Author Archives: wilson.mark.c

Review of Reassembling Scholarly Communications

I received the offer to review this book with some trepidation. Although active as an Open Access advocate, I have neither a scholarly background as a researcher and student of scholarly communications, nor a background in the humanities, which forms the disciplinary home for most contributors. I feared a long screed of very complicated terminology with little obvious relevance to those, such as myself, having a background in mathematics and natural sciences. Also, I have been suspicious of the motives of those who study ad nauseam issues such as open access without doing anything to change the world for the better.

In summary, I am glad that I accepted the offer. This book makes a distinct contribution, and its structure of short and very varied chapters contains a wealth of interesting content that should be of interest to anyone with even a passing interest in open access and scholarly communications more generally. I cannot envisage many readers going through the entire book in detail – it is more suited to dipping into one chapter at a time, allowing serendipity to do its magic and breaking the reader out of the algorithmically enforced filter bubbles that threaten to isolate us all.

The editors explain their purpose clearly:

pithy, shorter chapters that would serve as introductions to different perspectives, as gateways to alternative approaches 

 

coupled with a historical approach. They have succeeded admirably. The book has six sections, described under the headings of Colonial Influences, Epistemologies, Publics and Politics, Archives and Preservation, Infrastructures and Platforms, and Global Communities. These sections comprise 25 chapters each by a different authorial team. The introduction by the editors is very good, and contains an elegant and insightful description of the economic difficulties underlying public goods such as scholarly publications, by means of a parable about conference talks. There is an excellent glossary and list of abbreviations and acronyms, unfortunately essential for anyone reading about scholarly communications these days.

The variety of material is impressive and the writing overall clear and interesting, although every reader will find exceptions to that last claim. The historical approach is very useful and will extend the relevance of this book. Almost every chapter contains something new and interesting to me. The chapters that I found most valuable may give an idea of the breadth of topics covered: John Willinsky surveying the history of copyright, back to England in the late 17th century and the Statute of Anne in 1710; Martin Eve discussing the need for digital reading of research outputs when faced with a superabundance of possible articles and books to read, and the relation with open access and research evaluation; Aileen Fyfe on the Royal Society’s history as a publisher, and the little-known fact that for most of its 350 years the philosophy of supporting and subsidizing wide access predominated over the more recent approach of using journal sales to subsidize the Society’s other activities; Abel Packer and Dominique Babini surveying Latin American initiatives such as SciELO and Redalyc; Thomas Herve Mboa Nkoudou discussing the many challenges and yet the necessity of implementing open access in an African context. There are contributions discussing trends in peer review, politically sensitive archives, the history of public libraries, and the relevance of a medieval “how-to” manuscript to modern readers.

No book is perfect, and it is necessary to nitpick no matter how good the book is, in order to retain credibility as a reviewer. I was surprised to find some English errors even in the contributions by the editors (what does “comprise” really mean? what is the simple past tense of “to spring”?). I conjecture that the book took substantially longer to finish than expected (of course, Hofstadter’s Law shows that this must happen), which means that some chapters are, while still relevant, no longer at the cutting edge.

A strong theme of the promise and perils of universal open access to scholarly research runs through the volume. It is easily observed that decision-makers in wealthy countries appear to be obsessed with competition, credentials, and prestige, while in, for example, Latin America, the understanding that open access and open scholarship are justified by arguments from social justice and human rights is higher. This book should be particularly valuable for those in Europe and North America without much exposure to approaches in other parts of the world (and often without much interest in them) – give it as a gift to your relevant administrator today!

 

Journal flipping: another domino falls

I received this today from a mailing list. Some much-needed good news. I urge everyone in the research community related to this journal to get behind the new incarnation and cast the old one into the darkness. Based on previous experience with other journals, the publisher will try to pretend nothing has happened, stack the editorial board with retired people not strongly connected to the research area, and keep extracting as much money as possible. Don’t let them – kill the old journal by a decisive switch to the new!

Dear member of the combinatorics community,

Please pardon this mass e-mailing, and my apologies if you receive multiple copies.

 I am writing to inform you of an exciting development: a new journal, Combinatorial Theory, which is mathematician-owned, and fully open access, with no charges for authors or readers.

  I hope that you will regard this new journal as the successor to the Elsevier-owned Journal of Combinatorial Theory Ser. A (JCT A).  The majority of the JCT A editorial boards have recently notified Elsevier that they will not be renewing their contracts, and will resign after December 2020;  this includes all of the Editors-in-Chief whose contract does not extend past that date. Daily operations for the new journal will be run by interim editors until 2021, so that editors can fulfill any contractual obligations to Elsevier before joining the new journal.

  To aid the success of this venture, I encourage you to do the following.

1. Please do not submit any new papers to JCT A.  Papers already in the pipeline at JCT A will be processed as before.  Send new papers of the same scope and quality to Combinatorial Theory via email to combinatorial.theory@gmail.com.

2. If you are contacted by Elsevier to serve as an editor for JCT A, please do not accept, as this will hurt our efforts.

Sincerely,

Victor Reiner

Interim Editor, Combinatorial Theory

Swing models

Bernie Grofman and I have submitted a paper on what I feel is a fundamental methodological issue in the study of electoral systems, namely how to infer district-level vote changes given national-level vote changes. This has direct relevance to election forecasting and study of partisan gerrymandering, for example. We show that uniform swing and proportional swing, by far the most commonly used methods, fail various natural axioms, and we give an alternative method that does satisfy the axioms. Interestingly, we show that on real data there is very little difference between the predictions made by these methods.

Free Journal Network

The Free Journal Network (previously described here) has now admitted 52 journals from an increasing variety of scholarly fields (although about half are still from mathematics). In order to go to the next level and obtain funding, I have registered FJN as a nonprofit corporation in Massachusetts, and am the first president. This involved learning a lot of new things. The Board of Directors is impressive – check them out.

(don’t have) ACOW (man)

I gave an invited talk in this online Zoom-workshop originally supposed to be held at the Mittag-Leffler Institute in Stockholm. The talk can be found at the Youtube channel which has many (other!) good talks. This meeting was a lot better than I had expected, and it is interesting to speculate on the future of academic conferences even once Covid-19 is vanquished. Thanks to the organizers for all their hard work.

A new citation-based measure of researcher impact

Zhou Tang and I have submitted a paper, my first in the area of scientometrics, to Quantitative Science Studies. I may be biased, but I feel this idea has potential.

The most commonly used publication metrics for individual researchers are the the total number of publications, the total number of citations, and Hirsch’s h-index. Each of these  increases throughout a researcher’s career, making it less suitable for evaluation of junior researchers or assessing recent impact.  We aim to study non-cumulative measures that answer the question “in terms of citation impact, what have you done lately?”

We single out six measures from the rather sparse literature, including Hirsch’s m-index, a time-scaled version of the h-index. We introduce new measures based on the idea of “citation acceleration”. After presenting several axioms for non-cumulative measures, we conclude that one of our new measures has much better theoretical justification. We present a small-scale study of its performance on real data and conclude that it shows substantial promise for future use.