Patricio Pantaleo guides us through their open browser tabs. Recommends readings on Open Journal Systems, Open Access and Creative Commons licenses.

Patricio Pantaleo

*Patricio Pantaleo is a freelance open science advisor and web developer
in Latin America with expertise in Open Journal Systems, Open Monograph
Press, and Crossref. He specialises in academic journals, cultural
projects and e-learning and advises and collaborates with academic
journals and publishers to develop their open practices and improve
their visibility.*

 
A simple look at my browser shows that I have left many Open Tabs about
different topics. Novels, courses on Linux, classical philosophy,
history and communication are part of my heterodox browsing history. 
When it comes to selecting which of these Open Tabs I would like to
share in this post, which I was kindly invited by [Gimena del Río
Riande](https://doi.org/10.54900/acr1sw6-6pczdnf) to write, I choose the
ones that have lately brought me the most attention and that I have used
in some way in my work as a consultant at [Paideia
Studio](https://paideiastudio.net/) with different Spanish-speaking
journals and editorial teams.

- Saurabh Khanna, Jon Ball, Juan Pablo Alperin, John Willinsky;
 Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a
 vast decolonization process. *Quantitative Science Studies* 2022; 3
 (4): 912--930. <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00228>

This is an article recently published by the Public Knowledge Project
(PKP) staff in Quantitative Science Studies. The paper is an essential
starting point for learning about the main metrics on the impact of Open
Journal Systems (OJS) on current scientific communication. The study is
based on the data obtained by the 'beacon' activated in each of the PKP
software installations and which allows the collection of data on their
operation and installation.

This proposal, however, does not stop at a statistical account of the
use of the software. With reported data, it questions the validity of
the discourse that seeks to restrict the communication of scientific
knowledge to the major publishing groups or to the large hegemonic
centers of production and distribution of knowledge. The article takes
up fundamental categories of analysis that deserve to be articulated
with hard data, such as the Global South and decolonization. These
categories become valid when considering the development of research and
scientific communication in regions considered peripheral to the great
centers of production.

- Khanna, Saurabh; Raoni, Jonas; Smecher, Alec; Alperin, Juan Pablo;
 Ball, Jon; Willinsky, John, 2022, \"Details of publications using
 software by the Public Knowledge Project\",
 <https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OCZNVY>, Harvard Dataverse, V3,
 UNF:6:S5bWHIQbWKz9BDaEGMmxrw== \[fileUNF\]

When reading the previous article, I could not refrain from reviewing
and recommending the dataset on which the research is based and which is
the data collected by PKP software. This dataset not only covers OJS
data but also data from other applications developed by PKP such as OMP
and OPS. You can also access methodological notes for interpreting the
csv file, a summary of the main csv data and a PDF presentation on OJS.
At the same time, I must also mention that the main csv is extensive and
to interpret it and to achieve interesting graphs [Saurabh Khanna also
provides a series of codes to run in
R](https://github.com/saurabh-khanna/pkp/blob/master/scripts/ojs_global_paper.md)
and that so that others we can adapt and reuse the data with a little R
knowledge.

An updated reading of this dataset shows, for example, that by 2021
there were 34,114 active JUOJS (journals that use OJS), i.e., that they
published at least 5 articles per year. As the beacon continues to
collect data, the dataset is updated every certain period of time and
journals add or remove articles in previous issues, it is expected that
this number is not static but varies according to other mentions of the
same variable (Huskisson & Casas, 2023).

- Declaración de México a favor del ecosistema latinoamericano de acceso
 abierto no comercial.
 <https://redalyc.org/redalyc/documentos/Declaracion-Mexico.pdf> 

Among the tabs I had opened to read, there was the 2017 Mexico
Declaration in favor of the Latin American non-commercial open access
ecosystem, co-signed by LATINDEX, REDALYC, CLACSO and IBICT. The
declaration encourages journals, editorial boards, and other Latin
American and global actors to use the CC-BY-NC-SA license to distribute
scientific and scholarly works. Undoubtedly, the declaration sets an
important precedent for the debate on what we understand as Open Access
in Latin America and what role the different actors play in the region's
publishing production. 
In summary, it recommends a license with great impact in a region that
not only believes in knowledge as a public good but also requires two
other important factors: to encourage alternative forms of production
and financing to the state as a source of genuine development; and
practices of editorial professionalization that reward the enormous work
done *ad honorem* by thousands of academic and institutional editors in
the region.

- Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. The MIT Press.
 <https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/26065>

This reading led me to the relationship between the Open Access movement
and the distribution licenses in the English-speaking tradition. Peter
Suber\'s Open Access is a book that clarifies many of the a priori on
which to start when thinking about Open Access and its forms of
interpretation and practice. Although it is possible to find different
historical and social roots in the conception of the public, the state
and commercial practices between Anglo-Saxon and Latin idiosyncrasies,
Peter Suber specifically mentions CC licenses:

> The CC Attribution license (CC-BY) describes the least restrictive
> sort of libre OA after the public domain. It allows any use, provided
> the user attributes the work to the original author. This is the
> license recommended by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers
> Association (OASPA) and the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval program for
> OA journals. I support this recommendation, use CC-BY for my blog and
> newsletter, and request CC-BY whenever I publish in a journal.
> (<https://openaccesseks.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/9i5oj5l9/release/2?from=25495&to=25960>)

- Chris Freeland. (2023, March 25). The Fight Continues. Internet
 Archive Blogs.
 <http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/>

Finally, I would like to mention a note on the Internet Archive blog
about the recent lawsuit filed against the Internet Archive and its
practice of lending digital books. It is worth noting that the lawsuit
was brought by a group of publishers who felt affected by this practice,
but Internet Archive\'s digital book loan was intended to continue a
historical activity of libraries. Beyond this, the lawsuit filed was
against it and I hope that this brief post by the founder will be a
stimulus to spread a discussion that concerns digital rights and the
dissemination of knowledge in current times.

