<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/how-fanfiction-can-help-reimagine-scholarly-publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/servpub-book-launch/release/1?readingCollection=ace58019"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/new-copim-wp6-report-released-today-books-contain-multitudes-exploring-experimental-publishing/release/2?readingCollection=ace58019"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://networkcultures.org/makingpublic/2019/05/20/federated-publishing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://rethinkingmlpapers.github.io/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://libretexts.org/mission.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.10761"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.neroeditions.com/cognition-communism-and-theft/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/history/what-about-anne-little-ingram/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.2333/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.acm.org/virtual-conferences"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/03/a-broken-system-why-literature-searching-needs-a-fair-revolution/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-value-of-openness-in-scientific-problem-solving"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4662/The-End-of-OwnershipPersonal-Property-in-the"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/1/241717-publish-and-perish/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Kerr_Publishing_Company"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.inquirer.com/news/prolit-literary-magazine-capitalism-work-money-class-20200107.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://culturalanalytics.org/2018/12/detecting-footnotes-in-32-million-pages-of-ecco/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://peerj.com/preprints/27580/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://expansive.pubpub.org/pub/framework/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://contingentmag.org/donate/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://harpers.org/archive/2018/10/the-printed-word-in-peril/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.compositionality-journal.org/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/7"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://whereisscihub.herokuapp.com/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/conference-hosting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jocg.org/index.php/jocg/about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/12/onan-what-is-best-in-life-to-crush-your.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/why-students-are-still-spending-so-much-for-college-textbooks/551639/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/about/community/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/10/your-master-hes-monster-he-will-come-on.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://radical.piratical.cryptonomic.net/archives/theknowledgesingularity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://doaj.org/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://designobserver.com/feature/empathy-in-book-publishing/39603"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/15/printed-books-entered-new-chapter-fortune/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/870/1031"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFYsTc3NYlA&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=2448"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/14/addicted-to-the-brand-the-hypocrisy-of-a-publishing-academic/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://programming-journal.org/purpose/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/auk.2010.32.issue-2/auk-2010-0201/auk-2010-0201.xml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://littleprofessor.typepad.com/the_little_professor/2017/02/taking-refuge-in-a-cove-.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/research-parasitism-and-authorship-rights/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://plotdevice.io/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/07/07/true-success-is-more-than-winning-a-zero-sum-game/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://practicaltypography.com/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://practicaltypography.com/why-there's-no-e-book-or-pdf.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://andrewgelman.com/2013/12/17/replication-backlash/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=6545"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/06/07/on-the-danger-posed-by-non-expert-critiques-published-to-large-audiences/#.UbMOjRWJRV9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672403/a-design-blog-experiments-with-the-printed-page#1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1346"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://sarahwerner.net/blog/index.php/2013/02/multivalent-print-or-learning-to-love-ambiguity-in-three-easy-lessons/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7442/full/495437a.html"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/how-fanfiction-can-help-reimagine-scholarly-publishing">
    <title>How Fanfiction Can Help Us Reimagine Scholarly Publishing | Katina Magazine</title>
    <dc:date>2026-01-18T20:38:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/how-fanfiction-can-help-reimagine-scholarly-publishing</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Archive of Our Own, a digital fanfiction repository, shows what’s possible when we design our infrastructures around the communities that use them, rather than around extractive logics.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>information-architecture publishing academic-culture open-access peer-review peer-production rather-interesting crowdsourcing to-write-about to-watch</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0ec8f47ba876/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-review"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-production"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:crowdsourcing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/servpub-book-launch/release/1?readingCollection=ace58019">
    <title>Launch of Experimental Book Publishing Pilot Project ‘Servpub – A Collective Infrastructure to Serve and Publish’ · Copim</title>
    <dc:date>2025-08-09T21:03:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/servpub-book-launch/release/1?readingCollection=ace58019</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Open Book Futures (OBF) Experimental Publishing Group is pleased to announce the launch of ‘Servpub – A Collective Infrastructure to Serve and Publish’, one of three funded pilot projects resulting from OBF's call for experimental book projects. 

OBF's aim with the pilot projects is to promote the publication of experimental books. To achieve this aim, OBF wants to foster sustainable communities of authors, publishers, developers, editors, reviewers, and open-source technology providers who engage in more experimental forms of book publishing. Our focus is specifically on the publishing process and on adapting academic publishers' existing workflows and processes to accommodate better the multiple forms and formats academic long-form research can take. As part of the pilot projects, the Experimental Publishing Group works closely with the authors, presses, and technology providers to foster communities of practice that can support experimental book publishing. The pilots will further demonstrate and develop the possibilities of experimental scholarly publications thus helping to increase the recognition given to work published in non-traditional ways.]]></description>
<dc:subject>federation publishing community-formation rather-interesting disintermediation-in-action to-understand to-try</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:7a84ed50f3da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:federation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:community-formation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-try"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/new-copim-wp6-report-released-today-books-contain-multitudes-exploring-experimental-publishing/release/2?readingCollection=ace58019">
    <title>New COPIM WP6 Report Released Today: &quot;Books Contain Multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing&quot; · Copim</title>
    <dc:date>2025-08-09T21:02:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/new-copim-wp6-report-released-today-books-contain-multitudes-exploring-experimental-publishing/release/2?readingCollection=ace58019</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We are pleased to announce the release of a new COPIM report exploring current experiments in scholarly book publishing, one of the major deliverables of our Experimental Publishing and Reuse Work Package (WP6). ]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing future-of-discourse software-development-is-not-programming user-experience federation to-understand to-watch</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:69e566ad84aa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:future-of-discourse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:software-development-is-not-programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:user-experience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:federation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/">
    <title>Federated Publishing – Adam Hyde</title>
    <dc:date>2022-04-30T14:35:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What we need is a federated architecture for online book production and publishing. Anyone should be able to set up their own online book production/publishing service and share books with other book production/publishing networks, enabling anyone to reuse any book, anywhere.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing federated-architecture Fediverse distributed-architecture network-culture to-write-about consider:vaguepress</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:76500ba5d65c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:federated-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Fediverse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:distributed-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:vaguepress"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://networkcultures.org/makingpublic/2019/05/20/federated-publishing/">
    <title>Making Public | Federated Publishing: Roel Roscam Abbing in Conversation with Florian Cramer (Report)</title>
    <dc:date>2022-04-28T11:57:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://networkcultures.org/makingpublic/2019/05/20/federated-publishing/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Cramer and Roscam Abbing started by explaining what is a federated network and why it matters nowadays. Federation allows diverse entities to preserve some internal rules while still being able to communicate with each other. In this way they are able to maintain a certain degree of autonomy. Roscam Abbing pointed out that federation is not new, email and the web being old examples of it which are still in use. However, in a landscape characterized by an increasingly vicious centralization and by users’ growing awareness of their needs and the limitations of generalist platforms, federation acquires new meaning and relevance.

The subject of the conversation then became Mastodon, a Twitter-like federated social medium. Unlike Twitter, Mastodon is comprised of multiple community-owned  “instances”, that can define their own rules, modify user interface, etc. Mastodon itself is part of a bigger network called the Fediverse, which includes different applications (such as the older GNU Social or the recent PeerTube) that are able to communicate with each other thanks to underlying federation protocols such as ActivityPub or OStatus.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>federated-model publishing open-access sharing consider:vaguepress consider:partial-shares</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:514288e9c75c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:federated-model"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sharing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:vaguepress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:partial-shares"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/">
    <title>The Processual Book. How Can We Move Beyond the Printed Codex? | Impact of Social Sciences</title>
    <dc:date>2022-03-07T17:28:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/01/10/the-processual-book-how-can-we-move-beyond-the-printed-codex/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Processual books can, for example, make the various contributors to scholarly research more visible and the different ways they shape research as it comes into being. They can also highlight the material agency of publications and how it matters whether research is published as a blogpost or an academic monograph, openly or closed, and how different media and the various cultural practices established around them enact different forms of interaction and call into being different communities of engagement.

