juliusbeezer + open   58

About The Lens
The Lens is building an open platform for Innovation Cartography. Specifically, the Lens serves nearly all of the patent documents in the world as open, annotatable digital public goods that are integrated with scholarly and technical literature along with regulatory and business data. The Lens will allow document collections, aggregations, and analyses to be shared, annotated, and embedded to forge open mapping of the world of knowledge-directed innovation. Ultimately, this will restore the role of the patent system as a teaching resource to inspire and inform entrepreneurs, citizens and policy makers.

Within the next two years, we expect to host over 95% of the world's patent information and link to most of the scholarly literature, creating open public innovation portfolios of individuals and institutions. Using all open source components, we are working to create open schemas by which patent documents can be used to teach and communicate, rather than confuse and intimidate.
open  patents  sciencepublishing 
27 days ago by juliusbeezer
punkish.org: About Me
I am a science researcher and an open access advocate, an engineer and an environmental scientist with expertise in both ‘science for policy’ as well as ‘policy for science.’. I travel to wherever my experience and skills can help make a system, an organization, or a community more open.

Since 1985 my career has spanned rural appropriate technology design to international development, academia, research and science information policy. Other than one stint with a small for-profit company, all my work has been with non-profit organizations. I am currently an independent consultant with The World Bank and Academy Health. I am also a member of Plazi, and just finished an appointment at the Department of GeoScience, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA where I was working on a machine reading and learning system built on a new kind of digital library resource. Before that I was the Manager of Science and Data Policy at Creative Commons where I focused on open data, text and data mining, open science policy, and citizen-sourced information. I am also a member of the Research Data Alliance Interest Group on Legal Interoperability of Research Data, CODATA Task Group on Data Citation Standards and Practices, and I co-authored the chapter on Emerging Principles for Data Citation in the Task Group’s report titled Out of Cite, Out of Mind.
open  openscience  opennotebook  openness  openhardware 
february 2018 by juliusbeezer
Fixing Instead of Breaking, Part One - Open Citations - The Scholarly Kitchen
Recent calls to make citation data “open” could move citations into this dubious modern age, and there is a good amount of enthusiasm for the innovation. But are there potential downsides? Could open citations inadvertently foment herd mentality and swarm behavior around citations? Could it feed the dominance of top journals by reinforcing their position with fast feedback loops? Could it increasingly feed the surveillance economy that’s been built around platforms and free content? Could it entice authors and editors to find new ways to cheat their way up the ladder?

Revealing citations in more-or-less realtime may change how articles are cited, and not in a legitimate or informative way. When metrics are so visible, accessible, and responsive, they can create feedback loops that promulgate swarm behavior. Popularity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Seeing that something is cited a lot might make you more likely to cite it
citation  scholarly  open  impact_factor  sciencepublishing 
january 2018 by juliusbeezer
What is open peer review? A systematic review - F1000Research
Open pre-review manuscripts are manuscripts that are immediately openly accessible (via the internet) in advance, or in synchrony with, any formal peer review procedures. Subject-specific “preprint servers” like arXiv.org and bioRxiv.org, institutional repositories, catch-all repositories like Zenodo or Figshare and some publisher-hosted repositories (like PeerJ Preprints) allow authors to short-cut the traditional publication process and make their manuscripts immediately available to everyone. This can be used as a complement to a more traditional publication process, with comments invited on preprints and then incorporated into redrafting as the manuscript goes through traditional peer review with a journal. Alternatively, services which overlay peer-review functionalities on repositories can produce functional publication platforms at reduced cost (Boldt, 2011; Perakakis et al., 2010). The mathematics journal Discrete Analysis, for example, is an overlay journal whose primary content is hosted on arXiv (Day, 2015).
peerreview  open  openscience  openaccess 
april 2017 by juliusbeezer
Openness as social praxis | Smith | First Monday
Open source. Open access. Open society. Open knowledge. Open government. Even open food. Until quite recently, the word “open” had a fairly constant meaning. The over-use of the word “open” has led to its meaning becoming increasingly ambiguous. This presents a critical problem for this important word, as ambiguity leads to misinterpretation.

This paper builds on their argument, and offers an alternative approach to understanding the multiple meanings of open. We argue that the starting point for attempting to disambiguate openness is inherently problematic. This is because the majority of uses of open refer to open artefacts (or things), such as open data or open knowledge. These artefacts [1] have specific characteristics that make them open. For our alternative approach, we argue that it is more useful to conceptualize openness as social praxis — the act of doing or instantiating theory in action, which manifests as processes and practices [2]. We propose that openness as social praxis can be broken down into three processes: open production, open distribution, and open consumption. Each process shares two traits that make them open: you don’t have to pay (free price), and anyone can participate (non-discrimination) in these processes.