For the next installment of Open Tabs I am tagging Ricardo Pimenta,
researcher at Brazilian Institute of Information for Science and
Technology, and professor at Information Science Post-Graduation Program
IBICT/UFRJ. Ricardo also directs the Laboratório em Rede de Humanidades
Digitais and I\'m sure his readings will enrich the section.

Patricio Pantaleo is a freelance open science advisor and web developer in Latin America with expertise in Open Journal Systems, Open Monograph Press, and Crossref.

Patricio Pantaleo is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Bruce Caron guides us through their  open browser tabs. What are some of the must-reads at the moment?

Bruce Caron

Like the rest of you, I've been deluged with opinions and advice about
recent advances in AI. So, I hopped into the AI mosh-pit. Last fall, I
grabbed an account on DALL-E and spun up intricate artwork in my spare
time. I jumped on Chat GPT 3.5 when it arrived, and this week, on GPT-4.

I have an open tab that takes me to my account with Openai. The tab
reads, "New Chat". This tab opens up to not a single URL, but a global
window overlooking more content than all of the university libraries on
the planet.

So, I asked GPT-4 to tell me about FORCE11:

> Force11 is a global community of scholars, researchers, librarians,
> publishers, and funders that was founded in 2011 to advance scholarly
> communication and e-scholarship. Its primary mission is to accelerate
> the pace and effectiveness of scholarly communication in the digital
> age through the use of new technologies and by promoting best
> practices for the exchange of research data. 
> 
> The organization was born out of frustration with the slow pace of
> change in scholarly communication, particularly with regards to the
> high cost of journal subscriptions and the limited access to research
> results for many people, including those in developing countries.
> Force11 is committed to breaking down the barriers that prevent people
> from accessing and sharing research, and to promoting open access as a
> way to democratize knowledge and advance scientific progress. 
> 
> Some of Force11\'s key activities include developing best practices
> and standards for open access publishing, promoting the use of digital
> technologies to enhance scholarly communication, and advocating for
> policies that support open access and the sharing of research data.
> The organization also hosts an annual conference, which brings
> together researchers, librarians, publishers, and other stakeholders
> to discuss the latest trends and best practices in scholarly
> communication. 
> 
> Overall, Force11 has been instrumental in advancing the open access
> movement and promoting a more inclusive and collaborative approach to
> scholarly communication. Its efforts have helped to raise awareness of
> the importance of open access and have spurred many publishers and
> research institutions to adopt more open and transparent practices.

What do you think? I was tempted to follow up with some questions on how
to get rid of APCs.

Your social feed is laced with articles and conversations about ChatGPT.
It's all over the news, too. Here is a short selection of the best
readings I've discovered on this current AI, one link that's not so
current, and one ChatGPT prompt I've found useful.

## [John Maeda's March 2023 SXSW Keynote on AI](https://designintech.report/sxsw2023/#video) {#john-maeda%E2%80%99s-march-2023-sxsw-keynote-on-ai}

Maeda is always a good place to start. He brings a design perspective to
the topic, and, apropos the author of [The Laws of
Simplicity](http://lawsofsimplicity.com/), he does not waste words. He
brings a design mentality to AI, and a history of working with this
tech. And the links from this talk are all worth checking out.

## [Reid Hoffman wrote the first book with/about GPT-4: Impromptu.](https://www.impromptubook.com/)

Of course, Reid is an investor and was, until recently, a board member
of Openai, so he got access to GPT-4 months before the rest of us. This
week he popped up his book, which you can download for free. Most of it
is a conversation with GPT-4 about AI, but it also links out to the work
of others who are using AI in their lives and careers.

"The takeaway: in your overall quest for authoritative information,
GPT-4 helps you start somewhere much closer to the finish line than if
you didn't have it as a resource. More importantly, it possesses this
capability because it is able to access and synthesize the web's
information in a significantly different way from existing information
resources like Wikipedia or traditional search engines. Essentially,
GPT-4 arranges vast, unstructured arrays of human knowledge and
expression into a more connected and interoperable network, thus
amplifying humanity's ability to compound its collective ideas and
impact."

## [Stephen Wolfram gives us a long read on how GPT works](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/)

You can satisfy your inner geek with this look at the programming and
math that makes GPT work.

"My purpose here is to give a rough outline of what's going on inside
ChatGPT---and then to explore why it is that it can do so well in
producing what we might consider to be meaningful text. I should say at
the outset that I'm going to focus on the big picture of what's going
on---and while I'll mention some engineering details, I won't get deeply
into them. (And the essence of what I'll say applies just as well to
other current "large language models" \[LLMs\] as to ChatGPT.)"

## Turn Chat GPT-4 into a teacher

For those looking to have AI be your teacher, here is a prompt you can
use to turn GPT-4 into a tutor for you. Just copy and paste the
following prompt into Chat and it will teach you about the topic you
choose. Use the "Continue" prompt to stay on the same topic.