When boundaries between research and publishing become less clear-cut, this has direct implications for the role of the publisher too. Instead of publishing being ‘outsourced’ to a publisher when a research project ends, processual publishing might ask authors and publishers to collaborate more and earlier in the research cycle and to reconsider at what point publishing expertise (e.g., reviewing, copy-editing, marketing) is most useful. Yet processual publishing practices also make visible how scholars are increasingly taking on publishing functions, having to present themselves as ‘academic brands’ online and through their academic networks to create engagement around their work. Many of the platforms that scholars publish their research-in-progress on (including academic social networking sites such as Academia.edu) are also extractive, building their business models around this engagement.

Processual publishing will continue to be faced with these kinds of questions and new forms of extraction and solidification (around the claiming of ownership, the creation of marketable commodities, and the metrification of engagement) will continue to be introduced as these practices become more widespread. But remaining aware of when and for what reason research is made public might help scholars and publishers make more informed publishing decisions and might help them envision and create a different—and perhaps better—scholarly communication system.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>printing publishing openness philosophy humanities living-texts change-the-words</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:38a8025ce396/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:printing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:living-texts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:change-the-words"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://rethinkingmlpapers.github.io/">
    <title>Home | Rethinking ML Papers - ICLR 2021 Workshop</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-29T22:45:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://rethinkingmlpapers.github.io/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Over the last decade, the volume of conference submissions in machine learning has broken records across the sciences. According to some estimates, submissions at machine learning conferences account for over 0.5% of all scientific papers published today. While submissions are at an all-time high, there is growing concern in the ML community about where the field is headed. The current pandemic gives researchers a long-awaited opportunity to pause and reflect: what kind of legacy do we want to leave behind? Is it in the number of papers we publish, or the number of citations we accumulate? Or, is it in the clarity and transparency of scientific communication? We believe the answers to these questions will shape the next few years of ML research.

How might we improve the scientific paper to create a more sustainable platform for future contributors? Many proposals have emerged, from novelty and rigor (Sculley et al., 2018), to reproducibility (Pineau et al., 2020), explainability (Olah and Carter, 2017) and accessibility (Morris, 2019). In an era of social isolation and remote work, the importance of clear communication is crucial, both for demonstrating scientific progress and building human intuition and understanding. We propose taking a more holistic view of the conference paper, not just as a medium for communicating with a highly sophisticated audience, but as a tool for disseminating knowledge to the next generation of scientific researchers. In this workshop, to be organized at ICLR 2021 we propose to discuss three high-level themes:

Accessibility and inclusivity - How do we design an inclusive publication format for ML research?
Explainability and pedagogy - How do we communicate ML research and theory more effectively?
Interpretability and visualization - How do we interpret complex information in a visual setting?
The research paper was originally a document printed and bound in journals: over time, these documents were published online and underwent minor cosmetic changes, yet many assumptions of the original format survive, namely, that research must take the form of a paper artifact. Yet modern ML research often contains multimedia and rich interactive applications, often hosted externally and can be displaced or go missing. To accommodate the diversity of new content, authors and publishers must adopt a more inclusive format for sharing scientific research and redesign conference publications to meet the evolving information needs of both authors and readers alike.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>machine-learning publishing academic-culture conference rather-interesting to-watch</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6597799211bc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:machine-learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conference"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://libretexts.org/mission.html">
    <title>LibreTexts - Free The Textbook</title>
    <dc:date>2021-05-28T13:50:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://libretexts.org/mission.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The LibreTexts mission is to unite students, faculty and scholars in a cooperative effort to develop an easy-to-use online platform for the construction, customization, and dissemination of open educational resources (OER) to reduce the burdens of unreasonable textbook costs to our students and society.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing textbooks to-watch openness open-access academic-culture curricula law-vs-scholarship</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b222a5f81d8e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:textbooks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:curricula"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:law-vs-scholarship"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359">
    <title>[2104.08359] In Defense of the Paper</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-20T13:27:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08359</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The machine learning publication process is broken, of that there can be no doubt. Many of these flaws are attributed to the current workflow: LaTeX to PDF to reviewers to camera ready PDF. This has understandably resulted in the desire for new forms of publications; ones that can increase inclusively, accessibility and pedagogical strength. However, this venture fails to address the origins of these inadequacies in the contemporary paper workflow. The paper, being the basic unit of academic research, is merely how problems in the publication and research ecosystem manifest; but is not itself responsible for them. Not only will simply replacing or augmenting papers with different formats not fix existing problems; when used as a band-aid without systemic changes, will likely exacerbate the existing inequities. In this work, we argue that the root cause of hindrances in the accessibility of machine learning research lies not in the paper workflow but within the misaligned incentives behind the publishing and research processes. We discuss these problems and argue that the paper is the optimal workflow. We also highlight some potential solutions for the incentivization problems.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing rather-interesting sociology cultural-assumptions cultural-norms science-communication</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6bedbf50e6f9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science-communication"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.10761">
    <title>[2103.10761] Alive publication</title>
    <dc:date>2021-04-07T20:39:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.10761</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[An alive publication is a scientific work published on the Internet that is constantly being developed and improved by its author. In this case, serious errors and typos are no longer fatal, nor do they haunt the author for the rest of his or her life. The reader of an alive publication knows that the author is constantly monitoring changes occurring in the science branch under consideration. The dynamics of an alive publication and rejection of the leading role of printing open the door for many of the indispensable qualities that were absent from a printed version. These features allow us to discuss a new genre or a new paradigm of scientific publication.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:several academic-culture publishing learning-in-public rather-interesting to-write-about consider:openness</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ad4f8bec0357/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:several"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:learning-in-public"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:openness"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.neroeditions.com/cognition-communism-and-theft/">
    <title>Cognition, Communism, and Theft | NERO Editions</title>
    <dc:date>2021-03-20T14:45:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.neroeditions.com/cognition-communism-and-theft/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When the shadow library Sci-hub was founded in 2011, it was meant to remove “barriers in the way of science”, in response to the high cost of research papers behind paywalls. Since then, its founder Kazakhstani programmer Alexandra Elbakyan often became a target of lawsuits for copyright infringement. The platform currently hosts more than 85 million scientific papers. This conversation previously appeared in a shorter version on Netzpolitik.org. 

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:mymarkup openness corporatism academic-culture propaganda publishing business-interests</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3a7b9eb59d41/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:mymarkup"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:propaganda"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:business-interests"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/history/what-about-anne-little-ingram/">
    <title>What about Ann Little Ingram? « Lisa's History &amp; (Online) Teaching Blog</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-03T00:25:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/history/what-about-anne-little-ingram/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What a possibly fascinating person. Leary has suggested that Isabel Bailey, who wrote a book on Herbert, might know something, having accessed their unpublished papers. If only I could find her.

But the point is, I shouldn’t have to. How can a woman who managed a paper which sold 250,000 copies for its special issues, not be more well-known? He certainly was — he became an MP, and there is a statue of him in the marketplace in old Boston. His life is chronicled. His picture is right here. –>

She bore him ten children, then ran his business, and her name isn’t even on his Wikipedia page. Was she photographed or engraved? Did she keep a diary? Was she written about in other people’s letters?

I sense yet another rabbit hole, dark with the story of another ignored woman.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>history publishing the-long-tail-of-findability</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bf31c0ed9eaa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-long-tail-of-findability"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.2333/">
    <title>Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll?</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-14T11:40:42+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.2333/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This article uses Alan B. Krueger’s analysis of the music industry in his book Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life as a lens to consider the structure of scholarly publishing and what could happen to scholarly publishing going forward. Both the music industry and scholarly publishing are facing disruption as their products become digital. Digital content provides opportunities to a create a better product at lower prices and in the music industry this has happened. Scholarly publishing has not yet done so. Similarities and differences between the music industry and scholarly publishing will be considered. Like music, scholarly publishing appears to be a superstar industry. Both music and scholarly publishing are subject to piracy, which threatens revenue, though Napster was a greater disrupter than Sci-Hub seems to be. It also appears that for a variety of reasons market forces are not effective in driving changes in business models and practices in scholarly publishing, at least not at the rate we would expect given the changes in technology. After reviewing similarities and differences, the prospects for the future of scholarly publishing will be considered.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:several academic-culture publishing citation-networks analogies long-tails economics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:cf48f8c5f1c8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:several"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:analogies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:long-tails"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.acm.org/virtual-conferences">
    <title>Virtual Conferences</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T15:39:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.acm.org/virtual-conferences</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In March 2020, an ACM Presidential Task Force was formed to provide quick advice to conference organizers suddenly facing the need to move their conference online in light of the social distancing recommendations and global restrictions on travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide concrete advice for events of all sizes. We discuss the tasks required of organizers, specific platforms that can be used and financial considerations. We collect examples of conferences that have gone virtual and lessons learned from their experiences.

As both heavy users of these technologies and researchers responsible for developing them, the ACM community is especially well-positioned to offer advice that we hope will be helpful to other groups dealing with the same problems.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture conferences working-from-home worklife RonaWorld ACM publishing online-learning</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:11f68f55aa83/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conferences"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:working-from-home"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:RonaWorld"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ACM"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:online-learning"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/03/a-broken-system-why-literature-searching-needs-a-fair-revolution/">
    <title>A broken system – why literature searching needs a FAIR revolution | Impact of Social Sciences</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T13:11:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/03/a-broken-system-why-literature-searching-needs-a-fair-revolution/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[By developing academic search systems in this way, we can futureproof research discovery against increasingly appreciated limitations, like bias and lack of comprehensiveness, and make it an equitable and FAIR practice. In addition, we need to educate users to be able to decide which systems fit their search needs, so they use the best systems, in the best way. In this regard, we want to use our research to make the search system landscape more transparent. We hope to raise awareness among academics to be more attentive, and search system providers to elevate their quality to the necessary standard in science – for better search and better results.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>findability academic-culture publishing openness open-access library-science search-engines FAIR however:what-about-novelty?</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:40b2fe674b72/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:findability"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:library-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:search-engines"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:FAIR"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:however:what-about-novelty?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-value-of-openness-in-scientific-problem-solving">
    <title>The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving - Harvard Business School Working Knowledge</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T13:07:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-value-of-openness-in-scientific-problem-solving</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Openness and free information sharing amongst scientists are supposed to be core norms of the scientific community. However, many studies have shown that these norms are not universally followed. Lack of openness and transparency means that scientific problem solving is constrained to a few scientists who work in secret and who typically fail to leverage the entire accumulation of scientific knowledge available. We present evidence of the efficacy of problem solving when disclosing problem information. The method's application to 166 discrete scientific problems from the research laboratories of 26 firms is illustrated. Problems were disclosed to over 80,000 independent scientists from over 150 countries. We show that disclosure of problem information to a large group of outside solvers is an effective means of solving scientific problems. The approach solved one-third of a sample of problems that large and well-known R&D-intensive firms had been unsuccessful in solving internally. Problem-solving success was found to be associated with the ability to attract specialized solvers with range of diverse scientific interests. Furthermore, successful solvers solved problems at the boundary or outside of their fields of expertise, indicating a transfer of knowledge from one field to others.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>openness open-access publishing academic-culture Coscience to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c02ae04934ab/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Coscience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4662/The-End-of-OwnershipPersonal-Property-in-the">
    <title>The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy | Books Gateway | MIT Press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T12:37:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4662/The-End-of-OwnershipPersonal-Property-in-the</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[An argument for retaining the notion of personal property in the products we “buy” in the digital marketplace.
If you buy a book at the bookstore, you own it. You can take it home, scribble in the margins, put in on the shelf, lend it to a friend, sell it at a garage sale. But is the same thing true for the ebooks or other digital goods you buy? Retailers and copyright holders argue that you don't own those purchases, you merely license them. That means your ebook vendor can delete the book from your device without warning or explanation—as Amazon deleted Orwell's 1984 from the Kindles of surprised readers several years ago. These readers thought they owned their copies of 1984. Until, it turned out, they didn't. In The End of Ownership, Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz explore how notions of ownership have shifted in the digital marketplace, and make an argument for the benefits of personal property.
Of course, ebooks, cloud storage, streaming, and other digital goods offer users convenience and flexibility. But, Perzanowski and Schultz warn, consumers should be aware of the tradeoffs involving user constraints, permanence, and privacy. The rights of private property are clear, but few people manage to read their end user agreements. Perzanowski and Schultz argue that introducing aspects of private property and ownership into the digital marketplace would offer both legal and economic benefits. But, most important, it would affirm our sense of self-direction and autonomy. If we own our purchases, we are free to make whatever lawful use of them we please. Technology need not constrain our freedom; it can also empower us.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>book open-access personal-property ownership publishing rather-interesting have-read to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:36eba0817958/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:book"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:personal-property"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ownership"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/1/241717-publish-and-perish/fulltext">
    <title>Publish and Perish | January 2020 | Communications of the ACM</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-02T11:49:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/1/241717-publish-and-perish/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Over the past decade I have penned several columns that were critical of the current computing-research publication system, with its heavy reliance on conference publishing. These columns were widely read, and the feedback I received was generally quite positive, but they had zero impact on how we go about publishing our research. Conferences still provide the main vehicle for dissemination of curated computing research. What did I miss?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>peer-review academic-culture publishing calls-to-action open-access</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bfdc9abddb30/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-review"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:calls-to-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65">
    <title>Publications | Free Full-Text | Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-19T13:54:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/4/65</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required. View Full-Text
]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access publishing academic-culture humanities disintermediation-in-action gatekeepers cultural-assumptions rather-interesting to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e562f0adab8e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:gatekeepers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Kerr_Publishing_Company">
    <title>Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company - Wikipedia</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-10T15:56:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Kerr_Publishing_Company</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company was established in Chicago, Illinois in 1886 as Charles H. Kerr & Co. by Charles Hope Kerr, originally to promote his Unitarian views. As Kerr's personal interests moved from religion to populism to Marxism and he became interested in the labor movement, the company's publications took a similar turn. During the 1920s Kerr ceded control of the firm to the Proletarian Party of America, which continued the imprint as its official publishing house throughout its four decades of organized existence.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing history politics digitization have-scanned Midwest-radicalism to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dc0623adf34e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digitization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:have-scanned"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Midwest-radicalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.inquirer.com/news/prolit-literary-magazine-capitalism-work-money-class-20200107.html">
    <title>Philly literary magazine ‘Prolit’ belongs to a new class of anti-capitalist press</title>
    <dc:date>2020-01-07T12:34:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.inquirer.com/news/prolit-literary-magazine-capitalism-work-money-class-20200107.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What is capitalism’s influence on contemporary art and literature?
There are practical problems like who gets published where, who has connections based on the grad program they can afford, the funding of some of the major players like the Poetry Foundation or Graywolf Press, but I think the larger impact that capitalism has on creativity is the way that the imagination becomes narrowed by the grind of the day job, for example, or the lack of time to seek out work that might change how you experience the world.
Or a lack of time to imagine a different world, which is a project of science fiction, with writers like Octavia Butler trying to imagine different realities, different futures that are apart from what we have now, as a political exercise that can lead to better ways to think about our own future, to realize what we need from the future — how other worlds are in fact possible.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>poetry publishing capitalism literary-criticism political-economy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:07501854da47/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:poetry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147">
    <title>From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing | Molecular Biology of the Cell</title>
    <dc:date>2019-11-03T20:50:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/10.1091/mbc.E19-03-0147</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Two 17th century institutions—learned societies and scientific journals—transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture open-access corporatism parasitism cultural-assumptions cultural-norms radical-access to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:dedfca020b39/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:parasitism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:radical-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://culturalanalytics.org/2018/12/detecting-footnotes-in-32-million-pages-of-ecco/">
    <title>Detecting Footnotes in 32 million pages of ECCO « CA: Journal of Cultural Analytics</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-02T09:56:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://culturalanalytics.org/2018/12/detecting-footnotes-in-32-million-pages-of-ecco/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As we explain in greater detail elsewhere, our larger project is about bringing together the intersecting strands of research from the fields of book history, the history of science, and document image analysis to better understand the analytical unit called "the page image" and its role in the history of scientific knowledge. Our aim us to take seriously the page image in a double sense: first, as an image of a page, that is, to see the digitized page first and foremost as an image rather than a flawed mediation of text; and second to see the page itself as an image, as a visual unit rather than a primarily textual one. What have been the ways that the graphic practices of pages have underpinned the epistemic claims of scientific knowledge?

