Follow

Google Scholar now shows number of articles that should be OA and whether they are actually available

· · Web · 2 · 2 · 3

That's the first meaningful update to Google Scholar I've seen in years.

Show thread

@jboy it's super inaccurate (shows a LOT of unfunded projects as funded because the paper mentions a funder by name, and then dings people for not having those articles open) and actually pretty harmful (giving labor to google to correct bad data/algo)

@jboy I'm all for carrots + sticks to encourage openness in all facets of research, but this ain't it.

@VickyRampin yeah, mostly I was just surprised to see a new feature in Google Scholar, because my impression has long been that it's a side project by Googlers accidentally turned academic infrastructure. This makes it seem like they're trying to use it for some good old crowd-serfing.

Who should be doing this? Lens.org? OpenCitations? Crossref?

@jboy @VickyRampin

BASE could do this, but chooses to only to Open Access articles. I think there is a similar group in the UK.

With all the lover for Open Access, but by limiting yourself that way you marginalize yourself. Would be better to do all and then give Open Access a higher ranking.

https://www.base-search.net

@VickyRampin curious whether you have an opinion about who should be doing what Publons does?

@jboy in an ideal world we don't need a publons.

my ideal scholarly communications publishing system is overlay journals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_journal). authors post their articles in a repository and then "journals" are compilations of these already-open-articles organized on a theme or niche, with the peer review available (why it was selected for "journal" and the review of the article itself)

@jboy there's also PREreview which I haven't worked with in detail (nor have I worked with publons in detail) but it looks to be the open product in this area: https://content.prereview.org/about-the-platform/

@VickyRampin it seems that the value people get out of Publons is (1) tracking reviewing work, and (2) seeing what becomes of reviewed papers. I like the idea of tackling the issue at a more systemic level!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
post.lurk.org

Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.