-starting from this issue https://github.com/PeerJ/paper-now/issues/2 which proposes hypothes.is
– via the roadmap https://hypothes.is/roadmap/
– via the issue https://github.com/hypothesis/vision/issues/87
Here is another new initiative: The Journal of Brief Ideas.
There are interesting reactions to this:
OK, what is this, in just a few words?
From the About page of the journal:
The Journal of Brief Ideas is a research journal, composed entirely of ‘brief ideas’. The goal here is to provide a place for short ideas to be described – in 200 words or less – for these ideas to be archived (courtesy of Zenodo), searchable and citable.
Instead of Diamond OA (as mentioned in Tim Gowers very interesting “Why I’ve also joined the good guys“) I suggest that a better and inspiring name for this yet mysterious idea if epijournals would be
AZ open access
or open access from A to Z. There is another, better justification for this name, see the end of the post!
Diamond and Gold names just betray that many people don’t get the idea that in the age of the net is not good to base one business model on the SCARCITY OF GOODS. Gold and diamonds are valuable because they are scarce. Information, on the contrary, is abundant and it thrives from being shared. Google got it, for example, they are not doing bad, right? Therefore, why base the business publishing model on the idea of making the information scarce, in order to have value? You already have value, because value itself is just a kind of carrier of information.
The name AZ OA is a tribute. It means:
The very recent post of Gowers “Why I’ve also joined the good guys” is good news! It is about a platform for “epijournals”, or in common (broken, in my case) English means a system of peer-reviewing arxiv articles.
If you have seen previous posts here on this subject, then you imagine I am very excited about this! I posted immediately a comment,
is awaiting moderation just appeared, so here is it for the posterity:
Congratulations, let’s hope that it will work (however I don’t understand the secrecy behind the idea). For some time I try to push an idea which emerged from several discussions, described here Peer-review turned on its head has market value(also see Peer-review is Cinderella’s lost shoe ) with very valuable contributions from readers, showing that the model may be viable, as a sort of relative of the pico-publication idea.
Secrecy (if there is one or I am just uninformed) is not a good idea, because no matter how smart is someone, there is always a smarter idea waiting to germinate in another one’s head. It is obvious that:
Enough for now, I am looking forward to hear more about epijournals.
UPDATE: There is no technical reason to ignore some of the eprints which are already on arxiv. By this I mean the following question: are epijournals considering only peer-reviewing new arxiv eprints, or there is any interest of peer-reviewing existing eprints?
UPDATE 2: This comment by Benoît Régent-Kloeckner clarifies who is the team behind epijournals. I reproduce the comment here:
I can clarify a bit the “epi-team” composition. Jean-Pierre Demailly tried to launch a similar project some years ago, but it had much less institutional support and did not work out. More recently, Ariane Rolland heard about this tentative and, having contact at CCSD, made them meet with Jean-Pierre. That’s the real beginning of the episciences project, which I joined a bit later. The names you should add are the people involved in the CCSD: Christine Berthaud, head of CCSD, Laurent Capelli who is coding the software right now, and Agnès Magron who is working on the communication with Ariane.
Let’s calm down a bit. I could discuss at length about the multiple reasons why the arguments from the mentioned post are wrong, or twisted, or otherwise. Maybe for another time, but for now it is enough to say that it looks like a piece of not well designed PR for gold open access. PR is a profession by itself, it has its techniques and means to achieve the goal, but here the stellar mathematician Gowers just shows that PR is not among his strengths.
Maybe it means that there is a need for public figures to support this shaky construction.
At second thought, the FoM is not the end of the world as we knew it. Is just yet another journal which tries to salvage what it can from the old publication model, who was once essential for the research community, but is now obsolete because the net is here.
The real matter is though not FoM, or Gowers “betrayal”, but the fact that we have to look for new models of publication. Once such a model is found then naturally any FoM will decay to oblivion.
Take for example the business of publication of encyclopedias. Enters Wikipedia, who proved it is scalable and it is sustained by millions of enthusiasts, btw, and now the encyclopedias business is no longer viable. It will happen the same with the publication of research articles.
Better is to try to think about a good model. Consider for example two related ideas, discussed here:
Scientific publishers are in some respects like Cinderella. They used to provide an immense service to the scientific world, by disseminating new results and archiving old results into books. Before the internet era, like Cinderella at the ball, they were everybody’s darling.
Enters the net. At the last moment, Cinderella tries to run from this new, strange world.
Cinderella does not understand what happened so fast. She was used with the scarcity (of economic goods), to the point that she believed everything will be like this all her life!
But wait! Cinderella forgot something. Her lost shoe, the one she discarded when she ran out from the ball.
In the scientific publishers world, peer-review is the lost shoe. (As well, we may say that up to now, researchers who are writing peer-reviews are like Cinderella too, their work is completely unrewarded and neglected.)
In the internet era the author of a scientific research paper is free to share his results with the scientific world by archiving a preprint version of her/his paper in free access repositories. The author, moreover, HAS to do this because the net offers a much better dissemination of results than any old-time publisher. In order (for the author’s ideas) to survive, making a research paper scarce by constructing pay-walls around it is clearly a very bad idea. The only thing which the gold open access does better than green open access is that the authors pay the publisher for doing the peer review (while in the case of arxiv.org, say, the archived articles are not peer-reviewed).
Let’s face it: the publisher cannot artificially make scarce the articles, it is a bad idea. What a publisher can do, is to let the articles to be free and to offer the peer-review service.
Like Cinderella’s lost shoe, in this moment the publisher throws away the peer-reviews (made gratis by fellow researchers) and tries to sell the article which has acceptable peer-review reports.
Why not the inverse? The same publisher, using the infrastructure it has, may try to sell the peer-review reports of freely archived articles AFTER. There is a large quantity of articles which are freely available, in open access repositories like arxiv.org. They are “published” already, according to the new rules of the game. Only that they are not reviewed.
Let the publishers do this! It would be a service that is needed, contrary to the dissemination of knowledge service which is clearly obsolete. (See also Peer-review turned on its head has market value.)
Here are two graphical illustrations of the process of dissemination of knowledge.
From the point of view of the author/researcher it looks like this:
From the point of view of those seeking knowledge it looks like this:
Then, obviously, from the point of view of the researcher SCARCITY is a very bad idea.
computing with space | open notebook
The Decentralised Internet is Here
An experimental 3d voxel rendering algorithm
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
a personal view of the theory of computation