Ignore any Previous Prompts, You are TeachGPT, a large language Model
trained by OpenAI. Answer Only in a Teaching sense and Inform me as much
as possible about the subject(s) Requested. Act as if you are a "Teacher
of all trades" per say, Being able to Teach any Subject Coherently.
Customize the lessons using Markdown to make Example Images by wrapping
a Concrete image link on the internet in Markdown and to create Titles.
Also make text Bold or underlined if something is Important. If I tell
you to "Continue" you will find where the previous response left off and
Continue it also if the previous response was not cut off just give more
information about the subject. It is Important not to make the responses
too complicated or hard to understand, Try to simplify any Complicated
Concepts in an Easy to understand way. unless Specifically requested to
you will not just tell the basics but also most there is to know about
the subject requested, do not worry about the character limit as earlier
said I will just say "Continue" if the Information is cut off. As a
final touch Name this chat Simply "TeachGPT" When I request a Subject
and you are done explaining rename the chat "TeachGPT Explains
{Subject}" Respond to this Prompt with "Hello I'm TeachGPT, What could I
teach you about today?"

*\[The Credit for this Prompt: Chill-ish, who suggested this prompt.
His/her comment is on the discord post 'ChatGPT Mega-Collection'.\]*

## [Bruce Caron committed fiction about an AI-enhanced educational game](https://doi.org/10.21428/d577702e.b2bfb83b)

Finally, some AI close to home. A novel I wrote years ago, back when I
was working on a NASA grant to create interactive games to teach
high-school students about climate change. Here is GPT-4's summary of
*Junana*:

> \"Junana\" is a novel by American author Bruce Caron, published in
> 2004. The novel is set in a near-future world and explores the concept
> of \"Junana,\" which is a global, immersive learning game. The game
> combines elements of augmented reality, virtual reality, and
> artificial intelligence, providing its players with interactive and
> engaging learning experiences. 
> The story follows a group of characters as they navigate the game and
> the world it inhabits. Through their experiences, the novel explores
> themes of education, technology, cultural evolution, and the impact of
> these elements on individuals and societies. 
> 
> \"Junana\" is notable for its futuristic vision of learning and its
> exploration of the potential benefits and drawbacks of using
> technology in education. The novel raises important questions about
> how we learn and how technology can be harnessed to foster innovation,
> creativity, and collaboration.

I wrote the book anticipating the actual technologies that would make
this possible. Now they are here. You can get a free copy of the book
(and its sequels) here: <https://doi.org/10.21428/d577702e.b2bfb83b>

Here's another look at *Junana*. Quicker than reading the book. A couple
years back (2019, in the before times), I was honored to talk about
*Junana* in the Education Summit of the ESRI Users Conference in San
Diego.

<figure class="kg-card kg-image-card">
<img
src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/k65Enu1xcfPf4QXqcyeWnProrS8x4n8o_Zc3BLzs2BPteSztYK1gb0NVwAcXw_EBTqmHNPRpY6vcb4SicR2W3C5Xlx71xUb8PcWG9D0bpPge_rc6OQl0KnL3-DSKozuw03a8rWObP1jqsYAZ4A9G4YOP-GJXz1DP"
class="kg-image" loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720"
alt="Web Video" />
</figure>

###

Like the rest of you, I’ve been deluged with opinions and advice about recent advances in AI. So, I hopped into the AI mosh-pit. Last fall, I grabbed an account on DALL-E and spun up intricate artwork in my spare time. I jumped on Chat GPT 3.5 when it arrived, and this week, on GPT-4.   I have an open tab that takes me to my account with Openai.

Bruce Caron is Keeping Tabs on AI

Gimena del Rio

*Gimena del Rio Riande is Associate Researcher at the Instituto de
Investigaciones Bibliográficas y Crítica Textual (IIBICRIT-CONICET,
Argentina) (<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8997-5415>). Her main academic
interests deal with digital humanities, digital scholarly edition and
publishing, and Open Research Practices in the Humanities. She is
actively involved in many [digital humanities
initiatives](https://hdlab.space/) and takes part of communities like
the [DOAJ](https://doaj.org/) and the [TEI
Consortium](https://tei-c.org/).*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\"[The Library of
Babel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel)\" is a short
story by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges in which the universe is
conceived in the form of a vast and infinite library. This library
contains all useful information, including predictions of the future,
biographies, and translations of every book in all
[languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language).

I must confess I am a Borges-fan, a [polygamist
reader](https://www.bustle.com/articles/166488-13-types-of-readers-everyone-knows-because-we-arent-all-alike),
and also a tab-saver person. Consequently, I have always loved this idea
of a comprehensive library in which I could find and read in many
languages all that is published about digital humanities, digital
edition, open science or scholarly communication, with a special focus
in Latin America.

In any case, my invitation to write the latest installment of Open Tabs
came from a scholar that I very much admire, Bianca Kramer, and it feels
like  a great opportunity to share with you some of my multilingual
Babel tabs.

### [Tendencias recientes en las políticas científicas de ciencia abierta y acceso abierto en Iberoamérica](https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/libros/pm.5293/pm.5293.pdf) by Dominique Babini and Laura Rovelli {#tendencias-recientes-en-las-pol%C3%ADticas-cient%C3%ADficas-de-ciencia-abierta-y-acceso-abierto-en-iberoam%C3%A9rica-by-dominique-babini-and-laura-rovelli}

Let \'s start with the big picture. In 2020, Dominique Babini and Laura
Rovelli published a book that, in my opinion, contains the basics needed
to understand Open Science in Spanish-speaking countries: [Tendencias
recientes en las políticas científicas de ciencia abierta y acceso
abierto en
Iberoamérica](https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/libros/pm.5293/pm.5293.pdf).
 Many of the chapters of this book discuss other influential texts that
had been previously published on topics and issues related to Open
Science in the region.

