Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA THIS! I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OAoldid=475025593#Tests . Any hints welcome. Daniel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
-- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:56 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The problem and potential solution are explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:OA-ness Thanks - I took one of the workarounds you pointed to, so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandboxoldid=475001832 now does what I wanted it to do. However adding those icons everywhere is a big change, and it needs to be discussed on the project, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPPRO Sure, though the discussion we are having here on the mailing list looks like a good preparation for that. I think the minimal variant that would make sense is just the flagging of OA (of whatever kind) by way of the orange padlock. In the demo, I have added in the CC logos for the license being used by that publisher. This makes sense only for the rather few publishers (and perhaps repositories) that have all their content under a CC license (and preferably the same license for all articles). I do think it makes sense to consider adding license as an additional field to citation templates, but I am not convinced the icons (particularly at the size in the demo) are the way to go. If we go that way, we could also use doi-based (or similar) tools to determine the default for a publisher or outlet, and allow it to be overwritten by entering a different value in license (which would be especially useful for hybrid journals but requires a lot of manual work). I have also added the grey padlock for closed access (i.e. for cases when the DOi provides no information about any potential OA-ness of the reference at hand), and question marks to signal the need for a check. I am not yet convinced we should make wide-spread use of the grey padlock icon, and the question marks could be replaced by something more similar to existing maintenance templates. btw, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany Open Access Catalogue hosted on wikipedia seems to be replicating much of the work already being done on the OAD wiki. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Yes, but much of the OAD would be considered OR, whereas the Catalogue serves - amongst other things - to facilitate the transfer of suitable OAD information onto Wikimedia projects. Thanks and cheers, Daniel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is. One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the OA-ness of cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of the Signpost (most recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References ). So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA, others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses. What else can we do? Well, the usual stuff: assessing and improving existing articles around OA and starting new ones, or putting OA materials to new uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access has recently been started with precisely these goals. We can also highlight content that we reuse from OA sources, as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Open_Access_File_of_the_Day , or we can see to OA-related topics or files being more systematically considered for the various options of featuring. As for any other article, the entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier should strive to neutrally state the facts - they speak for themselves. That said, I am certainly supportive of closer interaction between the OA and Wikimedia communities - not by chance one of the core aspects of my Wikimedian in Residence project ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science ). Such interaction can take place in multiple ways, e.g. via an Open-Access policy of the Foundation (currently being developed by RCOM at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy ), via removal of weasel words in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Criticism , via collaboration with scholarly journals (e.g. as per http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Topic_Pages_at_PLoS_Computational_Biology ), via translation of OA-related articles (cf. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Tool_testing_report#Documentation_of_DYKs_and_other_temporarily_featured_content ), or by mutually showcasing OA an wiki matters at wiki and OA events (e.g. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#Briefly or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science/Events ) . With regards to boycotting Elsevier, I do not think that would easily fall within the mission of the Foundation (or even individual chapters), but of course, individual Wikimedians are free to join. I haven't joined the anti-Elsevier pledge and have no intention to do so anytime soon, for two main reasons: - Elsevier is neither the only nor the fiercest opponent of Open Access, just the biggest one - I have already signed a (rather moderate) Open Access pledge last year (cf. http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2 ) and a more strict one last month (cf. http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/451 ). In both cases, it applies to all non-OA publishing rather than just one publisher, and in the latter case, I specifically mention compatibility with reuse on Wikipedia as a criterion for me to get involved. Stressing the reuse aspects of OA is an area that I can well imagine being championed by the Wikimedia community or by the Foundation: Much of Gold OA is reusable on Wikipedia (e.g. all PLoS or Hindawi journals but not Nature Communications or Scientific Reports, nor Living Reviews or Scholarpedia), some of Green OA (e.g. all of Nature Precedings, some of arXive, though not visibly so) and basically nothing of traditionally published materials (exceptions being the odd human genome paper released directly into the Public Domain). It is thus not surprinsing to see that a ranking of publishers by number of pages on Wikimedia Commons that mention one of their DOIs sees several OA publishers ahead of Elsevier and other large non-OA publishers (cf. http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?commons=1 ; prototype; loads slowly and is not entirely up to date). I am involved in work on a tool that automatically uploads to Commons audio and video files from suitably licensed OA articles (cf. http://wir.okfn.org/2012/01/18/project-introduction-open-access-media-importer-for-wikimedia-commons/ ). OA publishers - namely PLoS - have been pushing the idea of openly