We argue that the social praxis approach helps to tackle a variety of problems that result from the current attempts to define openness. In particular, we show how it allows for a more bottom-up, context-sensitive understanding of openness, rather than top-down definitions that may or may not apply in different arenas. Furthermore, we also argue that openness as social praxis points to practice-specific theory which we believe helps build generalizable knowledge on what works (or not), for whom, and in what contexts.
open  theory 
april 2017 by juliusbeezer
In the Post-Truth Era, Colleges Must Share Their Knowledge - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Sharing universities’ knowledge openly and freely — knowledge produced or nurtured at; paid for, licensed, or owned by; or affiliated with the university — could also be a triumph for higher education. This has always been the case, but effecting it now is a moral imperative in this new post-truth, failed-fourth-estate, post-literate age of Trump.

Why? First of all, we are all in the attention business, and we have to play to win. Netflix tells its shareholders that it is not in the movie business or in the television business, but in the attention business, and that its competition is not CBS or NBC Universal or YouTube, but everything: every video game, online lecture, book, football game, advertisement, poem, sermon, or daydream. We who produce knowledge are also in the attention business — competing against everything else for time and place on the screens that we carry around and shuttle to and from every few minutes. To direct attention to the real knowledge that we produce, publishing our material online for free use and reuse is the first step.
attention  open  openaccess 
april 2017 by juliusbeezer
Stop the EMA Backsliding on Open Clinical Data [Updated] - Open Enterprise
Back in April, I noted that we had potentially a big win in the form of the opening up of drug safety data in the light of recent scandals that have seen big pharma companies hiding adverse effects of their products, often with fatal results. As I warned, we weren't there yet, since the drug companies really don't want their dirty washing for all to see, and they have been lobbying extremely hard to water down the provisions. And in fact, it seems they have succeeded, as the All Trials Web site explains:

The good proposals in the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) draft policy on sharing clinical trial data could be at risk.

The EMA has produced a further draft of the policy which would introduce barriers to access to clinical trial data that would make the job of researchers who want to scrutinise it almost impossible.

The policy introduces terms of use which say that researchers can access the data on screen only with printing, sharing or saving of the data forbidden.
drugs  linkrot  openmedicine  open  eu 
march 2017 by juliusbeezer
Fueling the Gold Rush: The Greatest Public Datasets for AI – Startup Grind – Medium
It has never been easier to build AI or machine learning-based systems than it is today. The ubiquity of cutting edge open-source tools such as TensorFlow, Torch, and Spark, coupled with the availability of massive amounts of computation power through AWS, Google Cloud, or other cloud providers, means that you can train cutting-edge models from your laptop over an afternoon coffee.

Though not at the forefront of the AI hype train, the unsung hero of the AI revolution is data — lots and lots of labeled and annotated data, curated with the elbow grease of great research groups and companies who recognize that the democratization of data is a necessary step towards accelerating AI.

It’s important to remember that good performance on data set doesn’t guarantee a machine learning system will perform well in real product scenarios. Most people in AI forget that the hardest part of building a new AI solution or product is not the AI or algorithms — it’s the data collection and labeling. Standard datasets can be used as validation or a good starting point for building a more tailored solution.

[curated list of opendata sets follows]
open  opendata  learning  software 
february 2017 by juliusbeezer
‘You never said my peer review was confidential’ — scientist challenges publisher : Nature News & Comment
Tennant, who now works as communications director at ScienceOpen, an online platform that promotes open-access research, wanted to receive credit for his unpaid peer-review work. With permission from the authors of the paper, he decided to openly post the text of his review on Publons, a platform for sharing reviews.

But his post was turned down. Publons told him that the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, requires reviewers to obtain permission from journal editors before posting a review.

That was not part of the deal — at least, not explicitly — Tennant argues. “I didn’t sign a confidentiality agreement, and I was not aware that I had implicitly agreed to the journal’s policies,”
peerreview  open 
january 2017 by juliusbeezer
Researchers Are Preparing for Trump to Delete Government Science From the Web | Motherboard
While it’s easy to scrape an HTML website, Paterson and others are worried that, for instance, a NOAA database and tool regularly used by city planners to calculate sea level rise could be pulled offline.