In this essay, we recount our process of using machine learning and classification algorithms to detect footnotes within the Eighteenth-Century Collections Online dataset (ECCO). ECCO represents one of the most complete digitized collections of a national publishing context within a specific historical period, consisting of over 100,000 volumes and 32 million pages published in Britain between 1700 and 1800. It has become a staple of research in the history of ideas, not just in Britain but for scholars of the Enlightenment more generally. We see the enrichment of collections like ECCO as a primary research goal for furthering historical understanding.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture digital-humanities rather-interesting publishing cultural-norms metatext to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:216ea057526c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metatext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9">
    <title>Scientists rise up against statistical significance</title>
    <dc:date>2019-04-25T15:12:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Let’s be clear about what must stop: we should never conclude there is ‘no difference’ or ‘no association’ just because a P value is larger than a threshold such as 0.05 or, equivalently, because a confidence interval includes zero. Neither should we conclude that two studies conflict because one had a statistically significant result and the other did not. These errors waste research efforts and misinform policy decisions.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>statistics that-line-right-there-sums-it-up academic-culture publishing pedagogy what-gets-measured-gets-fudged</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a1b50fde778e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:that-line-right-there-sums-it-up"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-gets-measured-gets-fudged"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://peerj.com/preprints/27580/">
    <title>Ten myths around open scholarly publishing [PeerJ Preprints]</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-17T12:25:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://peerj.com/preprints/27580/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access arXiv preprints academic-culture cultural-norms one-funeral-at-a-atime publishing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:abd025bce4fc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:arXiv"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:preprints"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:one-funeral-at-a-atime"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html">
    <title>Why our citation practices make no sense | Musings about librarianship</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-03T12:12:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Why are there thousands of citation styles?

Nobody is against consistency in referencing of course, but do we really need thousands (8.5k styles according to CSL Style repository) of citation styles existing? 

All this creates confusion and the costs.

Think of the researchers who have to format their references everytime their paper is rejected and they need to resubmit to another journal with it's own unique style. Given the low acceptance rates for top journals and the desire of researchers to try submitting to the top journals first , this means a typical journal article can be resubmitted to more than 1 journal before it is accepted. Even if researchers don't do it properly, copywriters are employed who work to clean up references in accepted manuscripts.

The fact there are thousands of styles have other less obvious costs. In the past decade there has been dozens of projects that try to parse text references and process them into structured data e.g Parscite which then can be used for various functions from finding an appropriate copy in link resolvers, to importing into reference managers.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation academic-culture standards looking-under-the-lamp-post publishing what-a-citation-is-for archiving stakeholders-ball</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:39183fe4e6aa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:standards"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-under-the-lamp-post"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-a-citation-is-for"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archiving"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:stakeholders-ball"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://expansive.pubpub.org/pub/framework/">
    <title>A Framework for Library Support of Expansive Digital Publishing</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-01T13:26:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://expansive.pubpub.org/pub/framework/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What is expansive digital publishing? We use the term "expansive" to characterize online publications that challenge current systems and expectations of publishing, primarily because they push against and beyond the limits we typically use to successfully manage publications. These works are often undertaken by scholars at multiple institutions and in different fields; use many different technologies; have multiple scholarly outputs; grow over time; operate over the long-term or are multi-phase; aim to engage with multiple audiences; and, in general, use digital tools and methods to explore or enable scholarship that would be more difficult to achieve through traditional publishing.]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing open-access scholarship libraries to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c94ad6fd9667/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:libraries"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://contingentmag.org/donate/">
    <title>Donate | CONTINGENT</title>
    <dc:date>2019-02-23T12:46:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://contingentmag.org/donate/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Beginning March 4, Contingent will publish high-quality, accessible content about the past and the many ways we understand it. Your donations will allow us to pay our contributors for their work, pay the staff who’ll keep the magazine going, and maintain the infrastructure necessary to run a digital non-profit.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>history open-access nonprofit rather-interesting publishing to-watch to-do</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d6397bfa6bda/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nonprofit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-do"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/">
    <title>No, it’s not The Incentives—it’s you – [citation needed]</title>
    <dc:date>2018-12-10T12:05:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-incentives-its-you/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A random bystander who happened to eavesdrop on a conversation between a group of scientists kvetching about The Incentives could be forgiven for thinking that maybe, just maybe, a bunch of very industrious people who generally pride themselves on their creativity, persistence, and intelligence could find some way to work around, or through, the problem. And I think they would be right. The fact that we collectively don’t see it as a colossal moral failing that we haven’t figured out a way to get our work done without having to routinely cut corners in the rush for fame and fortune is deeply troubling.