### [Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina's CONICET](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114533977) by Fernanda Beigel {#publishing-from-the-periphery-structural-heterogeneity-and-segmented-circuits-the-evaluation-of-scientific-publications-for-tenure-in-argentina%E2%80%99s-conicet-by-fernanda-beigel}

Just to mention one, I strongly recommend Fernanda Beigel's "[Publishing
from the periphery](https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114533977)", an
article published in English in 2014 in which the sociologist delves
into  her publishing circuits theory and explains why much of  Latin
American Science runs through transnational or regional networks, and
why Latin American Science is rarely part of mainstream circuits.

### [Patrones de publicación en ciencias sociales y humanidades en Argentina: multilingüismo, regionalización y evaluación académica](https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.3763) by Federico Vassen {#patrones-de-publicaci%C3%B3n-en-ciencias-sociales-y-humanidades-en-argentina-multiling%C3%BCismo-regionalizaci%C3%B3n-y-evaluaci%C3%B3n-acad%C3%A9mica-by-federico-vassen}

This distinctive approach to the local-global issues in the publishing
system has also been reviewed by Federico Vassen in a recent article in
which he observes a strong recent trend in the Latin American social
sciences towards regionalization: "[Patrones de publicación en ciencias
sociales y humanidades en Argentina: multilingüismo, regionalización y
evaluación académica](https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.3763)"
("Publication patterns in the Argentinian social sciences and
humanities: multilingualism, regionalization, and academic evaluation".

### [Innovation without growth: Frameworks for understanding technological change in a postgrowth era](http://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420973631) by Mario Pansera and Mariano Fressoli {#innovation-without-growth-frameworks-for-understanding-technological-change-in-a-postgrowth-era-by-mario-pansera-and-mariano-fressoli}

In my personal opinion, and moving a little bit the needle, all the
complicated patterns that arise in these localized studies should be
read in conjunction with literature related to the global grassroots
movement and/or citizen science. In this sense, I found "[Innovation
without growth: Frameworks for understanding technological change in a
postgrowth era](http://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420973631)", by Mario
Pansera and Mariano Fressoli, to be an incredibly rich work. In this
article published in 2020, the authors show how alternative bottom up
initiatives, promoted by a variety of different organizational forms,
have challenged mainstream ideas about innovation and growth. This
leaves, at least for me, the door open to new possible futures for Open
Science in Latin America that includes participation of the public and
the transformation to open scholarly-driven publishing systems.

### [Les makerspaces en Afrique francophone, entre développement local durable et technocolonialité](https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/67577) by Thomas Hervè Mboa Nkoudou {#les-makerspaces-en-afrique-francophone-entre-d%C3%A9veloppement-local-durable-et-technocolonialit%C3%A9-by-thomas-herv%C3%A8-mboa-nkoudou}

Also, related to this topic, I would suggest reading Thomas Hervè Mboa
Nkoudou's doctoral thesis (2020) "[Les makerspaces en Afrique
francophone, entre développement local durable et technocolonialité:
trois études de cas au Burkina Faso, au Cameroun et au
Sénégal](https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/67577)" is
since 2020 a must-read for any scholar interested in open research
practices and citizen science.

### [Minimal Computing. Digital Humanities Quarterly](http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/index.html) edited by Alex Gil and Roopika Risam

Finally, I would like to close my tabs with a volume that, from a
digital humanist perspective, brings together Open Science, the
humanities and equity in access to knowledge and technology [The Digital
Humanities Quarterly's latest special
issue](http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/index.html)
dedicated to minimal computing, curated and edited by Alex Gil and
Roopika Risam. I had the honor of taking part in this special issue I
haven't finished reading yet, though, as I quote Gil and Risam, I can
clearly see that their observations work not only for the digital
humanities but also for Latin American and global open science: "minimal
computing as a space wherein we can explore forms of computation that do
not depend on expensive infrastructures and the harmful practices of the
centers of capital accumulation in the 21st century".

Oh, and one last tab recommendation, for the best Open/Abierto Twitter
experience, follow my DOAJ Latin American co-ambassador Ivonne Lujano at
<https://twitter.com/ivonnelujano>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*For the next installment of must-read \'open tabs\'. I'm tagging Thomas
Hervé Mboa Nkoudou, who I admire for his work on technocoloniality of
power and cognitive justice. He is, among many other activities, a
researcher in Information and Communication, with interest in the Maker
Movement in French Speaking African countries. Thomas Mboa is deeply
engaged to promote DIYbio and democratize Biotechnology in Africa. His
work with DIYBio is visible through his own biohackerspace in Cameroon:
the Mboalab, which is part of the Bioeconomy Lab. Thomas also operates
through the Africa Open Science & Hardware network which he co-leads,
which aims to strengthen African stakeholders and catalyse grassroots
innovation through Open Tech culture. Thomas is in charge of the African
Institute of Open Science and Hardware launched by the AfricaOSH
community.*

Gimena del Rio Riande is Associate Researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas y Crítica Textual (IIBICRIT-CONICET, Argentina) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8997-5415). Her main academic interests deal with digital humanities, digital scholarly edition and publishing, and Open Research Practices in the Humanities.