“It’s less the documents, which we can get through alternative means,” he said. “The bigger issue in my mind is the access to databases and analytic software that public dollars paid for which by administrative fiat they may remove. I use the NOAA sea level rise projection database for discussion in my environmental impact assessment class. I use the greenhouse gas emission calculator for analysis of major federal climate actions.”

One of the main concerns is that a Trump presidency doesn’t even have to purposefully take down these tools—many of them will simply break or become useless without being regularly updated.
sciencepublishing  us  politics  opendata  openaccess  openscience  open 
december 2016 by juliusbeezer
Making drug development less secretive could lead to quicker, cheaper therapies
Secrecy ruins the efficiency of the research process. Competing groups operate in ignorance of each others’ results, experts fail to talk to each other and there’s unnecessary duplication.

There are groups pursuing projects known to others to be dead-ends.

In contrast, open source projects are developed by communities where everything is shared. Mutual learning is fast.

The ability to “look over the shoulder” of people working on the same problem can lead to extraordinary leaps of productivity. Contributors can rapidly identify problems and can join and leave a nimble team as required.
openscience  opennotebook  open 
october 2016 by juliusbeezer
Open Source Malaria’s First Paper | Intermolecular
Open Source Malaria (OSM) publishes its first paper today. The project was a real thrill, because of the contributors. I’d like to thank them.

Skepticism about open source research is often based on assumptions: that people will be too busy or insufficiently motivated to participate, or that there will be a cacophony of garbage contributions if a project is open to anyone. I’m not sure where such assumptions come from – perhaps people look first for ways that things might fail. We can draw upon many experiences of the open source software movement that would suggest such assumptions are poor. We can draw on successful examples of open collaboration in other areas of science, such as the Human Genome Project and the projects it has spawned, as well as examples in mathematics and astrophysics. This OSM paper addresses open source as applied to drug discovery, i.e. experimental, wet lab science in an area where we normally expect to need secrecy, for patents. It is based on the experience of 4-5 years of work and describes the first series examined by OSM. The paper argues strongly against these assumptions, since:

Many people contributed enthusiastically
The contributions came from a wide range of institutions, from Pharma through to Universities, from undergrads through to professors.
Those contributions, many of which were unsolicited, were of a high quality.
openscience  opensource  opennotebook  open  medicine 
october 2016 by juliusbeezer
Fifty shades of open | Pomerantz | First Monday
From the common ancestor Free Software, the term “open” diversified, filling a wide range of niches. The Open Source Definition gave rise to a number of other definitions, articulating openness for everything from hardware to knowledge. Inspired by the political philosophy of openness, the Open Society Institute funded the meeting at which the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration was created. Open Access then gave rise to a wide range of other opens concerned with scholarship, publication, and cultural heritage generally. This spread of openness can be seen as the diversification of a powerful idea into a wide range of resources and services. It can also be seen more importantly as the arrival, society-wide, of an idea whose time has come ... an idea with political, legal, and cultural impacts.

There is a crucial distinction to be made between a resource being shared, and being truly open. That difference lies in the use of an open license.
open  openaccess  openness  opensource 
june 2016 by juliusbeezer
Why would you use OpenStreetMap if there is Google Maps? - Geoawesomeness
In 2008, the company introduced Google Map Maker, which used a similar approach and interface to the OSM in order to gather local data from people willing to contribute where map data was hard to purchase.

The main difference between these two services is that every edit you make to OSM is owned by you and the community, while every change you make to Google Maps… will be owned by Google.

The OSM community is what makes the project so special. Thousands of volunteers from all around the globe are updating the map as their world changes around them. Every update is immediately visible to all other users and is version controlled. There are no corporate map cycle releases, approvals and KPIs that are typical to large organizations.
maps  google  open 
march 2016 by juliusbeezer
The Real Threat of OER
The overwhelming majority of OER advocates are faculty, and they have become OER advocates for two reasons. One reason is the incredibly high prices of the textbooks and other materials produced by commercial publishers, and the deleterious effect on student outcomes created when students cannot afford their course materials. Publishers may eventually respond to this problem by dropping their prices to reasonable rates as he indicates they are beginning to do.

