<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>Apologies in advance for any cross-posting. We are delighted
today to announce the publication of a new paper, entitled "A tale
of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source
Software and Open Scholarship". <br>
</p>
<p>It is currently available as a preprint on SocArXiv, and open for
additional comments/annotations:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/">https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/</a></p>
<p>It's a bit of a monster, so best not to be tackled without an
appropriate caffeine level.<br>
</p>
<p class="abstract ">Abstract: There is no clear-cut boundary
between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and
the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the
two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the
intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on
our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things.
First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice
to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and
collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the
principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained
within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and
social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks
being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the
shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will
be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader
range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and
research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the
formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe
that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in
sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities
that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key
research services that would prevent optimal researcher
behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier
scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by
collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared
and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes
inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.</p>
<p class="abstract ">Also, of potential interest, is that we wrote
this paper in a way that inspired the concept of a "MOOP", more
details here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak">https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak</a></p>
<p class="abstract ">Special thanks to the brilliant co-authors:
Ritwik Agarwal, Ksenija Baždarić, David Brassard, Tom Crick,
Daniel Dunleavy, Thomas Evans, Nicholas Gardner, Monica
Gonzalez-Marquez, Daniel Graziotin, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras,
Daniel Gunnarsson, Johanna Havemann, Mohammad Hosseini, Daniel
Katz, Marcel Knöchelmann, Leo Lahti, Christopher Madan, Paolo
Manghi, Alberto Marocchino, Paola Masuzzo, Peter Murray-Rust,
Sanjay Narayanaswamy, Gustav Nilsonne, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza,
Bart Penders, Olivier Pourret, Michael Rera, John Samuel, Tobias
Steiner, Jadranka Stojanovski, Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, Rutger Vos,
Simon Worthington, and Tal Yarkoni.<br>
</p>
<p class="abstract ">Best,</p>
<p class="abstract ">Jon<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Latest publications:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>BOOK: <a href="http://bit.ly/opensciencerevolution"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://bit.ly/opensciencerevolution&source=gmail&ust=1582185944873000&usg=AFQjCNFi2JDWBu7fyoJT9aaPlDYoB6zNFw">The
Open Science [R]evolution</a></li>
<li><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jq623/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jq623/&source=gmail&ust=1582185944873000&usg=AFQjCNFp8M5-2TJ34bLKvRpsY6kd9EhVYw">The
limitations to our understanding of peer review</a></li>
<li><a href="https://paleorxiv.org/qzycs/" target="_blank"
rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://paleorxiv.org/qzycs/&source=gmail&ust=1582185944873000&usg=AFQjCNF5FnXQt3qKPb6fI6p838ph2IyGEg">Standardising
Peer Review in Paleontology journals</a></li>
<li><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak&source=gmail&ust=1582185944873000&usg=AFQjCNENKoIIt3PG_YmKf1lbINXG1fijgw">Ten
simple rules for researchers collaborating on Massively
Open Online Papers (MOOPs)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://zenodo.org/record/3594635"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://zenodo.org/record/3594635&source=gmail&ust=1582185944873000&usg=AFQjCNEUn4jLfVWaLVe5u0nqqwHlWcUr_g">Comments
on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific
knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al.
(2020)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://zenodo.org/record/3659528"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://zenodo.org/record/3659528&source=gmail&ust=1582185944874000&usg=AFQjCNEILDScYoHB2zCIZy5YKvmt4Mm4tg">Open
Access: what we can learn from articles published in
geochemistry journals in 2018 and 2019</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><b><a href="http://fossilsandshit.com/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://fossilsandshit.com/&source=gmail&ust=1582185944874000&usg=AFQjCNEhbaIGca390pn784j0bs29UwR2FA">Personal
website</a> - Home of the Green Tea and Velociraptors blog.</b></div>
<div dir="ltr"><b>ORCID:</b> <a
href="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7794-0218" target="_blank"
rel="noopener"
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7794-0218&source=gmail&ust=1582185944874000&usg=AFQjCNHtHR39gzVXgDzJvbZ82h9MgFvCIg">0000-0001-7794-0218</a></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>