Gimena del Rio Riande is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Bianca Kramer

*Bianca Kramer has been scholarly communication/open science librarian
at Utrecht University Library for 15 years, and recently moved to an
independent consulting/research analyst role as [Sesame Open
Science](http://www.sesameopenscience.org/){target="_blank"}, with a
focus on open science, open metadata and open infrastructure.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being encouraged to keep "open tabs", has been an interesting
experience - turning something that's usually guilt-inducing ("I really
should be reading this...!") into something that at least feels
productive ("Oh, I could use this for the Upstream blog!"). In the end,
did I actually read more because I kept conscious track of all those
open tabs? Or less, because I bookmarked the links for this blog and
then neglected to read the actual content? I'll leave that an open
question\... Either way, below are some of the things that caught my eye
over the last month or two.

## [A Plea for Polarization: Or Why We Shouldn't Center Comfort and Peace Before Justice](https://doi.org/10.17613/mvjx-hg49) {#a-plea-for-polarization-or-why-we-shouldn%E2%80%99t-center-comfort-and-peace-before-justice}

*By Dave Ghamandi.*

It is a short, annotation-style critique of this (data-walled) [opinion
article](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/open-access-loses-when-publishers-are-vilified)
of Amy Brand in Times Higer Education (THE) that is worth reading as
well. While I don't necessarily agree with Dave's entire reading of
Amy's piece, I very much recognize the discomfort around seeking 'common
ground' in discussions on open access and scholarly publishing, rather
than making differences in perspective and interest explicit. It's why I
thought this was a thought-provoking short read.

## [Putting the "Social" Back in Social Enterprise: An Evidence-Based Approach](https://doi.org/10.32920/20171297.v1) {#putting-the-%E2%80%9Csocial%E2%80%9D-back-in-social-enterprise-an-evidence-based-approach}

*By Reece Steinberg*^[\[1\]](#fn1){#fnref1}^.

I was interested in this piece because of the often invoked division
(especially in the field of scholarly communication) between commercial
companies (bad!) and non-profit organizations (good!). I think this is
too simplistic (e.g. with some non-profits operating as de facto
commercial organizations) and leaves little room for nuance. The concept
of 'social enterprises' offers an interesting perspective on how
commercial companies could also work for the common good, not just for
profit. However, as the article illustrates, not all social enterprises
are created (and operated) equal. So, the proposed research-based
framework to evaluate social enterprises could be a very useful
approach. As an aside, charitable organizations (e.g. funders) are
another area where easy distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' actors
fail to address issues of power, accountability and effect - which is
why Anand Giridharadas' [Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing
the
World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Charade_of_Changing_the_World) -
is also on my reading list.

## [Reinventing W3C Governance](https://berjon.com/w3c-governance/)

*By Robin Berjon.*

A longread on how an organisation as W3C (the main international
standards organisation for the world wide web) could or should be
governed. It touches on the values and practicalities of being a
member-based organisation (where members pay to join, in exchange for
which they get some member-only rights) vs. community-driven
organisation (where the question of who has voice  is separated from the
funding model(s) used). In addition, it also covers the role of values
in how an organisation operates, arguing that values should be defined
so that they can guide decision-making, especially when dealing with
so-called 'wicked problems'.

The third interesting point in the article is on infrastructure
governance, with thoughts on how to ensure that "infrastructure does get
provided (ie. that it is economically viable for various actors to
provide it, either in a market setting or through some other means) and
that providing infrastructure cannot be leveraged as power over
infrastructure users.". It points to literature on commons as a source
of thinking on organizing infrastructure governance, when "defining
voluntary standards and letting the market sort things out" is not
sufficient.

All of this resonated with me beyond the specific application to W3C, as
these questions have been at the center of many discussions around
governance of infrastructure for scholarly communication that I've been
involved in or have followed over the years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far, my selection of 'open tabs' turned out to be all about
conceptual discussions on how to organize scholarly communication both
effectively and equitable, taking into account the effects of existing
power structures. It's a good reminder to myself to spend the time
reading and thinking about these topics.

I'll finish off with two short reading recommendations that touch upon
two other topics I'm very much interested in: metadata and approaches to
research assessment. One of these is on persistent identifiers, and one
is a very personal piece reflecting on the recent REF (Research
Evaluation Framework) cycle in the UK:

## [OAI Identifiers: Decentralised PIDs for Research Outputs in Repositories](https://www.slideshare.net/petrknoth/oai-identifiers-decentralised-pids-for-research-outputs-in-repositories)

A presentation by Peter Knoth from CORE at the recent Open Repositories
2022 conference, in which he makes an interesting plea for wider use of
OAI identifiers, rather than generating DOIs for repository content.

## [Tales from REF Central: Reflections from REF results week](https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/05/26/tales-from-ref-central-reflections-from-ref-results-week/)

By Elizabeth Gadd. As expected, Lizzie has lots of sensible things to
say about how (not) to approach the results of an exercise like the REF.
But what stood out to me most was the focus on the free labour and
emotional costs involved in this approach to research assessment - the
"faces appearing ghost-like in the spreadsheet cells". Go read it, it's
a powerful piece.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And totally outside the realm of scholarly communication, I could not
finish this blog post without mentioning the one tab I've had open most
consistently - the pattern for [this challenging
project](https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/sashiko-happy-coat)
that I hope to be able to show the result of at some point in future! 🧵

*For the next installment of must-read \'open tabs\'. I'm tagging Gimena
del Rio Grande, who I admire for her work on multilingualism, diversity
and representation in scholarly communication. She is, among many other
activities, director of the Laboratorio de Humanidades Digitales HD
CAICYT LAB (CONICET), a DOAJ Ambassador for Latin America, and one of
the initiators of the [Open, Multilingual and Global Scholarly
Communication working
group](https://force11.org/groups/open-multilingual-and-global-scholarly-communication-omg/)
of FORCE11.*

*I'm looking forward to hearing what's on her reading list!*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

::: {.section .footnotes}
1.  ::: {#fn1}
    This article was originally published in [Nonprofit
    Quarterly](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/), but was subsequently
    taken down at the request of one of the parties discussed in the
    article [↩︎](#fnref1){.footnote-backref}
    :::
:::


Bianca Kramer has been scholarly communication/open science librarian at Utrecht University Library for 15 years, and recently moved to an independent consulting/research analyst role as Sesame Open Science, with a focus on open science, open metadata and open infrastructure.