It’s also aggravating on an intellectual level, because the argument that we’re all being egregiously and continuously screwed over by The Incentives is just not that good. I think there are a lot of reasons why researchers should be very hesitant to invoke The Incentives as a justification for why any of us behave the way we do. I’ll give nine of them here, but I imagine there are probably others.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing social-dynamics social-norms conservatism attention-desert ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4c3f5964c8be/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conservatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:attention-desert"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ethics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/">
    <title>DRM-free Bookshops</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-04T10:40:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.libreture.com/bookshops/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A regularly updated list of online shops that sell e-books without DRM.]]></description>
<dc:subject>books shopping DRM copyright rather-interesting publishing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5432870b14d3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:shopping"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:DRM"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://harpers.org/archive/2018/10/the-printed-word-in-peril/">
    <title>[Essay] The Printed World in Peril | Harper's Magazine</title>
    <dc:date>2018-09-24T11:38:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://harpers.org/archive/2018/10/the-printed-word-in-peril/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[At the end of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the exiled hoboes return to the cities, which have been destroyed by the nuclear conflicts of the illiterate, bringing with them their head-borne texts, ready to restart civilization. And it’s this that seems to me the most prescient part of Bradbury’s menacing vision. For I see no future for the words printed on paper, or the art forms they enacted, if our civilization continues on this digital trajectory: there’s no way back to the future—especially not through the portal of a printed text.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:mymarkup publishing literary-criticism media book-culture cultural-dynamics nostalgia the-many-discomforts-of-change</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b701d67104ff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:mymarkup"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:book-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nostalgia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-many-discomforts-of-change"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.compositionality-journal.org/">
    <title>About · Compositionality</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-29T09:39:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.compositionality-journal.org/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Compositionality describes and quantifies how complex things can be assembled out of simpler parts. Compositionality, the journal, is a new open-access journal for research using compositional ideas, most notably of a category-theoretic origin, in any discipline. Topics may concern foundational structures, an organizing principle, or a powerful tool. Example areas include but are not limited to: computation, logic, physics, chemistry, engineering, linguistics, and cognition.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access journals publishing nonprofit rather-interesting to-understand</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:72f322ad6584/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:journals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nonprofit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/7">
    <title>what are the top 3 journals you would like to see break away from their commercial publisher? (#7) · Issues · Publishing Reform / discussion · GitLab</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-20T12:30:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/7</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[what are the top 3 journals you would like to see break away from their commercial publisher?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>disintermediation-in-action publishing academic-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2bf68a16ea8b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://whereisscihub.herokuapp.com/">
    <title>Where is Sci-Hub now?</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-15T14:59:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://whereisscihub.herokuapp.com/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Sci-Hub is currently available at:]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access publishing disintermediation-in-action damn-straight</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fa2a5c78c25a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:damn-straight"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/conference-hosting">
    <title>Conference Hosting | PKP Publishing Services</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-04T14:07:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/conference-hosting</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Interested in using Open Conference Systems (OCS) for your upcoming conference or event? We can provide a permanent home for recurring conferences or give you a short-term space for a one-time event.

For an annual fee we will:

install OCS on our servers
get you started with initial setup and training support
provide daily backups (seven days incremental, other regimens available for an additional fee)
upgrade the software
ensure that your content is highly visible on the web.
Leave the technical details to us, and get on with your event!

]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access hosted-solutions academic-culture rather-interesting to-understand maybe-not-but-still publishing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:278d3cdd735b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hosted-solutions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:maybe-not-but-still"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/">
    <title>Open Journal Systems | Public Knowledge Project</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-04T14:05:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Open Journal Systems (OJS) is a journal management and publishing system that has been developed by the Public Knowledge Project through its federally funded efforts to expand and improve access to research.]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access publishing academia rather-interesting to-understand to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d43d9fb327b1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jocg.org/index.php/jocg/about">
    <title>About the Journal</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-04T14:01:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://jocg.org/index.php/jocg/about</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[fully open-access journal with explicit integration into distributed scholarly archives and libraries]]></description>
<dc:subject>computational-geometry open-access publishing to-write-about to-do</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:cca6ab1bb48e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:computational-geometry"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-do"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/12/onan-what-is-best-in-life-to-crush-your.html">
    <title>Riddled: Onan, what is best in life? To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to see the retractions of their papers</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-30T00:19:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/12/onan-what-is-best-in-life-to-crush-your.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Evidently Sharma & Madhuri (or their sympathisers) do not want anyone to read their papers. Understandably so. They have the consolation of knowing that at least the editors & peer reviewers never read them.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>oof academic-culture publishing retractions bad-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:730e85777a8b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oof"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:retractions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bad-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/why-students-are-still-spending-so-much-for-college-textbooks/551639/">
    <title>How Access Codes Keep College-Textbook Costs High - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-28T12:42:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/why-students-are-still-spending-so-much-for-college-textbooks/551639/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[After settling into his dorm this past fall, John McGrath, a freshman at Rutgers University, took the campus shuttle to the school bookstore. He waited in line for 40 minutes clutching a list of four classes—including Microeconomics, Introduction to Calculus, and Expository Writing—and walked out later with an armful of books, some bundled with digital codes that he would use to access assignments on the publishers’ websites. He also exited the store with a bill for about $450.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing disintermediation-targets pedagogy somebody-has-to-pay-the-rent-bullshit open-access</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0b60e6517e74/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-targets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:somebody-has-to-pay-the-rent-bullshit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/about/community/">
    <title>Open Humanities Press– Community</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-08T10:57:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/about/community/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[OHP is an international community of scholars, editors and readers with a focus on critical and cultural theory. We have operated as a independent volunteer initiative since 2006, promoting open access scholarship in journals, books and exploring new forms of scholarly communication.OHP’s organization is a community interest company headquarted in London. Its Directors are Gary Hall, Sigi Jöttkandt and David Ottina. The OHP Editorial Board is at the heart of all our activities: participating in journal assessments, reviewing and approving book series proposals, performing and managing peer review, and editing the OHP book series. We act on the principles of access, scholarship, diversity and transparency. We have partnered with a number of groups and institutions to explore grass-roots solutions to the crisis in Humanities publishing. You can find readings and podcasts about our Radical OA philosophy, and more information about open access. Please feel free to contact us with suggestions, support, book proposals or join our mailing list for updates.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing humanities to-write-about to-do open-access rather-interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:017fd9bcfafc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-do"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/10/your-master-hes-monster-he-will-come-on.html">
    <title>Riddled: Your master he's a monster He will come on a bridge of paper Inscribed with a hundred names of God</title>
    <dc:date>2017-10-11T00:55:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2017/10/your-master-hes-monster-he-will-come-on.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[UPDATE: Helpful Pubpeer brownie Macrophthalmus Grandidieri prepared a useful though now incomplete diagram of papers and their shared pictorial heritage, including twenty-seven 8-by-10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>paper-mills academic-culture academia-doesn't-guarantee-acuity publishing amusing and-yet</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:78a0e516ebe7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:paper-mills"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia-doesn't-guarantee-acuity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:and-yet"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://radical.piratical.cryptonomic.net/archives/theknowledgesingularity">
    <title>archives:theknowledgesingularity [RADiCAL.PiRATiCAL]</title>
    <dc:date>2017-08-27T12:35:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://radical.piratical.cryptonomic.net/archives/theknowledgesingularity</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But libraries have a problem. And that problem is that they are not controlling their own fate. They have been in charge of their own fate as long as they had their own legal exceptions, their spaces in which they were free to operate. But that moment has passed with the digital landing. And now instead of being in control of their own fate and adapting to whatever is expected of them to provide, they are forced to act as unwilling enforcers of copyrights and ideas that they do not necessarily agree with. And that's a very unpleasant place to be. Very unpleasant also because they are the ones being held responsible for whatever shadow librarians are doing. They are the ones who are leaking those documents. They are the ones who are made responsible for not allowing any leak of these articles and not allowing any leak of their digital books. And it will be their future on the strings if copyright holders decide to punish libraries for the actions of the shadow librarians. For that, the fate of libraries carries a really nice promise, if you like. And that promise is the extraterritoriality of the library.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access academic-culture publishing public-policy libraries to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:68e5bcdd9cdc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:libraries"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://doaj.org/">
    <title>Directory of Open Access Journals</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-22T14:19:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://doaj.org/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access academic-culture publishing rss to-understand</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:378573cf7b4f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rss"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-understand"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://designobserver.com/feature/empathy-in-book-publishing/39603">
    <title>Empathy in Book Publishing: Design Observer</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-22T12:44:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://designobserver.com/feature/empathy-in-book-publishing/39603</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Unsurprisingly, the best book designers tend to be avid readers, which could be framed as an introspective form of customer empathy. But human-centered design is about immersing in your customer’s experience—your reader’s experience. That’s different than your experience of reading. Only being an avid reader falls short of customer immersion. A book designer’s work primarily focuses on the author, editor, and book—the reader typically receives tangential attention. What would happen if book designers went further and immersed in their readers’ lives? I decided to find out.