However, the second reason faculty have become OER advocates – and more of them are becoming OER advocates each day – has less to do with price and more to do with empowerment. For example, OER give faculty permission to truly personalize their courses. This personalization is not merely switching the sequence of content from A B to B A, or substituting content C for content A. It is personalization that allows faculty to go deep inside the material to permanently change, rewrite, and replace examples, photographs, and language so the materials speak directly and clearly to the students in their specific classes.
open  education  ebooks  dccomment 
october 2015 by juliusbeezer
Open peer review 'better quality' than traditional process | Times Higher Education
Open peer review produces better scrutiny of research than traditional methods, according to a new study.

Reviews were found to be of slightly higher quality – around 5 per cent better – when authors could see who had reviewed their papers and these assessments were made available with the published article.

Researchers compared 400 papers in two similar journals: BMC Infectious Diseases, which uses open peer review, and BMC Microbiology, which uses the common “single-blind” process where reviewers know the identity of the author but the author does not know who they are being reviewed by.

Judged using a scorecard of eight criteria, the open reviews were of moderately better quality than the single-blind reviews, according to the paper published in the journal BMJ Open.
peerreview  open  sciencepublishing  openness 
october 2015 by juliusbeezer
On radical manuscript openness | R-bloggers
The paper has benefited from an extremely public revision process. When I had a new major version to submit, I published the text and all code on github, and shared it via social media. Some of resulting discussions have been positive, others negative; some useful and enlightening, others not useful and frustrating. Most scientific publications almost exclusively reflect input from the coauthors and the editors and reviewers. This manuscript, in contrast, has been influenced by scores of people I’ve never met, and I think the paper is better for it.
open  openscience  sciencepublishing  editing  publishing 
august 2015 by juliusbeezer
Police raid programmer who reported flaw in Argentinian e-voting system | Ars Technica UK
Local police have raided the home of an Argentinian programmer who reported a flaw in an e-voting system that was used this weekend for local elections in Buenos Aires. The police took away all of his devices that could store data. According to a report in the newspaper La Nación, Joaquín Sorianello had told the company MSA, which makes the Vot.ar e-voting system, about the problem after he discovered information on the protected Twitter account @FraudeVotar. This revealed that the SSL certificates used to encrypt transmissions between the voting stations and the central election office could be easily downloaded, potentially allowing fraudulent figures to be sent.
politics  open  security 
july 2015 by juliusbeezer
Literature is not Data: Against Digital Humanities - The Los Angeles Review of Books
Page and his team subsequently ran into a problem too knotty even for their ever-untangling minds: the literary world. The legal case brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google was a revelation, as important, if not as celebrated, as the obscenity trial of D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. In the face of the openness and honest labor of engineers, the priestly class closed ranks. Instead of accepting the gift of digitization, the possibility of bringing the wealth of the tradition to the widest possible public for free, literary people immediately set about doing what they do best: vapid, internecine squabbling. The librarians stepped in. Authors wanted to be heard. The situation soon became untenable.

Google’s mistake was listening to all this chatter, respecting it, and actually trying to broker a settlement, which was naturally impossible, like trying to negotiate with a flock of sparrows. In hindsight, perhaps, Google should have followed the law for “fair use” of copyright, come to agreements with the world’s major libraries to provide the Book Search to public institutions in perpetuity, and stepped aside.
digitalhumanities  literature  ebooks  google  open 
july 2015 by juliusbeezer
Open Content Licensing: A Three-Step Guide for Academics
Aimed at the individual academic, this guide will enable you to make informed and purposeful decisions around licensing your work in line with international open access principles.
openaccess  open  openscience 
june 2015 by juliusbeezer
[no title]
Dealing with these issues is new not only for us but also for Cambridge University Press, a point that was driven home abundantly in our conversations with senior editors and staff. In book form, "revised editions" are rarely issued with this level of detailed annotation. Standard practice for a traditional print book, our editors quickly pointed out, would be summed up by one quick line on the copyright page of a standard print book: “revised edition: some text has been altered from the original.” Even when there have been meetings with positions drafted and recognized, activities such as these are still new to Cambridge University Press.
openaccess  scholarly  publishing  peerreview  open  openness 
april 2015 by juliusbeezer
Scholarly publishing for the network generation | Allen | Insights
When we designed ScienceOpen, we wanted to bring the efficiency and openness inherent in the internet to bear upon the field of scholarly publishing. We wanted to rethink scientific publishing in terms of communication between academics. The platform offers four main services to researchers:

aggregation of OA content to provide researchers with broad access to information beyond what a single publisher can offer
networking opportunities, including researcher profiles, discussion groups and news feeds, etc., to encourage community building and conversation
rapid publishing services – we provide a platform to both consume and produce scholarly documents
a facility for open discussion of research results via transparent and network-based peer review after publication.