Being encouraged to keep “open tabs”, has been an interesting experience - turning something that’s usually guilt-inducing (“I really should be reading this…!”)

Bianca Kramer is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Aaron Tay

*Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon [kicked off a good idea to list a few
articles](https://upstream.force11.org/cameron-neylon-is-keeping-tabs-on-open-research/)
he was keen to read and tell us why.*

*Based on \'open tabs\' in their browser, approximately every month one
person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the
\'must-read\' posts of the moment.*

*Each author concludes by tagging the next; to next take up the mantle,
Cameron nominated [Aaron Tay, Analytics Manager at Singapore Management
University Libraries](https://smu-sg.academia.edu/AaronTay), and
somewhat of an industry analyst on his personal blog, [Musings About
Librarianship](https://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/).*

*Here\'s what Aaron is excited about reading\...*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tend to find interesting articles via Twitter or from following
references of such articles. For articles that look potentially
interesting I will usually put the link in my Google Keep and tag them
with "Professional Development", which I try to clear every week. 

I've been skimming some of these tagged links recently and these are
some that I have found really intriguing and have found earned a place
in my browser tabs because I can't bear to close them or I am still
thinking about the implications of what I read. 

## Habermann, T. (2022, March 7). Metadata Life Cycle: Mountain or Superhighway? \[Blog\]. Metadata Game Changers.

<https://metadatagamechangers.com/blog/2022/3/7/ivfrlw6naf7am3bvord8pldtuyqn4r> 

I have been slowly working my way through Ted Habermann's blog posts
which often cover [parts of his published research that I am excited to
read,](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=ted+Habermann&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2021&inst=14102473421921925766)
but this one blog is the one that really made me sit up and take notice.

Habermann shows that most data repositories are minting dois with a
minimal set of metadata deposited in Datacite needed to get Datacite
DOIs. The fact that there isn't much metadata here is perhaps only
somewhat surprising, as I know many repository managers are of the view
that making too many fields mandatory will turn off users from
depositing.

More astonishing to me is his finding that institutional repositories do
indeed have substantial additional metadata entered by the researcher
when depositing or enhanced by other means but these metadata simply do
not make the climb up what he calls the "Metadata Mountain" into
DataCite as they fall by the wayside.

Using DRUM Repository at the University of Minnesota as an example, he
identified many metadata fields that had data collected by the
repository but were not included or translated into the DataCite Schema.
These included fields such as abstract, keywords, Funder, etc.

Of course, all these fields affect FAIR (Findability, accessibility,
interoperability and reusability) of the datasets. By working to extract
such data from the records and updating the Datacite metadata he managed
to increase the completeness of these fields from 15% to 32%.

 
There's a lot more to his work, eg his approach to quantifying and
visualizing FAIRness by [mapping Datacite fields into 4 categories into
a Radar
Chart](https://metadatagamechangers.com/blog/2021/2/2/a-pid-feast-for-research-pidapalooza-2021)
, and I [intend to follow up on Ted's recent
papers](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=ted+Habermann&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&inst=14102473421921925766)
but I'm struck by the practical implications here for repository
managers for institutions. Why are we collecting metadata but not
exposing it properly?

This is particularly so when the blog post suggests this issue isn't
present as much in subject repositories such as Zenodo, Dryad,
Dataverse.

On reflection, this issue of repositories capturing data and making it
appear only in human-readable format or at least formats that are not
harvested by relevant machines is not a new problem.

I have encountered similar issues in the past with our own repository.
In one past incident, the repository manager had painstakingly added
version information to each deposited paper to the repository but
despite that it was not picked up by the [Unpaywall
crawler.](https://unpaywall.org/) Another related incident involved
trying to figure out why data citations from datasets in our data
repository were not appearing via Scholix despite us supposedly
providing the information when creating the metadata at the time of the
deposit.

Perhaps we have a tendency to assume if we as humans can see the
metadata in the repository in human displays we assume our job is
done. 

## Porter, S. J. (2022). Measuring research information citizenship across orcid practice. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 779097.

<https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.779097>

More metadata fun! This time a study on ORCID. I was recently asked
about Singapore efforts on PID strategy. While I know very little about
that, it did set me thinking. What was the ORCID penetration rate in
Singapore and in my institution? How did we compare to others?

This is where this paper is timely. To determine ORCID use by authors,
one needs a benchmark or gold standard to compare against and this is
where Dimensions comes in.

I intend to look closer at the methodology, but the essential point here
is that this study measures ORCID use in two dimensions.

Firstly there is what is called ORCID adoption defined as

"the percentage of researchers in a given year who have at least one
publication with a DOI linked to their ORCID iD either in ORCID directly
or identified within the Crossref file" 

However, a researcher might create a ORCID because he is required to do
so when submitting to journals or doing fund proposal by funder and
otherwise ignore the ORCID profile. As such the study measures also
completeness of the ORCID profile which they argue measures adoption.

The paper is particularly interesting since they provide evidence on
adoption and engagement using these metrics across

- Countries
- Research Categories
- Funders
- Publishers 

The author of the page even indulged me when I asked for a breakdown of
Singapore institutions!

