No abstract

There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, many of the arguments put forward by these authors are lacking precision and are based on an incomplete understanding of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors mischaracterise OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially regarding the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that 'green OA' self-archiving options alleviate all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred 'routes' to OA as stated by their own institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the "global south" are also incorrect, and fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient prior knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.

No abstract

Twitter is in turmoil and the scholarly community on the platform is once again starting to migrate. As with the early internet, scholarly organizations are at the forefront of developing and implementing a decentralized alternative to Twitter, Mastodon. Both historically and conceptually, this is not a new situation for the scholarly community. Historically, scholars were forced to leave social media platform FriendFeed after it was bought by Facebook in 2006. Conceptually, the problems associated with public scholarly discourse subjected to the whims of corporate owners are not unlike those of scholarly journals owned by monopolistic corporations: in both cases the perils associated with a public good in private hands are palpable. For both short form (Twitter/Mastodon) and longer form (journals) scholarly discourse, decentralized solutions exist, some of which are already enjoying some institutional support. Here we argue that scholarly organizations, in particular learned societies, are now facing a golden opportunity to rethink their hesitations towards such alternatives and support the migration of the scholarly community from Twitter to Mastodon by hosting Mastodon instances. Demonstrating that the scholarly community is capable of creating a truly public square for scholarly discourse, impervious to private takeover, might renew confidence and inspire the community to focus on analogous solutions for the remaining scholarly record—encompassing text, data and code—to safeguard all publicly owned scholarly knowledge.

ABSTRAKGerakan open science telah berkembang pesat dalam lima tahun terakhir. Situasi ini dapat memberikan "angin segar" bagi akademia di Indonesia. Makalah ini ditulis untuk menggambarkan perkembangan konsep dan implementasi open science yang dapat diadopsi untuk meningkatkan dampak saintifik. Kami melakukan review terhadap beberapa makalah, laman lembaga pendana riset, blog open science, dan beberapa diskusi di Twitter. Output riset tidak terbatas pada makalah dalam jurnal bereputasi. Data juga dapat dinyatakan sebagai output terpisah, juga protokol pengelolaan data, serta catatan eksperimen laboratorium. Publikasi berbentuk preprints juga banyak dipilih sebagai alat untuk menyebarkan hasil baru secara luas dan cepat. Post publication peerreview juga telah digunakan dalam sistem review makalah agar lebih terbuka, transparan, dan obyektif. Sistem ini juga memberikan pengakuan kepada para reviewer. Kami juga melihat bertambahnya alternatif indikator sebagai hasil dari penyebaran San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Berbagai insiatif dan teknologi telah ditambahkan setiap hari untuk membuat ilmu lebih terbuka, transparan, dan inklusif untuk semua. Dengan semua perkembangan itu, maka tidaklah bijak bagi akademia Indonesia untuk bertahan dalam persepsi lama tentang output riset dan indikator dampaknya.