Scholarly communications selected links from July 2018

A new, simplified Scholarly Communications page is now available at Washington University. We hope you find it helpful.

Evaluation by altmetrics Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data, by José Luis Ortega. Scientometrics [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2838-z – a nice contribution to figuring out altmetric tools but I think we still have a long way to go to make this data really useful for evaluation.

Declaration on Research Assessment DORA Roadmap: A two-year strategic plan for advancing global research assessment reform at the institutional, national, and funder level Details plans for advancing the agenda of making “changes in academic culture to ensure that hiring, promotion, and funding decisions focus on the qualities of research that are most desirable – insight, impact, reliability and re-usability”

OSF As of July 16 Open Science Framework (OSF) has surpassed 100,000 users. Remember WUSTL-branded Open Science Framework is available. Also Hypothesis Annotation Now Live on COS Open Science Framework Preprints.

Sci-Hub and “shadow libraries” These are long but I found them so interesting I wanted to share. I don’t encourage the use of these for fairly obvious reasons, and here at WUSTL we don’t need to because Interlibrary Loan can get whatever we don’t already have available, but their existence and usefulness definitely mean something to the future of scholarly publishing. They also point to gaps in the library delivery mechanisms which are frustratingly hard to fix. Worth reviewing I think.

  • Sci-Hub & the future of publishing 1 hour, 42 minute talks on YouTube. Slides available also. The first speaker is Daniel Himmelstein. If you prefer to read instead of watching and listening, look at Research: Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature, eLife 2018;7:e32822 doi: 10.7554/eLife.32822. Himmelstein’s talk is followed by a short talk by Rafael Ball, who mostly says that users of Sci-Hub are stealing, so if you are short of time, skip that part. An interesting discussion begins again at 1:22.
          (Himmelstein told a rather funny story about a 2017 Nature Ecology & Evolution article [100 articles every ecologist should read https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0370-9] where the originally published “Data availability” section said that pdf files are available on Sci-Hub. This has since been corrected and now says “This Article originally suggested that readers may be able to source PDF files of the papers analysed via a website that is involved in litigation over breach of copyright. This suggestion and the related URL have now been removed.”)
  • This book is a serious exploration of Sci-Hub and similar alternative distribution channels in many locations worldwide, Shadow Libraries: Access to Knowledge in Global Higher Education, Edited by Joe Karaganis. MIT Press, 2018. An open access (CC-BY-NC) PDF is available at the publisher site.

Science journals end open-access trial with Gates Foundation Nature. 559(7714):311-312. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05729-2. Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project and the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication is quoted: “To me, the deal was unnecessary and undesirable. A wide range of high-quality journals were already compatible with the Gates publishing terms. If Gates had refused to pay the AAAS prestige tax, it would not have lost grant applications from first-rate researchers,” Suber says. “I’m glad to see it come to an end.”

Peer Review Week, Sept. 10-15, 2018 announced. More info on ORCiD blog: ORCID and #PeerReviewWeek18.

About the author

Ruth is a librarian at Washington University for biology, math, history of science; she is also scholarly communications coordinator. Email: rlewis@wustl.edu Phone: 314-935-4819