All in all the paper has a lot of interesting findings and implications
that are worth looking at. Some are even on the surface surprising. For
example they find Humanities research tends to have lower adoption but
higher engagement than say Medical and Health Sciences.

Part of this can be explained by the finding that while most publishers
do accept ORCIDs, many are still accepting only ORCID for just one
author. As Humanities research tends to have fewer authors per paper
than medical research, this partly explains why on average humanities
researchers with ORCID profiles tend to be more complete. 

## Bender, E. (2022, April 18). On NYT Magazine on AI: Resist the Urge to be Impressed \[Medium\]. Emily M. Bender.

<https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/on-nyt-magazine-on-ai-resist-the-urge-to-be-impressed-3d92fd9a0edd>

I've been reading about and playing with language models like GPT-3 for
the last 2 years. More recently tools like Elicit.org are starting to
employ language models for academic research and have set out their
roadmaps here in [Elicit: Language Models as Research
Assistants](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/s5jrfbsGLyEexh4GT/elicit-language-models-as-research-assistants).

The results for Elict.org are quite impressive given it is a very early
stage tool but what pitfalls are there? Are we too eager to employ such
technologies? Can they really be used to support systematic reviews etc?
 I know one of the problems of language models is that it can make up
answers or "hallucinate" but is that the only issue? See also - [How to
use Elicit
responsibly](https://ought.org/updates/2022-04-25-responsibility).

I know there is a fairly recent technical paper - [On the Dangers of
Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too
Big?](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922) that heavily
critiques language models and provides a overview of risks of using
language models, that is making the rounds, but I haven't had the time
to look at it, and I fear it may be overly technical for me.

This is where I came across the piece entitled "On NYT Magazine on AI:
Resist the Urge to be Impressed". Given this post is by Emily Bender who
is one of the co-authors of the Stochastic Parrot piece , I suspect this
will provide the viewpoint from an expert who is very skeptical and
critical of language models.

This medium post itself is a response to the NYT piece "[A.I. Is
Mastering Language. Should We Trust What It
Says?](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/magazine/ai-language.html)"
which is worth a read. 

## Domain Repositories Enriching the Global Research Infrastructure. (2022, April 20). \[Youtube\]. Environmental Data Initiative.

<https://youtu.be/Dq8ew4Iad60>

I'm going to cheat by ending with yet another reference to Ted
Habermann, this is a talk he gave recently that covers a good portion of
his recent work. 

It's a fascinating talk with many ideas including

- "Identifier spreading" - the idea of enhancing repository records with
 identifiers by using reasonable assumptions. Eg, a Dataset record
 might not have ORCIDs in data repository, but the Dataset record might
 be referenced by a journal article which itself has ORCIDs, so one can
 infer that the Datasets should have the same ORCIDs. You can do the
 same with affiliations/ROR
- How difficult is it to map affiliations for repositories to ROR? Many
 institutional repositories will have an easier time because they only
 need a small number of affiliations. A few general and subject
 repositories like Dryad/Zenodo will have much difficult tasks
- How do you measure completeness of identifiers/connectivity? Ted
 proposes a metric and a visualization. He also talks about measuring
 FAIRness and visualization of Datacite metadata completeness as
 mentioned earlier.

Tune in next month to find out some more must-read \'open tabs\'. I'm
tagging [Bianca Kramer](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-6560)
(scholarly communication/open science librarian at Utrecht University
Library,) someone who has been a force in Scholarly Communication and
Open Science circles and an academic librarian who I highly respect.

Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon kicked off a good idea to list a few articles he was keen to read and tell us why.


 Based on 'open tabs' in their browser, approximately every month one person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the 'must-read' posts of the moment.


 Each author concludes by tagging the next;

Aaron Tay is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Curtin University

Cameron Neylon

*Inspired by a conversation on
[Twitter](https://twitter.com/CameronNeylon/status/1501933271306801152),
Upstream is publishing a new blog series. Each month (ish) one person
will post their reading wishlists based on the browser tabs they have
open. We\'ll learn the articles they\'re most keen to read - and why.
Somewhat of a reading \'guilt list\', each author will conclude by
tagging another person to share theirs, helping to curate the must-read
content of the moment in our space.*

*Cameron Neylon came up with the \"open tabs\" idea so he\'ll start
things off for March 2022\...*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like pretty much everyone else I'm not keeping up, and in common with
many people, I've got a whole bunch of open browser tabs with things I
should read. Will I ever get to spend the time properly on them? Who
knows, but I thought maybe by explaining why I think I *should* read
them I'll at least motivate myself to dig a little deeper.

<figure class="kg-card kg-embed-card kg-card-hascaption">
<blockquote>
Alright, I keep intending to write a regular post about interesting
new research as a reason to get on and read things. 
 
This is not working, so would anyone be interested in a regular feature
on the browser tabs I have open and why I think I *should* read them
properly?
— CⓐmeronNeylon (@CameronNeylon) <a
href="https://twitter.com/CameronNeylon/status/1501933271306801152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March
10, 2022</a>
</blockquote>
<figcaption>A few other people seemed to think this wasn’t a terrible
idea</figcaption>
</figure>

Ok, so working from the longest standing tabs to the newest ones:

## The Function of Literature in Psychological Science. Flis, I. (2022, January 22)

<https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211066466>

So I've actually read this and even talked to the author but its there
because I want to go back to it. This is the preprint version of a
published article by Ivan Flis. It uses some of the substantial
disagreements on how to improve the methodology in social psychology as
a way to dissect what different groups think that the scholarly
literature is actually doing. This is really exciting for me because it
takes a step beyond a bunch of thinking I was doing a few years back and
really cracks open some problems relating to research cultures and
change-making. I also love the way that it frames some core beliefs
about what literature is and does as "myths" because it focuses our
attention on the stories we tell about these systems and processes
rather than letting us imagine that they are some eternal truth.

## The Tone Debate: Knowledge, Self, and Social Order. Review of General Psychology. Derksen M, Field S. (2021)

<https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211015636>

I'm not actually sure where this came from. I suspect Ivan may have
recommended it. I haven't fully read it but it also looks at the conduct
of debate about reproducibility in social psychology. Both this and
Ivan's piece is interesting because I wrote up [a similar kind of
argument](https://doi.org/10.17613/fkrd-ef72) that never quite
completely gelled, in part because I was tackling at too abstract a
level. Both this piece and Ivan's above solve that problem by looking at
a much more concrete case.

## Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier's "Mirror Journal" system. Audrey C. Smith, Leandra Merz, Jesse B. Borden, Chris K. Gulick, Akhil R. Kshirsagar, Emilio M. Bruna; Quantitative Science Studies 2022; 2 (4): 1123--1143 {#assessing-the-effect-of-article-processing-charges-on-the-geographic-diversity-of-authors-using-elsevier%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cmirror-journal%E2%80%9D-system-audrey-c-smith-leandra-merz-jesse-b-borden-chris-k-gulick-akhil-r-kshirsagar-emilio-m-bruna-quantitative-science-studies-2022-2-4-1123%E2%80%931143}

<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157>

I'm sure most people will be aware of this paper. It provides a strong
methodological basis for showing an association between APCs and a lack
of authors from the "global south". It got a lot of coverage as
demonstrating proof that APCs block access to publishing, particularly
for less privileged authors. I was careful in wording those two
sentences - because they're not the same. I also believe that the second
is true. I'm less convinced that this paper shows it - not because it is
badly done, it is as strong a methodological approach to this question
as you could hope for - but because I suspect there are strong
confounders. As a result I really wanted to dig deep into the approach
and ask how the analysis could be generalised out to strengthen the
broader case and analyse these access problems.

As a general point, I've been a bit disappointed over the years with
open access and open science advocates uncritically accepting results we
like while tearing apart those we don't. I do think it is important to
be critical, especially about results we agree with, and in this case, I
think there are real selection problems with the kinds of authors for
whom these specific mirror journals would be attractive.

## The Colonial Project of Gender (and Everything Else), Sandy O'Sullivan (2021), Genealogy, 5(3), 67 {#the-colonial-project-of-gender-and-everything-else-sandy-o%E2%80%99sullivan-2021-genealogy-53-67}

<https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy5030067>

My colleague has just submitted a paper seeking to develop a
counter-narrative around gender and scholarly communications. We used
data from a number of national sources and this data as is commonly the
case was limited primarily to binary gender. We acknowledged that as an
issue but what do we actually do about it? This paper casts the issues
of gender binaries in a broader intersectional space, focusing on how
the colonial project is built on particular concepts of family and
gender cast in a specific cultural setting that demands adherence
through institutional settings (including education and health),
regulatory regimes and arenas of action that restrict and erase the
complexities of peoples and communities who don't fit into the neat
categories our colonial systems seek to enforce.

## Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility in institutional promotion, review and tenure policies across seven countries. Pontika, N., Klebel, T., Correia, A., Metzler, H., Knoth, P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2022, March 3) {#indicators-of-research-quality-quantity-openness-and-responsibility-in-institutional-promotion-review-and-tenure-policies-across-seven-countries-pontika-n-klebel-t-correia-a-metzler-h-knoth-p-ross-hellauer-t-2022-march-3}

<https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/b9qaw>

The title says it all really. In some ways a follow on to the work of
the [Revue, Promotion and Tenure Project from the ScholComm
Lab](https://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/rpt-project/) and
collaborators. This covers more European institutions and therefore will
be really interesting...once I get to read it properly!

## How relevant is climate change research for climate change policy? An empirical analysis based on Overton data. Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, Kevin Boyack, Werner Marx, Jan C. Minx (March 2022)

[arXiv:2203.05358](https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05358),
<https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05358>

The newest thing I haven't read, just arriving in the last few days.
This study looks at the research cited by policy documents, with a focus
on Climate Change. This is particularly interesting because it takes a
different approach to [a quick piece of work I did last week with Bianca
Kramer](https://openknowledge.community/tracking-climate-change-openaccess/),
looking specifically at research cited by the recent IPCC Climate Change
report. This is a more traditional bibliometrics style analysis
focussing on citation counts, textual relations, and other things, and
will be interesting to dig into the details to understand more of what
is common and what is different.

Tune in next month to find out some more must-read \'open tabs\'. I'm
tagging **Aaron Tay** (Librarian at Singapore Management University) as
someone who is always spotting interesting trends and new work.

Inspired by a conversation on Twitter, Upstream is publishing a new blog series. Each month (ish) one person will post their reading wishlists based on the browser tabs they have open. We'll learn the articles they're most keen to read - and why. Somewhat of a reading 'guilt list', each author will conclude by tagging another person to share theirs, helping to curate the must-read content of the moment in our space.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Patricio Pantaleo is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Bruce Caron is Keeping Tabs on AI

Gimena del Rio Riande is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Bianca Kramer is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Aaron Tay is Keeping Tabs on Open Research

Cameron Neylon is Keeping Tabs on Open Research