So long as we keep the central "currency" - i.e. the impact factor - as the central value unit, we are caught in the trap that was set up in the '80s and early '90s.
They worked like hell to set up a citation system that would not exclude them and they then tried to join the Garfield-inspired JIF device. They never really succeeded. They remained in a kind of Clarivate purgatory and they have stayed there ever since. (see next).
I am going to suggest one further step: not only do researchers should organize to evaluate, but they should define what value is, and do it in their terms. This means multi-dimensional and diverse evaluation system. My concern is fed by the history of what happened to SciELO (see next).
Exactly! Research institutions to be precise.
The fundamental point is that evaluation of research should be controlled by researchers self-organizing, and not publishers enrolling the help of researchers through editorial boards.
When I read things as asinine as the letter to the journal "Chest" by the DC attorney general, Edward Robert Martin Jr., I fear for all my sane friends in the US and I am ever so glad to live in Canada. Why have so many Americans gone mad, very mad? Canada is not for sale, by the way.
Charlie Chaplin buttonholed Hitler quite effectively with his film, the "Great Dictator". Who is going to achieve the same result with a new film called "The Great 'President'".
The MIT experience led by Chris Bourg is one of the more interesting initiatives in the last few years. It promises to free money for other forms of scholarly publishing. It also refocuses libraries squarely on the issue of price/actual_use and not price/title - the Big Deal fallacy. Bravo!
Yep. We have been out of contract with Elsevier at MIT for 4.5 years now, at substantial savings to the Institute. Happy to share our experience with any library interested in following suit.
Thinking about this figure more, it's remarkable how publishers were willing to accept significantly less revenue per paper, and publish a ton more of them, all to avoid green open access which they saw as a loss of their monopoly control over content (and clearly less of a direct revenue threat).
And Canadian, and US, and German, and French, and ... etc Yes. yes.
Aaron Swartz, 8 novembre 1986 - 11 janvier 2013.
Rest in Power buddy!
(drawing by @brunoleyval )
The U of Surrey cancelled its #ReadAndPublish agreement with #Elsevier.
Our BOAI20 Recs highlight that "Read-and-publish agreements are unsustainable, by paying more than necessary and putting short-term growth ahead of long-term growth."
www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-u...
Tout à fait d'accord. Il faut aussi donner quelques petites leçons à ce malotru.🤩
The counter-revolution in scientific publishing, immediately after WWII (Maxwell, Elsevier, etc.), is simple: from selling services to researcher communities, publishers became owners and evaluators of research results.
Imagine a science where labs are evaluated by firms selling you test tubes.
Elon Musk qui attaque wikipedia et encourage à ne pas la financer. Ca confirme qu'il faut que je le fasse encore cette année. Avec enthousiasme.
This is so spot-on it’s scary.
The #NIH (National Institutes of Health) just released the final version of its new #OpenAccess policy to comply with the #OSTP #NelsonMemo.
www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...
And I hate the use of citation stats for anything other than the sociology of scientific networks. Stats, as numbers, lead to rankings and hyper-competition. Hyper-competition is just the old tool of dividing to reign. Citation stats, after 1970, became tools of publishers, not of researchers.
I hate the perennial proposal, in REF and elsewhere, to replace all evaluation exercises with pure citation stats. This really discriminates against academics who do more than write. Example: so many papers "cite" the "Open Library of Humanities", but not the published research that informed it.
As promised: "A letter from polio in support of RFK Jr., co-signed by natural selection." You're welcome.
www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...
To read about eLife and Clarivate, see: www.nature.com/articles/d41... but keep in mind that Nature is part of a publicly-traded company. The analysis has to be weighed very carefully.
The battle between eLife and Clarivate is crucial. If Clarivate wins, the impact factor will be vindicated once more. And the IF is the keystone of the commercial structure of scholarly journals. But if eLife demonstrates what a sham the IF is, then Clarivate will have lost a crucial battle.
This is a *really* disappointing outcome…these funds could be used to support local, community driven research communication efforts rather than continuing to feed commercial profits. blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...
Great finale of the #DOASummit2024: the Toluca-Cape Town Declaration on Diamond Open Access has been introduced in 4 languages
#equity #socialjustice #multilingualism #humanrights
