Post · bonfire.cafe

@petersuber@fediscience.org · 3 days ago

I applaud the new #StockholmDeclaration for the reform of academic publishing.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.251805

It calls for action on four high-level principles, and makes 34 specific recommendations under those four heads. Here are the four:

"(i) Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access). (ii) Adjust incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity, in a reputation economy where the gaming of publication numbers and citation metrics distorts the perception of academic excellence. (iii) Implement mechanisms to prevent and detect fake publications and fraud which are independent of publishers. (iv) Draft and implement legislations, regulations and policies to increase publishing quality and integrity."

I just signed it and hope you will too. When you sign, you can weigh in separately on each of the 34 specific recommendations.
https://sciii-it.org/stockholm-declaration/

#AI #Assessment #DiamondOA #GreenOA #Integrity #Nonprofit #OpenAccess #OpenInfrastructure #OpenSource #Publishing #Repositories #RightsRetention #ScholComm

Mike Taylor 🦕

@mike@sauropods.win replied · 3 days ago

@petersuber Why would we listen to anything said by an organization of which Elon Musk is a fellow?

The Royal Society's standing has been fatally compromised.

petersuber

@petersuber@fediscience.org replied · 3 days ago

@mike
Fair enough, and I hope the Royal Society understands the harm it has done to its credibility. But in this case, the declaration was merely published by the Royal Society. It was written by participants at a meeting organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. And you don't have to know or trust anyone at the academy. You can read the 34 specific recommendations for yourself and decide (separately for each one) which ones to endorse. None has a musky odor.

Mike Taylor 🦕

@mike@sauropods.win replied · 2 days ago

@petersuber Also fair enough. But at this stage, the fact that the RS publishes and endorses it makes it LESS credible, not more.

Bill Hooker

@sennoma@chaos.social replied · 3 days ago

@petersuber @mike

I'd sign, but it requires "organization" and "position within same" and so on, and doesn't seem to have space for Concerned Scientists Who Are Between Jobs (and cannot in any case speak for their employers, when they have them).

petersuber

@petersuber@fediscience.org replied · 3 days ago

@sennoma @mike
I was nearly in the same position. I have an org and title. But I couldn't sign on behalf of my org, and the sign-up form didn't let me make that clear. I ended up adding a note to a text field on another topic. The declaration people should clarify the form and widen the door to more signatories.

Arnaud Le Rouzic

@arnaudlerouzic@fediscience.org replied · 2 days ago

@petersuber @sennoma @mike Yes, same for me, the original post is misleading. This form is not for concerned scientists, it is designed for the direction of organizations (upload the logo, etc). Good initiative, but bad communication.

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.0 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled