to) do the former. The latter is far more empathic - which leads me to 
reflect on Rafael’s comment about pre-understanding (I say more about this 
further down) On a forum like FIS, we can do the latter. I ask myself which is 
more useful or constructive in scientific discourse, and which should be 
encouraged?

 

Between the comments of Dai and Sergej I think there is what Pedro refers to as 
the ‘critical stance’ (as in critical theory etc, I guess). Here I would like 
to clarify my position. I do not believe that we “ought” to change the way we 
communicate about science because publishers and universities have too much 
power; that they have too much power is a systemic consequence of something 
else. Rather the argument is that the nature of the science we now practice 
(complex, uncertain, contingent) necessitates new forms of communication, and 
this science cannot effectively communicate itself through traditional media. 
It is not an argument about ‘oughts’, it is an argument about the ontology of 
complex science and communication; it is a complex science reflection on the 
communication of complex scientists.

 

That we currently have complex science and highly attenuated channels of 
communication is a source of pathology: we are at a transitional stage in 
history and such periods are often accompanied by all manner of social and 
political problems (just think of the pathologies of the early 1600s!). One 
feature of this is that we slip from talking about ‘is’ to ‘ought’ without 
reflection. I’m unconvinced by the power of political arguments (however much 
our professors of sociology would like to persuade us otherwise!) for moving 
things on – it only encourages what Bacon criticized in the Cambridge academics 
of the

1600s: “They hunt more after words than matter” (I worry about words like 
‘entanglement’ – what does it mean?); it is scientific arguments and practices 
which carry the greatest power and which (in the end) are ontologically 
inseparable from political change. I suspect the distinctions between different 
kind of arguments are the result of different kinds of constraint.

 

Having said all this about science, I want to say something about

theology(!) Rafael’s point about “pre-understanding” sent me to the work of 
Arthur Peacocke and to the relationship between ‘information’

and ‘logos’. To see information as constraint in both in the science we do, and 
in the way we communicate our scientific understanding,

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-10-05 Thread Mark Johnson 
y as if by right (where else would you go), are now forced to take
> an active role in order to maintain their preeminence in the new
> technological environment. They use their existing position to avert threats
> to their future control, through coordination  on policy, regulation and law
> (e.g. right of access to papers, brought into sharp focus by the tragic
> death of Aaron Swartz a couple of years ago).
>
> In a separate dynamic, technology is being used to manage these changes,
> which are themselves given impetus by the alignment of technology with
> managerial methods (Key Performance Indicators, etc), and with the business
> models of financialisation, privatisation and precarious employment.
>
> I don't think we will get to the bottom of these matters, still less change
> them, without engaging with the processes in a political way, however good
> our analysis of technology per se may be.
>
> Now I'll go off to check out Sci-Hub, ... or maybe I'll wait until I leave
> the office and get home.
>
> Dai
>
>
>>
>> 
>> From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
>> [l...@leydesdorff.net]
>> Sent: 27 September 2016 08:27
>> To: 'Moisés André Nisenbaum'; 'Mark Johnson'; 'fis'
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
>>
>> Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues,
>>
>> I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is
>> impressive.
>>
>> My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language"
>> (p. 2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but
>> how is the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in
>> the paper tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one
>> competes in a new political economy. However, it seems to me that the
>> selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the
>> communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control
>> brought about by the communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and
>> coded?
>>
>> One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards
>> that they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a
>> convention of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the
>> reasoning would bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism
>> a la the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory
>> (ANT) the emergence of standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is
>> not explained.
>>
>> I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation
>> and the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and
>> enable us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.
>>
>> Best,
>> Loet
>>
>>
>> Loet Leydesdorff
>> Professor, University of Amsterdam
>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>> Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex;
>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
>> Beijing;
>> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André
>> Nisenbaum
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
>> To: Mark Johnson
>> Cc: fis
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
>>
>> Dear Mark.
>>
>> Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to
>> discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can
>> you send me the transcription?).
>> No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive
>> processes, like publication industry.
>>
>> In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the
>> digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it
>> would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific
>> production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at feasible
>> rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not universal.
>> E-science is also a good initiative.
>>
>> Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
>> (sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day
>> for Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.or

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-10-03 Thread Dai Griffiths 

Dear Mark, and all,

Great videos. Sorry to be slow on this important theme, I have just got 
back from some intensive travel in China.