Re: [Foundation-l] EU Consultation on Open Access (deadline coming soon)
The Wikimedia response has been submitted, based on http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy/EU_Consultation_on_scientific_information_in_the_digital_ageoldid=2888771 . Thanks to all who helped on the way. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote: While the EC may weigh non-EU responses differently, being in the EU or having EU citizenship is technically not required - any individual, organization or institution can submit a response. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:50:13PM -0500, Keegan Peterzell wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: You can fill it in as a citizen, (which I did) Who, me? Haha, yes, you too, provided you're in an EU country. :-) Sincerely, Kim Bruning -- I question the question of questioning all questions. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [libraries] Open Access EU consultation
Dear all, I completed a first draft: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU . Daniel On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: [sorry for cross-posting] I wanted to remind you all that the deadline of the European consultation on Open Access and Open Data is September 9th. Here's the link: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultation_en.htm and here's the survey on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU Daniel is working on that, but feedback could be useful. Here my few cents about some proposals we could make in the comment sections ofthe survey: 1. We need strategies/policies for OA. We need institutions/university to *require* OAfrom doctoral students and researchers. 2. We need digital preservation to be done by libraries and archives, not publishers. They have right now the functions and services (access, dissemination, preservation) that should be accomplished by libraries. Preservation is an issue. 3. We need clear, easily understandable licenses. CC-BY for articles and CC-0 for research data should do their job. No more ad hoc, human-not-understandable licenses, but clear Creative Commons. (CC-BY= we can use that on Wikipedia, we can upload it on Commons, we can publish it on Wikisource, we have material for Wikibooks/Wikiversity, etc.) I hope this can be useful. Aubrey 2011/7/28 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com: Thank you Daniel, great work. Lodewijk was suggesting that we reply as an organization, because they don't really count single citizens proposals. If we manage to write something, we could then forward it many times, one per chapter, in several languages :-) But first things first, we need to work on the draft. Aubrey 2011/7/28 Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com: Problem solved; full text now on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU . Daniel On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Aubrey, thanks for the invitation. I had indeed planned to set up a document to facilitate collaborative drafting of a response. So far, I have seen the Open Knowledge Foundation, the Euroscience Working Group on Open Access as well as Eurodoc signaling an interest in drafting a response, and doing it all together - perhaps with an individual comment per organization - could be worth a try. The questionnaire comes in three variants - for citizens, organisations and public bodies - and the session to fill it in is time-limited, so we will have to set up an editable copy somewhere. The Commission provided a PDF ( http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/questionnaire.pdf ) whose text cannot be copied, and I inquired with them on July 16 to provide another version of the file. My submission was forwarded to the technical unit two days later but no reaction since - I just dropped them a line again. To get things started, I just set up http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU . Please chime in there. Thanks and cheers, Daniel On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. Lodewijk today forwarded me this interesting EU consultation about open access, open data and digital preservation for scientific information. Press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/890 Consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultation_en.htm It could be very, very interesting if we (as Wikimedia Movement, or Wikimedia chapters) could write a statement to contribute. Maybe our brand-new Open Access WMF fellow could be interested in coordinating :-D Anyway, it seems a good opportunity to put in (digital) paper what we think about these issues. Any thoughts? We have until September 9th. Aubrey ___ Libraries mailing list librar...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries ___ Libraries mailing list librar...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries ___ Libraries mailing list librar...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [libraries] SAGE Open
Hi Fred, I didn't intend to say that these journals are bad in some way, though some details like the non-commercial clause at Scientific Reports could well qualify for that label. PLoS ONE addresses three major problems: *Access to the research literature it publishes *Scope limitations *Impact guesstimation. Ad 1: It is by far not unique in using a CC-BY license but it is now the largest scientific journal on the planet (cf. http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/01/plos-one-now-worlds-largest-journal.html ). Ad 2: In theory, it is open for submissions from any field of research (in practice, it remains tilted towards the biomedical fields), a scope it shares with only a few journals, and these are typically either hybrid OA (PNAS) or not OA at all (like Nature, Science). Ad 3: Contrary to some commenters, PLoS ONE does use classical pre-publication peer review. What it leaves out of the procedure, though, is the question of whether the research reported in a given manuscript is important enough to merit publication in this journal. This question is asked at most other journals, but the responses to it perform very badly in predicting actual future impact of the paper. PLoS ONE takes the approach that if the research is scientifically sound and reported in sufficient level of detail, it is not going to be rejected. PLoS ONE clones are characterized by being open access journals launched after PLoS ONE (indeed, within the last year), aiming for a broad scope (which may simply be all of genetics, as