📸 Explore the highlights from the #CRAFT-OA_25 conference — photos, recordings, and presentation slides are now available!
A rich collection of #DiamondOA resources showcasing the strength of community-led, no-fee #AcademicPublishing initiatives. https://www.craft-oa.eu/craft-oa-final-conference/
arXiv No Longer Accepts Computer Science Position or Review Papers Due to LLMs
#HackerNews #arXiv #LLMs #ComputerScience #ResearchUpdates #AcademicPublishing
The problem is that the goal is knowledge dispersal. In the days of limited bandwidth, the hard part was getting the knowledge out there. Those days are gone. In the days of flooded bandwidth, readers will not find you in the ocean of text, you need a process to reach them. It is still very true (unfortunately!) that papers published in prestige journals get cited more than papers published in workhorse journals which get cited more than papers published in low-tier journals which get cited more than preprints.
If you want your science to have impact (and no, I don't mean "impact factor" --- I mean if you want people to build on your work), then you have to play the prestige game. It sucks, but there really isn't an alternative. (Show me people getting jobs and awards from purely bioRxiv preprints.) This is very much a prisoner's dilemma situation. What we need is collective action. Individuals only screw themselves without it.
It is like @pluralistic has been pointing out about the #enshittification in the rest of the corporate world. (Actually,
#AcademicPublishing is probably one of the best examples of enshittification. It sucks but it is nearly impossible to leave for all the reasons he gives.)
My current hope lies in the combination of preprints + post-preprint publishing as a slow replacement for the current problematic system.
Don't be this reviewer, who uses #ChatGPT to show the references that I should have cited, and which are of course fake.
And don't be the editor who let this through as an allowable review.
And then make a final decision that won't be reconsidered.
Calling out publisher IOP Publishing https://ioppublishing.org/
and their journal Environmental Research Commications.
Don't be this reviewer, who uses #ChatGPT to show the references that I should have cited, and which are of course fake.
And don't be the editor who let this through as an allowable review.
And then make a final decision that won't be reconsidered.
Calling out publisher IOP Publishing https://ioppublishing.org/
and their journal Environmental Research Commications.
This is getting worse by the minute. I followed @christof|s hint concerning the reproduction of articles from #DHQ / @DHQuarterly looking for one of my own papers (https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000593/000593.html).
In this case #ProQuest blatantly violates the CC BY-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) by
- not mentioning the license
- producing a derivative
- not linking to the original
I am very much in favour of @adho.org, as the publisher of @DHQuarterly, follows the path outlined by @dingemansemark. I will also log a complaint with #ProQuest through my employer.
#AcademicPublishing#Licensing#Piracy#PlatformCapitalism#PredatoryPublishing
After reading through the CC BY license I am none the wiser whether one has to clearly indicate that the material in question had been originally published somewhere else. The DOI as provided by #ProQuest reveals this fact but only after manually parsing the string with a resolver. Readers unfamiliar with the Programming Historian are made to believe that ProQuest is the original publisher or the platform officially hosting the original content.
However, ProQuest clearly violates the attribution requirements by modifying the layout and removing images. The CC BY license explicitly states that “You must […] indicate if You modified the Licensed Material”.
#AcademicPublishing#PredatoryPublishing#OpenLicenses#CreativeCommons#DigitalHumanities
This is getting worse by the minute. I followed @christof|s hint concerning the reproduction of articles from #DHQ / @DHQuarterly looking for one of my own papers (https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000593/000593.html).
In this case #ProQuest blatantly violates the CC BY-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) by
- not mentioning the license
- producing a derivative
- not linking to the original
I am very much in favour of @adho.org, as the publisher of @DHQuarterly, follows the path outlined by @dingemansemark. I will also log a complaint with #ProQuest through my employer.
#AcademicPublishing#Licensing#Piracy#PlatformCapitalism#PredatoryPublishing
This is getting worse by the minute. I followed @christof|s hint concerning the reproduction of articles from #DHQ / @DHQuarterly looking for one of my own papers (https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000593/000593.html).
In this case #ProQuest blatantly violates the CC BY-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) by
- not mentioning the license
- producing a derivative
- not linking to the original
I am very much in favour of @adho.org, as the publisher of @DHQuarterly, follows the path outlined by @dingemansemark. I will also log a complaint with #ProQuest through my employer.
#AcademicPublishing#Licensing#Piracy#PlatformCapitalism#PredatoryPublishing
After reading through the CC BY license I am none the wiser whether one has to clearly indicate that the material in question had been originally published somewhere else. The DOI as provided by #ProQuest reveals this fact but only after manually parsing the string with a resolver. Readers unfamiliar with the Programming Historian are made to believe that ProQuest is the original publisher or the platform officially hosting the original content.
However, ProQuest clearly violates the attribution requirements by modifying the layout and removing images. The CC BY license explicitly states that “You must […] indicate if You modified the Licensed Material”.
#AcademicPublishing#PredatoryPublishing#OpenLicenses#CreativeCommons#DigitalHumanities
#predatoryPublishing#CreativeCommons#AcademicPublishing #licensing
The response options on the data sharing question for El$evier's "Safety Science" journal are just ridiculous. #OpenScience #AcademicPublishing
!!! From "Big Deals" to #OpenScience !!!
The Université de Lorraine cancelled Springer (2017) & Wiley (2023) – and reinvests the savings in Open Science.
€500,000 is spent annually on infrastructures, support services and scholar-led Diamond OA – guided by a broad, representative committee.
🎧 Hear more in this #podcast with @fresseng and https://mastodon.social/@jflutz
#scholarled #DiamondOA #UniLorraine #AcademicPublishing #OpenAccess #scholcomm
Lorraine Model
I just added two new journals to the list of 💎📑 #DiamondOpenAccess journals in the small Guide that Opens Science at 🔗https://guide.opens.science/publishing-open-access.html - @span rupdecat pointed me to the Journal of Open Source Education earlier, and then I also found the International Journal of Open Educational Resources.
Does anybody know any other Diamond OA journals to add?
Or better yet - is there already an overview of Diamond OA journals somewhere?
Ok, I now added the last suggestions to the list of Diamond Open Access journals at https://guide.opens.science/publishing-open-access.html
I just added two new journals to the list of 💎📑 #DiamondOpenAccess journals in the small Guide that Opens Science at 🔗https://guide.opens.science/publishing-open-access.html - @span rupdecat pointed me to the Journal of Open Source Education earlier, and then I also found the International Journal of Open Educational Resources.
Does anybody know any other Diamond OA journals to add?
Or better yet - is there already an overview of Diamond OA journals somewhere?