Feb
17
Browsing like it's 1990
Ruben Verborgh pointed me this nice CERN side project ("my particles are colliding"): browsing like it's 1990.
Feb
17
Comparing Research Journals Quality #2: FAIR metrics of journals
Henry Rzepa pointed me to this helpful CrossRef tool that shows publisher and journal level metrics for FAIRness (see also this post):
The Journal of Cheminformatics is doing generally well. This is what FAIR metrics are about: they show you what you can improve. They show you how you can become a (better) open scientist. And our journal has a few attention points:
It's nice to see we already score well on ORCIDs and funder identifiers.
The Journal of Cheminformatics is doing generally well. This is what FAIR metrics are about: they show you what you can improve. They show you how you can become a (better) open scientist. And our journal has a few attention points:
It's nice to see we already score well on ORCIDs and funder identifiers.
Feb
9
Comparing Research Journals Quality #1: FAIRness of journal articles
After Plan S was proposed, there finally was a community-wide discussion on the future of publishing. Not everyone is clearly speaking out if they want open access or not, but there's a start for more. Plan S aims to reform the current model. (Interestingly, the argument that not a lot of journals are currently "compliant" is sort of the point of the Plan.) One thing it does not want to reform, is the quality of the good journals (at least, I have not seen that as one of the principles).
Feb
5
Plan S: Less publications, but more quality, more reusable? Yes, please.
If you look at opinions published in scholarly journals (RSS feed, if you like to keep up), then Plan S is all 'bout the money (as Meja already tried to warn us):
No one wants puppies to die. Similarly, no one wants journals to die. But maybe we should. Well, the journals, not the puppies. I don't know, but it does make sense to me (at this very moment):
The past few decades has seen a significant growth of journals.
No one wants puppies to die. Similarly, no one wants journals to die. But maybe we should. Well, the journals, not the puppies. I don't know, but it does make sense to me (at this very moment):
The past few decades has seen a significant growth of journals.
Feb
3
Plan S and the Open Science Community
Plan S is about Open Access. But Open Science is so much more and includes other aspects, like Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards. But like Publications have hijacked knowledge dissemination (think research assessment), we risk that Open Access is hijacking the Open Science ambition. If you find Open Science more important than Open Access, then this is for you.
