„Der Traum einer offenen #Suchmaschine“
Spektrum.de berichtet über die #OSF & Open-Search-Initiative.
Der Suchmaschinenmarkt in Deutschland wird aktuell zu über 90% von Google dominiert. Alternativen sind rar und verfügen selten über einen eigenen Suchmaschinen-Index – in #Europa gibt es keine. Genau hier setzen wir mit dem EU Projekt OpenWebSearch.eu an.
Das Ziel: ein Europäischer offener Webindex.
We're excited to introduce a new OSF feature that makes it possible and easy for education researchers to make their research FAIR during our upcoming webinar on 05/23!
Joining us are experts from LDbase who will introduce their template and demonstrate how its use promotes FAIR sharing in education research. We will highlight the metadata value and explain how OSF makes it easy to make research FAIR.
Join us on March 27 at 1 PM EDT for a webinar tailored to academic librarians and research support staff. During this webinar, we'll explore how OSF Institutions, a platform empowering open scholarship practices within academic institutions.
In this webinar, you'll learn how the platform can help:
✅ Track research activity
✅ Improve efficiency
✅ Elevate your institution’s scholarly outputs
I am not a fan of #OSF's decision to gatekeep #preprints at all. I understand that minting DOIs costs money, but moderating at the individual preprint level is just not the way to do that. I've been bounced from arXiv before for entirely arbitrary reasons, and the appeals process amounted to "show us when it's been accepted to a journal and we'll post it." All digital social spaces need some form of moderation, but closed pre-moderation of individual submissions is far from the only model, and is antithetical to "democratizing science" and the purpose of preprints: to share work without prior justification and validation of your work. The email here says preprints will be public at the time of submission, but the linked documents disagree, saying they will only be visible after moderation - not a promising start to a transparent moderation system.
The argument here is nonsense - who asked them to take on the mantle of protecting the scholarly impact metrics that keep us yoked to an extraordinarily exploitative publishing system? Was there rampant gaming of the system? Shouldn't that be a signal that the metrics are the problem, rather than signal a need for gatekeeping preprints? Presumably daddy Elsevier came knocking, but since there's no further explanation, we're left with nonsense - again not a promising start.
Many of us had hope that preprints would bring radical change to science, a transitional stage away from traditional journals, but since instead they increasingly want to act like traditional journals I suppose we'll need to keep moving. The only way through is to acknowledge half measures get us nowhere, and that the many-billion dollar for-profit publishing industry is not our friend.
This is how I usually set up the beginning of my #knitr / #quarto scripts to download data from #osf that I then use for analysis in the rest of the script.
This way I only need to share the script, and anybody who wants to #reproduce the results will always get the right datafile.
Let me know if there are any easier or better way to do this!
The reason given for their decision is that the institutions and governments of the European Union spend a lot of money on the same topics as OSF, so they will focus on other parts of the world where they can operate more efficiently.
I used to publish my slides on SpeakerDeck, which is now long defunct, and then defaulted to do it in SlideShare, but I'm not hundred percent convinced. I'd like to find a more open way of publishing them.
Is there any Fediverse friendly way of publishing them? Maybe some of the open access tools?
I'd be most grateful if you could boost this question if the topic is of your interest…