One of my imprints publishes books by thought leaders in literacy instruction. Our readers are teachers who teach students how to love reading books (yes, very meta). So, I began volunteering in the same 4th grade classroom for one full day each month. I didn't conduct interviews, collect data, or keep a journal. I simply made an effort to be present with a mind towards spotting the teacher’s "peas." Tiny things, like how the gnawing sound of an electric pencil sharpener distracts students. And how the ubiquitous spiral binding on a grading book turns the ruler that tracks a student’s row across the spread into an irritating seesaw. Immersing in the teacher’s experience also brought me face-to-face with my customer’s customer—children. During one independent reading session, I noticed a girl who had cast her book aside with a frown. I asked why. She said it lacked drama. I began dramatically presenting alternate titles. She frowned harder. The period ended. I was struck by a very plain fact: you can’t force someone to read. 

My classroom experiences didn't uncover any 80 million dollar ideas, although if I ever have the opportunity to design a teacher’s grading book, I will lobby for lay-flat binding—or, better yet, an app. Looking at the world through my customer’s eyes did, however, change the way I view my job. Back in the office discussions about “the customer” were no longer abstract. I now felt a responsibility to advocate for the teachers and students I had met. The act of immersing in my customer’s experience suddenly felt as fundamental to my charge as the act of kerning. 

You don't need the letters U and X in your job title to adopt a customer-needs perspective. All designers, no matter their level, should count fostering customer empathy in themselves and others as a baseline job requirement—doubly so if you work in book publishing where human-centered design is seldom discussed. Invest energy into spotting your readers’ peas. Internalize their perspective. Champion their needs. I can’t promise it will make you rich, but it will imbue your work with a greater sense of service and purpose.]]></description>
<dc:subject>books user-experience publishing learning-by-doing empathy the-mangle-is-other-people</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1d84c5a19b02/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:user-experience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:learning-by-doing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:empathy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-is-other-people"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/">
    <title>Publication, Power, and Patronage: On Inequality and Academic Publishing – Critical Inquiry</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-22T12:09:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Historically, university reformers from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century have touted publication as a corrective to concentrations of power and patronage networks. An increased emphasis on more purportedly transparent or objective measures provided by publication have long been cast as an antidote to cronyism and connections. As we will show, however, current data suggest that publication patterns largely reproduce significant power imbalances within the system of academic publishing. Systems of academic patronage as well as those of cultural and social capital seem not only to have survived but flourished in the modern bureaucratic university, even if in different form.[5] When, as our data show, Harvard University and Yale University exercise such a disproportionate influence on both hiring and publishing patterns, academic publishing seems less a democratic marketplace of ideas and more a tightly controlled network of patronage and cultural capital. Just as output-focused advancement is older than we might expect, patronage-based advancement is more persistent than we might like to acknowledge.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publication performance academic-culture publishing social-networks social-signaling rather-interesting to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:4a86ccb1ab84/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publication"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:performance"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-signaling"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/15/printed-books-entered-new-chapter-fortune/">
    <title>How printed books entered a new chapter of fortune</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-21T13:01:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/15/printed-books-entered-new-chapter-fortune/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In February, Waterstones returned to profit for the first time in seven years, citing a return to “traditional bookselling” as the key to its resurgence. WH Smith has also found joy in books, regularly highlighting the success of spoof humour titles, such as Enid Blyton parody Five on Brexit Island, as a key sales driver.

“The print book revival continues as consumers, young and old, appear to have established a new appreciation for this traditional format,” said Rebecca McGrath, Mintel’s senior media analyst.]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing books disintermediation-responses artisanal-world postnormality to-write-about markets-in-everything-that-is-boring</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:88a2b56d4050/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-responses"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:artisanal-world"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:postnormality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:markets-in-everything-that-is-boring"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/870/1031">
    <title>‘Predatory’ Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of ‘Legitimate’ Academic Publishing | Bell | tripleC: Communication, Capitalism &amp; Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-21T12:57:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/870/1031</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Abstract: The concept of the 'predatory' publisher has today become a standard way of characterising a new breed of open access journals that seem to be more concerned with making a profit than disseminating academic knowledge. This essay presents an alternative view of such publishers, arguing that if we treat them as parody instead of predator, a far more nuanced reading emerges. Viewed in this light, such journals destabilise the prevailing discourse on what constitutes a 'legitimate' journal, and, indeed, the nature of scholarly knowledge production itself. Instead of condemning them outright, their growth should therefore encourage us to ask difficult but necessary questions about the commercial context of knowledge production, prevailing conceptions of quality and value, and the ways in which they privilege scholarship from the 'centre' and exclude that from the 'periphery'.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture criticism rather-interesting publishing predatory-journals amusing to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:980607a59582/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:predatory-journals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFYsTc3NYlA&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=2448">
    <title>T3 Keynote - YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2017-06-03T11:18:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFYsTc3NYlA&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=2448</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Robin DeRosa kicks off our conference by helping us look at how working “open” expands the kinds of domains that we might engage in as instructors. Through her personal experiences, she will help us conceptualize “open” as a holistic way to think about the teaching and learning cycle, while offering examples of tools and techniques that can help faculty design courses and programs that expand access to higher education, empower learners, and connect students to the world outside the college.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing disintermediation-in-action academic-culture pedagogy textbooks to-watch</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2a3557478302/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:textbooks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/14/addicted-to-the-brand-the-hypocrisy-of-a-publishing-academic/">
    <title>Impact of Social Sciences – Addicted to the brand: The hypocrisy of a publishing academic</title>
    <dc:date>2017-05-25T19:41:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/14/addicted-to-the-brand-the-hypocrisy-of-a-publishing-academic/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[If, as principal investigator, I were to advise the PhD students and postdocs in the group here at Nottingham that, in line with the three principles above, they should publish all of their work in the Beilstein J. Nanotech., it would be career suicide for them. To hammer this point home, here’s the advice from one referee of a paper we recently submitted:

“I recommend re-submission of the manuscript to the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, where works of similar quality can be found. The work is definitively well below the standards of [Journal Name].”
There is very clearly a well-established hierarchy here. Journal ‘branding’, and, worse, journal impact factor, remain exceptionally important in (falsely) establishing the perceived quality of a piece of research, despite many efforts to counter this perception, including, most notably, DORA. My hypocritical approach to publishing research stems directly from this perception. I know that if I want the researchers in my group to stand a chance of competing with their peers, we have to target “those” journals. The same is true for all the other PIs out there. While we all complain bitterly about the impact factor monkey on our back, we’re locked into the addiction to journal brand.]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing disintermediation-in-action</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8d308c7f255f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html">
    <title>The 20% Statistician: Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles</title>
    <dc:date>2017-05-07T14:29:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia academic-culture publishing philosophy-of-science citation best-practices to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f4bc4c6f0b5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:best-practices"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://programming-journal.org/purpose/">
    <title>Purpose and Operation</title>
    <dc:date>2017-04-17T12:06:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://programming-journal.org/purpose/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming journal is a fully refereed, open access, free, electronic journal. It welcomes papers on the art of programming, broadly construed (see Call for Papers).

Papers are refereed in the traditional way, with two or more referees per paper. Copyright is retained by the authors. Full-text access to all papers is freely available. No registration or subscription is required. Authors of published papers may be invited to present their work in partnering conferences.

The journal is published by AOSA, a non-profit organization whose purpose is to facilitate the dissemination of scholarly works pertaining to programming.

Papers are prepared in LaTeX and submitted electronically as PDF files. On acceptance, authors are asked to provide all source files as specified in the Information for Authors.

