From Russia with love…

There’s what may be the start of a flurry of long-form press publicity for Sci-Hub: “Meet the Robin Hood of Science” at Big Think, and “The Research Pirates of the Dark Web” at The Atlantic. Did they hire a good publicist, I wonder?

Also from Moscow, a new long Interview with CyberLeninka’s Chief Strategy Officer in English. It’s very long and I haven’t yet read it all that closely, but there are obviously some interesting statistics and also trenchant comments about Russian attitudes to predatory journals and to OA repositories.

“The Moscow-based CyberLeninka … reports that it currently hosts 940,000 papers from 990 journals, all of which are open access, and approximately 70% of which are available under a CC-BY licence. Significantly, it has achieved this without the support of either the Russian government, or any private venture capital… The service was created, and is maintained, by five people working from home.”

“Since ROAR indicates that CyberLeninka has just 257 records we might want to take these [ROAR] figures [on Russia] with a large dose of salt…”

Flickr “will be scaled down”

Not content with ruining Flickr with bloat, painfully slow loading and a clunky new UI… now Yahoo are scaling it down

“Flickr will be scaled down, and will soon see some cutbacks in near future. … will soon be operated with minimal overhead…”

One day we’ll marvel at a Ken Burns-style documentary feature-film, which will recount exactly how gross mis-management turned Yahoo’s excellent suite of Web services into a puddle of worthless mush in just a few years.

openaccess.xyz

A new Ngram-based search tool for repositories, from an Australian student. openaccess.xyz is based on…

“A recent harvest of .edu, .gov, .ac and .org university websites, which I performed, produced around 16,000,000 papers. … I decided to prune a clean set of records (taking only the papers with near perfect metadata – dates, abstracts etc) and then present them in a Bookworm (the software which inspired the Google Books Ngram Viewer).”

As a keyword-based search tool it seems to give very poor results, judging by my test search for nesting bumblebees ecology. But, as an interface design for public search, it’s quite interestingly unusual.

For this early beta it might have been made made more useful by filtering the papers to make the focus much tighter. For instance, perhaps just a focus on the flora and fauna of Australasia.

search

Added to JURN

Electronic Monographs series from the British Institute at Ankara.

Opuscula : Short Texts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (is also mirrored at the older opuscula.synergiesprairies.ca address)

Opuscula (journal of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome, has a one-issue paywall on articles)


Opuscula Philolichenum (The New York Botanical Garden, journal of short papers on lichens and lichenology)

Opuscula Zoologica (Supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, hydrobiology and soil zoology with a focus on Central and Eastern Europe)

IsisCB Explore

IsisCB Explore is a public bibliographic search tool, from the History of Science Society and the University of Oklahoma…

“Nearly 200,000 interlinked bibliographic citations to books, chapters, articles, dissertations, and reviews from the Isis Bibliography of the History of Science 1974 to present. Annually updated.”

Rather annoyingly it misleadingly touts itself as “An open access discovery service”, when what that headline claim actually means is simply that “it’s public”.

On testing, it lacks an OA search facet on the sidebar.

On a search for electric light I tested four random articles from 54 results. One was in India, only a link to a journal home page. One was in a paywalled Taylor and Francis journal (£30 to “rent” the article for 24 hours!). Another was in a paywalled Cambridge UP Press journal (£20 access). The fourth was in a Taiwanese journal which declared “You do not currently have access to this content”.

I’m not sure how fresh the DOI Web links are, either. The first three DOI links I tried all proved to be broken.

Expecting the Unexpected: Serendipity, Discovery, and the Scholarly Research Process

A new white paper from publisher SAGE, “Expecting the Unexpected: Serendipity, Discovery, and the Scholarly Research Process”.

Serendipity is considered mainly in the context of discovery via automated content-recommendation systems, since the research (a survey and a literature review) was done in the context of the making of the new SAGE Recommends system.

So the report’s not really about serendipity in the wild frontier of academic keyword search on the open Web. There are some interesting observations, however…

  “Serendipitous discovery should be of particular interest to information providers precisely because there is so little precedent; there is still tremendous scope for individual organizations to bring their own priorities and values to bear on how they recommend or otherwise help researchers discover their content.”

  “If discovery is too exacting or too precise, it can end up reinforcing habits rather than exposing students and researchers to new information, sharply limiting the researcher’s view of the world of information. … We might even suggest that there is room for errors and luck in recommendation systems; a serendipitous system that does not include some element of chance is hardly serendipitous at all.”

  “… based on our research, it appears that approaches to encourage serendipity that do not place the content front and centre might encounter problems.” [i.e.: academic searchers want recommendations based on the actual content, rather than on the behaviour or tastes of other system users]

  “The less exciting, but equally as important, corollary to discovery is delivery, or access: providing the patron with the material once they have found it. Given that “the researcher’s discovery-to-access workflow is [already] much more difficult than it should be” (Schonfeld, 2015 $ paywall), improving discovery before solving the challenges of infrastructure and access is perhaps kicking the can down the road. This is not to say that there is no value to tools and solutions that promote discovery within an isolated silo, but their potential is limited until publishers, libraries, and discovery vendors make interoperability a priority.”