with G3), and doing away with the future impact guesstimation aspect during peer review. Some go even further - the initial article processing charge at Scientific Reports, for instance, is identical (to the last digit) to the one at PLoS ONE. All of the three points outlined above, and certainly combinations thereof, may justify the establishment of a new journal, but the main driver behind the PLoS ONE clones may well be commercial, given that the scalability of PLoS ONE has allowed PLoS to break even in 2010 (cf. http://river-valley.tv/open-access-publishers-breaking-even-and-growing-fast/ ). Another aspect that PLoS ONE is driving forward is what they call Article-level metrics (cf. http://friendfeed.com/article-level-metrics ) - i.e. quantitative indicators of the actual impact of an article (rather than the _Journal_ Impact Factor used by many as a proxy to _article_ quality), as well as post-publication peer review (a lively example is at http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013180 ). On a related note, the title of the article on Open Access to the research literature is currently being discussed (again) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_access_(publishing)#Title_of_the_article_on_Open_Access , and I am working on a list of Open-Access-related topics (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GLAM/OA/Catalogue ) that would benefit from some feedback. Cheers, Daniel On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote: Please, let me forward this conversation also to our brand new libraries list. Aubrey 2011/8/19 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: SAGE Open is one of those PLoS ONE clones. Others include BMJ Open: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmjopen/ Scientific Reports: http://www.nature.com/srep AIP Advances: http://aipadvances.aip.org/ G3: http://www.g3journal.org/ New Journal of Physics: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630 Open Biology: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/openbiology/ A related commentary: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/03/29/might-copies-of-plos-one-change-journals-forever/ . Daniel PLoS ONE clones seems to imply a problem. Are these journals bad in some way? Fred On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: A breakthrough from an unexpected source: http://sgo.sagepub.com/ Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ Libraries mailing list librar...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] SAGE Open
SAGE Open is one of those PLoS ONE clones. Others include BMJ Open: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmjopen/ Scientific Reports: http://www.nature.com/srep AIP Advances: http://aipadvances.aip.org/ G3: http://www.g3journal.org/ New Journal of Physics: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630 Open Biology: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/openbiology/ A related commentary: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/03/29/might-copies-of-plos-one-change-journals-forever/ . Daniel On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: A breakthrough from an unexpected source: http://sgo.sagepub.com/ Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global Wikipedian of the year 2011
Hi Ziko, try http://kz.linkedin.com/pub/rauan-kenzhekhanuly/24/8b7/b16 . Cheers, Daniel On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Hello, Is there anywhere more information about the Global Wikipedian, introduced at Haifa? By chance, I got the business card of Rauan at the chapters meeting. Kind regards Ziko http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011-08_Wikimania_ZVD_10.jpg -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiki-research-l] WikiCite - new WMF project? Was: UPEI's proposal for a universal citation index
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I like your suggestion that the abc disambiguator be chosen based on the first date of publication, and I also like the prospect of using slashes since they can't be contained in names. Using the full year is a good idea too. We can combine these to come up with a key that, in principle, is guaranteed to be unique. This key would contain: 1) The first three author names separated by slashes why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and don't cause problems with wiki page titles. 2) If there are more than three authors, an EtAl don't think that's necessary if we get the abc part right. 3) Some or all of the date. For instance, if there is only one source by this set of authors that year, we can just use . However, once another source by those set of authors is added, the key should change to MMDD or similar. I don't think it is a good idea to change one key as a function of updates on another, except for a generic disambiguation tag. If there are multiple publications on the same day, we can resort to abc. Redirects and disambiguation pages can be set up when a key changes. As Jodi pointed out already, the exact date is often not clearly identifiable, so I would go simply for the year. Instead of an alphabetic abc, one could use some function of the article title (e.g. the first three words thereof, or the initials of the first three words), always in lower case. An even less ambiguous abc would be starting page (for printed stuff) or article number (for online only) but this brings us back to the 7523225 problem you mentioned above. Since the slashes are somewhat cumbersome, perhaps we can not make them mandatory, but similarly use them only when they are necessary in order to escape a name. In the case that one of the authors does not have a slash in their name - the dominant case - we can stick to the easily legible and niecly compact CamelCase format. Example keys generated by this algorithm: KangHsuKrajbichEtAl2009 Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in or Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+twi also note that the CamelCase key does not yield results in a google search, whereas the first plused variant brings up the right work correctly, while the plused one with initialed title tends to bring at least something written by or cited from these authors. Author1Author2/Author-Three/2009 Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+just+another+article or Author1+Author2+Author-Three+2009+jat Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_ three authors, nor three words from the title, and it does not solve the John Smith (or Zheng Wang) problem. Daniel -- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