Papers can be submitted at any time, but the journal reviews papers in batch, three or more times per year. The batch processing is designed to keep everyone involved (editors, reviewers and authors) on track, and to establish a strong sense of predictability for when specific activities are to happen. The goal is to have a fast turnaround of four months from start to end of each reviewing cycle.

The journal is divided into volumes, one per year, each with several issues. The issues correspond directly to the reviewing batches.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:geepawhill computer-science rather-interesting open-access journal academic-culture publishing arXiv</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bf8bfb8b9947/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:geepawhill"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:computer-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:journal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:arXiv"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/auk.2010.32.issue-2/auk-2010-0201/auk-2010-0201.xml">
    <title>Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Expertise: Epistemic and Social Conditions of Their Trustworthiness : Analyse &amp; Kritik</title>
    <dc:date>2017-04-07T14:06:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/auk.2010.32.issue-2/auk-2010-0201/auk-2010-0201.xml</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The article explores epistemic and social conditions of the trustworthiness of scientific expertise. I claim that there are three kinds of conditions for the trustworthiness of scientific expertise. The first condition is epistemic and means that scientific knowledge enjoys high credibility. The second condition concerns the significance of scientific knowledge. It means that scientific generalizations are relevant for elucidating the particular cases that constitute the challenges for expert judgment. The third condition concerns the social processes involved in producing science-based recommendations. In this context trust is created by social robustness, expert legitimacy, and social participation.

About the article
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:? science academic-culture publishing philosophy-of-science sociology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:81555a7942d3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870">
    <title>The GRIM test — a method for evaluating published research. – Medium</title>
    <dc:date>2017-03-31T11:30:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-grim-test-a-method-for-evaluating-published-research-9a4e5f05e870</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Ever had one of those ideas where you thought: “No, this is too simple, someone must have already thought of it.”
And then found that no-one had?
And that it was a good idea after all?
Well, that’s what happened to us.
(Who is us? I’m going to use pronouns messily through the following almost-3000 words, but let the record show: ‘us’ and ‘we’ is Nick Brown and myself.)
The pre-print of this paper is HERE — “The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology”.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:arthegall statistics looking-to-see inverse-problems rather-interesting academic-culture publishing science peer-review</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e71356e458ae/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:arthegall"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-to-see"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:inverse-problems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-review"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://littleprofessor.typepad.com/the_little_professor/2017/02/taking-refuge-in-a-cove-.html">
    <title>The Little Professor: Taking refuge in a COVE?</title>
    <dc:date>2017-02-21T13:43:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://littleprofessor.typepad.com/the_little_professor/2017/02/taking-refuge-in-a-cove-.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What's interesting, though, is the site's goal of generating "not-for-profit income to sustain the future development of tools and publication of COVE material."  On the one hand, scholars have been used, I think, to casually dividing online resources into Free (To Me, Anyway) Sites and Either I Need to Win the Lottery or My University Needs Untoward Quantities of Cash Sites (that last may be a trifle exaggerated, but perhaps not by much).  But, as COVE notes, openly-accessible sites aren't free; even a blog like this one requires an influx of cash ($179.40/yr, to be precise), and something far more elaborate, with lots of interactive tools, images, complex e-texts, moderating behind the scenes, &c. requires considerably more in the way of dollar signs.  Hence the evanescence of many sites.  It will be interesting to see how they succeed in producing a self-funding model that avoids becoming, as they say, "avaricious."   

]]></description>
<dc:subject>archives scholarship academic-culture publishing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a3a2aa98e9b7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/research-parasitism-and-authorship-rights/">
    <title>Research “parasitism” and authorship rights – For Better Science</title>
    <dc:date>2016-01-23T10:42:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/research-parasitism-and-authorship-rights/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Under these circumstances, it is less the data itself, but its authorship credits which the clinical scientists are so afraid to lose. These doctors seem to come to grudgingly terms with the new times, where authorships cannot be automatically given and taken, without any scientific contributions to the research project at hand. But they also are not prepared to be simply thanked in acknowledgements, with their paper cited in the list of references. And they are certainly not keen on seeing their high-profile published research (NEJM has a colossal journal impact factor of 56!) being plucked apart by their critical peers.

Therefore, what exactly are Drazen and his ICMJE colleagues proposing? To introduce conditions under which original data from clinical trials can be released, and demands for collaborations (meaning co-authorships)? with its “owners”? Or will ICMJE soon change its authorship criteria, to include the ownership of original published data?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture medical-culture pecking-order prestige publishing disintermediation-in-action</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:beddf0449183/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:medical-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pecking-order"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:prestige"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069">
    <title>PLOS ONE: An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-01T12:56:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115069</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The choice of an efficient document preparation system is an important decision for any academic researcher. To assist the research community, we report a software usability study in which 40 researchers across different disciplines prepared scholarly texts with either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. The probe texts included simple continuous text, text with tables and subheadings, and complex text with several mathematical equations. We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software. We conclude that even experienced LaTeX users may suffer a loss in productivity when LaTeX is used, relative to other document preparation systems. Individuals, institutions, and journals should carefully consider the ramifications of this finding when choosing document preparation strategies, or requiring them of authors.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture tools ergonomics communities-of-practice dilution-of-expertise via:cshalizi</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:0db5c6c27704/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tools"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ergonomics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:communities-of-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:dilution-of-expertise"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:cshalizi"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661">
    <title>[1401.4661] Significance level and positivity bias as causes for high rate of non-reproducible scientific results?</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-30T14:23:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4661</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The high fraction of published results that turn out to be incorrect is a major concern of today's science. This paper contributes to the understanding of this problem in two independent directions. First, Johnson's recent claim that hypothesis testing with a significance level of 0.05 can alone lead to an unacceptably large proportion of false positives among all results is shown to be unfounded. Second, a way to quantify the effect of "positivity bias" (the tendency to consider only positive results as worthwhile) is introduced. We estimate the proportion of false positives among positive results in terms of the significance level used and the positivity ratio. The latter quantity is the fraction of positive results over all results, be they positive or not, published or not. In particular, if one uses a significance level of 0.05, and produces 4 (possibly unpublished) negative results for every positive result, then the proportion of false positives among positive results can climb to a high 21%.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>probability-theory statistics academic-culture publishing what's-wrong-with-people-these-days the-mangle-in-practice pragmatism-it-ain't amusing to-watch philosophy-of-science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:8438a94f393e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:probability-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what's-wrong-with-people-these-days"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-mangle-in-practice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pragmatism-it-ain't"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-watch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing">
    <title>Registered Reports: A step change in scientific publishing | Elsevier</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-19T12:09:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The unique selling point of Registered Reports is that they eliminate the need for scientists to strive for "publishable results". Registered Reports enshrine the ethos that science earns its stripes from the value of the research question and the rigor of the method, and never from whether the data sing a good tune. This idea is as old as the scientific method itself; in fact, it almost feels wrong to call Registered Reports an innovation in publishing when it is closer to being a restoration– a reinvention of publishing and the peer-review process as it was meant to be.

Some scientists have expressed fears that Registered Reports could restrict creativity by requiring authors to adhere to a fixed research methodology. In fact – and this is important to emphasize – the Registered Reports initiative places no restrictions whatsoever on creativity, flexibility or the reporting of serendipitous findings. While it is true that the pre-specified methods in a Registered Report must be followed, there are no bounds on the reporting of additional unregistered analyses. The only requirement is that such additional material is labelled transparently so that readers know which analyses were pre-registered and which were exploratory.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>science academic-culture publishing citation camel's-nose blogging openness</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ebf8a9e8f939/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:camel's-nose"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:blogging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://plotdevice.io/">
    <title>PlotDevice: a Python-based graphics environment for the Mac</title>
    <dc:date>2014-08-28T11:27:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://plotdevice.io/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>via:arthegall python graphics middleware publishing to-use bookphile MacOS Quartz-graphics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:7e3735dd6661/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:arthegall"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:python"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:graphics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:middleware"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-use"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bookphile"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:MacOS"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Quartz-graphics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/07/07/true-success-is-more-than-winning-a-zero-sum-game/">
    <title>True success is more than winning a zero-sum game</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-08T12:30:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/07/07/true-success-is-more-than-winning-a-zero-sum-game/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I believe that people like to tell themselves simple stories about how one should succeed. Many of these simple stories are based on half-truths. Just like how fiction authors believe that they must land a competitive book deal to be a writer whereas none of us care about any of that. This status ranking game that you play… is probably much less important than you make it out to be on the long run.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife disintermediation-in-action the-postnormal-creeps-in publishing coscience moral-economy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:75a925ef7308/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-postnormal-creeps-in"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:coscience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:moral-economy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://practicaltypography.com/">
    <title>Butterick’s Practical Typography</title>
    <dc:date>2014-06-03T10:50:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://practicaltypography.com/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>typography book publishing disintermediation-in-action very-nice interesting to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e82435bab04c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:typography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:book"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:very-nice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://practicaltypography.com/why-there's-no-e-book-or-pdf.html">
    <title>why there’s no e-book or pdf</title>
    <dc:date>2014-05-28T11:58:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://practicaltypography.com/why-there's-no-e-book-or-pdf.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>ebooks by:matthew-butterick publishing via:chl the-high-ground disintermediation-in-action to-emulate</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1ab190fa2f34/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ebooks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:by:matthew-butterick"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:chl"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-high-ground"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-emulate"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653">
    <title>[1304.7653] Usage History of Scientific Literature: Nature Metrics and Metrics of Nature Publications</title>
    <dc:date>2014-04-15T10:42:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this study, we analyze the dynamic usage history of Nature publications over time using Nature metrics data. We conduct analysis from two perspectives. On the one hand, we examine how long it takes before the articles' downloads reach 50%/80% of the total; on the other hand, we compare the percentage of total downloads in 7 days, 30 days, and 100 days after publication. In general, papers are downloaded most frequently within a short time period right after their publication. And we find that compared with Non-Open Access papers, readers' attention on Open Access publications are more enduring. Based on the usage data of a newly published paper, regression analysis could predict the future expected total usage counts.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing citation news-cycle disintermediation-in-action open-access interesting consider:what-might-happen-with-updating</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6340761b6515/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:news-cycle"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:what-might-happen-with-updating"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://andrewgelman.com/2013/12/17/replication-backlash/">
    <title>Replication backlash « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-18T14:17:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://andrewgelman.com/2013/12/17/replication-backlash/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A result that is not sufficiently robust that it can be independently reproduced will not provide the basis for an effective therapy in an outbred human population. A result that is not able to be independently reproduced, that cannot be translated to another lab using what most would regard as standard laboratory procedures (blinding, controls, validated reagents etc) is not a result. It is simply a ‘scientific allegation’.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture community credentialing disintermediation-in-action amusing replicate-replicate</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e5d7d07e3f77/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:community"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:credentialing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:replicate-replicate"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=6545">
    <title>Language Log » &quot;Clutter&quot; in (writing about) science writing</title>
    <dc:date>2013-08-31T10:47:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=6545</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But I'm even more overwhelmed by papers whose research methods are so badly documented that I can't determine whether my suspicions about elementary experimental artifacts are valid.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture peer-review publishing the-objective-citation-of-reasonable-and-vetted-technical-conclusions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5774ee35ce86/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:peer-review"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-objective-citation-of-reasonable-and-vetted-technical-conclusions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/06/07/on-the-danger-posed-by-non-expert-critiques-published-to-large-audiences/#.UbMOjRWJRV9">
    <title>On The Danger Posed By Non-Expert Critiques Published To Large Audiences</title>
    <dc:date>2013-06-08T13:39:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/06/07/on-the-danger-posed-by-non-expert-critiques-published-to-large-audiences/#.UbMOjRWJRV9</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Geoffrey North, the editor of Current Biology, has written a critical editorial that questions the role of social media in science (which I strongly suggest you read before continuing). In it,…]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:chapmanb amusing academic-culture publishing cultural-assumptions disintermediation-in-action I-already-said-amusing-right?</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:cc1945e5cc56/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:chapmanb"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:amusing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:I-already-said-amusing-right?"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672403/a-design-blog-experiments-with-the-printed-page#1">
    <title>1 | A Design Blog Experiments With The Printed Page | Co.Design: business + innovation + design</title>
    <dc:date>2013-05-01T11:49:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672403/a-design-blog-experiments-with-the-printed-page#1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Vit agrees enthusiastically about that transformative effect. "We get so used to seeing projects as 600-pixel images on Behance, or a collection of 'posters’ on Flickr, or in some weird Tumblr layout, that we just assume this is the resolution and canvas limit for this project," he says. "There was nothing more gratifying during the layout of the project than taking an image and blowing it up 200% or 300% from its original size, or showing something as a full-bleed spread. There is something about a full-bleed spread that a website will never, ever capture."

]]></description>
<dc:subject>graphic-design design magazines publishing experiment effect-of-medium-on-aesthetic-experience</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:61c08057b479/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:graphic-design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:design"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:magazines"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:experiment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:effect-of-medium-on-aesthetic-experience"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1346">
    <title>The Past, Present and Future of Scholarly Publishing</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-16T12:14:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1346</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I gave a talk last night at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco about science publishing and PLoS. There will be an audio link soon, but, for the first time in my life, I actually gave the talk (largely) from prepared remarks, so I thought I’d post it here.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia public-policy publishing disintermediation-in-action</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6fe9b46b408f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://sarahwerner.net/blog/index.php/2013/02/multivalent-print-or-learning-to-love-ambiguity-in-three-easy-lessons/">
    <title>multivalent print, or, learning to love ambiguity in three easy lessons | Wynken de Worde</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-09T13:49:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://sarahwerner.net/blog/index.php/2013/02/multivalent-print-or-learning-to-love-ambiguity-in-three-easy-lessons/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[[slide 23]23 Sometimes we are lucky and we catch a glimpse of what was. [slide 24]24 But more often we encounter early works through the interventions of later assumptions about what they were, our view of the seventeenth century shaped by nineteenth-century lenses. What we think we know about early print—that it is distinct from manuscript, that it is fixed and stable—are mistaken lessons that obscure the ambiguities and complexities of what print was and can be.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities early-modern publishing cultural-assumptions habit</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a906c9d71598/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:early-modern"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:habit"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7442/full/495437a.html">
    <title>Scholarship: Beyond the paper : Nature : Nature Publishing Group</title>
    <dc:date>2013-03-31T13:15:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7442/full/495437a.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Here we must recall first that scholarship has always been a community enterprise, driven by building consensus among experts10. So the question is not 'Should we crowdsource?' but 'How should we crowdsource?'. Second, we must dispose of the straw-man argument that hundreds of uninformed readers' opinions will count for more than one Fields medallist's recommendation. Authority and expertise are central in the Web era as they were in the journal era. The difference is that whereas the paper-based system used subjective criteria to identify authoritative voices, the Web-based one assesses authority recursively from the entire community.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia academic-culture publishing disintermediation-in-action multimodal-communication rather-good low-hanging-fruit</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:037eef66c2c4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:multimodal-communication"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-good"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:low-hanging-fruit"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>