Bonfire
@bonfire@indieweb.social  ·  activity timestamp last month

As we integrate #OpenAlex data into the #Bonfire#OpenScience flavor, we're displaying familiar metrics: works count, citations, h-index, research topics, institutional affiliations...
These might be exactly what you need, or perhaps just a starting point.
What additional information would help you find collaborators or understand someone's work better?
We're opening this design process to the open science community. Share what works, what doesn't, what's missing.
@open_science
1/2
Nicolas Fressengeas
@fresseng@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago
@bonfire @open_science Here is another feature that came to my mind that might be interesting to put in the roadmap.

As OSN aims to provide the place to write articles and peer-reviews, with DOIs for each, as well as to provide DOIs for online scientific communication that is worth it, there is a deeper connection to make to ORCID. Aside from reading from ORCID, Bonfire could write these contributions to the scholarly record directly to the authors' ORCID records, with no action from them apart from allowing once Bonfire to write to their profile. Moreover, this would be a certified piece of information, making Bonfire part of the trust network that enables trustworthy scientific conversation.

To my opinion, that would involve two things. The first one is to certify Bonfire, the software, as an ORCID integrated service provider. This is free of charge. All information is there : https://info.orcid.org/vendors-and-service-providers/become-an-orcid-certified-service-provider/. For example, PKP is certified.

The second one, is the actual writing to the authors' ORCID record. It requires being an ORCID member, and is thus not free of charge. However, I think this is not to be done by Bonfire itself but rather by the institution that installed a particular instance. For example, in my university, we already are ORCID members, for other reasons, and using another piece of software to write to ORCID would be free of charge.

Thus, the main task for the Bonfire would be to get certified.

These are my thoughts for a summer day.

Have a great summer !
Julian Fietkau
@julian@fietkau.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
@liaizon Kinda sorta, but not really. 😀 @encyclia just consumes the public ORCID API, it doesn't try to channel anything back into ORCID records, nor indeed does it give people any facilities at all for original authorship. It's strictly an ORCID → ActivityPub one-way bridge.

I wrote a bit about the similarities and differences between Encyclia and OSN in the FAQ: https://encyclia.pub/faq#opensciencenetwork OSN's scope has expanded since then, but I think it's still all accurate! 🙂

@bonfire @fresseng @ORCID_Org
Nicolas Fressengeas
@fresseng@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire
@open_science

Will there be a possibility to migrate from a Mastodon account to Bonfire, or OSN, as it is possible between Mastodon instances ?

It might be needed to lower the migration barrier and foster Bonfire OSN uptake.

Of course, it comes along with the possibility to migrate between Bonfire, or OSN, instances as smoothly as possible.

Any plans of thoughts on that ?

#OpenAlex#Bonfire #OpenScience
Felix Schönbrodt
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @open_science Great that you integrate #OpenAlex! I really appreciate your efforts.

However, I am very skeptical about displaying the h-index and i10 index (and probably also about the overall citation count). With #DORA and #CoARA, we want to get away from these indexes. (They are readily available - but that's their deceptive seduction).

To stay in the analogy: At a campfire gathering, I am looking for deep (and also funny and affiliative) conversations with fellow researchers. If there is a guy shouting out his impressive h-index as a greeting, I would immediately leave.

If we try to build a utopian community place, we should not recreate the dysfunctional incentive structures of default academia.

1/
Felix Schönbrodt
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @open_science In the German Reproducibility Network @GermanRepro, we developed an academic code of conduct: "Creating a friendly and intellectually stimulating space" (https://reproducibilitynetwork.de/coc/).

This explicitly says: "We discuss views and claims based on the evidence and the quality of arguments, not based on the status of the people making the claim, nor their personal characteristics or their academic rank."

This is the atmosphere I'd like to see at a campfire. Maybe more aspects of that CoC are inspiring for an academic Bonfire.

2/
Felix Schönbrodt
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @open_science @GermanRepro What else could be extracted from #OpenAlex?
I would find this helpful:

1. The most recent publication/preprint of a member (as a first author, or also as coauthor?)
2. The most cited publication
3. Affiliation history: Maybe we have a common university in our history?

If your computing resources and the framework allow dyadic information (i.e., how do I relate to every member in the community):

3. What is my coauthor network distance? (I.e., how many hops do you need). If <=3, show the link.
4. What is the publication of that member that is closest to my own works? (e.g., based on embedding dimensions of title and abstract)

That is information that would foster a substantive discourse.

3/3
Bonfire
@bonfire@indieweb.social replied  ·  activity timestamp last month

@nicebread
Here's an updated mockup with widgets for:
- Most recent publication/preprint
- Most cited publication
These are fairly easy to include...
Currently showing only part of the available metadata to avoid overloading the widget, standard previews show more data (e.g., openscience.network/discussion)
We've already included the affiliation history (we call them present/past institutions, shown below the user profile avatar in the mockup...maybe wrong wording?)
@open_science @GermanRepro
Jonny Coates
@JACoates@mstdn.social replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @nicebread @open_science @GermanRepro I'd argue against most cited as this isn't the best metric to promote. I'd suggest that most recent (preprint or open access) article and then one chosen by the individual. Not everyone would highlight their most cited work but what currently interests them most or what they're proudest of.
Nicolas Fressengeas
@fresseng@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @open_science Another idea around that subject. Would it be meaningful, possible and ethical to propose a suggestion feature ? Maybe not a "for you" timeline, but rather a bunch of accounts suggested to follow, based on discipline acquaintance, or work citations, both based on OpenAlex or ORCID... or something else I did not think about. The idea is to facilitate the growth of the network. (Or maybe it is already within Bonfire)
Bonfire
@bonfire@indieweb.social replied  ·  activity timestamp last month

For those curious about what's technically possible, here's the OpenAlex API docs: https://docs.openalex.org/
We could explore research networks, collaboration patterns, open access rates, interdisciplinary connections, and more...
The question is:
what would make profiles genuinely useful for how you work?
Let's build this together 🔬
@open_science
Nicolas Fressengeas
@fresseng@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last month
@bonfire @open_science One question I am often asked is : how do I find people in a given institution that work on a given field ? It is technically possible to get this from OpenAlex. One idea could be : allow to automatically create circles from field and institutions. For instance : a circle for a given university, or a circle for a given field, or the intersect of both. Bonfire helping find people and communities would be great !