<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear all,<br>
</p>
<p>I've been a bit busy. To start off the week, I've shared three
new articles/preprints/perspectives on various elements of
scholarly communication/publishing.</p>
<p>The first is about creating a value-proposition for Open Science:
<a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/k9qhv/" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">https://osf.io/preprints/<wbr>socarxiv/k9qhv/</a></p>
<p>Abstract: Open Science has become commonly understood in terms of
its practices. Open Access, Open Data, and Open Source software
are all becoming commonplace in academia. However, unlike the Free
and Open Source Software movement, Open Science seems to have
become largely divorced from its pluralistic philosophical and
ethical foundations, which seem to have reignited from the
humanities at the turn of the Millennium. To close this gap, I
propose a new value-based proposition for Open Science, that is
akin to the “four fundamental freedoms” of Richard Stallman that
catalysed the Free Software movement. In doing so, I hope to
provide a more common, unified, and human understanding to notions
of openness in science.</p>
The second is about the exploitation of free academic labour during
peer review: <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/6quxg"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://osf.io/preprints/<wbr>socarxiv/6quxg</a>
<p>Abstract: Commercial publishing houses continue to make unbounded
profits while exploiting the free labour of researchers through
peer review. If publishers are to be compensated financially for
the value that they add within a capitalist system, then all
others who add value should be similarly, including reviewers. I
propose that peer review should be included as a professional
service by research institutes in their contracts with commercial
publishers. This would help to recognise the value of peer review,
and begin to shape it into a functional form of quality control.</p>
<p>The third is about creating a new type of funder mandate to
accelerate the shift towards openness: <a
href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9kjwp/" target="_blank"
rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/preprints/<wbr>socarxiv/9kjwp/</a><br>
</p>
<p>It is time for a new type of mandate. Plan S has catalysed all
sorts of action, and confusion, in the world of scholarly
publishing. But it lacks teeth. Instead of encouraging libraries
and research institutes to continue to prop up a dysfunctional and
out-dated system with taxpayer money, research funders should
mandate institutes to create a fully open, modern, technical
scholarly infrastructure. This would help to overcome so much of
the inertia behind the adoption of open research practices, while
simultaneously resolving outstanding issues with reliability,
affordability, and functionality in scholarly communication.</p>
<p>Each of them are currently undergoing review at a journal. In the
meantime, please do what you do best, and critique away! As they
are all on SocArXiv, anyone can add inline comments using the
inbuilt Hypothes.is annotation tool, should they wish. Thank you
in advance for any feedback.</p>
<p>Have a great start to your week,<br>
</p>
Jon
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Latest publications:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><b>BOOK: <a href="http://bit.ly/opensciencerevolution"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Open Science
[R]evolution</a></b></li>
<li><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8">A tale
of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open
Source Software and Open Scholarship</a></li>
<li><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jq623/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">The limitations to our
understanding of peer review</a></li>
<li><a href="https://paleorxiv.org/qzycs/" target="_blank"
rel="noopener">Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology
journals</a></li>
<li><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">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">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">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">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">0000-0001-7794-0218</a></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>