, increasingly, users are searching for specific information and coming to single articles from search engines such as Google, PubMed and Web of Science. These users are interested in article-level rather than journal-level metrics: How often was this article cited? Downloaded? Tweeted?
open  sciencepublishing  aggregation  openaccess  altmetrics 
march 2015 by juliusbeezer
A Survey of Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal Systems | Edgar | Scholarly and Research Communication
A survey of 998 scholarly journals that use Open Journal Systems (OJS), an open source journal software platform

Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an online journal management and publishing platform that was first launched in 2002 as open source software freely distributed by the Public Knowledge Project (Willinsky, 2005).1
journals  open  tools  publishing  sciencepublishing 
february 2015 by juliusbeezer
Open Journal Systems | Public Knowledge Project
Open Journal Systems (OJS) is a journal management and publishing system that has been developed by the Public Knowledge Project through its federally funded efforts to expand and improve access to research.
open  journals  tools 
february 2015 by juliusbeezer
Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ | The BMJ
Randomised controlled trials conducted at The BMJ since the turn of the millennium found that removing anonymity improved the tone and constructiveness of reviews without detriment to scientific and editorial value. One of the trials also found that telling reviewers that prepublication histories might be posted online did not affect the quality of peer review.
peerreview  open  ebm  science  scholarly 
february 2015 by juliusbeezer
What is it?
We’re building an open platform for the collaborative evaluation of knowledge. It leverages sentence-level critique to enable discussion or note-taking on top of news, blogs, scientific articles, books, terms of service, ballot initiatives, legislation, regulations and more. We build software, push for standards and interoperability and foster community.

We are a non-profit organization, funded through the generosity of the Knight, Mellon, Shuttleworth, Sloan and Helmsley Foundations– and through the support of hundreds of individuals like yourself that want to see this idea come to fruition.

Our efforts are based on the Annotator project, which we are principal contributors to, and annotation standards for digital documents being developed by the W3C Web Annotation Working Group. We are partnering broadly with developers, publishers, academic institutions, researchers, and individuals to develop a platform for the next generation of read-write Web applications.

(Watched both vids on that page: what is it about these guys who have to express themselves as scientific religionists, big bang, other life in the universe?, why are we here? Interesting fact though: Marc Andreeson included an annotation feature in Mosaic, but switched it off because of the hosting implications)
commenting  internet  open  agnotology  attention 
january 2015 by juliusbeezer
Open Humans: Opening Soon!
The Open Humans Network, led by myself and Madeleine Ball of PersonalGenomes.org, attempts to break down health data silos through an online portal that will connect participants willing to share data about themselves publicly with researchers who are interested in using that public data and contributing their analyses and insight to it. The portal will showcase public health data and facilitate its exploration and download. The Open Humans Network ultimately hopes to revolutionize research by making it easy for anyone to participate in research projects and facilitating highly integrated, longitudinal health data. This portal will consist of three components: individual data profile pages, a public data explorer and a set of design guidelines for researchers seeking a collaborative data-sharing model.
open  opendata  openmedicine  healthcare  medicine  confidentiality  ethics  extrovertbias 
january 2015 by juliusbeezer
Open Humans Network - CTOvision.com
Open Humans Network is launching soon. Led by Jason Bobe and Madeleine Ball of PersonalGenomes.org, OHN attempts to break down health data silos through an online portal that will connect participants willing to share data about themselves publicly with researchers who are interested in using that public data and contributing their analyses and insight to it. The portal will showcase public health data and facilitate its exploration and download. The Open Humans Network ultimately hopes to revolutionize research by making it easy for anyone to participate in research projects and facilitating highly integrated, longitudinal health data.
healthcare  genetics  confidentiality  medicine  open  opendata  openmedicine  openness 
january 2015 by juliusbeezer
Authorea | The Fork Factor: an academic impact factor based on reuse.
we would like to imagine what academia would be like if forking actually mattered in determining a scholar’s reputation and funding. How would you calculate it? Here, we give it a shot. We define the Fork Factor (FF) as:

FF=N∗(L1N√−1)