Mark asks at the end of the first video "why (in an uncertain world) do 
we continue to put so much emphasis on the academic journal".


In answering, I would not disagree with any of Mark's comments, but I 
would stress the policy and political entanglement of technology. In the 
past there was no alternative to print media, and so no need to enforce 
the hegemony of the journal in the ways that Mark has outlined. The 
publishers and universities who were passive recipients of the tribute 
of the academic community as if by right (where else would you go), are 
now forced to take an active role in order to maintain their preeminence 
in the new technological environment. They use their existing position 
to avert threats to their future control, through coordination  on 
policy, regulation and law (e.g. right of access to papers, brought into 
sharp focus by the tragic death of Aaron Swartz a couple of years ago).


In a separate dynamic, technology is being used to manage these changes, 
which are themselves given impetus by the alignment of technology with 
managerial methods (Key Performance Indicators, etc), and with the 
business models of financialisation, privatisation and precarious 
employment.


I don't think we will get to the bottom of these matters, still less 
change them, without engaging with the processes in a political way, 
however good our analysis of technology per se may be.


Now I'll go off to check out Sci-Hub, ... or maybe I'll wait until I 
leave the office and get home.


Dai





From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
[l...@leydesdorff.net]
Sent: 27 September 2016 08:27
To: 'Moisés André Nisenbaum'; 'Mark Johnson'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues,

I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is impressive.

My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language" (p. 2). I 
agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but how is the domain of 
counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in the paper tends towards a sociological 
explanation: "status" for which one competes in a new political economy. However, it 
seems to me that the selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the 
communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control brought about by the 
communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and coded?

One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards that 
they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a convention 
of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the reasoning would 
bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism a la the sociology 
of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of 
standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained.

I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation and 
the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and enable 
us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.

Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André 
Nisenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
To: Mark Johnson
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to discuss 
this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can you send me 
the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive 
processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the digital age?” I 
understand that we must think outside the box. I think it would be great if some group 
invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific production. Something that connect 
directly authors and readers at feasible rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, 
but it is not universal. E-science is also a good initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day for 
Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about &qu

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-09-30 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan 

Dear Mark and Colleagues,

Thanks for the well crafted work. Actually you have presented us a 
tightly linked work along perspectives of philosophical, historical, and 
present day criticisms stances. For my taste, Sections 1 and 2 are a 
matter of opinion, of philosophical orientation, closer in this case to 
critical stances. Speech social-construction, status function, scarcity 
declaration, communication definition, information-uncertainty sciences, 
etc. Some of these topics are or have been subject to hot debate in this 
list, so I decline entering--anyhow, my personal impression is that such 
kind of oriented approach although formally consistent, leave aside 
important aspects of the phenomenon. But it is good that you have made 
the consistent scheme.


Historically, the parallel between publication in that transitional 
period of the "scientific revolution" and our times of "information 
revolution" is well developed. Just to enlarge the panorama, I recommend 
/Information Ages/. Literacy, Numeracy, and the Computer Revolution. 
Michael E. Hobart and Zachary S. Schiffman. (2000). The publication 
practices around the "papiri era", culminating in the Alexandrian 
Library, and the "codices era", around the monastic system first and 
later around the university system are the two big precedents. The 
underlying phenomenon in all eras revolves around the "sharing of 
knowledge", a genuine cognitive instinct that is channeled in different 
ways by existing social orders and available technical resources. Not 
much different from the artistic pulsion--and often closely interlinked 
(paradigmatic Leonardo da Vinci).


In our times, there is a famous sentence by premier Zhou Enlai "It is 
too early to say"... However personally I share most of the concerns 
raised by Mark, adding a pessimistic note on the impact that the new 
techs are having in the "creative engine" of science. Although multiple 
new fields have been open thanks to the computer upheaval (precision 
medicine, omic revolution, nanosciences, social physics, social 
neurosceince, social networks, big data everywhere, etc etc), the 
amazing bounty has been accompanied by new problems. On the one side a 
new aristocracy related to big sceince projects and techno-utopian 
goals, more and more distanced of the common researcher, plus an 
enormous increase of computer-mediated bureaucratization. Besides, the 
really easy communication tools and the multiplicity of channels have 
derived in an unselected overflow that impacts negatively on the slow 
reflection needed in science: rushing from screen to screen, no time to 
think. Something similar is happening in technically mediated social 
relationships--terrible for instance in adolescents. If we are going 
toward a symbiosis man-machine, the prospects are not fascinating.


