Category Archives: Open Science

Cryptocurrency for life (2)

Continues from (part 1). Back home and almost healed I read Anand Giridharadas crusade where he has a very reasonable point:

“But then I had the following thought.

Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain?

Shouldn’t it be the other way around?”

To have a direct confirmation of these self-protected circles of power is interesting. Rich donors and academia are some of the players. I’m directly interested about this from the point of view of somebody who tries to do Open Science since a long time: to paraphrase Anand

Why are the people not obeying old practices of academic publication leaving this orbit, while people connected with the useless legacy publishers remain?

Shouldn’t it be the other way round?

 

The same academic managers are in so friendly relations with publishers which do not offer anything to the scientific community. The honest effort of Open Access has become a caricature where it is entirely normal to baptize the_author_pays_for_publication as the way to do Open Access.

OK, so what is this having to do with the subject of this post? Simple: if the cryptocurrencies communities do want to explore new social models then research (of biological life as decentralized computing, as I suggest) should be a part of it. You can’t turn to the old fatigued elites, because they already gave what they can do to MS or others alike. They don’t have new ideas since a very long time. Hot air with old boys support.

But now comes my point: would these cryptocurrencies efforts support a new research structure? Why not? There are very clever people there who understand the importance.

But maybe they are in bed with the circle of power. Just maybe.

The following are beliefs only (what proof can you ask?). For reasons along the lines explained previously, since years I’m very skeptical about anything ethereum based, but I am really amazed by btc. Well, but who really know?

Does not the cryptocurrency community (or the parts of it which are not in bed with the enemy) want to make a point in research?

 

 

 

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.

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.