Where N is the number of forks on your work and L their median length. In order to take into account the reproducibility of research data, the length of forks has a higher weight in the FF formula. Indeed, forks with length equal to one likely represent a failure to reproduce the forked research datum.
citation  opendata  openaccess  open 
january 2015 by juliusbeezer
A few notes about openness (and a request)
It gives me particular joy to write for the web, as I continue on my path the enlightenment. It is a suitably humble activity: obscurity is almost inevitable. Yet there is always the possibility that something I write will also help someone else. I always tell the truth as I see it. Where I cannot, I find the inner revelation about my own cultural beliefs even more rewarding (and disturbing) than seeing my truths writ large. That is why I currently write under a pseudonym after ten years of online presence under my true name: to explore the difference between the two states. Maybe one day I will write the comments I couldn't publish, but I probably won't, because they remain unwritten.
writing  commenting  jbcomment  open  anonymity 
december 2014 by juliusbeezer
The Code4Lib Journal – Jarrow, Electronic Thesis, and Dissertation Software
By far the most important aspect of designing a new software package is picking a good name. UNBC chose the name Jarrow for its ETD Module. Jarrow is the name of a monastery in England that boasted an enormous library and was a beacon of enlightenment in the middle ages (Yule 2012); a fitting name for a tool designed to assist with knowledge creation and dissemination.

Having thoroughly investigated existing options for ETD submission, UNBC determined that building its own Drupal module to integrate with Islandora was the only way to satisfy the requirement to handle the entirety of the submission process as well as deal with any varying processes in place.
library  repositories  tools  openaccess  open  scholarly 
december 2014 by juliusbeezer
Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Tkacz
With Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Nathaniel Tkacz uses Wikipedia, the most prominent product of open organization, to analyze the theory and politics of openness in practice—and to break its spell. Through discussions of edit wars, article deletion policies, user access levels, and more, Tkacz enables us to see how the key concepts of openness—including collaboration, ad-hocracy, and the splitting of contested projects through “forking”—play out in reality.

The resulting book is the richest critical analysis of openness to date, one that roots media theory in messy reality and thereby helps us move beyond the vaporware promises of digital utopians and take the first steps toward truly understanding what openness does, and does not, have to offer.
open  openaccess  wikipedia 
december 2014 by juliusbeezer
An anonymity problem | Letters | Times Higher Education
There is good evidence – from a 2010 study in the British Medical Journal and from others that have employed open peer review for many years – that an open peer review process does not decrease the quality of the referee report but does make the report more constructive on all sides (author, editor – if there is one – and reader). This is supported by what we have found on F1000Research, an open science publishing platform, where we use a transparent process with immediate publication, fully transparent post-publication peer review, and open data. We have had no legal difficulties with any of our invited peer review reports or with comments.
peerreview  open 
november 2014 by juliusbeezer
CDC: CDC Keyword
Open is a term used across an array of digital and networked projects and artifacts, from government data initiatives and online teaching materials to software code and digital publishing. While the term has been in use in the contexts of political theory (Popper, 1962a; 1962b), philosophy (Bergson, 1935) and general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1960) for a long time, contemporary uses of openness are often indebted to the open source software practices of the 1990s and the distinct but related Free Software Movement which preceded it. In this context, open as ‘open source’ was understood as a particular mode of software development (cf. Raymond, 2000) underpinned by ‘permissive’ intellectual property licenses. This legal framework ensured access to the human readable ‘source code’ of a program, thereby allowing anyone to contribute to a software project or to start a new project based on the pre-existing code. Transformations that took place on the web from the early 2000s onwards – variously described as increased participation, collaboration, the flattening of hierarchies, sharing culture, meritocracy, user-generated content, produsage, crowdsourcing, or commons-based peer production – either drew inspiration from the practices of open source software or were retrospectively likened to it, and this has led to a proliferation things described as open. Openness now simultaneously works across legal, technical, organizational, economic, and political registers. It is a core guiding principle of several of the most powerful players on the web (including Google and Facebook) and is increasingly taken up by governments to describe their modus operandi in a world transformed by digital networks. The Digital Humanities, which is here one domain among others, is no different. This from the Digital Humanities Manifesto (2008): “the digital is the realm of the open: open source, open resources, open doors. Anything that attempts to close this space should be recognized for what it is: the enemy.”
open  openness  openaccess  opensource  openstandards  openscience  digitalhumanities  theory 
october 2014 by juliusbeezer
We Can Fix Peer Review Now | Pubchase Blog
I want to focus here on the ways to incentivize post-publication peer review, and specifically, on ways to incentivize constructive criticism. By far, the best demonstration of the power and potential of post-pub review is the PubPeer website. Not only did PubPeer succeed where most journals failed – encouraging comments after publication – but the comments on their site have led to a number of high profile retractions. PubPeer is a clear demonstration of the power to catch problems that pre-publication peer review is simply incapable of flagging.

