[open-science] Why are we leaving it to Google?

Tue Sep 11 14:43:35 UTC 2018

Thank you Peter and everyone for these thought provoking discussions.
Between this announcement and PlanS last week, there has been an incredible
amount to catch up on.

I'd like to point to SHARE, which is a project that we have been working on
to meet some of the challenges discussed in this thread
https://share.osf.io/  One real benefit of SHARE (in addition to it being
open source and a project designed by librarians) is that resource
providers themselves have the power to indicate which scholarly outputs are
worth disseminating. So traditionally that has been articles of course, but
SHARE allows for datasets and other items (preprints, posters, study
registrations, theses, etc). Here for example is a search string that
returns 2 million data sets https://share.osf.io/discover?type[]=data%20set
(i.e. items that are tagged as being a data set). Information about
becoming a SHARE provider and about its funding and history is here:
http://www.share-research.org/ and here is a current list of providers
https://share.osf.io/sources

My 2 cents on google data search is that I bet they'll do a good job at it
and will also raise awareness about the importance of better meta-data,
which should benefit SHARE and every other search provider.

Best,
David

David Mellor, PhD <https://osf.io/qthsf/>
Project Manager, Journal and Funder Initiatives <https://cos.io/top>
Center for Open Science <https://cos.io>
@EvoMellor <https://twitter.com/@EvoMellor> and @RegReports
<https://twitter.com/regreports>
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3125-5888
Suggest a meeting time: https://doodle.com/davidmelloropenscience

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:09 AM Peter Kraker <pkraker at openknowledgemaps.org>
wrote:

> Hi Heather,
>
> +1 to everything you said! But re3data.org is only a search for data
> repositories, not for the datasets themselves. So unfortunately, it‘s still
> a long way to go.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
> On 11.09.2018, at 16:01, Heather Piwowar <heather at impactstory.org> wrote:
>
> I have no problem that Google has a Dataset Search, or if they reuse open
> tools/code/etc to do it.  I do think there should be an open version as
> well, with open apis, open data, and open source so that people can build
> that search into other tools.
>
> Just like I have no problem that Google Scholar exists.  But it didn't
> have an API, so when Unpaywall came out with an open API, *poof* so many
> organizations started using it to make the research infrastructure better,
> and OA more discoverable.
>
> It'll go that way with dataset search too, and Open Citations, and Open
> Altmetrics, and Open Indicators Built On Top of Citations and Altmetrics,
> and everything else.
>
> To Naomi's point, maybe https://www.re3data.org/search is already that
> answer?  If so, yay, in my opinion then we didn't leave this one to Google
> :)
>
> It's time to add "open infrastructure" to the opens that we call for,
> support, and build.
>
> Heather
>
>
> --
> Heather Piwowar, cofounder
> Impactstory <http://impactstory.org/>: We make tools to power the Open
> Science revolution
> follow at @researchremix <https://twitter.com/researchremix>, @impactstory
> <http://twitter.com/impactstory>, and @unpaywall
> <https://twitter.com/unpaywall>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Christoph Bruch <
> christoph.bruch at os.helmholtz.de> wrote:
>
>> Everybody who is advocating openness including commercial re-use should
>> not complain if this re-use actually occurs.
>>
>>
>>
>> But of course there is a danger that Google’s search engine will sideline
>> other discovery tools and thus become a gate keeper and we also should not
>> oversee that Google can get a lot of insight from analysing the searches
>> for data sets.
>>
>>
>>
>> The research community needs to enhance its ability to collectively fund
>> key research infrastructure in order to avoid developments like this
>> current one with its possible negative implications.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Christoph Bruch
>>
>> Helmholtz Association
>>
>> Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office
>>
>> http://os.helmholtz.de
>>
>> W: +49 (0)331 28 82 87 61
>>
>> M: +49 (0)151 14 09 39 68
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* open-science [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *Im
>> Auftrag von *Peter Murray-Rust
>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 10. September 2018 22:49
>> *An:* Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bosman at uu.nl>
>> *Cc:* opencon-discussion-list at googlegroups.com; open-science <
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [open-science] Why are we leaving it to Google?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't have a problem with Google indexing public datasets. I work with
>> Crystallogrophy Open Database which has indexed 350K data sets. What I take
>> exception to is the way that Big Corporations can buy privileged access to
>> paywalled datasets and publications.
>>
>> I have a tool which will index science (chemistry, crystallography,
>> phylogenetic trees etc.) much better than Google (which doesn't do these)
>> but I am not allowed to use it. So  Google and Clarivate are handed a
>> monopoly on indexing the literature even though I can do it better. What is
>> even worse is the way that some publishers (Elsevier) take public data
>> (crystallography) and put it behind the accessWall of the Cambridge
>> Crystallographic Data Centre. Authors think they are making there data
>> Open, They are not, It's being monopolised by CCDC who sells it by
>> subscription and lets 1% or less out to the rest of the world.
>>
>> I am sure there are many more of these cartels and monopolies.
>>
>> I am happy to hear from others who want to build an alternative search
>> engine to closed monopolists of the scholarly literature because we can do
>> it better.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20180911/d51573be/attachment-0002.html>