February 2016

"Anything you say may be taken down and used against you as evidence. Err, I mean, be shared with those not at #FutureCommons"

We spend a lot of time discussing what "review" procedure means in the phrase "peer review" but not much time defining "peer".

. @ersatzben thinking about this more: not sure I agree that tech makes the means of production abundant. Definitely reprod.

. @ersatzben cost-to-first-copy most significant aspect even in much print in the digital age?

Also: blogging. How fantastic that I can write some developing thoughts & get considered, nuanced responses a short while later. @ersatzben

I've never heard a medical funder like Wellcome say: we really shouldn't disseminate this work too widely in case it's misunderstood.

From what I understand of it, SH would give access to retractions too though. This looks to me like a badly argued attempt to spread FUD.

Suspect the retraction thing might have some merit - although this is an implicit acknowledgement of wrong info in their own portfolio.

It also reminded me of Adrian Johns' book on piracy and enlightenment. The two marching together with intertwined & inseparable histories.

SciHub. I can't condone and don't think it's the answer. But it is a symptom of the problem. Pure OA business models would be immune to it.

Not normally one to plug commercial software etc. but I've had a really good experience using @xero for @openlibhums accounting.

I haven't had a chance to participate in any yellow-papered @sa4qe events this year, but still remembering Russell Hoban on his birthday.

Tomorrow evening I'm giving an introductory keynote @britishlibrary for the celebration of the IDS Bulletin's move to pure open access.

We're not there yet, but my goal is to do demographic analysis once stable & release stats and plans to improve where needed. @CharlotteRock