A common criticism of PubPeer is that the comments are overwhelmingly negative. However, as should be clear from the above, this is not a problem of PubPeer; this is the fault of our publishing structure.
peerreview  open  sciencepublishing  preprint  arxiv 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
Meeting of the minds | Harvard Gazette
Taking an open approach was deliberate, favoring “not putting ideas just into a suggestion box where they would be … only viewable to the people who review those ideas, but putting them out in the open, so that, one, everyone can see them, and two, people can comment on them, elaborate on them further, and help to develop them,” said Maclay, “to take what might be a kernel of an idea into something that’s much more powerful.”

The resulting piece, “The Capitalist’s Dilemma,” published in the June issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), is the first formally crowdsourced article in HBR’s history. In it, Christensen and van Bever consider whether slow economic growth in the United States is triggered by corporate reluctance to invest in long-range innovations. Finding that it is, the research concludes that investors and executives rely on faulty metrics and notions about capital as a scarcity best squirreled away, a misguided view that clouds their ability to assess accurately potential job- and market-creating investments.
open  openness  economics  business 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
thanks, don’t mind if we do. | Impactstory blog
With most big companies you could hand over your source code and your business plan and they still would not be a threat to you.
open  altmetrics  opensource  openscience 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
What Tesla Knows That Other Patent-Holders Don't - Walter Frick - Harvard Business Review
Tesla made a seemingly unusual move today: it invited competitors to use its patents, for free. In a post on the company’s blog, CEO Elon Musk declared that Tesla’s “true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.”

Rather than worrying about car companies copying their technology, Tesla now hopes they will do so, in order to expand the overall market for electric vehicles.

This counterintuitive strategy is more than good PR — although that too — say several IP experts. In fact, it reflects a keen understanding of both innovation and talent.
patents  open 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
A case for open peer review for clinical trials - BioMed Central blog
In our recent research, we compared the quality of peer reviewers’ reports on an open peer review journal (BMC Infectious Diseases) and a closed peer review journal (BMC Microbiology), and found an increase in the quality of reviewers reports on open peer review. This improved quality was specifically seen in the areas of comments on the methods and study design, supplying evidence to support comments, and constructiveness.
open  peerreview  sciencepublishing  scholarly 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger describes paywall approach of rivals as a '19th century business model' | Press Gazette
“I think if you work for The Times or The Sunday Times and you tweet your pieces knowing that no one is ever going to click on them because you’re going to have to pay and go through a paywall, and that your work is going to be read by a tiny number of people, is not going to be shared, distributed, read abroad, bounced around the world… I can’t think of any journalist who would prefer that to the open model.

“So I think journalistically there is no question that the open model is not miles better, light years better.
journalism  open  openaccess 
june 2014 by juliusbeezer
Content Mining will be legal in UK; I inform Cambridge Library and the world of my plans « petermr's blog
the UK government has passed a Statutory Instrument based on the Hargreaves review of copyright exempting certain activities from copyright, especially “data analytics” which covers content mining for facts. This comes into force on 2014-06-01.
I intend to use this to start non-commercial research and to publish the results in an OpenNotebookScience
openaccess  opendata  open  sciencepublishing  scholarly 
may 2014 by juliusbeezer
Home | JISC Open Citations
Open Citations is a database of biomedical literature citations, harvested from the reference lists of all open access articles in PubMed Central that reference ~20% of all PubMed Central papers (approx. 3.4 million papers), including all the highly cited papers in every biomedical field. All the data are freely available for download and reuse.

This web site allows you to browse these bibliographic records and citations, to select an individual article, and to visualize its citation network in a variety of displays.
open  citation  openaccess  sciencepublishing 
april 2014 by juliusbeezer
University of Openness - P2P Foundation
Reasonably recent (and maintained--links to UO archive.org pages) account of UO.

"What is the University of Openess?

