Tullney, M. (2021). TIB becomes Major Development Partner of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). https://blogs.tib.eu/wp/tib/2021/02/16/tib-and-pkp/

An increasing number of researchers are sharing their grant proposals openly. They do this to open up science so that all stages of the process can benefit from better interaction and communication and to provide examples for early career scientists writing grants.

https://www.ogrants.org/

Within RG it is possible to distinguish between (passive) academics that interact little in the site and active platform users, who can get high RG Scores through engaging with others inside the site (questions, answers, social networks with influential researchers). Thus, RG Scores should not be mistaken for academic reputation indicators.

Additional Reading

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., &  López-Cózar, E.D. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112: 443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9

Thus this morning, scanning my work Twitter (which I find functions quite well for staying aware of global scholarly publishing trends), I was not surprised to find a discussion by the American scholarly publishing community regarding ResearchGate and its current financial status. A brief analysis of this is provided by german startups at:

https://www.deutsche-startups.de/2018/06/12/researchgate-verlust-steigt-um-733-auf-107-millionen/

To make a long story short, ResearchGate is losing money and its path towards “profitability” is unclear.

What does this mean for students? I feel it’s important to continue stressing that such tools – while very useful – may disappear or have certain functionalities “gated” in the future. That it’s still important to keep one’s own personal archive.

Why Was Springer Nature’s IPO Withdrawn?

Smits’ strategic appointment, by EC President Jean-Claude Juncker, comes at a time of anticipation for how 2020 open access/science deadlines will be met and how the EC will facilitate compliance with related mandates. Current discussion right now revolves around the next-generation EC-funded open science platforms, with the EC call for proposals for these soon to be released:

Researchers are keen to know whether we will now see for-profit companies and ‘astroturfers’ enter the open science landscape and undermine science in pursuit of their commercial interests, while claiming to support the struggle of researchers – notably those in Germany, in their fight against Elsevier – who demand more say in the publishing of scholarly articles.

Additional Reading

Lykkja, P.M. &  Myklebust, J.P. (2018). Open science in the EU – Will the astroturfers take over? University World News. 497. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180317044918836

Rabesandratana, T. (2018). One of the most powerful science policy jobs in Brussels changes hands. Science News. doi:10.1126/science.aat4124

Urban Dictionary. astroturf. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=astroturf

Reformists in the Czech Republic are asking for help and legitimacy….One way would be by empowering Czech universities in a ‘Czech Association of Institutions of Higher Education’ whose declared statutes should be: (1) freedom and indivisibility of research and teaching, and (2) care for young academics. Such an institution should act as political, economic and legal lobby for institutions of higher education in front of policy-makers and society. They should also provide information services and seminars to guide young academics; especially if their home institutions lack proper mentoring and good academic practices.

The central problem is that the entire industry is built to leverage sophisticated technology to aggregate user attention and sell advertising.

https://www.newamerica.org/public-interest-technology/policy-papers/digitaldeceit/

Additional Reading

Gari, E. (2017). STEM Preprint Repositories: Where Are They Now? Inside Science Resources. https://insidescienceresources.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/stem-preprint-repositories-where-are-they-now/

After reading Schonfeld’s comprehensive, detailed description of the acquisition, I myself admit having mixed feelings about what is admittedly a savvy strategic move by the Big E. Why?

To me, this acquisition provides one more example of the failure of academic libraries (i.e., non-profit entities) to cooperate more closely on cross-institutional non-profit solutions for the researchers they support. Yes, libraries did succeed at rolling out institutional repositories in many cases. But in the process of doing so, they often neglected to consider the bigger picture of the research lifecycle stretching from the lab to the final showcase – as well as intellectual property protection issues for their own solutions.

In the case of recent Elsevier acquisitions (Schonfeld describes these in detail), lack of systematic cross-institutional coordination across the “research showcasing lifecycle” by academic non-profits left the door wide open to commercial entities to swoop in and fill the gap by buying up bits of the lab-to-showcase puzzle, piece-by-piece.

As Dan Tonkery notes in a commentary to the Schonfeld article:

It is not the first time that CDL [California Digital Library] and other academic libraries have designed a product or service to only find out that their non for profit work ended up in the hands of a commercial company that was later sold off. Of course the original developers often go without compensation or recognition. The control of intellectual property at the university level is much better controlled in the sciences where new drugs are developed or medical devices, but unfortunately library tools are not so valued.

What’s to regret here? Sure, a trusted commercial partner has stepped in to, as Schonfeld says, “support academic science.” But better cooperation across institutional borders on support strategies for issues all libraries face might have led to global non-profit solutions.

Does the non-profit aspect matter? Everyone has their own answer to this, but what if bepress had gone to a non-academic financial conglomerate, as in the case of Web of Science? In the case of bepress, Schonfeld states:

When the bepress board decided to sell, the bidding for it this summer included interest from both private equity firms and a variety of purchasers with strategic interests.

Monday I got an email from Clarivate:

As a publishing author represented within Web of Science from Clarivate Analytics, you require the latest news and resources to stay current in your area of research. That’s why we think you’ll benefit from getting valuable research information.

From time to time, Web of Science Author Connect® works with other companies to provide you with information about relevant product and service offerings that may be of interest to you.

I’m not sure how to feel about this.

Additional Reading

Schonfeld, R. (2017). Elsevier Acquires bepress. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/