[open-science] [Open-access] OKF at Open Repositories 2014

Emanuil Tolev emanuil at cottagelabs.com
Thu Dec 5 16:13:28 UTC 2013

On 5 December 2013 14:50, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil at cottagelabs.com>wrote:
>> On 5 December 2013 12:16, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> People seem to be pointing towards:
>>> 1) Automatic/crowdsourced deposition of OA work into repositories via
>>> OAButton system or other means (maybe we could persuade a few live
>>> repositories to implement the deposit button Mark discussed).
>> Hmm... if the OAButton showed you your own research (e.g. just by name),
>> showed you how many people hit a paywall trying to get your article(s) and
>> prompted you to deposit, that seems like a good way of convincing more
>> people to do it. Would it not be insanely complex in terms of finding WHERE
>> to deposit to though? (I.e. has to be a local institutional repo because UK
>> is not Norway, correct me if I'm wrong.)
> ?? Why does it have to be a local institutional repo? This religious
> insistence on Universities at the centre has held us back. I use to work
> for Glaxo - where do I put my papers? Where do Cottagelabbers put them? The
> fewer outlets (> 1 but small) the better. Options include:

Sorry Peter, I didn't mean "that's the only option", it's just the first
thing everybody tries to do. I definitely go to CORE and in general
aggregating information from individual repositories when a piece of
software needs to be able to find papers. I quite agree that a centralised
e.g. Norway's approach is superior in many ways. That's quite the paradigm
shift though. We need to identify ways of making people believe this is
possible and see the benefits + address concerns they have.

> * arXiv
> * EuropePMC
> * CKAN
> * Wikipedia

> and perhaps national libraries.

Right, fair enough.

Dumb question: why can't arXiv handle content from all disciplines?
(Manpower? Technical debt? All of it probably boils down to willingness and
money, but if we can identify problems with existing
centralised-but-not-comprehensive-enough systems, we can do something about

> >>Also I'm not sure how much metadata they hold about the articles people
> report using the OAButton. An integration between the OAButton data and
> CrossRef has more chance here, and is a cool idea. There's not enough
> integration between OAButton and repos yet, though we do use CORE to look
> stuff up automatically for our users.
> Why should we base the future on a system that clearly isn't (yet)
> working. Given the choice of going to Wikipedia and
> theUniversityOfNowhereIHaveHeardOf where would people want to go?

But Wikipedia covers everything, or at least doesn't exclude based on
discipline. Is there a system that can take all of UK's research metadata?
CKAN and elasticsearch and friends don't count until they're deployed with
a wrapper that allows depositing in multiple ways and covered server bills.

You mention Wikipedia, and it does fulfil those criteria. But how can we
deposit research metadata on wikipedia (or more broadly, how to use it to
describe research)? You could run a wiki which stores all the full text of
all the OA articles or the PDF file where that's unavailable. But this is
still a piece of software, not a system. If we're not talking about wiki
software, but Wikipedia.org, I'm not sure how research metadata (or the
text of all the OA research) would fit into it.

>>  2) Indexing content for search and discovery.
> >>I think Jorum, the open educational resource system, is built on DSpace,
> and that's doing fine with its catalogue: http://find.jorum.ac.uk/
> Is it? Can I search for (say) "Blackbird" or "Turdus Merula"? I don't get
> any results. We need to build our own.
> >>But I guess what the audience will really want to hear about is
> basically an open alternative to Google Scholar.
> Yes.
> >>One thing which can attach information to very large amounts of DOI-s is
> http://oag.cottagelabs.com/ , a mass license checker - goes directly to
> publisher websites and scrapes them (or uses API-s where available). So
> this is not precisely discovery just yet, but it does fill the legal gap
> (the license of the items we index for discovery and search).
> Excellent.
> >>Many have tried to build an open index of scholarship (I've tried with
> others too, still trying) but I haven't heard of a big one just yet. While
> this is probably the "ultimate" topic of such a workshop, I don't think
> we're at the stage where you can base a workshop on that idea. Maybe the
> other 2 examples above + other existing projects come together to a greater
> whole worthy of a workshop though.
> There is no technical reason why not, and I think the need is becoming
> clearer. Figshare showed that one graduate student can change the world,
> OAButton showed that undergraduates will. Wikipedia has built a better
> knowledge engine than almost any university. We have all the indexing tools
> built (we can add Pubcrawler to the Cottagelab tools) and the problem can
> be scaled with committed humans.

Hm, my notion of a workshop was more towards the "people come to hear how
to do this or about work in progress on this", but it's actually a lot more
of a discussion / contribution thing. I guess you can run them both ways,
more towards the lecture side of the spectrum and more towards the hacking
side. So yes, "Building the Green cake and decorating it" or a subset of
that is a viable topic then.


> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131205/5d3d8cdd/attachment.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list