The uo is a framework in which individuals and organisations can persue their shared interest in emerging forms of cultural production and critical reflection such as unix, cartography, physical and collaborative research.
education  open  universityeducation  unix 
march 2014 by juliusbeezer
Why ‘open’ isn’t progressive anymore | Mercedes Bunz
the essay lays bare the ambiguity of openness by investigating its links to neoliberal forces. For this, Tkasz works his articulate way not only through political theory (Popper’s “The Open Society”, Hayek) but also to the free software movement (GNU, Open Source), Google’s business strategies, or the Tea Party’s political campaigns. Holding on to its general progressive potential, he explores its political weakness and points us directly to its problem:

“there is something about openness, about the mobilisation of the open and its conceptual allies, that actively works against making (…) closures visible.”
open  politics  opensource  openaccess 
november 2013 by juliusbeezer
December – 2012 – talkingtothecan
the article by Nathaniel Tkacz, “From open source to open government” (ephemera 12(4): 386-405; pdf). It draws heavily on an analysis of ideas in Karl Popper’s The Open Society – not something I’ve read but I can follow along ok. In it, open is defined, Tkacz argues, through what it isn’t – in the political sphere it’s democracy as against tyranny.
open  openness  philosophy  science  politics 
march 2013 by juliusbeezer
del-fi
One of the reasons I do “open” work is that I think, in the sciences, it’s a philosophical approach that is more likely to lead to that epistemic transformation. If we have more data available about a scientific problem like climate change, or cancer, then the odds of the algorithms figuring something out that is “true” but incomprehensible to us humans go up.
I work for “open” not because “open” solves a specific scientific problem, but because it increases the overall probability of success in sensorism-driven science. Even if the odds of success themselves don’t change, increasing the sample size of attempts will increase the net number of successes. I have philosophical reasons for liking open as well, and those clearly cause me cognitive bias on the topic, but I deeply believe that the greatest value in open science is precisely the increased sample size of those looking.
I also tend to think there’s a truly, deeply political element to enabling access to knowledge and science.
open  openscience  openaccess  openness  philosophy 
march 2013 by juliusbeezer
Why bother publishing in a journal? | IheartAnthony's Research
Then the most amazing experience of my young scientific career happened. Within 20 minutes I had about 15 viewers and several of them had left comments on how to amend the grant. I was so excited. I evaluated the comments and made the changes that I thought were for the best (which turned out to be most of them). I even had a few ideas to expand on my original thoughts.
peerreview  open  twitter 
february 2012 by juliusbeezer
Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics, Cambridge - What are the formal restrictions on text-mining? « petermr's blog
#oscar4 #okfn #pantonpapers

A little while ago I suggested that we create whitepapers (“Panton Papers”, http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2010/07/24/open-data-the-concept-of-panton-papers/ ) to help our development of open science. We’ve come up with some titles and I’ve drafted one on text-mining http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/03/28/draft-panton-paper-on-textmining/ . There’s now a useful response from Todd Vision on the Open-science discussion list (http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/2011-April/000698.html )

Peter’s draft whitepaper on text-mining is badly needed and nicely put. I was particularly interested in this passage:

“The provision of journal articles is controlled not only by copyright but also (for most scientists) the contracts signed by the institution.
text  text_tools  openaccess  open  openscience 
april 2011 by juliusbeezer
Welcome to SAFARI
More on my delicious if you like these, gathered since 2008
search  open  library  informationmastery  from twitter
april 2011 by juliusbeezer
The War For the Web - O'Reilly Radar
Inevitable tendency for large corporations to leverage advantage to create monopoly is threatening the values of the internet.
internet  web  web2.0  google  facebook  future  open  twitter 
november 2009 by juliusbeezer
SSRN-Piracy, Creativity and Infrastructure: Rethinking Access to Culture by Lawrence Liang
That space outside the IP/CC dialectic: the denizens who just grab the technology and get on with it.
Quotes Roncière: "Perhaps the truly dangerous classes are not so much the uncivilised ones thought to undermine society from below, but rather the migrants who move at the borders between classes, groups, and individuals, who develop capabilities within themselves which are useless to the improvement of their material lives, and in fact are liable to make them despise material concerns."
open  culture  copyright 
september 2009 by juliusbeezer
Royalties from Open Access | Virtual Canuck
Sold all the print run at $50/pop, and also had 26,000 downloads, speaking invites etc
scholarly  open  openaccess 
august 2009 by juliusbeezer
Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)
Good-looking aggregator of open access repositories
open  repositories  openaccess 
august 2009 by juliusbeezer
The Future of Free Software in Health Care
This presumably didn't give an http error when I bookmarked it back in Jun 2009... Updated using archive.org ref 13 Feb 2015?
open  source  software  medicine  healthcare 
july 2009 by juliusbeezer

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: