Category Archives: open access

What I do according to ADS search

ArXiv  links to the Astrophysics  Data System, which got a new fancy look. It may be a bit heavy, as a supporter of the wonderful arXiv I would rather applaud if they would allow me to put articles with animations inside, be them only animated gifs. But is nevertheless interesting.

So if I go to my arXiv articles, choose an article and then click on NASA ADS link on the right panel, then I get this page.  Funny that they don’t use the Journal Reference from the arXiv to decide which article is “refereed”, i.e. peer reviewed, even if peer review is less than validation.

I am very pleased though   about the visual representation of what I do, as seen from the arXiv articles.

no_papers

This is the image which tells how many articles I have on certain keywords, as well as links between keywords which are proportional with the number of the articles which fit a pair of keywords.

TBH this is the first time a neutral bibliometric system  shows an accurate image of my work.

The darker blue sector, which has no words on it is related to variational methods in fracture, Mumford-Shah and convexity articles.

The same picture, but according to the downloads in the last 90 days, is this one.

no_downloads

This is also very satisfying because the hamiltonian/information/… has a big future. For the moment it looks unrelated to the other sectors, but wait for the kaleidos project 🙂

The em-convex rewrite system, where I guess I found the equivalent of the Church numbers for space, is in the dilatation structures/…/selfsimilar sector. In my opinion, important subject.

Google translate helps the scholarly poor

Do you know what “scholarly poor” means? I saw this formulation some time ago and it made me ask: am I scholarly poor?

You find this expression in the writings of those who praise Gold Open Access, or in the articles which try to understand the Sci-Hub phenomenon.

Recall that Gold OA means practically that authors pay to publish from funds they receive for research. It’s all in the language: Green OA is not for publication, no sir! Green OA is for archiving. Gold OA is for publication and it may incur costs, you see, which may be covered by the authors. (The readers can no longer be forced to pay, so who’s left?) And the authors pay, not from their pockets, because they are not crazy rich to create and moreover to pay thousands of $ to publish their article. They pay from the funds they receive for reseach, because their bosses, the academic managers, ask them to. These academic managers just love the publishers, be them the traditional ones or this new modern Gold OA blend. They don’t like the Green OA, there’s no money involved, pooh! no value.

Sci-Hub made available practically any scientific article, therefore there is no longer any difference between an article published gratis, but behind a paywall, and an article published for 2000$ and free to read. Both are as easily accessible. IANAL but this is the reality of the world we are living in.

This reality upsets the Gold OA proponents, so they use this expression “scholarly poor” to denote those scholars which don’t have institutional access to the paywalled articles. Because Gold OA proponents love academic managers who are not poor, they ignore the reality that the researchers, in poor or rich (crazy?) academic institutions, all of them would rather read either from Green OA (like arXiv) or from Sci-Hub or from their colleagues who put online their work.

In itself, to name a researcher “scholarly poor” is distasteful.

But Google comes to the rescue! When I first saw this expression I was curious how it translates to French, for example, another language I understand.

scholarly-1

 

Thank you Google Translate! And HAHA. And so poetical!

I checked again, today, when I decided to write this post. I recorded myself using the translate:

scholarly-2

 

Yes, OK, a bit more bland, less poetical, but more  comical for the public at large.

So right, though!

 

 

 

 

Scientific publishers take their money from the academic managers, blame them too

Wonderful thread  at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19114786

Starting with “All this is an excellent ad for sci-hub, which avoids most of the serious drawbacks of publishers like Elsevier. It was interesting how that was relegated to a veiled comment at the end, “or finding access in other channels”. But basically if the mainstream publishers can’t meet the need, we do need other channels, and right now sci-hub is the only one that actually works at scale.

Then the discussion goes to “Blame the academic administrators who demand publications in top tier journals – the same ones who charge a ton for access.

Or “ in market terms the clients (researchers) manifest a strong preference for other products than those offered by the publishers. Why do they still exist? Does not make any sense, except if we recognize also that the market is perturbed

Enjoy the thread!  It shows that people think better than, you choose:  pirates who fight  only for the media corporation rights,  gold OA diggers who ask for more money than legacy publishers, etc…

UPDATE: for those who don’t know me, I’m for OA and Open Science. I do what I support. I am not for legacy publishers. I don’t believe in the artificial distinction between green OA, which is said to be for archiving, and gold OA which is said to be for publishing. I’m for arXiv and other really needed services for research communication.

What’s new around Open Access and Open Science? [updated]

In the last year I was not very much interested into Open Access and Open Science. There are several reasons, I shall explain them. But before: what’s new?

My reasons were that:

  • I’m a supporter of OA, but not under the banner of gold OA. You know that I have a very bad impression about the whole BOAI thing, which introduced the false distinction between gold which is publication and green which is archival. They succeeded to delay the adoption of what researchers need (i.e. basically older than BOAI inventions, like arXiv) and the recognition that the whole academic publication system is working actively against the researchers interests. Academic managers are the first to be blamed about this, because they don’t have the excuse that they work for a private entity which has to make money no matter the price. Publishers are greedy, OK, but who gives them the money?
  • Practically, for the working researcher, we can now publish in any place, no matter how close or anachronically managed, because we can find anything on Sci-Hub, if we want. So there is no reason to fight for more OA than this. Except for those who make money from gold OA…
  • I was very wrong with my efforts and attempts to use corporate social media for scientific communication.
  • Bu still, I believe strongly in the superiority of validation over peer-review. Open Science is the future.

I was also interested in the implications for OA and OS of the new EU Copyright Directive. I expressed my concern that again it seems that nobody cares about the needs of researchers (as opposed to publishers and corporations in general) and I asked some questions which interest me and nobody else seems to ask: will the new EU Copyright Directive affect arXiv or Figshare?  The problem I see is related to automatic filters, or to real ways the researchers may use these repositories.  See for example here for a discussion.  In   Sept 2018 I filed requests for answers to arXiv and to Figshare. For me at least the answers will be very interesting and I hope them to be as bland as possible, in the sense that there is nothing to worry about.

So from my side, that’s about all, not much. I feel like except the gold OA money sucking there’s nothing new happening. Please tell me I’m very wrong and also what can I do with my research output, in 2019.

UPDATE: I submitted two days ago a comment at Julia Reda post Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better. About the implications for the research articles repositories, the big ones, I mean, the ones which are used millions of times by many researchers. I waited patiently, either for the appearance of the comment or for a reaction. Any reaction. For me this is a clear answer: pirates fight for the freedom of the corporation to share in its walled garden the product of a publisher. The rest is immaterial for them. They pirates not explorers.

UPDATE 2: This draft of Article 13 contains the following definition: “‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. Providers of services such as not-for profit online encyclopedias, not-for profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software developing and sharing platforms, electronic communication service providers as defined in Directive 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, online marketplaces and business-to business cloud services and cloud services which allow users to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.

If this is part of the final version of Article 13 then there is nothing to worry as concerns arXiv, for example.

Maybe a separate push should be on upload filters and their legal side (who is responsible for the output of this algorithm? surely not the algorithm!), perhaps by asking for complete, reproducible, transparent information about those: source code and all the dependencies source code, reproducible behavior.