(date: 2024-11-17 16:11:26)
date: 2024-11-22, from: ETH Zurich, recently added
Baune, Konstantin; Broedel, Johannes; Im, Egor; Lisitsyn, Artyom; Zerbini, Federico
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/700705
date: 2024-11-16, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
A duke takes in a young boy, only to discover that the boy is actually a noblewoman in disguise.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/georgette-heyer/these-old-shades
date: 2024-11-15, from: Scholarly Kitchen
Reproducing an experiment is harder than you might think.
The post The Difficulties of Reproducing a Scientific Experiment appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
date: 2024-11-15, from: ROR Research ID Blog
In this interview with Curvenote cofounder Rowan Cockett, we envision a world in which an authoring and publication platform helps scientists collaborate earlier, publish faster, and easily use structured metadata to create fully connected and highly interactive publications and portfolios.
https://ror.org/blog/2024-11-15-case-study-curvenote/
date: 2024-11-15, from: Crossref Blog
For the third year in a row, Crossref hosted a roundtable on research integrity prior to the Frankfurt book fair. This year the event looked at Crossmark, our tool to display retractions and other post-publication updates to readers.
Since the start of 2024, we have been carrying out a consultation on Crossmark, gathering feedback and input from a range of members. The roundtable discussion was a chance to check and refine some of the conclusions we’ve come to, and gather more suggestions on the way forward. As in previous years, we were able to include a range of organisations, which led to lively and interesting discussions. See below for the full participant list.
We started by presenting Crossmark and a summary of the consultation process. There are a number of areas where we have learned more about how the community operates or found that Crossmark needs to adapt. These include:
Implementation: Our members have struggled to implement Crossmark and uptake is low. At the same time, in many organisations the workflows for handling retractions are not well-defined because they are rarely used, if ever. The responsibility for updating Crossref metadata can be unclear and this may be a factor in the low uptake.
Education: There are different levels of understanding about how to handle retractions. Some members are very defensive when asked about retractions, others state they will never make updates to published works. How can we have a constructive conversation where the value of communicating updates appropriately is recognised?
Community engagement: Given the different scales, locations, disciplines, and technologies used by our members, it looks like one size will not fit all when it comes to updates. How can we get continual, representative feedback on new tools and processes?
Metadata assertions: Crossmark allows the deposit of metadata using custom field names, however this metadata seems to have low usefulness and is not highly valued by the community. Should we continue to collect it? Can we make some of the most-used field names part of our standard schema?
Changing the Crossmark UI: Although we didn’t specifically ask about it during the consultation, the look of the Crossref logo often came up, and concern that it is not recognised and not well-used. Can we change the look and behaviour so that it has more impact?
Patrick Hargitt represented the NISO group on Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC). The group’s recommendations were published earlier this year and cover how retractions are communicated. CREC arose from an earlier project, IRSRS. A large part of the motivation is that retracted works continued to be cited, with citing authors apparently unaware of the retraction. Patrick presented the CREC recommendations, which cover:
The two presentations prompted discussion, which was taken into the first of two workshops.
The first workshop looked at proposed changes to Crossmark and how to encourage more members to deposit their retractions, corrections, and other post-publication updates. Several important themes emerged.
First, the question of whose responsibility it should be to provide metadata on retractions and similar updates. Crossref has a responsibility to work with the community to obtain high quality and complete metadata; publishers should take responsibility for handling issues of research integrity and reporting them to relevant downstream services, like Crossref; and platforms need to provide tools that allow easy reporting of retractions.
The value of Crossmark appearing in PDFs was reiterated. The fact that a PDF can be downloaded, and years later there is a way to tell whether it has been retracted or not is highly valued. There was also the suggestion that the Crossmark logo on web pages can indicate a change before it has been clicked. This is something that we have been considering at Crossref and it was useful to have the idea reinforced. Another suggestion was that a browser plugin would make a good complement to Crossmark.
Implementation issues with Crossmark were raised, including that it’s difficult to validate whether a specific implementation is complete. There are a number of different changes (to metadata deposit and content, and websites) that need to work together to have Crossmark fully functional. There were several questions and a discussion about Retraction Watch data. Some were about understanding its collection and validation. A number of participants are actively using the data and it was great to see the variety of applications.
The second workshop focused on a broader set of downstream organisations that might want to make use of retraction metadata. We looked at stakeholders and their needs, and attempted to match them up with existing tools. Several gaps were identified as a result, which may provide opportunities for new services or collaborations to fill them.
We identified a number of tools available for publishers, editorial systems, metadata researchers, and readers. A good example is reference managers, many of which are now highlighting retracted works to authors. This can help to reduce the number of retracted works being cited. Publishing platforms are also providing support to editors, using tools that include retraction metadata.
Some of the stakeholders identified have limited tools for identifying retractions that are relevant to them. These include funders, archives and repositories, journalists, and institutions.
Often, there are pathways for retraction data to be communicated but they are not being sufficiently used. There needs to be a concerted effort to improve the quality of retraction metadata for tools to function better. For example, a second author on a paper might not know that a correction or retraction is planned for their article. If their email or ORCID isn’t included in the metadata, an alerting tool wouldn’t be able to let them know. A similar argument can be made for institutions or funders if they are not well-identified in the metadata.
The question of standardisation of metadata was raised. It seems too early to implement a full set of standards at the moment. CREC and similar initiatives have documented and accommodated for a range of practices while providing guidance and principles to work towards. More discussion is needed in the community to work out paths that could be applied across the broad spectrum of scholarly communication.
The event was very valuable in bringing up a range of topics related to retraction and communication of post-publication changes to scholarly works. We are grateful to all of the participants for their contributions and sharing their diverse experience and opinions with us.
Research integrity is an area of flux, with significant changes over the past few years. While there has been progress, there remain gaps in metadata and tools to communicate retractions. This is something that Crossref will continue to contribute to, and Crossmark clearly still has a role to play.
Some of the ideas and suggestions from the discussion can be implemented in the near future. Others need further development, and we will continue to engage the community. Reading this, there may be topics where you feel you have a role to play. We are keen to partner with other organisations in this space as we continue to improve the transparency and communication of metadata for post-publication updates.
Many thanks to the participants. Here is the full list of those that attended:
| Name | Role | Organisation |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron Wood | Head, Product & Content Management | American Psychological Association |
| Adya Misra | Associate Director, Research Integrity | Sage |
| Bianca Kramer | Sesame Open Science | |
| Constanze Schelhorn | Head of Indexing | MDPI |
| Guillaume Cabanac | Full Professor | University of Toulouse |
| Hong Zhou | Director of AI Product | Wiley |
| Jennifer Wright | Head of Publication Ethics and Research Integrity | Cambridge University Press |
| Johanssen Obanda | Community Engagement Manager | Crossref |
| Joris van Rossum | Program Director | STM Solutions |
| Kathryn Weber-Boer | Data & Analytics | Digital Science |
| Kornelia Korzec | Director of Community | Crossref |
| Kruna Vukmirovic | Publisher- Journals | The Institution of Engineering and Technology |
| Lena Stoll | Product Manager | Crossref |
| Leslie McIntosh | VP, Research Integrity | Digital Science |
| Liying Yang | Professor | CAS Library |
| Luis Montilla | Technical Community Manager | Crossref |
| Madhura Amdekar | Community Engagement Manager | Crossref |
| Martyn Rittman | Progam Lead | Crossref |
| Maryna Kovalyova | Member Experience Manager | Crossref |
| Mina Roussenova | Project Manager, Strategic Projects | Karger |
| Osnat Vilenchik | VP Content Operations | Ex Libris, part of Clarivate |
| Patrick Hargitt | Senior Director of Product Management | Atypon/Wiley |
| Paul Davis | Tech Support & R&D Analyst | Crossref |
| Sami Benchekroun | CEO | Morressier |
| Scott Delman | Director of Publications | Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) |
| Shilpi Mehra | Head, Research Integrity & Paperpal Preflight | Cactus Communications |
| Sichao Tong | Chinese Academy of Sciences, Library |
https://www.crossref.org/blog/research-integrity-roundtable-2024/
date: 2024-11-14, from: Internet Archive Blog
The Wayback Machine, Archive.org, Archive-it.org, and OpenLibrary.org came up in stages over the week after cyberattacks with some of the contributor features coming up over the last couple of weeks. […]
https://blog.archive.org/2024/11/14/learning-from-cyberattacks/
date: 2024-11-14, from: SciELO in Perspective
The SciELO Accessibility Interdisciplinary Working Group has been developing actions for the production and dissemination of open science with accessibility, making improvements to the sites that use the SciELO methodology, awareness-raising activities and partnerships with publishing teams. These and other practices are planned for the next four years. … Read More →
The post Accessibility in the SciELO Program: current status and future prospects – Part 2 first appeared on SciELO in Perspective.
https://blog.scielo.org/en/2024/11/14/accessibility-in-the-scielo-program-pt-2/
date: 2024-11-14, from: Scholarly Kitchen
In today’s post is a Kitchen Essentials interview, Anita Bandrowski, CEO and Co-founder of SciCrunch, talks to Alice Meadows about what they do and why it’s important, her thoughts on working in scholarly infrastructure, and more…
The post Kitchen Essentials: An Interview with Anita Bandrowski of SciCrunch appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
date: 2024-11-13, from: Scholarly Kitchen
An interview with Ganna Kharlamova, who is working to changing the way scholarly communications and publishing are conducted in Ukraine.
The post Guest Post – Driving Change in Ukrainian Scholarly Publishing: An Interview with Ganna Kharlamova appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
date: 2024-11-13, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
Two siblings, disguised as members of the opposite sex, navigate the intrigues of 18th-century London while falling in love with unsuspecting suitors.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/georgette-heyer/the-masqueraders
date: 2024-11-13, from: ETH Zurich, recently added
Dubus, Antoine; Sand-Zantman, Wilfried
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/705153
date: 2024-11-12, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
Hobbes explores a vision of the ideal state, in which people cede certain freedoms to a sovereign power in exchange for security and stability.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/thomas-hobbes/leviathan
date: 2024-11-12, from: Internet Archive Blog
The following guest post from researcher Amanda Gray Rendón is part of our Vanishing Culture series, highlighting the power and importance of preservation in our digital age. Read more essays online or download the full report now. When […]
https://blog.archive.org/2024/11/12/vanishing-culture-archiving-community-care-work-online/
date: 2024-11-12, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
A collection of E. M. Forster’s short stories, ordered by date of their original publication.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/e-m-forster/short-fiction
date: 2024-11-12, from: Scholarly Kitchen
Pursuit of Green open access rather than Gold not only preserves the subscription system but also imposes hidden costs on readers.
The post Green Open Access – Free for Authors But at a Cost for Readers appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
date: 2024-11-12, from: Internet Archive Blog
I remember back in 2019, when the handful of dreamers organizing “DWeb Camp” were imagining the potential impact of this event. We dreamed big: to inspire and re-energize people around […]
https://blog.archive.org/2024/11/12/we-want-to-decentralize-the-dweb-movement/
date: 2024-11-11, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
Bertrand Russell travels to post-revolutionary Russia to see if Bolshevism achieves its communist aspirations.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/bertrand-russell/the-practice-and-theory-of-bolshevism
date: 2024-11-11, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
Lewis Mumford discusses the effects of architecture on American society throughout history.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/lewis-mumford/sticks-and-stones
date: 2024-11-11, from: Standard Ebooks, new releaases
Wollstonecraft argues for equal treatment of women in society, especially in matters of education.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/mary-wollstonecraft/a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman
date: 2024-11-11, from: Scholarly Kitchen
Insights from a recent study looking at how the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are influencing research, including recommendations for publishers’ next steps.
The post How the SDGs Are Shaping the Research Agenda, and What Publishers Need to Know and Do appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
date: 2024-11-11, from: ETH Zurich, recently added
Göswein, Verena; Belizario-Silva, Fernanda
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/705042
date: 2024-11-10, from: ETH Zurich, recently added
Müller, Lukas; Rothacher, Markus; Soja, Benedikt; Jäggi, Adrian; Arnold, Daniel