Well, these are comments from a late baby boomer, hardly adapted to the 
new order...

Best greetings to all
--Pedro




I El 26/09/2016 a las 9:55, Mark Johnson escribió:
Dear FIS Colleagues, To kick-start the discussion on scientific 
publishing, I have prepared a short (hopefully provocative) video. It 
can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U (if 
anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is

called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-09-27 Thread Loet Leydesdorff 
Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues, 

I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is impressive. 

My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language" (p. 
2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but how is 
the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in the paper 
tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one competes in a 
new political economy. However, it seems to me that the selection mechanism has 
to be specified. Can this be external to the communication? How is the 
paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control brought about by the 
communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and coded?

One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards that 
they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a convention 
of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the reasoning would 
bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism a la the sociology 
of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of 
standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained. 

I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation and 
the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and enable 
us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.

Best,
Loet 


Loet Leydesdorff 
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; 
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; 
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André 
Nisenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
To: Mark Johnson
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to discuss 
this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can you send me 
the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive 
processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the digital 
age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it would be 
great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific production. Something 
that connect directly authors and readers at feasible rates.  arXiv does this 
connection in some way, but it is not universal. E-science is also a good 
initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day for 
Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the real 
reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about this, this 
book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The interdisciplinary nature 
of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. 
Practising interdisciplinarity, p.
66-78, 2000.)

Kind regards,

Moisés



2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared 
> a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U
>
> (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is 
> called 'Videoscribe')
>
> I have also produced a paper which is attached.
>
> I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Institute of Learning and Teaching
> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> University of Liverpool
>
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>



--
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Rio de Janeiro 
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-09-26 Thread Moisés André Nisenbaum 
Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to
discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students
(can you send me the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against
abusive processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the
digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think
it would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific
production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at
feasible rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not
universal. E-science is also a good initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International
Day for Universal Access to Information
(http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the
real reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about
this, this book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The
interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and
bibliometric-empirical approach. Practising interdisciplinarity, p.
66-78, 2000.)

Kind regards,

Moisés



2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson :
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
> a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U
>
> (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
> called 'Videoscribe')
>
> I have also produced a paper which is attached.
>
> I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Institute of Learning and Teaching
> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> University of Liverpool
>
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>



-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Rio de Janeiro
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

2016-09-26 Thread Rafael Capurro 

Dear Mark,

thanks for your inspiring and indeed provocative presentation.
Just some few remarks/questions about:
1) was it since the 16th and 17th century also a nationalistic issue 
when claiming who was the first one to have done a 'discovery' and is it 
in a different way still today? Do you know of any analysis on this?
2) You describe the changes of _scientific_ publication and particularly 
the issue of journals that have to do with the shorter time of 
'discoveries' (journals=jours=days) with the rise of modern empirical 
science. Where is the difference with regard to the humanities and 
literature? The role of copyright (including patents) is, as you know, 
changing and you point to this indirectly at the end of your video 
presentation which I very much share. But the economic (and national?) 
power of big players is still there, creating scarcity in a time of 
(potential) digital abundance of 'information'
3) A few months ago I wrote a paper (in Spanish) on: "What is a 
scientific journal?" with similar insights to the ones you present

http://informatio.eubca.edu.uy/ojs/index.php/Infor/issue/view/16/showToc
best regards
Rafael


Dear FIS Colleagues,

To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U

(if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information 
Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, 
South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing. Please resend article.

2016-09-26 Thread Joseph Brenner 

Dear Mark (if I may),

I quite agree with the thesis of your published article, which is what the 
indicated link first took me to. Now, it takes me only to the Youtube and I 
have lost the article!


One should continue: if it is a 'logic of the market' that is biasing 
decisions in scientific publishing, maybe we should get rid of the 
neo-capitalist market system for this as well as other reasons! I also have 
some comments on Bhaskar but I would like to read the article again. Many 
thanks.


Best regards,

Joseph Brenner


- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>

To: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:55 AM
Subject: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing



Dear FIS Colleagues,

To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U

(if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark
--
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com








___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis