Don't know what https://plaudit.pub is? It allows academics to endorse research, and makes them available as open data. The aim is to reduce the reliance on journal brand names as an indicator of quality, and instead defer directly to the authority of one's peers.
Now live: the ability to mark scholarly works as robust, clear or exciting using https://plaudit.pub!
Read more about the motivation here, and let us know what you think: https://medium.com/flockademic/why-replication-studies-are-not-rewarded-and-how-to-fix-that-523c2387820e
@darius For those who *are* in the US: also read up on Plan S! There's serious movement here, and if the people behind Plan S can get US on board as well, the days of paywalled research are finally numbered!
We just confirmed the first successful data export to CrossRef Event Data, so Plaudit research endorsements are now officially open data.
You can contribute! Install the extension: https://plaudit.pub/extension?utm_source=scholar.social&utm_medium=fediverse&utm_campaign=crossref_export
I've just released a Plaudit browser extension! Plaudit is an attempt to simulate #OpenAccess research by influencing the incentive structure for researchers: direct endorsements by their peers, rather than through being published in a paywalled journal.
That is not likely to be at risk when funders demand publication in OA venues, however. Rather, when the term is used in this context, academics are not afraid of their research being repressed, but for their career progression.
It is a legitimate worry. However, career progression being hampered is a different problem than suppression of research, and tolerating research behind paywalls is not the only possible solution.
Proud to announce a new collaboration with eLife and the Center for Open Science on a new project: Plaudit!
1. They mentioned enforcement and sanctioning to be important, but haven't explicitly specified yet. That said, the Dutch funder NWO has stated:
"NWO will check a certain percentage of the papers it has funded and sanction researchers who don't comply, for instance by asking its money back or temporarily banning researchers from applying for funding."
2. We're not passing a law :) Funders are just attaching conditions to their grants.
@lbs That was mentioned in this article - it's in Dutch though, but Google Translate appears accurate: https://www.scienceguide.nl/2018/09/nwo-wil-weg-van-de-impact-factor/
The relevant quote, by the director of the Dutch scientific organisation:
> For example, in Germany, academic freedom has been enshrined in the constitution. It is defined broady enough to include full freedom for researchers to pick their publication venue. If a researcher were to sue for the right to publish in a paywalled journal, he will win.
@lbs In my opinion, what's most relevant is that these countries represent a significant chunk of research output. In other words, if journals like Nature or Science don't flip to Open Access, they will miss out on a lot of quality content and hence suffer in reputation.
If they *do* flip to Open Access, everyone benefits. In other words, it's not necessary for every country to take part.
@lbs Eleven national funders are already involved, which I think is quite a lot! Furthermore, e.g. Germany's couldn't take part due to a conflict with their constitutions.
- The Netherlands
- The United Kingdom
big news today in Europe for scholars... all publicly funded research must be published #openaccess as of 2020 https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/11-eu-landen-besluiten-vanaf-2020-moet-alle-wetenschappelijke-literatuur-gratis-beschikbaar-zijn~be002c39/
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully. Read more ...