1. Announcing the Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communications
There is ample evidence that diverse organizations are more successful; that including people with a wide range of perspectives and backgrounds at all levels improves an organisation's financial results. Alice Meadows, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, argues that there is also a moral imperative to be inclusive; that social equity is something they should all be striving for, in scholarly communications every bit as much as in society more broadly.
The blog post says (quote): Within the community, many of them are already committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at a personal level. Some companies have publicly committed to doing so at the organisational level. Now, 10 of the industry organisations have joined forces to support these efforts, through the formation of the Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communications (C4DISC). The group recently issued a Joint Statement of Principles, signed by nine of the organisations, with the goal of promoting "involvement, innovation, and expanded access to leadership opportunities that maximise engagement across identity groups and professional levels."………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. What are the implications of complex systems thinking for policymaking?
Can a concept derived from the natural sciences be applied to the political and social sciences? Sarah Quarmby, in her post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, looks at if complex systems thinking, currently enjoying a moment of popularity in the policy research and practice worlds, despite having no single accepted definition, can add to their understanding of policy.
The blog post says (quote): Perhaps due to the variety of definitions of complex systems, there is a lot of variation amongst the claims made for their application to policy. At one end of the spectrum, this approach is being offered as a "new scientific paradigm" for studying the social world. Others see it more as a "complementary analytical tool" to be used in conjunction with established policy concepts such as game theory. Links are also being made to wicked problems, and there is the suggestion that complex systems thinking might be the most appropriate way to approach these issues that seem to frustrate traditional policy methods. On the other hand, some experts are questioning whether a concept derived from the natural sciences is applicable to the political and social sciences, and whether there is much to be gained from comparing policy systems to ones arising in nature………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Springer Nature launches Open data badges pilot
Researchers say that receiving more credit and recognition for their work motivates them to share their research data, and badges for open science have been shown to increase data sharing by authors in some journals. Springer Nature recently launched a pilot program in which digital Open data badges are being awarded to articles to incentivise and reward open data sharing practices amongst the authors, notes Rebecca Pearce, in her post in the BMC Research in progress Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Authors are notified of the pilot and badge criteria at submission, revision, and on the journal website where they are informed that all accepted manuscripts will be assessed for badge eligibility. Authors may then elect to comply with the criteria if they wish to have their article awarded a badge. If they don't wish to be considered, they can simply disregard them (though they would still be expected to comply with the journal's minimum requirements for data sharing). Once awarded, the article is given an Open data badge icon which links to the badgr platform where readers can see the evidence for the badge being awarded and link to the data (when possible)………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. From Paywall to Datawall
Now, of course copyright owners of "free" resources have the right to set the terms of access. They can put up a datawall that demands the exchange of personal information (and thus enables data tracking, reporting, and maybe even aggregation with other datasets) for the otherwise free article, notes Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, in her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): There are already examples of "freemium" open access in which basic reading is available without providing contact information or having an account but other kinds of reading (e.g., downloading full document for annotation) is behind a datawall or paywall. In preparing this essay, the author reviewed a number of publisher websites and government policy documents. Absent from these is mention of whether "free public access" or "APC-funded open access" means access without providing a contact email in exchange or without being required to set up a (free) account. It leaves open a future in which publishers and platforms monetise open access through intense data analytics activity tied to user identities as well as APC fees………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply