Levels of Organization in the Biological Sciences
\nDaniel S. Brooks, James DiFrisco, and William C. Wimsatt (eds)
\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2021, \u00a356.00
\nISBN 978-0262045339
There is a massive amount of philosophical content in this dense volume of fifteen new pieces plus introduction. The collection results from the Thirty-Sixth Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology, held in 2018 at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research.\u00a0 As the editors\u2014and organizers of the original conference\u2014indicate, their guiding motivation throughout was to promote new work and to offer an appraisal of work on the concept of levels, which they felt was under-analysed in the fields of theoretical biology and philosophy of biology. Multiple collaborative efforts among contributors were encouraged, including extensive discussion, revision, and cross-fertilization of one another's work.\u00a0 The result, according to the editors, is a 'coherent vector of ideas' that emerge from this book.
\nStill, the so-called vector is not pointed in an entirely clear direction. The pieces in this book are not organized into sections. Still, there are reverberating themes. Some of the essays\u2014sadly not grouped together\u2014aim at offering foundations (or, as the editors prefer, 'foundational considerations') for a theory of levels, others are sceptical, and still others aim at fitting a levels ontology into a broader ontology and philosophy of science.\u00a0 Ideally, the volume could have been organized to bring out these themes better, and the authors encouraged to signpost more clearly the directions to which they are contributing.
\nIt would be inappropriate to attempt in a very short space a summary of argumentations or engagement with all (or some of) the authors individually. Instead, I will content myself with providing a roadmap of the outlooks represented in this volume, with an eye to what is left out or looming in the larger philosophical conversations in which these fifteen pieces figure as new contributions.
\nAs one of the editor-authors of this volume points out, there is something 'schizophrenic' in taking very seriously the movements of macro-variables as if they enjoyed an independent reality\u2014which we all do as we encounter and manipulate them in real life and scientific laboratory settings, as well as implicitly in scientific writing\u2014while all the time propounding a doctrine (as was done quite seriously for decades in the second half of the twentieth century, but increasingly more warily) to the effect that these variables play no truly independent role as movers and shakers of the universe. But what exactly is the problem here? And what would it look like, philosophically, if we gave up the pretence of their non-independence? These are the fundamental questions with which the authors in this volume engage, with a particular focus on the biological sphere.
\nIn the 1970s, Herbert Simon ([1973]) presented a bewitching idea to guide engagement with this question. He asked: how does a highly complex world of diverse, self-organizing, and self-replicating things can come to exist? His answer, put roughly, is that it must be the result of 'platforms' or 'arenas' of relative stability in time.
\nSimon thought that certain important features of certain systems were left unaccounted for in analyses of the physical and chemical features of their building blocks\u2014in accounts of the component parts taken together with the specific and heterogeneous interactions among them. His idea derives from his concern with building systems. The idea is that to build a complex system (as nature does), one proceeds in stages, with the result that at the end of each stage, what is constructed must possess a stable structure (so as to 'hold still' while the next phase of operation is being launched). Without these intervals or layers of stability, Simon thought that complexity is unsustainable. This makes complex systems typically (a) modular, (b) inter-substitutive in their parts, (c) qualitatively similar with a change to their parts or their number, and (d) stable under re-aggregations of parts. Simon is thus reaching for the idea that a system under control has to be governed by high-order structures of stability that are relatively independent of the sorts of interactions (physiological, chemical, mechanical, or what-have-you) that govern their parts more locally. One would therefore have to create a higher-order discipline of these dynamical realities.1To be sure, Norbert Wiener ([1948]) had already advanced elements of such a discipline, but he had not done so specifically to solve the evolution of complex systems. A similar point may be made with regard to Howard Pattee's ([1969]) contributions to the idea of control hierarchy, on which Umerez builds in this volume.
\nSimon was an engineer and not a biologist. But his idea has captured the imagination of philosophers of biology because it lays out a metaphysical insight: A true System, with a capital S\u2014a category that comprehends all living things\u2014is something special indeed, and one subject to higher-order laws regarding control and stability relations among its constituents\u2014laws that are positively not specific to the materials composing it, and that in some regards appear to defy or anyway counter in the short term the edicts of the laws of thermodynamics. Collections of matter that do not hew to these Systems-general laws are collections that come apart in short order.2In numerous publications, I have referred to this idea as amounting to saying that a System is one in which the aggregation of the parts has undergone a reduction in degrees of freedom. Wilson ([2010]) uses similar language.
\nSimon's bewitching idea seems to suggest that there must have been not just one but a series of such moments of general stasis, and that these are organized in nested or hierarchically related levels of complexity. The authors of the chapters in this collection seek to make sense of the so-called levels of organization in the living world, and to articulate philosophically the principles underlying such an organization, in some cases as they are reflected in the organization of the scientific disciplines. The editors have, in their own words, sought to 'embrace the diversity of usages [of the idea of hierarchy or levels of organization] as aspects of the big picture of levels of organization' (p. 1). And if the diversity of scholarship in this volume is any indication, they appear to have succeeded in this ambition.
\nA second ambition stated in the introduction is 'to offer foundational considerations for conceptualizing a common context with which to understand the status of \"levels\" in philosophy and science'. And to the extent that illuminating diverse examples from the biological sciences can provide a 'common context', they have reached one of their goals. It remains to be seen whether this ambition flounders on the presumption that providing a common shared context is, as such, a win with respect to offering 'foundational considerations' on the subject of levels. Indeed, a systematic and organized discussion of the nature of such 'foundational considerations', and how they are to be aggregated and/or assessed, is nowhere to be found in this volume. Wimsatt's essay gives a catalogue of sorts, comprising a somewhat arbitrarily organized list of what would appear to be foundational considerations about the existence and nature of levels\u2014a valuable inventory, to be sure, partially ordered by biographical notes. But the discussion does not make philosophical progress over and above a laundry list. It does not even rise to the level of providing the sort of taxonomy that Aristotle might have approved, by way of taking first steps.
\nMoving deeper into the volume, and still with regard to foundational considerations, the enthusiasts for levels in this volume fall into roughly three camps: (1) those whose considerations around levels are methodological and practice-oriented (Wimsatt, Brooks), (2) those whose considerations are broadly logical in nature (Woodward, aspects of Batterman, Love, and Baedke), and (3) those whose considerations are drawn specifically from biological sciences (Griesemer, DiFrisco, Gillett, aspects of Love, Baedke, and Umerez). A separate tranche of authors belong in what may be called the 'levels sceptic' camp. In this camp are authors whose estimation of the prospects of a useful shared common understanding of levels is very low (Potochnik) or whose evaluation of the prospects of any successfully consistent concept is very low (Eronen).
\nReturning to the levels enthusiasts in this volume, there is an apparently shared presumption among them that the concept of levels, despite challenges posed by lack of clarity, non-univocality, and the absence of other virtues befitting a philosophical concept, is ultimately productive for illuminating a certain idea: that the complexities of the world deserve better than a reductionist dogma. But what the volume as a whole fails to take seriously is the idea that levels may not be the only way of doing justice to those complexities. One cannot get all one's wishes granted by one genie; still, this bottle could have contained some gesture at (or simply mere mention of) alternative ways of doing justice to the complexities of the world without an explicitly levels-oriented conception. There are such non-reductive alternatives on the market: (Thalos [2013]) and (Wilson [2010]) are just a couple of prominent examples. Both employ the ('foundational considerations'-relevant) idea of 'degrees of freedom'.3To be sure the notion of degree of freedom, and even reductions in degrees of freedom, appear in Umerez's chapter, but no connections are drawn to attempts by these authors to do justice to complexity without levels. There is a reference to (Thalos [2013]) in the references section, but no mention of the work appears in the body or footnotes of the article. Wilson ([2017]) has some choice words about progress in philosophy that may be applicable to this 'oversight'. Both offer rich foundations on which someone with instincts for declining levels might appeal to make sense of the complexities of living organisms, as well as the complexities of materials within a strictly physical science. (To be more specific, both speak of a core idea of reductions in overall degree of freedom as the key to understanding how macro-variables come themselves to number among the degrees of freedom in a complexly organized system.)
\nThe editors also claim to have achieved a sort of consensus on the question of downward causation, particularly evident in Woodward's contribution. They declare a common perspective among the levels enthusiasts, endorsing the Woodward account of the legitimacy of so-called downward causation when articulated in terms of interventionist independence. Woodward's chapter argues that this version of downward causation does not fall afoul of any good causal reasoning. And, in particular, it does not imply the forbidden doctrine of 'parts' acting causally upon wholes. Of course, one may object in a variety of different ways to Woodward's account of interventionist causation, or to the idea that what is forbidden about downward causation is that it entertains positively the idea that parts may act on the wholes of which they are part. The population of scholars with one or both of these two reservations is surely quite vast. So it is not clear just how much of a win this is. It might perhaps have been more prudent for the editors not to have declared so soon a victory in this regard.
\nThese points aside, the collection makes for a fresh engagement with the questions around reduction and emergence, with special focus\u2014as one should most certainly exist\u2014on biological systems.
\nMariam Thalos
\nUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville
\nm.thalos@gmail.com
\n
Notes
\n1 To be sure, Norbert Wiener ([1948]) had already advanced elements of such a discipline, but he had not done so specifically to solve the evolution of complex systems. A similar point may be made with regard to Howard Pattee's 1960's contributions to the idea of control hierarchy, on which Umerez builds in this volume.
\n2 In numerous publications, I have referred to this idea as amounting to saying that a System is one in which the aggregation of the parts has undergone a reduction in degrees of freedom. Wilson ([2010]) uses similar language.
\n3 To be sure the notion of degree of freedom, and even reductions in degrees of freedom, appear in Umerez's chapter, but no connections are drawn to attempts by these authors to do justice to complexity without levels. There is a reference to (Thalos [2013]) in the references section, but no mention of the work appears in the body or footnotes of the article. Wilson ([2017]) has some choice words about progress in philosophy that may be applicable to this 'oversight'.
\nReferences
\nPattee, H. [1969]: 'Physical Conditions for Primitive Functional Hierarchies', in L. L. Whyte, A. G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds), Hierarchical Structures, New York: Elsevier, pp. 161\u201377.
\nSimon, H. [1973]: 'The Organization of Complex Systems', in H. Pattee (ed.), Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems, New York: Braziller, pp. 1\u201327.
\nThalos, M. [2013]: Without Hierarchy: The Scale Freedom of the Universe, New York: Oxford University Press.
\nWiener, N. [1948]: Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Paris: Hermann.
\nWilson, J. [2010]: 'Nonreductive Physicalism and Degrees of Freedom', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, pp. 279\u2013311.
\nWilson, J. [2017]: 'Three Barriers to Progress in Philosophy', in R. Blackford and D. Broderick (eds), Philosophy's Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 91\u2013104.
\nCite as
\nThalos, M. [2022]: 'Brooks et al.’s Levels of Organization in the Biological Sciences', BJPS Review of Books,\u00a02022
\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Thumbnail-Wilson-on-Brading-and-Stan.png?resize=398%2C280&ssl=1\")
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Thumbnail-Wilson-on-Brading-and-Stan.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-18 07:00:442025-03-25 15:49:13Katherine Brading and Marius Stan, Philosophical Mechanics in the Age of Reason // Reviewed by Mark Wilson![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thumbnail-Planer-and-Tennie-on-Enquist-et-al.png?resize=398%2C280&ssl=1\")
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thumbnail-Planer-and-Tennie-on-Enquist-et-al.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-11 07:00:272025-03-25 15:49:51Enquist, Ghirlanda & Lind, The Human Evolutionary Transition // Reviewed by Ronald Planer & Claudio Tennie![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thumbnail-Brown-on-Anderson-and-Mitchel.png?resize=398%2C280&ssl=1\")
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thumbnail-Brown-on-Anderson-and-Mitchel.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-04 07:00:382025-03-04 20:38:47Andersen and Mitchell, The Pragmatist Challenge // Reviewed by Matthew J BrownEin halbes Jahr vor der Europawahl veranstaltet die Heinrich-B\u00f6ll-Stiftung eine Konferenz zur Frage der europ\u00e4ischen \u00d6ffentlichkeit:
\n\u00d6ffentlichkeit f\u00fcr Europa! Medienwandel, Pressefreiheit und Medienpolitik
\nFreitag, 30. November 2018 \u2013 Samstag, 01. Dezember 2018 in Potsdam
\nProgramm (PDF) | Anmeldung
Dabei sind u.a. Florian Eder, Chefredakteur politico Europa, Roger de Weck, Generaldirektor a.D. SRG SSR, Tabea R\u00f6\u00dfner MdB B\u00fcndnis 90/Die Gr\u00fcnen, Christian Mihr, Reporter ohne Grenzen, Barbara Thoma\u00df, Ruhr-Universit\u00e4t Bochum, Susanne Pfab, ARD-Generalsekret\u00e4rin, Markus Nievelstein, Gesch\u00e4ftsf\u00fchrer ARTE Deutschland, und Harald Schumann, investigate-europe.eu.
\nIch werde am Samstag um 14 Uhr \u00fcber die Frage “Was tun f\u00fcr eine europ\u00e4ische nicht-kommerzielle Plattform?” diskutieren mit Corinna Milborn, Info-Chefin von Puls 4, dem \u00f6sterreichischen Privatfernsehsender von ProSiebenSat.1, und Koautorin von “Change the Game. Wie wir uns das Netz von Facebook und Google zur\u00fcckerobern”.
\nCorinna Milborn war krank. Es war eine spannende Diskussion. Leider nicht aufgezeichnet. Videoaufzeichnungen gibt es von:
\nBillet r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par \u270f\ufe0f Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Flamerie, \u270f\ufe0f\nRapha\u00ebl Grolimund et \u270f\ufe0fVincent Carlino
\nLa r\u00e9daction a sollicit\u00e9 pour ce billet un r\u00e9dacteur invit\u00e9,
\nCe billet est l'occasion d'inaugurer deux nouvelles extensions du blog,\nune
Apr\u00e8s Zotero et LaTeX l'an dernier, pourquoi nous int\u00e9ressons-nous \u00e0\nZotero et Markdown cette ann\u00e9e?
\nTout d'abord, Markdown est de plus en plus utilis\u00e9 non seulement pour\ndocumenter du code mais pour d'autres usages : il s'agit ainsi de\nproposer \u00e0 ceux qui l'utilisent pour r\u00e9diger au sens large des pistes\npour assurer la partie bibliographique de l'\u00e9criture avec Zotero.
\nCe billet vise ensuite \u00e0 fournir une alternative \u00e0 ceux qui utilisent\nZotero mais pas LaTeX et qui souhaiteraient abandonner Word.
Nous avons \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en introduction l'abandon de Word. Plusieurs\nraisons peuvent motiver cet abandon, qu'elles soient d'ordre pragmatique\n(il suffit d'avoir r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un document de plusieurs centaines de pages\navec Word pour les percevoir imm\u00e9diatement) ou d'ordre \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique.\nNous vous invitons vivement s'agissant de ce dernier point \u00e0 lire le\nbillet de Julien Dehut au titre \u00e9vocateur, En finir avec Word\u202f! Pour\nune analyse des enjeux relatifs aux traitements de texte et \u00e0 leur\nutilisation\u00a01.
\nAjoutons quelques brefs \u00e9l\u00e9ments de pr\u00e9sentation du rem\u00e8de que nous\nvous proposons.
\nMarkdown d\u00e9signe la syntaxe l\u00e9g\u00e8re pour mettre en forme des documents\nsur le web et le logiciel qui convertit les documents\nmarkdown vers le format qu'on souhaite (historiquement HTML, mais\nbeaucoup de formats se sont ajout\u00e9s \u00e0 la liste, notamment avec Pandoc,\nvoir infra).
\nMarkdown se caract\u00e9rise ainsi par une syntaxe minimaliste, dont vous\ntrouverez les principaux \u00e9l\u00e9ments sur le site CommonMark\u00a0
La simplicit\u00e9 est donc l'un des atouts de Markdown. Citons \u00e9galement\nla versatilit\u00e9, et, pendant de la simplicit\u00e9, la diminution des\ndistractions. Ces atouts sont d\u00e9taill\u00e9s pour le contexte acad\u00e9mique\ndans\u00a0 une pr\u00e9sentation de J. Zimmerman\u00a06.
\nVoyons maintenant concr\u00e8tement comment combiner l'\u00e9criture \u00e0 la ligne\nde commande permise par Markdown et l'usage de Zotero, le tout sans\nrecourir \u00e0 Word, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence d'autres m\u00e9thodes tr\u00e8s d\u00e9taill\u00e9es, mais\naboutissant \u00e0 un fichier Word\u00a07.
\nLes m\u00e9thodes que nous allons vous pr\u00e9senter dans cette partie\ndiff\u00e8rent finalement uniquement du point de vue de l'utilisateur. La\nm\u00e9thode 1 revient en effet \u00e0 proposer un environnement int\u00e9grant tous\nles composants de la m\u00e9thode 2 sans qu'il soit n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0\nl'utilisateur de les d\u00e9composer et de les installer.
\nNous pr\u00e9sentons cette m\u00e9thode en premier lieu, car elle peut\npermettre une transition en douceur de Word vers Markdown, sans\nn\u00e9cessiter l'installation d'applications sp\u00e9cifiques.
\nLa liste des auteurs \u00e9tant de plus en plus longue dans les\npublications scientifiques\u00a08,\nla r\u00e9daction collaborative est de plus en plus courante. Des plateformes\nfacilitant ce travail ont donc naturellement fait leur apparition,\nOverLeaf et Authorea en t\u00eate.
\nOverLeaf \u00e9tant orient\u00e9 LaTeX, il ne nous int\u00e9resse pas dans le cadre\nde ce billet. Authorea, par\ncontre, permet de r\u00e9diger en Markdown (entre autre). Voyons donc comment\ns'y prendre.
\nL'interface d'Authorea est tr\u00e8s \u00e9pur\u00e9e et la r\u00e9daction est assez\ntransparente.
\nL'insertion des citations, elle, est bas\u00e9 sur les m\u00e9canismes de\nLaTeX. L'utilisateur n'a toutefois pas \u00e0 comprendre comment LaTeX\nfonctionne. L'export peut ensuite se faire au format Word, LaTeX ou\nPDF.
\nL'avantage d'Authorea est qu'un utilisateur de Word s'y retrouvera\nfacilement dans l'interface WYSIWYG et qu'un utilisateur LaTeX pourra\nr\u00e9diger en LaTeX. Il faut toutefois admettre que les LaTeX power\nusers seront frustr\u00e9s par les limites qu'Authorea impose.
\nAuthorea est l'outil le plus logique pour une transition en douceur\nde Word vers LaTeX, en passant par Markdown. \u00c0 moins de rester \u00e0\nMarkdown et de ne jamais passer \u00e0 LaTeX\u2026
\n1. Pour ajouter une citation dans Authorea, il faut cliquer sur le\nbouton cite.
\n2. Pour ajouter une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence depuis Zotero, cliquez sur Add\ncitations from reference managers.
\n3. Ajoutez la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence d'un glisser-d\u00e9poser depuis Zotero\n(attention! BibTeX ou BibLaTeX doit \u00eatre param\u00e9tr\u00e9\ncomme export par d\u00e9faut dans les pr\u00e9f\u00e9rences de Zotero)
\n4. Si le format vous convient, validez en cliquant sur le bouton\nCite and Close.
\n5. La citation, ainsi que la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence en fin de document, sont\najout\u00e9es.
\nComme Authorea fait tout cela sans que l'utilisateur s'en rende\ncompte, arr\u00eatons-nous un instant sur le principe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de citation des\nsources dans un document Markdown. Cela nous permettra de vous pr\u00e9senter\nensuite les diff\u00e9rentes d\u00e9clinaisons de la deuxi\u00e8me m\u00e9thode, les\ndiff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res d'accommoder concr\u00e8tement les grands principes.
\nLorsqu'on veut citer ses sources dans un fichier Markdown, le\nprincipe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral est le suivant:
\nAvant d'aller plus loin, il convient de pr\u00e9senter
Dans la suite de ce billet, on utilise plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment
Maintenant que nous avons vu les grands principes de fonctionnement\nd'une m\u00e9thode \"brute\", voyons comment sophistiquer un peu tout cela, en\nalimentant le fichier BibTex automatiquement \u00e0 partir de Zotero et en\nutilisant un plugin pour ins\u00e9rer les citations (plut\u00f4t que de saisir \u00e0\nla main les cl\u00e9s BibTeX).
\nOutre Pandoc, un autre outil est en effet commun \u00e0 ces 2 cha\u00eenes,
Nous allons ainsi pr\u00e9senter 2 \"cha\u00eenes de production\" test\u00e9es et\nutilis\u00e9es par les r\u00e9dacteurs. Il en existe d'autres, combinant d'autres\noutils, n'h\u00e9sitez pas \u00e0 nous signaler en commentaires celles et ceux que\nvous utilisez avec succ\u00e8s.
\nCette cha\u00eene peut \u00eatre adopt\u00e9e quel que soit votre syt\u00e8me\nd'exploitation, et requiert peu de configuration.
\nEtape 1/6
\nCr\u00e9ez un r\u00e9pertoire d\u00e9di\u00e9 dans lequel vous enregistrerez les fichiers\nn\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la production/compilation de votre document, i. e.:
Vous pouvez t\u00e9l\u00e9charger ces fichiers d'exemple \u00e0 partir de notre\nentrep\u00f4t Github:
Etape 2/6
\nPour cr\u00e9er automatiquement votre fichier
\nVous avez ainsi d'un seul coup cr\u00e9\u00e9 votre fichier BibTeX et l'export\nautomatique.
Etape 3/6
\nParam\u00e9trez autocomplete-bibtex pour qu'il aille bien chercher les\npropositions de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence de son menu d'auto-compl\u00e9tion dans votre\nfichier biblio_article.bib.
Etape 4/6
\nAu d\u00e9but de votre fichier
---\ntitle: Titre d'un article\nauthor: Blog Zotero francophone\ndate: 20 janvier 2018\nlang: fr\n---\u00c0 cette \u00e9tape, vous pouvez int\u00e9grer bien d'autres param\u00e8tres pour la\nmise en forme de votre PDF (ajouter la num\u00e9rotation des titres par\nexemple), d\u00e9taill\u00e9s par Jonathan en une page tr\u00e8s claire et\nd\u00e9taill\u00e9e\u00a012.
\nEtape 5/6
\n\u00c9crivez votre article, tapez@ puis\nle d\u00e9but d'un nom d'auteur pour appeler la fen\u00eatre d'insertion de\ncitation et les propositions de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence d'autocomplete-bibtex.
Votre bibliographie sera ins\u00e9r\u00e9e automatiquement \u00e0 la fin de votre\ndocument; n'oubliez pas d'ins\u00e9rer un intertitre \"Bibliographie\" si\napplicable.
\nEtape 6/6
\nCompilez votre document avec Pandoc, en utilisant la commande suivante\npour produire un PDF. Nous fournissons les commandes pour les versions 1\net 2 de Pandoc, mais n'avons pu tester que celle de la version 1.
pandoc v2:
\npandoc article.md --pdf-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc --bibliography=biblio_article.bib --csl=ieee.csl -f markdown+smart -o article.pdfpandoc v1:
\npandoc article.md --latex-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc --bibliography=biblio_article.bib --csl=ieee.csl -S -o article.pdfo\u00f9 vous remplacez:
\narticle.md par le nom du\nfichier Markdown \u00e0 convertir,biblio_article.bib par le nom\nde votre fichier bibtex,ieee.csl par le nom du fichier\nCSL \u00e0 appliquer,article.pdf par le nom du\nfichier PDF \u00e0 produire.En revanche, veillez \u00e0 ne pas supprimer -S. Enfin, la\ncommande -o indique \u00e0 Pandoc de\nproduire le r\u00e9sultat de la commande sous la forme du fichier\nindiqu\u00e9.
Il est \u00e0 noter que les param\u00e8tres
Bloc de m\u00e9tadonn\u00e9es:
\n---\ntitle: Titre d'un article\nauthor: Blog Zotero Francophone\ndate: 20 janvier 2018\nlang: fr\ncsl: ieee.csl\nbibliography: biblio_article.bib\n---Commande Pandoc version 1:
\npandoc article.md --latex-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc -S -o article.pdfSur Mac, l'utilitaire Zotpick facilite la s\u00e9lection des entr\u00e9es\nbibliographiques \u00e0 citer. Cet AppleScript rend le processus\nind\u00e9pendant de votre \u00e9diteur de texte. Concr\u00e8tement, cela signifie que\nvous pouvez appeler vos r\u00e9f\u00e9rences depuis votre logiciel pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9, qu'il\ns'agisse d'un \u00e9diteur Markdown, un navigateur web, TextEdit, et m\u00eame\nWord\u2026
\n[]Zotpick ouvre une bo\u00eete de dialogue sous la forme d'une barre de\nrecherche. Tapez les premi\u00e8res lettres d'un auteur ou d'un titre et les\ndocuments correspondants s'affichent en temps r\u00e9el. Une fois le document\nrep\u00e9r\u00e9, il suffit de le s\u00e9lectionner avec la souris ou les fl\u00e8ches\ndirectionnelles du clavier puis appuyer sur Entr\u00e9e. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n'est\npas encore ins\u00e9r\u00e9e dans le texte. Vous pouvez d'ailleurs en s\u00e9lectionner\nd'autres pour citer plusieurs auteurs ou documents \u00e0 la suite. Un clic\nsur les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences permet de pr\u00e9ciser si besoin un num\u00e9ro de page et\nd'ajouter pr\u00e9fixe et suffixe.
\nUne fois les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pr\u00eates \u00e0 \u00eatre cit\u00e9es, appuyez sur Entr\u00e9e pour\nles ins\u00e9rer dans votre texte au format Markdown. Avec notre exemple cela\ndonne :
\n[@chateauraynaud2011, p. 135; voir aussi @chateauraynaud2017 chap. 4]Pas besoin de se soucier du r\u00e9sultat final, Pandoc se chargera tout\nseul de transformer ce code en quelque chose de plus propre comme :\n(Chateauraynaud, 2011, p. 135 ; voir aussi 2017, chap. 4) en fonction de\nla norme bibliographique avec laquelle vous travaillez.
\nD\u00e8s que le texte est pr\u00eat \u00e0 \u00eatre export\u00e9, il faut le passer dans\nPandoc. Avant cela, prenez le temps d'ajouter un titre tel que
Lorsque le document Markdown est enregistr\u00e9, pr\u00e9parez le fichier\n.bib contenant vos r\u00e9f\u00e9rences\nbibliographiques ainsi que le fichier
pandoc article.md --bibliography biblio.bib --csl chicago.csl -S -o article.pdf Notez que Pandoc produit un fichier de sortie (
Si les 2 m\u00e9thodes que nous venons de vous pr\u00e9senter couvrent une\n\u00e9criture acad\u00e9mique classique, nous n'avons pour autant pas \u00e9puis\u00e9 tous\nles contextes d'\u00e9criture comportant une part de r\u00e9daction\nbibliographique. Nous poursuivons ainsi ce billet avec un autre usage\nscientifique appel\u00e9 \u00e0 se d\u00e9velopper, celui de la documentation des\ndonn\u00e9es et processus de recherche.
\nDe plus en plus utilis\u00e9 pour l'analyse de donn\u00e9es, les
De ce fait, m\u00eame si un Jupyter notebook n'est pas destin\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9diger\nun article scientifique, il peut n\u00e9anmoins servir de document de\ntravail, incluant la citation des m\u00e9thodes ou \u00e9tudes sur lesquelles se\nbasent l'analyse des donn\u00e9es.
\nPour en savoir plus sur Jupyter, la documentation officielle (en\nanglais) est un bon d\u00e9but:
Nous ne pouvions pas effectuer ce tour d'horizon en nous cantonnant\naux usages strictement acad\u00e9miques d\u00e9crits jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent. Dans\ncertains contextes, il peut en effet \u00eatre n\u00e9cessaire d'ins\u00e9rer des\nr\u00e9f\u00e9rences bibliographiques correctement mises en forme, sans qu'il soit\npour autant n\u00e9cessaire (voire souhaitable) de recourir au syst\u00e8me\nd'appels de citation et de bibliographie finale.
\nLe syst\u00e8me des appels de citation et de la bibliographie finale\ndemeure finalement un outil de navigation textuelle pour le lecteur.\nLorsque ce dernier rencontre un appel de citation au fil de sa lecture,\nil peut se r\u00e9f\u00e9rer \u00e0 la bibliographie pour voir les d\u00e9tails de la source\ncit\u00e9e, puis revenir \u00e0 l'emplacement o\u00f9 il avait interrompu sa lecture\npour en reprendre le fil. Ce syst\u00e8me suppose donc qu'un tel retour soit\npossible, que le texte dispose d'un syst\u00e8me de rep\u00e8res tel qu'un num\u00e9ro\nde page permettant au lecteur de reprendre ais\u00e9ment le fil de sa\nlecture.
\nOr dans certains contextes un tel retour se r\u00e9v\u00e8le compliqu\u00e9, voire\nimpossible.
\nLe premier contexte auquel on peut penser est celui d'une\npr\u00e9sentation produite sous forme de diapositives pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es\nsuccessivement au public par l'orateur. Le public se voit projet\u00e9 le\ncontenu par fragment, et ne peut naviguer au sein du texte. Il convient\npar cons\u00e9quent que le contenu de chaque diapositive soit un minimum\nintelligible en soi. Ainsi si une source est cit\u00e9e, un appel de citation\nsera insuffisant, car le public ne pourra pas de lui-m\u00eame et\nimm\u00e9diatement se reporter \u00e0 la bibliographie finale pour consulter la\nr\u00e9f\u00e9rence compl\u00e8te. Dans l'exemple suivant, il est ainsi difficile\nd'identifier le document cit\u00e9. Ins\u00e9rer une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence bibliographique\ncompl\u00e8te permettrait en revanche au public d'identifier imm\u00e9diatement la\nsource. Cette pratique n'emp\u00eacherait pas par ailleurs d'int\u00e9grer une\nbibliographie r\u00e9capitulative \u00e0 la fin du diaporama, ou en annexe au\ndiaporama.
\nLe deuxi\u00e8me contexte que l'on peut \u00e9voquer est celui d'un texte\npubli\u00e9 en HTML. \u00c0 moins que la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence bibliographique compl\u00e8te ne\nsoit fournie sous la forme d'un affichage marginal ou d'infobulle, le\nretour de la bibliographie \u00e0 l'appel de citation o\u00f9 l'on a interrompu sa\nlecture impose de recourir \u00e0 un ascenseur, sans savoir \u00e0 quel \u00e9tage\ns'arr\u00eater. L\u00e0 encore, le syst\u00e8me des appels de citation et de la\nbibliographie finale se r\u00e9v\u00e8le peu ergonomique.
\nFinalement, il y a la bibliographie de cours regroupant l'ensemble\ndes lectures recommand\u00e9es aux \u00e9tudiants par l'enseignant. Distribu\u00e9e en\nd\u00e9but de semestre, cette liste autonome ne fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 aucun\ndocument ou partie du cours. Aucun appel de citation n'est donc\nutilis\u00e9.
\nAvant de pr\u00e9senter la solution retenue pour la r\u00e9daction\nbibliographique dans ces contextes, ajoutons deux autres facteurs qui\nont motiv\u00e9 le choix de cette solution.
\nD'une part, BibTeX se r\u00e9v\u00e8le relativement pauvre lorsqu'on souhaite\nciter des types de document plus vari\u00e9s que les standards (article,\nlivre, etc.). Or, dans un contexte professionnel ou d'enseignement, on\npeut \u00eatre amen\u00e9 \u00e0 citer \u00e0 des pages web, des enregistrements vid\u00e9os ou\nencore des pr\u00e9sentations, qui peuvent \u00eatre r\u00e9f\u00e9renc\u00e9s tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment\ndans Zotero.
\nD'autre part, dans un souci d'\u00e9conomie de moyens, on peut aussi\npr\u00e9f\u00e9rer \u00e9viter le d\u00e9tour par un fichier BibTeX et la compilation Pandoc\npour des documents brefs ou cr\u00e9\u00e9s en utilisant des logiciels qui\nincluent une compilation PDF.
\nLa solution que nous utilisons pour tous ces contextes repose ainsi\nsur trois \u00e9l\u00e9ments simples:
\nUn style de ce type peut \u00eatre tr\u00e8s rapidement cr\u00e9\u00e9, pour peu qu'on\nchoisisse de partir d'un style comportant peu de mise en forme\ntypographique. Ainsi si on choisit un style pr\u00e9voyant seulement de\nl'italique pour quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments, il suffira de remplacer dans le code\nCSL les attributs
Nous vous proposons pour d\u00e9couvrir cette m\u00e9thode des styles \"hack\u00e9s\nmd\", les styles ISO 690.
\n
\n
\n
\n
Cette solution n'est certes pas enti\u00e8rement orthodoxe, elle fournit\ntoutefois une option tr\u00e8s \u00e9conomique pour citer correctement et en\ntoutes circonstances les sources utilis\u00e9es dans un fichier Markdown.
\nNous souhaitons conclure ce billet en partageant avec vous les outils\nque nous avons test\u00e9s et adopt\u00e9s.
\nPour cr\u00e9er des pr\u00e9sentations, j'utilise souvent
J'ai r\u00e9cemment commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser
Pour les bibliographies de cours, j'utilise simplement un \u00e9diteur de\ntexte (Atom au travail et
Pour cr\u00e9er des pr\u00e9sentations sous forme de diaporama, j'utilise
Sur le conseil de Rapha\u00ebl, j'ai adopt\u00e9
Pour citer avec ces deux outils j'ai cr\u00e9\u00e9 un
Enfin, de fa\u00e7on beaucoup plus ponctuelle, j'ai recours au
Je r\u00e9dige tous mes textes Markdown dans Ulysses, \u00e9diteur de texte\nfonctionnant sous macOS. Son interface minimaliste et personnalisable en\nfait un \u00e9diteur de choix pour r\u00e9diger des articles pour des revues\nscientifiques et/ou pour le web. Pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans cet article, Zotpick est\ndevenu un incontournable pour moi. Il est tout aussi important que mon\n\u00e9diteur de texte, sinon plus.
\nTout comme Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique, il m'arrive d'utiliser Marp pour mes\npr\u00e9sentations.
\nToutes les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences cit\u00e9es dans cet article sont disponibles
Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon kicked off a good idea to list a few articles he was keen to read and tell us why.
Based on 'open tabs' in their browser, approximately every month one person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the 'must-read' posts of the moment.
Each author concludes by tagging the next; to next take up the mantle, Cameron nominated Aaron Tay, Analytics Manager at Singapore Management University Libraries, and somewhat of an industry analyst on his personal blog, Musings About Librarianship.
Here's what Aaron is excited about reading...
I tend to find interesting articles via Twitter or from following references of such articles. For articles that look potentially interesting I will usually put the link in my Google Keep and tag them with \"Professional Development\", which I try to clear every week.
I've been skimming some of these tagged links recently and these are some that I have found really intriguing and have found earned a place in my browser tabs because I can't bear to close them or I am still thinking about the implications of what I read.
https://metadatagamechangers.com/blog/2022/3/7/ivfrlw6naf7am3bvord8pldtuyqn4r
I have been slowly working my way through Ted Habermann's blog posts which often cover parts of his published research that I am excited to read, but this one blog is the one that really made me sit up and take notice.
Habermann shows that most data repositories are minting dois with a minimal set of metadata deposited in Datacite needed to get Datacite DOIs. The fact that there isn't much metadata here is perhaps only somewhat surprising, as I know many repository managers are of the view that making too many fields mandatory will turn off users from depositing.
More astonishing to me is his finding that institutional repositories do indeed have substantial additional metadata entered by the researcher when depositing or enhanced by other means but these metadata simply do not make the climb up what he calls the \"Metadata Mountain\" into DataCite as they fall by the wayside.
Using DRUM Repository at the University of Minnesota as an example, he identified many metadata fields that had data collected by the repository but were not included or translated into the DataCite Schema. These included fields such as abstract, keywords, Funder, etc.
Of course, all these fields affect FAIR (Findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability) of the datasets. By working to extract such data from the records and updating the Datacite metadata he managed to increase the completeness of these fields from 15% to 32%.
There's a lot more to his work, eg his approach to quantifying and visualizing FAIRness by mapping Datacite fields into 4 categories into a Radar Chart , and I intend to follow up on Ted's recent papers but I'm struck by the practical implications here for repository managers for institutions. Why are we collecting metadata but not exposing it properly?
This is particularly so when the blog post suggests this issue isn't present as much in subject repositories such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse.
On reflection, this issue of repositories capturing data and making it appear only in human-readable format or at least formats that are not harvested by relevant machines is not a new problem.
I have encountered similar issues in the past with our own repository. In one past incident, the repository manager had painstakingly added version information to each deposited paper to the repository but despite that it was not picked up by the Unpaywall crawler. Another related incident involved trying to figure out why data citations from datasets in our data repository were not appearing via Scholix despite us supposedly providing the information when creating the metadata at the time of the deposit.
Perhaps we have a tendency to assume if we as humans can see the metadata in the repository in human displays we assume our job is done.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.779097
More metadata fun! This time a study on ORCID. I was recently asked about Singapore efforts on PID strategy. While I know very little about that, it did set me thinking. What was the ORCID penetration rate in Singapore and in my institution? How did we compare to others?
This is where this paper is timely. To determine ORCID use by authors, one needs a benchmark or gold standard to compare against and this is where Dimensions comes in.
I intend to look closer at the methodology, but the essential point here is that this study measures ORCID use in two dimensions.
Firstly there is what is called ORCID adoption defined as
\"the percentage of researchers in a given year who have at least one publication with a DOI linked to their ORCID iD either in ORCID directly or identified within the Crossref file\"
However, a researcher might create a ORCID because he is required to do so when submitting to journals or doing fund proposal by funder and otherwise ignore the ORCID profile. As such the study measures also completeness of the ORCID profile which they argue measures adoption.
The paper is particularly interesting since they provide evidence on adoption and engagement using these metrics across
The author of the page even indulged me when I asked for a breakdown of Singapore institutions!
All in all the paper has a lot of interesting findings and implications that are worth looking at. Some are even on the surface surprising. For example they find Humanities research tends to have lower adoption but higher engagement than say Medical and Health Sciences.
Part of this can be explained by the finding that while most publishers do accept ORCIDs, many are still accepting only ORCID for just one author. As Humanities research tends to have fewer authors per paper than medical research, this partly explains why on average humanities researchers with ORCID profiles tend to be more complete.
I've been reading about and playing with language models like GPT-3 for the last 2 years. More recently tools like Elicit.org are starting to employ language models for academic research and have set out their roadmaps here in Elicit: Language Models as Research Assistants.
The results for Elict.org are quite impressive given it is a very early stage tool but what pitfalls are there? Are we too eager to employ such technologies? Can they really be used to support systematic reviews etc? \u00a0I know one of the problems of language models is that it can make up answers or \"hallucinate\" but is that the only issue? See also - How to use Elicit responsibly.
I know there is a fairly recent technical paper - On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? that heavily critiques language models and provides a overview of risks of using language models, that is making the rounds, but I haven't had the time to look at it, and I fear it may be overly technical for me.
This is where I came across the piece entitled \"On NYT Magazine on AI: Resist the Urge to be Impressed\". Given this post is by Emily Bender who is one of the co-authors of the Stochastic Parrot piece , I suspect this will provide the viewpoint from an expert who is very skeptical and critical of language models.
This medium post itself is a response to the NYT piece \"A.I. Is Mastering Language. Should We Trust What It Says?\" which is worth a read.
I'm going to cheat by ending with yet another reference to Ted Habermann, this is a talk he gave recently that covers a good portion of his recent work.
It's a fascinating talk with many ideas including
Tune in next month to find out some more must-read 'open tabs'. I'm tagging Bianca Kramer (scholarly communication/open science librarian at Utrecht University Library,) someone who has been a force in Scholarly Communication and Open Science circles and an academic librarian who I highly respect.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.54900/bgw9vk8-8ed9wqn","guid":"https://doi.org/10.54900/bgw9vk8-8ed9wqn","image":"https://upstream.force11.org/content/images/2022/08/library-janko-ferlic.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1651708800,"rid":"em4tr-jvg84","summary":" Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon kicked off a good idea to list a few articles he was keen to read and tell us why. Based on 'open tabs' in their browser, approximately every month one person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the 'must-read' posts of the moment. Each author concludes by tagging the next; ","tags":["Open Tabs"],"title":"Aaron Tay is Keeping Tabs on Open Research","updated_at":1788407554,"url":"https://upstream.force11.org/aaron-tay-is-keeping-tabs-on-open-research/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Swiss National Science Foundation, Coordination of information systems in research support (CoSi)"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Gutknecht","given":"Christian","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7265-1692"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"2010c4da-31b7-4cd7-97cf-c75892ae6902","created":1673827200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Gemeinschaftsblog zu wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation im Netz.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/wisspub","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/2010c4da-31b7-4cd7-97cf-c75892ae6902/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://wisspub.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://wisspub.net","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"wisspub","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"wisspub.net","updated":1783172430,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"wisspub.net","blog_slug":"wisspub","content_html":"Wie wird sich ein globaler Wechsel zu Gold OA basierend auf Article Processing Charges (APCs) finanziell auf forschungsintensive Universit\u00e4ten auswirken?\u00a0 Die mit einem 800’000$-Grant der Mellon-Foundation unterst\u00fctzte Studie “Pay it Foward” (185 Seiten) ging dieser Frage an den Beispielen der grossen nordamerikanischen Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State nach.
\nF\u00fcr die einzelnen Universit\u00e4ten wurden zun\u00e4chst aus Scopus und Web of Science Daten \u00fcber das Publikationsverhalten der Universit\u00e4ten ermittelt. Im Fokus standen Zeitschriftenartikel (inkl. Reviews) und Konferenzbeitr\u00e4ge von 2009-2013. Mit spezieller Unterst\u00fctzung durch Elsevier und Thomson Reuters wurde die institutionelle Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit von AutorInnen und Corresponding-Authors identifiziert. Je nach Messmethode (Umgang mit Corresponding Authors, die mehrere Affiliations haben) und Datenbank wurde eine Corresponding-Author-Quote zwischen 45-61 Prozent ermittelt. Dieser Anteil deckt sich mit den Erfahrungen der Max Planck Digital Library. In einem weiteren Schritt wurden die Daten von Scopus mit denen von Web of Science zusammengef\u00fchrt.
\n\n\u00dcbrigens: Den Rohdaten von Web of Science (WoS_aggregate.csv) ist zu entnehmen, dass 7.5% (26’355 von 354’556) Dokumente in WoS als Gold Open Access gekennzeichnet wurden.
\nAufgrund einer “in-scope Titel Liste” (ohne Aggregatoren oder Backfile-Eink\u00e4ufe) wurde bei den Bibliotheken die Subskriptionsausgaben (nach Rechnungsjahren) gesammelt. Die Zahlen zeigten, dass inzwischen weit \u00fcber 90% der betrachteten Ausgaben nur f\u00fcr e-only aufgewendet werden. Bei der University of British Columbia im Jahre 2013 bereits 97%. F\u00fcr den weiteren Studienverlauf wurde deshalb auf eine Unterscheidung von Print und Elektronisch verzichtet. Zus\u00e4tzlich wurden die Ausgaben f\u00fcr Open Access in Form von Verlags-Mitgliedschaften oder APC-Zahlungen erfasst. Insgesamt wurde im Jahr 2013 von allen Hochschulbibliotheken gut 50 Millionen Dollar f\u00fcr Subskriptionen bezahlt, f\u00fcr Gold OA jedoch bloss $365’000!
\n\nUm herauszufinden welche Kosten auf die Universit\u00e4ten zuk\u00e4men, wenn k\u00fcnftig die Publikationen \u00fcberwiegend per APCs bezahlt werden m\u00fcssten, wollte man von m\u00f6glichst realistischen APCs ausgehen. Es wurde versucht sich dem “richtigen” Preis von verschiedenen Seiten zu n\u00e4hern.
\na) tats\u00e4chlich bezahlte APCs (Open Data)
\n
Die Daten der ver\u00f6ffentlichten Zahlungen des RCUK, Wellcome Trust, von Deutschen Universit\u00e4ten (Siehe auch neue Analyse Jahn & Tullney 2016) sowie des FWF wurden herangezogen und auf die projekteigene Disziplinenliste aufgeschl\u00fcsselt.
\n![\"APC-Payment](\"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/apc-payment-european-payments.jpg?w=416&h=477\")
Hier ergab sich eine durchschnittliche APC von $1865.
\nb) Preisangaben der Verlage/Journals.
\nDurch die Studien Solomon und Bj\u00f6rk (2012) und Morrison et al. (2015) standen bereits nutzbare Daten zur Verf\u00fcgung, was Verlage/Journals auf ihren Webseiten f\u00fcr Preise angaben. F\u00fcr die weitere Auswertung wurden die Daten von Morrison et al. durch das Studienteam zu Beginn 2016 auf den neusten Stand gebracht und auf die aus WoS/Scopus extrahierten Publikationen bzw. die eigenen Disziplinen gemappt:![\"apcs_pricing\"](\"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/apcs_pricing.jpg?w=461&h=445\")
Hier ergab sich eine durchschnittliche APC von $1864 auf Journal-Level, bzw. $1892 auf Artikelebene. Wie auch schon bei der Analyse der europ\u00e4ischen APCs erweist sich eine disziplinspezifische Betrachtung aufgrund ungleicher Verteilung (kaum Daten bei den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften oder der \u00d6konomie) als wenig aussagekr\u00e4ftig. Eine ausf\u00fchrliche Analyse zu diesen APCs wurde inzwischen auch ausgelagert ver\u00f6ffentlicht (Solomon & Bj\u00f6rk 2016).
\nEine Kategorisierung der OA-Publikationen nach Bezahlmodell zeigt sehr deutlich die heutige Dominanz des APC-Modells: 89% von 22’209 OA-Artikel sind in APCs-basierten Zeitschriften publiziert worden. Diese Tatsache relativiert das tr\u00fcgerische Bild, welches sich aus der Betrachtung von Journals im DOAJ ergibt, wonach eine Mehrheit der dort verzeichneten Journals keine APC verlangt.
\n![\"OA](\"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/oa-journals-used.jpg?w=418&h=206\")
In was f\u00fcr Open Access Journals publizieren AutorInnen der Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State?
Eine Kategorisierung der OA-Journals in denen im Zeitraum 2009-2013 mindesten 10 Artikel erschienen sind.
Interessanterweise weisen die Bibliotheken insgesamt nur Ausgaben von $365’000 f\u00fcr Open Access ($159’000 OA memberships + $206’000 APC Payments) aus. Daraus l\u00e4sst sich klar schliessen, dass das Geld, das AutorInnen f\u00fcr Open Access bisher aufgewendet haben, nur zu einem winzigen Teil von den Bibliotheken stammt. D.h. auch die nordamerikanischen Bibliotheken haben es in den vergangenen Jahren verschlafen, das wachsende Bed\u00fcrfnis nach finanzieller Unterst\u00fctzung beim OA-Publizieren anzugehen.
\nc) Preisberechnung mit Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
\n
Nun ist es kein Geheimnis, dass insbesondere kommerzielle Verlage zurzeit ihre Preise nicht an ihren realen Kosten, sondern h\u00e4ufig an der Reputation (Impact Factor) ihrer Journals ausrichten.
\nDie “Pay it forward”-Studie hat diese g\u00e4ngige Preissetzung untersucht und eine positive Korrelation zwischen der H\u00f6he der APC und der “Qualit\u00e4t” gemessen als Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP ; = Elseviers offenes Pendant zum Impact Factor) eines Journals festgestellt. Nach einer Regressionsanalyse getrauen sich die StudienautorInnen sogar eine Formel bekannt zu geben, mit welcher sich f\u00fcr jedes Journal mit einem SNIP die voraussichtliche APC ausrechnen l\u00e4sst.
\nAPC = 1147.68 + 709.4 * SNIP
\nBeispiel: F\u00fcr das Journal\u00a0Water Research (IF 6 / SNIP 2.4) w\u00e4re die APC demzufolge:
\n1147.68+ 709 * 2.4 = 2849 USD
\n(Wobei Elsevier heute im Hybrid-Modus interessanterweise 3500$ verlangt).
\nd) effektive Verlagskosten
\n
Aus der Literatur und teils anonymen Quellen der Verlagsindustrie, den Steuerangaben von Non-Profit-Verlagen in den USA (990 Tax Form) und einer Umfrage bei der Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) versuchten die Studienautorinnen ebenfalls die effektiven Verlagskosten in Erfahrung zu bringen.
\n![\"effektive-kosten\"](\"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/effektive-kosten.jpg?w=488&h=323\")
Man erkennt schnell, dass keine Klarheit \u00fcber die effektiven Kosten besteht. Ein \u00e4hnliches Resultat hatte schon der Beitrag “The true cost of science publishing” ergeben. Die Pay it Forward-Studie legt jedoch nahe, dass mit mindestens $1000 Dollar als Kosten eines Artikel gerechnet werden muss.
\nMit dem verf\u00fcgbaren Subskriptionenbudget der Bibliothek und dem Publikationsverhalten konnte pro Hochschule Break-Even APCs ausgerechnet werden. Dabei wurde vorsichtshalber davon ausgegangen, dass k\u00fcnftig f\u00fcr alle Artikel eine APC bezahlt werden m\u00fcsste:
\n![\"Break-even](\"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/break-even-points.jpg?w=335&h=325\")
Man sieht schnell, dass der Umstieg f\u00fcr auf ein vollst\u00e4ndig APC basiertes Modell alleine mit dem heute eingesetzten Bibliotheksbudget und dem heutigen Durchschnittspreis von ca. 1850$ pro APC f\u00fcr die meisten Universit\u00e4ten finanziell nicht m\u00f6glich sein wird.
\nDie Studie geht deshalb in Folge davon aus, dass bei einer Umstellung zu Gold OA das Geld zunehmend auch von anderen Quellen, insbesondere die von Forschungsf\u00f6rderer kommen muss. Es werden verschiedene Modelle skizziert, wie bei einem Wechsel auf Gold OA die Kosten f\u00fcr APCs zwischen Bibliothek, Forschungsf\u00f6rderer und anderen Geldquellen sinnvoll aufgeteilt werden k\u00f6nnen. Ein wesentliches Element dieser Modelle ist der st\u00e4rkere finanzielle Einbezug der Forschenden. Die Hoffnung besteht, dass diese eine (neue) Sensibilit\u00e4t hinsichtlich Preis von Verlagsleistung entwickeln.
\nDie Studie beinhaltet auch einen qualitativer Teil, bei dem mit Fokusgruppen und Umfragen ermittelt wurde, was Forschende \u00fcber das wissenschaftliche Publizieren, OA und den finanziellen Aspekten denken. Dieser Teil wurde inzwischen separat ver\u00f6ffentlicht (Tenopir et al. 2016).
\nDie Resultate best\u00e4tigen grunds\u00e4tzlich vorhergehende Arbeiten (mitunter auch die Resultate meiner Masterarbeit). Die Idee von Open Access f\u00fcr Perspektive des Lesers wird durchg\u00e4ngig begr\u00fcsst. Beim eigenen Publizieren spielt OA jedoch nachwievor untergeordnet eine Rolle. Qualit\u00e4t, Reputation, inhaltliche \u00dcbereinstimmung, erwartetes Publikum, Chance angenommen zu werden, Geschwindigkeit vom Einreichen zur Publikation oder die Herausgeber sind wichtigere Faktoren bei der Wahl eines Journals als OA.
\nDesweiteren gibt es disziplin-spezifische Unterschiede. Etwas zugespitzt: Physiker und Mathematiker brauchen Gold OA nicht, da sie ja ArXiv haben. F\u00fcr Mediziner und Biologen sind APCs schon fast Alltag. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftler haben Vorbehalte gegen\u00fcber APCs.
\nDas wesentliche Resultat der Studie ist durchaus keine \u00dcberraschung, wie David Crotty auf Scholarly Kitchen zutreffend kommentiert. Es war immer wahrscheinlich anzunehmen, dass forschungsintensive Institutionen bei einem Wandel zu Gold OA st\u00e4rker zur Kasse gebeten werden k\u00f6nnten. Dennoch ist es wichtig diese Annahme einmal mit offiziellem Zahlenmaterial untermauert zu sehen.
\nWas die Studie leider nicht liefert, ist ein Vergleich zwischen den Ausgaben und Publikationen auf Stufe Verlag. Ich k\u00f6nnte mir gut vorstellen, dass es bei einer Transformation zu OA auch bei den Verlagen gr\u00f6ssere Gewinner und Verlierer geben w\u00fcrde.
\nZumindest zeigen die Zahlen aus der Schweiz, insbesondere diejenige der forschungintensiven ETH Z\u00fcrich, dass ein Wechsel auf Gold OA zumindest bei den Verlagen Elsevier, Springer und Wiley finanziell ohne weiteres m\u00f6glich w\u00e4re und bei diesen Verlagen sogar mit Kosteneinsparungen verbunden w\u00e4re. In Angesicht der Resultate von Pay it Forward stellt sich die Frage, ob dieser Unterschied daran liegt, weil man in der Schweiz und bei der ETH Z\u00fcrich grunds\u00e4tzlich mehr zahlt, als bei Harvard & Co., oder ob dies eher an dem spezifischen Fokus auf die drei gr\u00f6ssten Verlage liegt, der in Nordamerika ebenfalls zu Tage k\u00e4me, h\u00e4tte man die Zahlen auf Stufe Verlag verglichen.
\nEbenfalls muss in Betracht gezogen werden, dass eine nahezu 100% Umstellung auf OA finanzielle Einsparungen an vielen anderen Orten ergibt. Dabei meine ich nicht nur die radikale Vereinfachung von vielen bibliothekarischen Prozessen, sondern auch die Tatsache, dass ausserhalb der forschungsintensiven Hochschulen es noch zahlreiche andere \u00f6ffentliche Institutionen (z.B. Fachhochschulen, Spit\u00e4ler, Beh\u00f6rden etc.) gibt, bei denen bei einer Umstellung Subskriptionskosten entfallen w\u00fcrden. Diese Gelder k\u00f6nnten zumindest anteilsm\u00e4ssig zugunsten des finanziellen Mehrbedarf von forschungsintensiven Hochschulen umgeschichtet werden.
\nLetztlich scheint es nachvollziehbar, dass die Kosten des heutigen Systems auch bereits durch jemanden bezahlt werden und die Transformation mehr eine Frage der Organisation der Umschichtung von Geldern ist, als tats\u00e4chlich ein finanzielles Problem. SCOAP3 hat dies ja unl\u00e4ngst gezeigt.
\nMeines Wissens ist Pay it Forward die erste \u00f6ffentliche Studie, bei welcher das Potential der Subskriptionskosten auf institutioneller Ebene f\u00fcr OA solide analysiert wurde. Das weckt Hoffnung, dass auch andere Institutionen dem Beispiel folgen und sich Kennzahlen zu ihrem Potential f\u00fcr OA verschaffen und dies ver\u00f6ffentlichen.
\nZum Schluss sei noch auf eine Pr\u00e4sentation der Studie von MacKenzie Smith, University Librarian, UC Davis am 21. September 2016 verwiesen.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/t4nep-8ma25","guid":"http://wisspub.net/?p=11879","image":"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/payitforward-header.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1478390400,"rid":"af8ph-db813","summary":"Wie wird sich ein globaler Wechsel zu Gold OA basierend auf Article Processing Charges (APCs) finanziell auf forschungsintensive Universit\u00e4ten auswirken? Die mit einem 800'000$-Grant der Mellon-Foundation unterst\u00fctzte Studie \"Pay it Foward\" (185 Seiten) ging dieser Frage an den Beispielen der grossen nordamerikanischen Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State nach.","tags":["Open Access","Publikationsverhalten","Universit\u00e4ten"],"title":"\"Pay it Forward\"-Studie","updated_at":1788407552,"url":"https://wisspub.net/2016/11/06/pay-it-forward-studie/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Grassmuck","given":"Volker"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"03c1b30d-4ade-474e-8cf2-282ffe91c498","created":1761523200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"the vonderful vorld of virtual v","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/vgrass","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/03c1b30d-4ade-474e-8cf2-282ffe91c498/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://vgrass.de/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://vgrass.de","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"vgrass","status":"active","subfield":"3315","title":"vgrass.de","updated":1783172416,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"vgrass.de","blog_slug":"vgrass","content_html":"At the Netzpolitischer Abend (npa) of Digiale Gesellschaft, on 4 December at c-base, Ivan Zassoursky, Head of the New Media and Communication Theory department of the School of Journalism at Moscow State University, publisher of the daily Chastny Korrespondent (Private Correspondent, translated) and the OA repository and aggregator Nauchny Korrespondent (Scientific Correspondent, translated) and Noosphere.ru (translated), president of the Webpublishers Association and film producer (must-see: \"Generation P\", 2011), spoke about \"The digital public sphere in RU and its discontents.\"
\n\n“Who laughs as the last, laughs the best.” (old Russian proverb)
\n![\"\"](\"http://83.223.86.68/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181204_npa078_01.png\")
Data Processing and production: Jamie Diprose
Cross-posted from the COKI blog.
There is a lot of lip service paid to the idea of diversity in scholarly publishing and often diversity of language is used as an example. The Helsinki Initiative is one example of an explicit call for multilingualism and the Jussieu Call for bibliodiversity, while it does not explicitly mention language, is an implicit criticism of anglo-centric publishing. The UNESCO Open Science Recommendation states that
\n\n\u2026open science should embrace a diversity of knowledge, practices, workflows, languages, research outputs and research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of the scientific community as a whole\u2026
\n
The State of the Internet's Languages Report extends this to the internet as a whole showing how these issues extend far beyond scholarly communications.
But while the groups that work actively in languages other than English have been making this point consistently and forcefully, it has had limited traction in the scholarly anglophone literature. A few articles have implemented or suggested indicators that track language diversity but there appears to be relatively few examples of analyses at scale (for a nice counter-example see Kulczycki et al 2018 and 2020). To address this gap, we have mapped the 122 million objects in Crossref up to the end of May 2022 to languages (based on titles and abstracts, where available) and done an initial analysis. The results are a mix of the expected and surprising.
We took a quick approach to mapping the languages that can definitely be improved (see below for details). We would welcome suggestions and contributions on how to improve the methodology, with an eye towards including this as a standard parameter for scholarly outputs. Obviously all of this analysis is limited to outputs in the Crossref metadata dataset, which will result in some bias, both against publications without a DOI as well as publications with DOIs from different registrars, with the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) being an important example.
![](\"https://upstream.force11.org/content/images/2022/06/area_pc_overtime_largelang.png\")
Not surprisingly, English dominates the literature (although with a slowly dropping proportion) with other European languages following including German, French, Spanish and then Portuguese, with Bahasa Indonesian as the next largest language. Spanish and Portuguese grew strongly over the period with Portuguese growing from around 7,000 outputs captured in 2000 to over 150,000 in 2021, reflecting the rise of Brazil as a research powerhouse, and the effectiveness of SciELO as a dissemination platform over that period. Indonesian shows massive growth, probably in part reflecting improved coverage of Crossref metadata over this period along with the massive growth of Indonesian publishing efforts.
![](\"https://upstream.force11.org/content/images/2022/06/stackedbar_crtype_largeen.png\")
The types of content are different as well with German having a much higher proportion of book chapters and books (and French having a large number of component DOIs) and the large number of preprints (posted-content) in Indonesian. The latter example also illustrates issues with the data collection. After INA-Rxiv closed to new submissions in 2020 and submissions moved to RINarxiv this content was not assigned Crossref DOIs and therefore will disappear from our analysis. These differences between languages are likely to have complex effects on the analysis of qualities of the content, particularly open access and citations. In most of this analysis we've left all types of content in, but the processed dataset is split out by Crossref type so you can look more closely at those issues!
Open access shows substantial differences across languages. Perhaps even more importantly, our ability to classify open access types is leading to issues across different languages. Indonesian is a great example. Currently we use DOAJ as the marker of a \"completely OA journal\" (and we differ from Unpaywall in this at the moment). Many Indonesian journals are not in DOAJ and therefore show as \"hybrid\". Unpaywall is also not always able to pick up license information so full OA journals that are not in DOAJ may also get characterized as \"bronze\". In Portuguese it is likely that a large proportion of \"hybrid\" is actually fully OA journals published through SciElO. Categories of open access publishing in Hungarian, Polish, Turkish and many other languages are also likely to need closer examination. We used DOAJ to identify non-APC journals as well and this is likely undercounting this category for Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese and Spanish outputs.
Nonetheless, we observe high proportions of articles in non-APC journals in Spanish and Portuguese (attesting to the success of the diamond OA model in Latin America), as well as in a number of other languages, including Nordic languages, many Eastern European languages, and others. Overall, when looking at 2020-2022, for English articles in DOAJ journals, 21% are in non-APC journals, but for articles in languages other than English, this percentage is a massive 86%. Non-APC models appear to dominate the landscape for non-English full OA journals. And amongst English language articles in OA journals (as defined by registration in DOAJ) the APC model definitely dominates. As is often the case, innovation rooted in community needs is more common away from traditional centres of prestige.
![](\"https://upstream.force11.org/content/images/2022/06/stackedbar_oaclasses_2020_largelang.png\")
Some countries with high levels of open access in English have comparatively low levels in the local language. This is the case for the Netherlands and to some extent France and Germany. This is most likely related to disciplinary differences in what is published in English (with a bias towards STEM and higher levels of OA) vs local language (with a bias towards HSS subjects). By contrast Nordic languages and Norwegian in particular show high levels of open access with an emphasis on APC-free OA journals, likely as a result of local initiatives to fund the conversion of national language journals (which tend to focus on HSS) to open access. The Hr\u010dak central portal providing support for Croatian journals is another example with Croatian also showing a similar pattern.
In this dataset outputs in languages other than English remain a fairly small proportion, less than 20%, of the total. But within that segment is a far greater diversity of practice, and substantial differences to the English majority. If we are looking for examples of different practice, and successes beyond the \"standard\" models of APC-OA publishing, hybrid and transformative agreements there is a wealth of case studies here. Pointing to Latin America has long been a go-to exemplar, but Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Indonesia are rich in examples. And we have barely scratched the surface here.
Similarly, just looking at that surface has revealed real issues with the way we categorise open access publishing that do not reflect the realities on the ground in settings beyond Europe and North America. As with so many aspects of scholarly practice and evaluation, you can't find what you can't look for. We are providing the language mapping and analysis datasets for others to dig deeper, and ideally improve on our methodology.
There are obvious improvements that could be made to the language mapping, including determining language for titles (of which there may be more than one) and abstracts separately, applying an acceptance threshold rather than just selecting the top scoring language, and ultimately refining the language model to work specifically on scholarly content. Again, we hope that sharing the dataset will prompt others to look at how to improve on the process.
Ultimately, we believe that including a language analysis might be something that can be easily included as part of any discussion of scholarly communications. We could make this possible in a matter of months, not years, if we work collectively. And in doing so we will provide new ways to look at the diversity of scholarly publishing to everyone's benefit.
A subset of the COKI Academic Observatory Dataset, which is produced by the Academic Observatory Workflows codebase [1], was extracted and converted to CSV with Bigquery and downloaded to a virtual machine. The subset consists of all publications with DOIs in our dataset, including each publication's title and abstract from both Crossref Metadata (as of 28 May, doi20220528) and Microsoft Academic Graph (the final dump of 6 December 2021 as available in doi20220528). The CSV files were then processed with a Python script. The titles and abstracts for each record were pre-processed, concatenated together and analyzed with fastText. The titles and abstracts from Crossref Metadata were used first, with the MAG titles and abstracts serving as a fallback when the Crossref Metadata information was empty. Language was predicted for each publication using the fastText lid.176.bin language identification model [2]. fastText was chosen because of its high accuracy and fast runtime speed [3]. The output dataset [4] consists of DOI, title, ISO language code and the fastText language prediction probability score. The dataset is also publicly viewable on Google BigQuery (you may need a free Google Cloud account to view this).
The language mapping dataset was joined to the Academic Observatory Dataset [1] and queried for open access, Crossref output type and citation characteristics (see graph_data.sql in the coki-language repository), and downloaded and saved as CSV (output_graphs/downloaded_data.csv). The downloaded data was processed using a python script (graphs.py) to generate the graphs in this post. Open access status was derived from Unpaywall data as defined in the relevant Academic Observatory query with the exception of \"diamond\" which was determined by querying a local copy of the DOAJ data dump for journals which are registered as having no APC (see graph_data.sql line 20 in the coki-language repository).
The COKI Language Dataset is publicly accessible in BigQuery in the following two tables:
COKI Language Detection [5]: https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory/coki-language
Academic Observatory Workflows: https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory/academic-observatory-workflows
Madness: A Philosophical Exploration
\nJustin Garson
\nOxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, \u00a347.99
\nISBN 9780197613832
I cannot remember the last time I read a book of philosophy that taught me something new and also took me on such a journey of images and sounds\u2014a powerful reminder that, yes, rigorous philosophical ideas can be expressed in many forms, including excellent prose. Justin Garson's Madness reads like a novel but instructs like an encyclopaedia. I revelled in an engaging narrative filled with suspense and cliff-hangers, where I challenged myself to anticipate the next twist: will my favourite philosopher be a strategist or a dysfunctionalist about madness? This was a journey of self-transformation and, as such, it was an often uncomfortable read: I have always thought of myself as someone who accepts a largely medicalized view of madness but is vocal about madness having meaning and purpose. While reading the book and for a long time afterwards, however, I became seriously concerned that I could not be both; that I had to choose. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that we can see madness as purposeful in a medical framework, although Garson may disagree.
\nIn the introduction, Garson describes the point of the book in terms of 'extracting a certain vision' of madness: madness not as a defect but as 'a goal-driven process, a well-oiled machine, one in which all of the components work exactly as they ought'. The contrast is between madness-as-strategy ('in the mad, a purpose is being fulfilled') and madness-as-dysfunction ('when someone is mad, it is because something has gone wrong inside of that person'). This polarity is beautiful in its simplicity but it transpires as a fiction over the course of the book, as Garson masterfully proves that the two visions collide and combine in multiple ways, to the point that it is difficult to tell whether any statement about madness is an endorsement of strategy or dysfunction.
\nGarson's project is itself one of contrasts. The teleological mode of interpretation of madness (madness-as-strategy) has always been there, but it has been buried; the book is described as 'an exercise in concept building', but none of the concepts are new. The book indeed shows that the idea of madness-as-strategy has always been an option\u2014not always the dominant or the only approach, but certainly an available approach. To my mind, the book does more and does less than building concepts: it does more because it endorses and passionately defends, rather than merely explicating, the vision that emerges when the right concepts are combined; and it does less because these concepts already exist and need not be built ex novo. Mostly what the book does is create an irresistible thread, establishing a connection between different versions of the same core idea.
\nOne difficulty in grasping the scope of this analysis is that the buzz words are left buzzing. If madness is a strategy, what is a strategy for, exactly? If madness is a dysfunction, which are the dysfunctional processes? But the reason for this vagueness becomes apparent over the course of the book: each point in time, each historical and cultural context, offers different answers to such questions, until the only thing that persists is this sense of purpose on the one hand, and this sense of failure on the other.
\nGarson is explicit about the four benefits of his 'recovery operation': We gain new tools for the historian as we go beyond interpretations of madness that rely on the tension between dualism and physicalism. We acquire a new lens through which we can appreciate the debates about madness and disorder in the philosophy of psychiatry as we move to a deeper level of analysis than that necessary for understanding challenges to medicalization. We develop a new logic of intervention as we start conceiving of treatment not as an elimination of harmful symptoms, but as a recognition of symptoms as adaptive responses to a crisis. And we are also gifted a new foundation for mad activism that views madness not as a pathology or a defect, but as a positive identity and 'the default state of humankind, ground zero of the conscious mind' (p. 12).
\nIn Part 1, Garson argues that it is a mistake to view the contraposition between Hippocrates and the alternative conceptions of healing as a version of the contemporary distinction between naturalism and anti-naturalism. Rather, we should read their disagreement in terms of Hippocrates proposing a view of disease as dysfunction, and his opponents endorsing instead a view of disease as teleology. Garson defends the view that Hippocrates and his followers did not exclude the divine from medicine, but wanted to separate religion (which they thought relevant) from magic (which they despised as a form of superstition). Nonetheless, some magical and superstitious thinking remains in Hippocrates' writings, highlighting a difficulty for any naturalist interpretation of his thought. For Garson, Hippocrates' legacy is seeing disease as a negation of teleology: medicine 'restores the creature's capacity to attain its good' (p. 25).
\nThen, Garson offers a beautiful reconstruction of how, after the advent of Christianity, madness was viewed as an instrument of punishment and redemption. Magicians and conjurors are replaced by exorcists and witch-hunters as proponents of the purposive nature of madness. Garson claims that there is no transmission of knowledge from the former to the latter (no lineage); the idea simply resurfaces. The Christianization of medicine is characterized by a change in the way gods relate to humans. Whereas the Greek gods did not care much, the Christian god is concerned about our moral worth. This is where punishment and redemption come from, from the concern of god for us.
\nAn interesting discussion of the scope of medicine ensues. How much responsibility and authority do physicians have in this picture? God intervenes, but not on the individual's circumstances. He created reality in such a way that if one misbehaves, one gets punished; and if one suffers, by doing so one redeems oneself ('if you overindulge in food or drink, you get sick', as Garson puts it; p. 41). This means that there is still some room for the physician: we can ask what god is punishing a person for, but also what natural mechanisms connect the person's sin with their disease. In the Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), Robert Burton develops a notion of madness as misuse, where madness is due to irresponsibility: people are mad when they misuse their god-given faculties and the blame is on them, not god. Bad behaviour is at the origin of this: 'disposition becomes habit' and 'habit, so fixed, is itself a form of madness' (p. 51). Garson also discusses George Cheyne's work on melancholy in The English Malady (1733) . Melancholy is a dissatisfaction with what god gave us, a punishment for sin that we deserve, but it also enables us to reform. Redemption requires a change of moral character. A legitimate question is why god does not make us good to start with, and the answer is that he wants us to be free to choose, to err and to mend. Madness is as much a cure as it is a disease: it enables god to punish and purify us without taking away our free will.
\nIn Part 2, Garson explores the crystallization of madness-as-dysfunction as the dominant view: by the eighteenth century 'madness is mere pathology' (p. 75), and when someone is mad it means that something is wrong inside them. This differs from the Hippocratic approach in the classification and enumeration of forms of madness according to the faculties of the human mind, a persistent tendency that Garson attributes to Kant. Kant makes a good start with this project of classification and enumeration in his Essay on the Maladies of the Head (1764), where he makes some distinctions between derangement as an aberration of experience, dementia as an aberration of judgement, and insanity as an aberration of reason. But, importantly, Kant also concedes that there is method in madness and that even the 'unhinged mind' is arranged into a system rather than being in a state of pure chaos. For Kant, the healer's job is to identify which faculty of the mad person's mind has stopped working properly. Madness is objectified and hides a secret to be discovered, and this discovery is the healer's task, a task to which the mad person cannot and should not contribute. The mad person's speech is the result of their madness, not something meaningful in its own right.
\nThe rest of the discussion in this part is an examination of the relationship between madness and reason offered by various other influential authors. Locke's perspective on madness differs from that of Kant: Locke's assumption is not that the mental faculties are operating badly, but that they have defective material on which to operate. The mad person does not lack reason, but makes valid inferences from flawed premises. For John Haslam in Bedlam hospital, the mad person rejects reason, but needs to pretend to use reason. So, there is a sort of dissimulation of reason, a form of other-deception, in which the mad person is proficient. But for Arthur Ladbroke Wigan, author of A New View of Insanity (1844), the dissimulation is a form of self-deception made possible by the dual nature of the mind: madness as a 'deliberate diversion from the unremitting tragedy of everyday life' (p. 125). This understanding of madness as a coping strategy is first found in Johann Heinroth's Textbook on the Disorders of the Soul (1818), where he argues that some forms of madness can be a response to trauma. Madness constructs a fiction because reality is unbearable: imagination is allowed to take precedence and create a reality that is preferable for the person. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Philippe Pinel and Wilhelm Griesinger seemed to agree with Kant that madness is due to a faculty of the mind breaking down, but they also recognized that some forms of madness have a healing function. This view of madness as a fix is applied to delusions in particular, where what the person desires comes true: delusions fulfil the mad person's wishes. The project in Emil Kraepelin’s Clinical Psychiatry: A Textbook for Students and Physicians (1902) is described by Garson as the 'biologization of Kant', is the author who most consistently exemplifies the madness-as-dysfunction approach, excluding purposiveness and goal-directedness from all instances of genuine madness.
\nPart 3 focuses on madness and evolution, and takes us from Freud to the present day. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud views all forms of madness as functional by introducing the 'teleology of the unconscious wish', but there is still a sense in which madness can be a failure. Madness may provide a strategy that does not succeed in fulfilling its goals. More recently, stories of madness as an adaptation take centre stage, and Garson observes how the clash between the dysfunction view and the product-of-evolution view of madness has been largely ignored. This part of the book is as worthy of attention as the previous two, but covers better known material, so I will not describe it in detail here. It will suffice to say that Chapter 14 offers an excellent description of the principles behind the DSM.
\nThe magic of Garson's book is that it shows that conflicting conceptions of madness can co-exist in the same historical period, in the same philosophy, even in the same thinker. Maybe this tells us something: madness-as-dysfunction and madness-as-strategy are two sides of the same coin. Madness is a strategy in that it serves an important end; but it is sub-optimal as a strategy, because it does not wholeheartedly promote the well-being and agency of the mad person. This idea has been advanced in the recent philosophical literature on delusions that Garson knows so well\u2014most notably in work by Ryan McKay and Daniel Dennett ([2009]), where they discuss the possibility that some delusions are adaptive misbeliefs, and in my work on epistemic innocence (Bortolotti [2020]), where I speculate that delusions may offer not just psychological relief from a state of uncertainty but also some opportunities for the person to exercise their epistemic agency in a time of crisis. There is an interesting comparison to be drawn here: in these contemporary and partial renditions of the madness-as-strategy vision, madness is just one of the many ways in which big and little irrationalities support our agency, just as in Medieval times, madness was one of the means available to god to bring about our moral reformation.
\nIt is also interesting that recent attempts at seeing madness as purposeful recognize that the big and little irrationalities we learn to live with, the same irrationalities that can support our agency and help us thrive, are not dysfunctions. They are not deficits, faults, pathologies, glitches. They can become part of a problem, but they begin as imperfect responses to crises. A good illustration of this are the 'insight paradox' stories (Belvederi Murri et al. [2016]): it may be surprising to hear that people can become unwell, severely depressed and suicidal, when they start gaining insight into their delusions. But if delusions are a coping mechanism to help people overcome an extremely difficult time, then this should not be surprising. 'Curing' people of their delusions means taking away the only response they have to what Garson aptly calls the 'unremitting tragedy of everyday life', leaving nothing in their place. Some irrationalities can kill us and some can rescue us, and those that can kill us at one time can rescue us at another. There is no broken mechanism inside us; rather, there is a world collapsing around us and we constantly adapt to face it. That does not mean that we do not need help when we are in the line of fire, and it is a great merit of Garson's nuanced account that he never indulges in the easy step from madness-as-strategy to the rejection of the role of medicine in providing some means of support. There does not need to be a dysfunction for us to receive medical support, as we turn to medical professionals in pregnancy and when our lifestyles do not serve us well\u2014when we eat too much or sleep too little. Similarly, we may need medical support as mad persons.
\nAs promised, Garson's reconstruction of the two visions of madness successfully provides new resources and inspiration for historians, philosophers of psychiatry, and clinicians. However, I am not so sure how consistent it is with mad activism, the movement for which Garson intends to provide 'intellectual scaffolding'. For the most part, the madness-as-strategy vision as reconstructed by Garson does not sit comfortably with madness as a positive identity and as a force of political change and resistance. In the history of madness-as-strategy that Garson reconstructs, madness is not the means by which we can pursue the goals with which we identify; it is the means by which we are made to chase an inscrutable end\u2014almost an explicit negation of our capacity to shape our own lives according to our values. When madness is seen as a strategy, it is not our own strategy, but the actualization of some obscure plan that we do not fully understand. It's the strategy of a god who punishes before redeeming and maybe saves, but who has little compassion for our struggles. It is the strategy of the homuncular, divided mind that drives us to escape reality for a world of illusions and dreams, and leaves us somewhere in between. It is the 'strategy' of natural selection, which 'wants' us all well fed and well rested until we bear fruit, but does not care about how authentic and fulfilling our lives are. The hope is that a new version of the madness-as-strategy account will emerge and lead us into a future where the coping mechanisms we adopt are more robustly under our control.
\nLisa Bortolotti
\nUniversity of Birmingham
\nl.bortolotti@bham.ac.uk
References
\nBelvederi Murri, M., Amore, M., Calcagno, P., Respino, M., Marozzi, V., Masotti, M., Bugliani, M., Innamorati, M., Pompili, M., Galderisi, S. and Maj, M. [2016]: 'The \"Insight Paradox\" in Schizophrenia: Magnitude, Moderators, and Mediators of the Association between Insight and Depression', Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42, pp. 1225\u201333.
\nBortolotti L. [2020]: The Epistemic Innocence of Irrational Beliefs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nMcKay, R. T. and Dennett, D. C. [2009]: 'The Evolution of Misbelief', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, pp. 493\u2013510.
\nCite as
\nBortolotti, L. [2022]: 'Justin Garson’s Madness: A Philosophical Exploration',
\nBJPS Review of Books,\u00a02022
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Thumbnail-Wilson-on-Brading-and-Stan.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-18 07:00:442025-03-25 15:49:13Katherine Brading and Marius Stan, Philosophical Mechanics in the Age of Reason // Reviewed by Mark Wilson\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thumbnail-Planer-and-Tennie-on-Enquist-et-al.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-11 07:00:272025-03-25 15:49:51Enquist, Ghirlanda & Lind, The Human Evolutionary Transition // Reviewed by Ronald Planer & Claudio Tennie\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thumbnail-Brown-on-Anderson-and-Mitchel.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-04 07:00:382025-03-04 20:38:47Andersen and Mitchell, The Pragmatist Challenge // Reviewed by Matthew J BrownLevels of Organization in the Biological Sciences
\nDaniel S. Brooks, James DiFrisco, and William C. Wimsatt (eds)
\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2021, \u00a356.00
\nISBN 978-0262045339
There is a massive amount of philosophical content in this dense volume of fifteen new pieces plus introduction. The collection results from the Thirty-Sixth Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology, held in 2018 at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research.\u00a0 As the editors\u2014and organizers of the original conference\u2014indicate, their guiding motivation throughout was to promote new work and to offer an appraisal of work on the concept of levels, which they felt was under-analysed in the fields of theoretical biology and philosophy of biology. Multiple collaborative efforts among contributors were encouraged, including extensive discussion, revision, and cross-fertilization of one another's work.\u00a0 The result, according to the editors, is a 'coherent vector of ideas' that emerge from this book.
\nStill, the so-called vector is not pointed in an entirely clear direction. The pieces in this book are not organized into sections. Still, there are reverberating themes. Some of the essays\u2014sadly not grouped together\u2014aim at offering foundations (or, as the editors prefer, 'foundational considerations') for a theory of levels, others are sceptical, and still others aim at fitting a levels ontology into a broader ontology and philosophy of science.\u00a0 Ideally, the volume could have been organized to bring out these themes better, and the authors encouraged to signpost more clearly the directions to which they are contributing.
\nIt would be inappropriate to attempt in a very short space a summary of argumentations or engagement with all (or some of) the authors individually. Instead, I will content myself with providing a roadmap of the outlooks represented in this volume, with an eye to what is left out or looming in the larger philosophical conversations in which these fifteen pieces figure as new contributions.
\nAs one of the editor-authors of this volume points out, there is something 'schizophrenic' in taking very seriously the movements of macro-variables as if they enjoyed an independent reality\u2014which we all do as we encounter and manipulate them in real life and scientific laboratory settings, as well as implicitly in scientific writing\u2014while all the time propounding a doctrine (as was done quite seriously for decades in the second half of the twentieth century, but increasingly more warily) to the effect that these variables play no truly independent role as movers and shakers of the universe. But what exactly is the problem here? And what would it look like, philosophically, if we gave up the pretence of their non-independence? These are the fundamental questions with which the authors in this volume engage, with a particular focus on the biological sphere.
\nIn the 1970s, Herbert Simon ([1973]) presented a bewitching idea to guide engagement with this question. He asked: how does a highly complex world of diverse, self-organizing, and self-replicating things can come to exist? His answer, put roughly, is that it must be the result of 'platforms' or 'arenas' of relative stability in time.
\nSimon thought that certain important features of certain systems were left unaccounted for in analyses of the physical and chemical features of their building blocks\u2014in accounts of the component parts taken together with the specific and heterogeneous interactions among them. His idea derives from his concern with building systems. The idea is that to build a complex system (as nature does), one proceeds in stages, with the result that at the end of each stage, what is constructed must possess a stable structure (so as to 'hold still' while the next phase of operation is being launched). Without these intervals or layers of stability, Simon thought that complexity is unsustainable. This makes complex systems typically (a) modular, (b) inter-substitutive in their parts, (c) qualitatively similar with a change to their parts or their number, and (d) stable under re-aggregations of parts. Simon is thus reaching for the idea that a system under control has to be governed by high-order structures of stability that are relatively independent of the sorts of interactions (physiological, chemical, mechanical, or what-have-you) that govern their parts more locally. One would therefore have to create a higher-order discipline of these dynamical realities.1To be sure, Norbert Wiener ([1948]) had already advanced elements of such a discipline, but he had not done so specifically to solve the evolution of complex systems. A similar point may be made with regard to Howard Pattee's ([1969]) contributions to the idea of control hierarchy, on which Umerez builds in this volume.
\nSimon was an engineer and not a biologist. But his idea has captured the imagination of philosophers of biology because it lays out a metaphysical insight: A true System, with a capital S\u2014a category that comprehends all living things\u2014is something special indeed, and one subject to higher-order laws regarding control and stability relations among its constituents\u2014laws that are positively not specific to the materials composing it, and that in some regards appear to defy or anyway counter in the short term the edicts of the laws of thermodynamics. Collections of matter that do not hew to these Systems-general laws are collections that come apart in short order.2In numerous publications, I have referred to this idea as amounting to saying that a System is one in which the aggregation of the parts has undergone a reduction in degrees of freedom. Wilson ([2010]) uses similar language.
\nSimon's bewitching idea seems to suggest that there must have been not just one but a series of such moments of general stasis, and that these are organized in nested or hierarchically related levels of complexity. The authors of the chapters in this collection seek to make sense of the so-called levels of organization in the living world, and to articulate philosophically the principles underlying such an organization, in some cases as they are reflected in the organization of the scientific disciplines. The editors have, in their own words, sought to 'embrace the diversity of usages [of the idea of hierarchy or levels of organization] as aspects of the big picture of levels of organization' (p. 1). And if the diversity of scholarship in this volume is any indication, they appear to have succeeded in this ambition.
\nA second ambition stated in the introduction is 'to offer foundational considerations for conceptualizing a common context with which to understand the status of \"levels\" in philosophy and science'. And to the extent that illuminating diverse examples from the biological sciences can provide a 'common context', they have reached one of their goals. It remains to be seen whether this ambition flounders on the presumption that providing a common shared context is, as such, a win with respect to offering 'foundational considerations' on the subject of levels. Indeed, a systematic and organized discussion of the nature of such 'foundational considerations', and how they are to be aggregated and/or assessed, is nowhere to be found in this volume. Wimsatt's essay gives a catalogue of sorts, comprising a somewhat arbitrarily organized list of what would appear to be foundational considerations about the existence and nature of levels\u2014a valuable inventory, to be sure, partially ordered by biographical notes. But the discussion does not make philosophical progress over and above a laundry list. It does not even rise to the level of providing the sort of taxonomy that Aristotle might have approved, by way of taking first steps.
\nMoving deeper into the volume, and still with regard to foundational considerations, the enthusiasts for levels in this volume fall into roughly three camps: (1) those whose considerations around levels are methodological and practice-oriented (Wimsatt, Brooks), (2) those whose considerations are broadly logical in nature (Woodward, aspects of Batterman, Love, and Baedke), and (3) those whose considerations are drawn specifically from biological sciences (Griesemer, DiFrisco, Gillett, aspects of Love, Baedke, and Umerez). A separate tranche of authors belong in what may be called the 'levels sceptic' camp. In this camp are authors whose estimation of the prospects of a useful shared common understanding of levels is very low (Potochnik) or whose evaluation of the prospects of any successfully consistent concept is very low (Eronen).
\nReturning to the levels enthusiasts in this volume, there is an apparently shared presumption among them that the concept of levels, despite challenges posed by lack of clarity, non-univocality, and the absence of other virtues befitting a philosophical concept, is ultimately productive for illuminating a certain idea: that the complexities of the world deserve better than a reductionist dogma. But what the volume as a whole fails to take seriously is the idea that levels may not be the only way of doing justice to those complexities. One cannot get all one's wishes granted by one genie; still, this bottle could have contained some gesture at (or simply mere mention of) alternative ways of doing justice to the complexities of the world without an explicitly levels-oriented conception. There are such non-reductive alternatives on the market: (Thalos [2013]) and (Wilson [2010]) are just a couple of prominent examples. Both employ the ('foundational considerations'-relevant) idea of 'degrees of freedom'.3To be sure the notion of degree of freedom, and even reductions in degrees of freedom, appear in Umerez's chapter, but no connections are drawn to attempts by these authors to do justice to complexity without levels. There is a reference to (Thalos [2013]) in the references section, but no mention of the work appears in the body or footnotes of the article. Wilson ([2017]) has some choice words about progress in philosophy that may be applicable to this 'oversight'. Both offer rich foundations on which someone with instincts for declining levels might appeal to make sense of the complexities of living organisms, as well as the complexities of materials within a strictly physical science. (To be more specific, both speak of a core idea of reductions in overall degree of freedom as the key to understanding how macro-variables come themselves to number among the degrees of freedom in a complexly organized system.)
\nThe editors also claim to have achieved a sort of consensus on the question of downward causation, particularly evident in Woodward's contribution. They declare a common perspective among the levels enthusiasts, endorsing the Woodward account of the legitimacy of so-called downward causation when articulated in terms of interventionist independence. Woodward's chapter argues that this version of downward causation does not fall afoul of any good causal reasoning. And, in particular, it does not imply the forbidden doctrine of 'parts' acting causally upon wholes. Of course, one may object in a variety of different ways to Woodward's account of interventionist causation, or to the idea that what is forbidden about downward causation is that it entertains positively the idea that parts may act on the wholes of which they are part. The population of scholars with one or both of these two reservations is surely quite vast. So it is not clear just how much of a win this is. It might perhaps have been more prudent for the editors not to have declared so soon a victory in this regard.
\nThese points aside, the collection makes for a fresh engagement with the questions around reduction and emergence, with special focus\u2014as one should most certainly exist\u2014on biological systems.
\nMariam Thalos
\nUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville
\nm.thalos@gmail.com
\n
Notes
\n1 To be sure, Norbert Wiener ([1948]) had already advanced elements of such a discipline, but he had not done so specifically to solve the evolution of complex systems. A similar point may be made with regard to Howard Pattee's 1960's contributions to the idea of control hierarchy, on which Umerez builds in this volume.
\n2 In numerous publications, I have referred to this idea as amounting to saying that a System is one in which the aggregation of the parts has undergone a reduction in degrees of freedom. Wilson ([2010]) uses similar language.
\n3 To be sure the notion of degree of freedom, and even reductions in degrees of freedom, appear in Umerez's chapter, but no connections are drawn to attempts by these authors to do justice to complexity without levels. There is a reference to (Thalos [2013]) in the references section, but no mention of the work appears in the body or footnotes of the article. Wilson ([2017]) has some choice words about progress in philosophy that may be applicable to this 'oversight'.
\nReferences
\nPattee, H. [1969]: 'Physical Conditions for Primitive Functional Hierarchies', in L. L. Whyte, A. G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds), Hierarchical Structures, New York: Elsevier, pp. 161\u201377.
\nSimon, H. [1973]: 'The Organization of Complex Systems', in H. Pattee (ed.), Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems, New York: Braziller, pp. 1\u201327.
\nThalos, M. [2013]: Without Hierarchy: The Scale Freedom of the Universe, New York: Oxford University Press.
\nWiener, N. [1948]: Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Paris: Hermann.
\nWilson, J. [2010]: 'Nonreductive Physicalism and Degrees of Freedom', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, pp. 279\u2013311.
\nWilson, J. [2017]: 'Three Barriers to Progress in Philosophy', in R. Blackford and D. Broderick (eds), Philosophy's Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 91\u2013104.
\nCite as
\nThalos, M. [2022]: 'Brooks et al.’s Levels of Organization in the Biological Sciences', BJPS Review of Books,\u00a02022
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Thumbnail-Wilson-on-Brading-and-Stan.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-18 07:00:442025-03-25 15:49:13Katherine Brading and Marius Stan, Philosophical Mechanics in the Age of Reason // Reviewed by Mark Wilson\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thumbnail-Planer-and-Tennie-on-Enquist-et-al.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-11 07:00:272025-03-25 15:49:51Enquist, Ghirlanda & Lind, The Human Evolutionary Transition // Reviewed by Ronald Planer & Claudio Tennie\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thumbnail-Brown-on-Anderson-and-Mitchel.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-04 07:00:382025-03-04 20:38:47Andersen and Mitchell, The Pragmatist Challenge // Reviewed by Matthew J BrownEin halbes Jahr vor der Europawahl veranstaltet die Heinrich-B\u00f6ll-Stiftung eine Konferenz zur Frage der europ\u00e4ischen \u00d6ffentlichkeit:
\n\u00d6ffentlichkeit f\u00fcr Europa! Medienwandel, Pressefreiheit und Medienpolitik
\nFreitag, 30. November 2018 \u2013 Samstag, 01. Dezember 2018 in Potsdam
\nProgramm (PDF) | Anmeldung
Dabei sind u.a. Florian Eder, Chefredakteur politico Europa, Roger de Weck, Generaldirektor a.D. SRG SSR, Tabea R\u00f6\u00dfner MdB B\u00fcndnis 90/Die Gr\u00fcnen, Christian Mihr, Reporter ohne Grenzen, Barbara Thoma\u00df, Ruhr-Universit\u00e4t Bochum, Susanne Pfab, ARD-Generalsekret\u00e4rin, Markus Nievelstein, Gesch\u00e4ftsf\u00fchrer ARTE Deutschland, und Harald Schumann, investigate-europe.eu.
\nIch werde am Samstag um 14 Uhr \u00fcber die Frage “Was tun f\u00fcr eine europ\u00e4ische nicht-kommerzielle Plattform?” diskutieren mit Corinna Milborn, Info-Chefin von Puls 4, dem \u00f6sterreichischen Privatfernsehsender von ProSiebenSat.1, und Koautorin von “Change the Game. Wie wir uns das Netz von Facebook und Google zur\u00fcckerobern”.
\nCorinna Milborn war krank. Es war eine spannende Diskussion. Leider nicht aufgezeichnet. Videoaufzeichnungen gibt es von:
\nBillet r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par \u270f\ufe0f Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Flamerie, \u270f\ufe0f\nRapha\u00ebl Grolimund et \u270f\ufe0fVincent Carlino
\nLa r\u00e9daction a sollicit\u00e9 pour ce billet un r\u00e9dacteur invit\u00e9,
\nCe billet est l'occasion d'inaugurer deux nouvelles extensions du blog,\nune
Apr\u00e8s Zotero et LaTeX l'an dernier, pourquoi nous int\u00e9ressons-nous \u00e0\nZotero et Markdown cette ann\u00e9e?
\nTout d'abord, Markdown est de plus en plus utilis\u00e9 non seulement pour\ndocumenter du code mais pour d'autres usages : il s'agit ainsi de\nproposer \u00e0 ceux qui l'utilisent pour r\u00e9diger au sens large des pistes\npour assurer la partie bibliographique de l'\u00e9criture avec Zotero.
\nCe billet vise ensuite \u00e0 fournir une alternative \u00e0 ceux qui utilisent\nZotero mais pas LaTeX et qui souhaiteraient abandonner Word.
Nous avons \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en introduction l'abandon de Word. Plusieurs\nraisons peuvent motiver cet abandon, qu'elles soient d'ordre pragmatique\n(il suffit d'avoir r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un document de plusieurs centaines de pages\navec Word pour les percevoir imm\u00e9diatement) ou d'ordre \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique.\nNous vous invitons vivement s'agissant de ce dernier point \u00e0 lire le\nbillet de Julien Dehut au titre \u00e9vocateur, En finir avec Word\u202f! Pour\nune analyse des enjeux relatifs aux traitements de texte et \u00e0 leur\nutilisation\u00a01.
\nAjoutons quelques brefs \u00e9l\u00e9ments de pr\u00e9sentation du rem\u00e8de que nous\nvous proposons.
\nMarkdown d\u00e9signe la syntaxe l\u00e9g\u00e8re pour mettre en forme des documents\nsur le web et le logiciel qui convertit les documents\nmarkdown vers le format qu'on souhaite (historiquement HTML, mais\nbeaucoup de formats se sont ajout\u00e9s \u00e0 la liste, notamment avec Pandoc,\nvoir infra).
\nMarkdown se caract\u00e9rise ainsi par une syntaxe minimaliste, dont vous\ntrouverez les principaux \u00e9l\u00e9ments sur le site CommonMark\u00a0
La simplicit\u00e9 est donc l'un des atouts de Markdown. Citons \u00e9galement\nla versatilit\u00e9, et, pendant de la simplicit\u00e9, la diminution des\ndistractions. Ces atouts sont d\u00e9taill\u00e9s pour le contexte acad\u00e9mique\ndans\u00a0 une pr\u00e9sentation de J. Zimmerman\u00a06.
\nVoyons maintenant concr\u00e8tement comment combiner l'\u00e9criture \u00e0 la ligne\nde commande permise par Markdown et l'usage de Zotero, le tout sans\nrecourir \u00e0 Word, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence d'autres m\u00e9thodes tr\u00e8s d\u00e9taill\u00e9es, mais\naboutissant \u00e0 un fichier Word\u00a07.
\nLes m\u00e9thodes que nous allons vous pr\u00e9senter dans cette partie\ndiff\u00e8rent finalement uniquement du point de vue de l'utilisateur. La\nm\u00e9thode 1 revient en effet \u00e0 proposer un environnement int\u00e9grant tous\nles composants de la m\u00e9thode 2 sans qu'il soit n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0\nl'utilisateur de les d\u00e9composer et de les installer.
\nNous pr\u00e9sentons cette m\u00e9thode en premier lieu, car elle peut\npermettre une transition en douceur de Word vers Markdown, sans\nn\u00e9cessiter l'installation d'applications sp\u00e9cifiques.
\nLa liste des auteurs \u00e9tant de plus en plus longue dans les\npublications scientifiques\u00a08,\nla r\u00e9daction collaborative est de plus en plus courante. Des plateformes\nfacilitant ce travail ont donc naturellement fait leur apparition,\nOverLeaf et Authorea en t\u00eate.
\nOverLeaf \u00e9tant orient\u00e9 LaTeX, il ne nous int\u00e9resse pas dans le cadre\nde ce billet. Authorea, par\ncontre, permet de r\u00e9diger en Markdown (entre autre). Voyons donc comment\ns'y prendre.
\nL'interface d'Authorea est tr\u00e8s \u00e9pur\u00e9e et la r\u00e9daction est assez\ntransparente.
\nL'insertion des citations, elle, est bas\u00e9 sur les m\u00e9canismes de\nLaTeX. L'utilisateur n'a toutefois pas \u00e0 comprendre comment LaTeX\nfonctionne. L'export peut ensuite se faire au format Word, LaTeX ou\nPDF.
\nL'avantage d'Authorea est qu'un utilisateur de Word s'y retrouvera\nfacilement dans l'interface WYSIWYG et qu'un utilisateur LaTeX pourra\nr\u00e9diger en LaTeX. Il faut toutefois admettre que les LaTeX power\nusers seront frustr\u00e9s par les limites qu'Authorea impose.
\nAuthorea est l'outil le plus logique pour une transition en douceur\nde Word vers LaTeX, en passant par Markdown. \u00c0 moins de rester \u00e0\nMarkdown et de ne jamais passer \u00e0 LaTeX\u2026
\n1. Pour ajouter une citation dans Authorea, il faut cliquer sur le\nbouton cite.
\n2. Pour ajouter une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence depuis Zotero, cliquez sur Add\ncitations from reference managers.
\n3. Ajoutez la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence d'un glisser-d\u00e9poser depuis Zotero\n(attention! BibTeX ou BibLaTeX doit \u00eatre param\u00e9tr\u00e9\ncomme export par d\u00e9faut dans les pr\u00e9f\u00e9rences de Zotero)
\n4. Si le format vous convient, validez en cliquant sur le bouton\nCite and Close.
\n5. La citation, ainsi que la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence en fin de document, sont\najout\u00e9es.
\nComme Authorea fait tout cela sans que l'utilisateur s'en rende\ncompte, arr\u00eatons-nous un instant sur le principe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de citation des\nsources dans un document Markdown. Cela nous permettra de vous pr\u00e9senter\nensuite les diff\u00e9rentes d\u00e9clinaisons de la deuxi\u00e8me m\u00e9thode, les\ndiff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res d'accommoder concr\u00e8tement les grands principes.
\nLorsqu'on veut citer ses sources dans un fichier Markdown, le\nprincipe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral est le suivant:
\nAvant d'aller plus loin, il convient de pr\u00e9senter
Dans la suite de ce billet, on utilise plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment
Maintenant que nous avons vu les grands principes de fonctionnement\nd'une m\u00e9thode \"brute\", voyons comment sophistiquer un peu tout cela, en\nalimentant le fichier BibTex automatiquement \u00e0 partir de Zotero et en\nutilisant un plugin pour ins\u00e9rer les citations (plut\u00f4t que de saisir \u00e0\nla main les cl\u00e9s BibTeX).
\nOutre Pandoc, un autre outil est en effet commun \u00e0 ces 2 cha\u00eenes,
Nous allons ainsi pr\u00e9senter 2 \"cha\u00eenes de production\" test\u00e9es et\nutilis\u00e9es par les r\u00e9dacteurs. Il en existe d'autres, combinant d'autres\noutils, n'h\u00e9sitez pas \u00e0 nous signaler en commentaires celles et ceux que\nvous utilisez avec succ\u00e8s.
\nCette cha\u00eene peut \u00eatre adopt\u00e9e quel que soit votre syt\u00e8me\nd'exploitation, et requiert peu de configuration.
\nEtape 1/6
\nCr\u00e9ez un r\u00e9pertoire d\u00e9di\u00e9 dans lequel vous enregistrerez les fichiers\nn\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la production/compilation de votre document, i. e.:
Vous pouvez t\u00e9l\u00e9charger ces fichiers d'exemple \u00e0 partir de notre\nentrep\u00f4t Github:
Etape 2/6
\nPour cr\u00e9er automatiquement votre fichier
\nVous avez ainsi d'un seul coup cr\u00e9\u00e9 votre fichier BibTeX et l'export\nautomatique.
Etape 3/6
\nParam\u00e9trez autocomplete-bibtex pour qu'il aille bien chercher les\npropositions de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence de son menu d'auto-compl\u00e9tion dans votre\nfichier biblio_article.bib.
Etape 4/6
\nAu d\u00e9but de votre fichier
![Netherlands and to some extent France and Germany](\"https://the-academic-observatory.github.io/coki-language/output_graphs/stackedbar_oaclasses_2020_northeuropecompare.png\"){kind=link}
---\ntitle: Titre d'un article\nauthor: Blog Zotero francophone\ndate: 20 janvier 2018\nlang: fr\n---\u00c0 cette \u00e9tape, vous pouvez int\u00e9grer bien d'autres param\u00e8tres pour la\nmise en forme de votre PDF (ajouter la num\u00e9rotation des titres par\nexemple), d\u00e9taill\u00e9s par Jonathan en une page tr\u00e8s claire et\nd\u00e9taill\u00e9e\u00a012.
\nEtape 5/6
\n\u00c9crivez votre article, tapez@ puis\nle d\u00e9but d'un nom d'auteur pour appeler la fen\u00eatre d'insertion de\ncitation et les propositions de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence d'autocomplete-bibtex.
Votre bibliographie sera ins\u00e9r\u00e9e automatiquement \u00e0 la fin de votre\ndocument; n'oubliez pas d'ins\u00e9rer un intertitre \"Bibliographie\" si\napplicable.
\nEtape 6/6
\nCompilez votre document avec Pandoc, en utilisant la commande suivante\npour produire un PDF. Nous fournissons les commandes pour les versions 1\net 2 de Pandoc, mais n'avons pu tester que celle de la version 1.
pandoc v2:
\npandoc article.md --pdf-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc --bibliography=biblio_article.bib --csl=ieee.csl -f markdown+smart -o article.pdfpandoc v1:
\npandoc article.md --latex-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc --bibliography=biblio_article.bib --csl=ieee.csl -S -o article.pdfo\u00f9 vous remplacez:
\narticle.md par le nom du\nfichier Markdown \u00e0 convertir,biblio_article.bib par le nom\nde votre fichier bibtex,ieee.csl par le nom du fichier\nCSL \u00e0 appliquer,article.pdf par le nom du\nfichier PDF \u00e0 produire.En revanche, veillez \u00e0 ne pas supprimer -S. Enfin, la\ncommande -o indique \u00e0 Pandoc de\nproduire le r\u00e9sultat de la commande sous la forme du fichier\nindiqu\u00e9.
Il est \u00e0 noter que les param\u00e8tres
Bloc de m\u00e9tadonn\u00e9es:
\n---\ntitle: Titre d'un article\nauthor: Blog Zotero Francophone\ndate: 20 janvier 2018\nlang: fr\ncsl: ieee.csl\nbibliography: biblio_article.bib\n---Commande Pandoc version 1:
\npandoc article.md --latex-engine=xelatex --filter pandoc-citeproc -S -o article.pdfSur Mac, l'utilitaire Zotpick facilite la s\u00e9lection des entr\u00e9es\nbibliographiques \u00e0 citer. Cet AppleScript rend le processus\nind\u00e9pendant de votre \u00e9diteur de texte. Concr\u00e8tement, cela signifie que\nvous pouvez appeler vos r\u00e9f\u00e9rences depuis votre logiciel pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9, qu'il\ns'agisse d'un \u00e9diteur Markdown, un navigateur web, TextEdit, et m\u00eame\nWord\u2026
\n[]Zotpick ouvre une bo\u00eete de dialogue sous la forme d'une barre de\nrecherche. Tapez les premi\u00e8res lettres d'un auteur ou d'un titre et les\ndocuments correspondants s'affichent en temps r\u00e9el. Une fois le document\nrep\u00e9r\u00e9, il suffit de le s\u00e9lectionner avec la souris ou les fl\u00e8ches\ndirectionnelles du clavier puis appuyer sur Entr\u00e9e. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n'est\npas encore ins\u00e9r\u00e9e dans le texte. Vous pouvez d'ailleurs en s\u00e9lectionner\nd'autres pour citer plusieurs auteurs ou documents \u00e0 la suite. Un clic\nsur les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences permet de pr\u00e9ciser si besoin un num\u00e9ro de page et\nd'ajouter pr\u00e9fixe et suffixe.
\nUne fois les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pr\u00eates \u00e0 \u00eatre cit\u00e9es, appuyez sur Entr\u00e9e pour\nles ins\u00e9rer dans votre texte au format Markdown. Avec notre exemple cela\ndonne :
\n[@chateauraynaud2011, p. 135; voir aussi @chateauraynaud2017 chap. 4]Pas besoin de se soucier du r\u00e9sultat final, Pandoc se chargera tout\nseul de transformer ce code en quelque chose de plus propre comme :\n(Chateauraynaud, 2011, p. 135 ; voir aussi 2017, chap. 4) en fonction de\nla norme bibliographique avec laquelle vous travaillez.
\nD\u00e8s que le texte est pr\u00eat \u00e0 \u00eatre export\u00e9, il faut le passer dans\nPandoc. Avant cela, prenez le temps d'ajouter un titre tel que
Lorsque le document Markdown est enregistr\u00e9, pr\u00e9parez le fichier\n.bib contenant vos r\u00e9f\u00e9rences\nbibliographiques ainsi que le fichier
pandoc article.md --bibliography biblio.bib --csl chicago.csl -S -o article.pdf Notez que Pandoc produit un fichier de sortie (
Si les 2 m\u00e9thodes que nous venons de vous pr\u00e9senter couvrent une\n\u00e9criture acad\u00e9mique classique, nous n'avons pour autant pas \u00e9puis\u00e9 tous\nles contextes d'\u00e9criture comportant une part de r\u00e9daction\nbibliographique. Nous poursuivons ainsi ce billet avec un autre usage\nscientifique appel\u00e9 \u00e0 se d\u00e9velopper, celui de la documentation des\ndonn\u00e9es et processus de recherche.
\nDe plus en plus utilis\u00e9 pour l'analyse de donn\u00e9es, les
De ce fait, m\u00eame si un Jupyter notebook n'est pas destin\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9diger\nun article scientifique, il peut n\u00e9anmoins servir de document de\ntravail, incluant la citation des m\u00e9thodes ou \u00e9tudes sur lesquelles se\nbasent l'analyse des donn\u00e9es.
\nPour en savoir plus sur Jupyter, la documentation officielle (en\nanglais) est un bon d\u00e9but:
Nous ne pouvions pas effectuer ce tour d'horizon en nous cantonnant\naux usages strictement acad\u00e9miques d\u00e9crits jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent. Dans\ncertains contextes, il peut en effet \u00eatre n\u00e9cessaire d'ins\u00e9rer des\nr\u00e9f\u00e9rences bibliographiques correctement mises en forme, sans qu'il soit\npour autant n\u00e9cessaire (voire souhaitable) de recourir au syst\u00e8me\nd'appels de citation et de bibliographie finale.
\nLe syst\u00e8me des appels de citation et de la bibliographie finale\ndemeure finalement un outil de navigation textuelle pour le lecteur.\nLorsque ce dernier rencontre un appel de citation au fil de sa lecture,\nil peut se r\u00e9f\u00e9rer \u00e0 la bibliographie pour voir les d\u00e9tails de la source\ncit\u00e9e, puis revenir \u00e0 l'emplacement o\u00f9 il avait interrompu sa lecture\npour en reprendre le fil. Ce syst\u00e8me suppose donc qu'un tel retour soit\npossible, que le texte dispose d'un syst\u00e8me de rep\u00e8res tel qu'un num\u00e9ro\nde page permettant au lecteur de reprendre ais\u00e9ment le fil de sa\nlecture.
\nOr dans certains contextes un tel retour se r\u00e9v\u00e8le compliqu\u00e9, voire\nimpossible.
\nLe premier contexte auquel on peut penser est celui d'une\npr\u00e9sentation produite sous forme de diapositives pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es\nsuccessivement au public par l'orateur. Le public se voit projet\u00e9 le\ncontenu par fragment, et ne peut naviguer au sein du texte. Il convient\npar cons\u00e9quent que le contenu de chaque diapositive soit un minimum\nintelligible en soi. Ainsi si une source est cit\u00e9e, un appel de citation\nsera insuffisant, car le public ne pourra pas de lui-m\u00eame et\nimm\u00e9diatement se reporter \u00e0 la bibliographie finale pour consulter la\nr\u00e9f\u00e9rence compl\u00e8te. Dans l'exemple suivant, il est ainsi difficile\nd'identifier le document cit\u00e9. Ins\u00e9rer une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence bibliographique\ncompl\u00e8te permettrait en revanche au public d'identifier imm\u00e9diatement la\nsource. Cette pratique n'emp\u00eacherait pas par ailleurs d'int\u00e9grer une\nbibliographie r\u00e9capitulative \u00e0 la fin du diaporama, ou en annexe au\ndiaporama.
\nLe deuxi\u00e8me contexte que l'on peut \u00e9voquer est celui d'un texte\npubli\u00e9 en HTML. \u00c0 moins que la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence bibliographique compl\u00e8te ne\nsoit fournie sous la forme d'un affichage marginal ou d'infobulle, le\nretour de la bibliographie \u00e0 l'appel de citation o\u00f9 l'on a interrompu sa\nlecture impose de recourir \u00e0 un ascenseur, sans savoir \u00e0 quel \u00e9tage\ns'arr\u00eater. L\u00e0 encore, le syst\u00e8me des appels de citation et de la\nbibliographie finale se r\u00e9v\u00e8le peu ergonomique.
\nFinalement, il y a la bibliographie de cours regroupant l'ensemble\ndes lectures recommand\u00e9es aux \u00e9tudiants par l'enseignant. Distribu\u00e9e en\nd\u00e9but de semestre, cette liste autonome ne fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 aucun\ndocument ou partie du cours. Aucun appel de citation n'est donc\nutilis\u00e9.
\nAvant de pr\u00e9senter la solution retenue pour la r\u00e9daction\nbibliographique dans ces contextes, ajoutons deux autres facteurs qui\nont motiv\u00e9 le choix de cette solution.
\nD'une part, BibTeX se r\u00e9v\u00e8le relativement pauvre lorsqu'on souhaite\nciter des types de document plus vari\u00e9s que les standards (article,\nlivre, etc.). Or, dans un contexte professionnel ou d'enseignement, on\npeut \u00eatre amen\u00e9 \u00e0 citer \u00e0 des pages web, des enregistrements vid\u00e9os ou\nencore des pr\u00e9sentations, qui peuvent \u00eatre r\u00e9f\u00e9renc\u00e9s tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment\ndans Zotero.
\nD'autre part, dans un souci d'\u00e9conomie de moyens, on peut aussi\npr\u00e9f\u00e9rer \u00e9viter le d\u00e9tour par un fichier BibTeX et la compilation Pandoc\npour des documents brefs ou cr\u00e9\u00e9s en utilisant des logiciels qui\nincluent une compilation PDF.
\nLa solution que nous utilisons pour tous ces contextes repose ainsi\nsur trois \u00e9l\u00e9ments simples:
\nUn style de ce type peut \u00eatre tr\u00e8s rapidement cr\u00e9\u00e9, pour peu qu'on\nchoisisse de partir d'un style comportant peu de mise en forme\ntypographique. Ainsi si on choisit un style pr\u00e9voyant seulement de\nl'italique pour quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments, il suffira de remplacer dans le code\nCSL les attributs
Nous vous proposons pour d\u00e9couvrir cette m\u00e9thode des styles \"hack\u00e9s\nmd\", les styles ISO 690.
\n
\n
\n
\n
Cette solution n'est certes pas enti\u00e8rement orthodoxe, elle fournit\ntoutefois une option tr\u00e8s \u00e9conomique pour citer correctement et en\ntoutes circonstances les sources utilis\u00e9es dans un fichier Markdown.
\nNous souhaitons conclure ce billet en partageant avec vous les outils\nque nous avons test\u00e9s et adopt\u00e9s.
\nPour cr\u00e9er des pr\u00e9sentations, j'utilise souvent
J'ai r\u00e9cemment commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser
Pour les bibliographies de cours, j'utilise simplement un \u00e9diteur de\ntexte (Atom au travail et
Pour cr\u00e9er des pr\u00e9sentations sous forme de diaporama, j'utilise
Sur le conseil de Rapha\u00ebl, j'ai adopt\u00e9
Pour citer avec ces deux outils j'ai cr\u00e9\u00e9 un
Enfin, de fa\u00e7on beaucoup plus ponctuelle, j'ai recours au
Je r\u00e9dige tous mes textes Markdown dans Ulysses, \u00e9diteur de texte\nfonctionnant sous macOS. Son interface minimaliste et personnalisable en\nfait un \u00e9diteur de choix pour r\u00e9diger des articles pour des revues\nscientifiques et/ou pour le web. Pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans cet article, Zotpick est\ndevenu un incontournable pour moi. Il est tout aussi important que mon\n\u00e9diteur de texte, sinon plus.
\nTout comme Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique, il m'arrive d'utiliser Marp pour mes\npr\u00e9sentations.
\nToutes les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences cit\u00e9es dans cet article sont disponibles
Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon kicked off a good idea to list a few articles he was keen to read and tell us why.
Based on 'open tabs' in their browser, approximately every month one person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the 'must-read' posts of the moment.
Each author concludes by tagging the next; to next take up the mantle, Cameron nominated Aaron Tay, Analytics Manager at Singapore Management University Libraries, and somewhat of an industry analyst on his personal blog, Musings About Librarianship.
Here's what Aaron is excited about reading...
I tend to find interesting articles via Twitter or from following references of such articles. For articles that look potentially interesting I will usually put the link in my Google Keep and tag them with \"Professional Development\", which I try to clear every week.
I've been skimming some of these tagged links recently and these are some that I have found really intriguing and have found earned a place in my browser tabs because I can't bear to close them or I am still thinking about the implications of what I read.
https://metadatagamechangers.com/blog/2022/3/7/ivfrlw6naf7am3bvord8pldtuyqn4r
I have been slowly working my way through Ted Habermann's blog posts which often cover parts of his published research that I am excited to read, but this one blog is the one that really made me sit up and take notice.
Habermann shows that most data repositories are minting dois with a minimal set of metadata deposited in Datacite needed to get Datacite DOIs. The fact that there isn't much metadata here is perhaps only somewhat surprising, as I know many repository managers are of the view that making too many fields mandatory will turn off users from depositing.
More astonishing to me is his finding that institutional repositories do indeed have substantial additional metadata entered by the researcher when depositing or enhanced by other means but these metadata simply do not make the climb up what he calls the \"Metadata Mountain\" into DataCite as they fall by the wayside.
Using DRUM Repository at the University of Minnesota as an example, he identified many metadata fields that had data collected by the repository but were not included or translated into the DataCite Schema. These included fields such as abstract, keywords, Funder, etc.
Of course, all these fields affect FAIR (Findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability) of the datasets. By working to extract such data from the records and updating the Datacite metadata he managed to increase the completeness of these fields from 15% to 32%.
There's a lot more to his work, eg his approach to quantifying and visualizing FAIRness by mapping Datacite fields into 4 categories into a Radar Chart , and I intend to follow up on Ted's recent papers but I'm struck by the practical implications here for repository managers for institutions. Why are we collecting metadata but not exposing it properly?
This is particularly so when the blog post suggests this issue isn't present as much in subject repositories such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse.
On reflection, this issue of repositories capturing data and making it appear only in human-readable format or at least formats that are not harvested by relevant machines is not a new problem.
I have encountered similar issues in the past with our own repository. In one past incident, the repository manager had painstakingly added version information to each deposited paper to the repository but despite that it was not picked up by the Unpaywall crawler. Another related incident involved trying to figure out why data citations from datasets in our data repository were not appearing via Scholix despite us supposedly providing the information when creating the metadata at the time of the deposit.
Perhaps we have a tendency to assume if we as humans can see the metadata in the repository in human displays we assume our job is done.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.779097
More metadata fun! This time a study on ORCID. I was recently asked about Singapore efforts on PID strategy. While I know very little about that, it did set me thinking. What was the ORCID penetration rate in Singapore and in my institution? How did we compare to others?
This is where this paper is timely. To determine ORCID use by authors, one needs a benchmark or gold standard to compare against and this is where Dimensions comes in.
I intend to look closer at the methodology, but the essential point here is that this study measures ORCID use in two dimensions.
Firstly there is what is called ORCID adoption defined as
\"the percentage of researchers in a given year who have at least one publication with a DOI linked to their ORCID iD either in ORCID directly or identified within the Crossref file\"
However, a researcher might create a ORCID because he is required to do so when submitting to journals or doing fund proposal by funder and otherwise ignore the ORCID profile. As such the study measures also completeness of the ORCID profile which they argue measures adoption.
The paper is particularly interesting since they provide evidence on adoption and engagement using these metrics across
The author of the page even indulged me when I asked for a breakdown of Singapore institutions!
All in all the paper has a lot of interesting findings and implications that are worth looking at. Some are even on the surface surprising. For example they find Humanities research tends to have lower adoption but higher engagement than say Medical and Health Sciences.
Part of this can be explained by the finding that while most publishers do accept ORCIDs, many are still accepting only ORCID for just one author. As Humanities research tends to have fewer authors per paper than medical research, this partly explains why on average humanities researchers with ORCID profiles tend to be more complete.
I've been reading about and playing with language models like GPT-3 for the last 2 years. More recently tools like Elicit.org are starting to employ language models for academic research and have set out their roadmaps here in Elicit: Language Models as Research Assistants.
The results for Elict.org are quite impressive given it is a very early stage tool but what pitfalls are there? Are we too eager to employ such technologies? Can they really be used to support systematic reviews etc? \u00a0I know one of the problems of language models is that it can make up answers or \"hallucinate\" but is that the only issue? See also - How to use Elicit responsibly.
I know there is a fairly recent technical paper - On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? that heavily critiques language models and provides a overview of risks of using language models, that is making the rounds, but I haven't had the time to look at it, and I fear it may be overly technical for me.
This is where I came across the piece entitled \"On NYT Magazine on AI: Resist the Urge to be Impressed\". Given this post is by Emily Bender who is one of the co-authors of the Stochastic Parrot piece , I suspect this will provide the viewpoint from an expert who is very skeptical and critical of language models.
This medium post itself is a response to the NYT piece \"A.I. Is Mastering Language. Should We Trust What It Says?\" which is worth a read.
I'm going to cheat by ending with yet another reference to Ted Habermann, this is a talk he gave recently that covers a good portion of his recent work.
It's a fascinating talk with many ideas including
Tune in next month to find out some more must-read 'open tabs'. I'm tagging Bianca Kramer (scholarly communication/open science librarian at Utrecht University Library,) someone who has been a force in Scholarly Communication and Open Science circles and an academic librarian who I highly respect.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.54900/bgw9vk8-8ed9wqn","guid":"https://doi.org/10.54900/bgw9vk8-8ed9wqn","image":"https://upstream.force11.org/content/images/2022/08/library-janko-ferlic.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1651708800,"rid":"em4tr-jvg84","summary":" Several weeks ago, Cameron Neylon kicked off a good idea to list a few articles he was keen to read and tell us why. Based on 'open tabs' in their browser, approximately every month one person will share their reading wishlists so we can curate some of the 'must-read' posts of the moment. Each author concludes by tagging the next; ","tags":["Open Tabs"],"title":"Aaron Tay is Keeping Tabs on Open Research","updated_at":1788407554,"url":"https://upstream.force11.org/aaron-tay-is-keeping-tabs-on-open-research/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Swiss National Science Foundation, Coordination of information systems in research support (CoSi)"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Gutknecht","given":"Christian","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7265-1692"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"2010c4da-31b7-4cd7-97cf-c75892ae6902","created":1673827200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Gemeinschaftsblog zu wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation im Netz.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/wisspub","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/2010c4da-31b7-4cd7-97cf-c75892ae6902/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://wisspub.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://wisspub.net","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"wisspub","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"wisspub.net","updated":1783172430,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"wisspub.net","blog_slug":"wisspub","content_html":"Wie wird sich ein globaler Wechsel zu Gold OA basierend auf Article Processing Charges (APCs) finanziell auf forschungsintensive Universit\u00e4ten auswirken?\u00a0 Die mit einem 800’000$-Grant der Mellon-Foundation unterst\u00fctzte Studie “Pay it Foward” (185 Seiten) ging dieser Frage an den Beispielen der grossen nordamerikanischen Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State nach.
\nF\u00fcr die einzelnen Universit\u00e4ten wurden zun\u00e4chst aus Scopus und Web of Science Daten \u00fcber das Publikationsverhalten der Universit\u00e4ten ermittelt. Im Fokus standen Zeitschriftenartikel (inkl. Reviews) und Konferenzbeitr\u00e4ge von 2009-2013. Mit spezieller Unterst\u00fctzung durch Elsevier und Thomson Reuters wurde die institutionelle Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit von AutorInnen und Corresponding-Authors identifiziert. Je nach Messmethode (Umgang mit Corresponding Authors, die mehrere Affiliations haben) und Datenbank wurde eine Corresponding-Author-Quote zwischen 45-61 Prozent ermittelt. Dieser Anteil deckt sich mit den Erfahrungen der Max Planck Digital Library. In einem weiteren Schritt wurden die Daten von Scopus mit denen von Web of Science zusammengef\u00fchrt.
\n\n\u00dcbrigens: Den Rohdaten von Web of Science (WoS_aggregate.csv) ist zu entnehmen, dass 7.5% (26’355 von 354’556) Dokumente in WoS als Gold Open Access gekennzeichnet wurden.
\nAufgrund einer “in-scope Titel Liste” (ohne Aggregatoren oder Backfile-Eink\u00e4ufe) wurde bei den Bibliotheken die Subskriptionsausgaben (nach Rechnungsjahren) gesammelt. Die Zahlen zeigten, dass inzwischen weit \u00fcber 90% der betrachteten Ausgaben nur f\u00fcr e-only aufgewendet werden. Bei der University of British Columbia im Jahre 2013 bereits 97%. F\u00fcr den weiteren Studienverlauf wurde deshalb auf eine Unterscheidung von Print und Elektronisch verzichtet. Zus\u00e4tzlich wurden die Ausgaben f\u00fcr Open Access in Form von Verlags-Mitgliedschaften oder APC-Zahlungen erfasst. Insgesamt wurde im Jahr 2013 von allen Hochschulbibliotheken gut 50 Millionen Dollar f\u00fcr Subskriptionen bezahlt, f\u00fcr Gold OA jedoch bloss $365’000!
\n\nUm herauszufinden welche Kosten auf die Universit\u00e4ten zuk\u00e4men, wenn k\u00fcnftig die Publikationen \u00fcberwiegend per APCs bezahlt werden m\u00fcssten, wollte man von m\u00f6glichst realistischen APCs ausgehen. Es wurde versucht sich dem “richtigen” Preis von verschiedenen Seiten zu n\u00e4hern.
\na) tats\u00e4chlich bezahlte APCs (Open Data)
\n
Die Daten der ver\u00f6ffentlichten Zahlungen des RCUK, Wellcome Trust, von Deutschen Universit\u00e4ten (Siehe auch neue Analyse Jahn & Tullney 2016) sowie des FWF wurden herangezogen und auf die projekteigene Disziplinenliste aufgeschl\u00fcsselt.
\n
Hier ergab sich eine durchschnittliche APC von $1865.
\nb) Preisangaben der Verlage/Journals.
\nDurch die Studien Solomon und Bj\u00f6rk (2012) und Morrison et al. (2015) standen bereits nutzbare Daten zur Verf\u00fcgung, was Verlage/Journals auf ihren Webseiten f\u00fcr Preise angaben. F\u00fcr die weitere Auswertung wurden die Daten von Morrison et al. durch das Studienteam zu Beginn 2016 auf den neusten Stand gebracht und auf die aus WoS/Scopus extrahierten Publikationen bzw. die eigenen Disziplinen gemappt:
Hier ergab sich eine durchschnittliche APC von $1864 auf Journal-Level, bzw. $1892 auf Artikelebene. Wie auch schon bei der Analyse der europ\u00e4ischen APCs erweist sich eine disziplinspezifische Betrachtung aufgrund ungleicher Verteilung (kaum Daten bei den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften oder der \u00d6konomie) als wenig aussagekr\u00e4ftig. Eine ausf\u00fchrliche Analyse zu diesen APCs wurde inzwischen auch ausgelagert ver\u00f6ffentlicht (Solomon & Bj\u00f6rk 2016).
\nEine Kategorisierung der OA-Publikationen nach Bezahlmodell zeigt sehr deutlich die heutige Dominanz des APC-Modells: 89% von 22’209 OA-Artikel sind in APCs-basierten Zeitschriften publiziert worden. Diese Tatsache relativiert das tr\u00fcgerische Bild, welches sich aus der Betrachtung von Journals im DOAJ ergibt, wonach eine Mehrheit der dort verzeichneten Journals keine APC verlangt.
\nIn was f\u00fcr Open Access Journals publizieren AutorInnen der Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State?
Eine Kategorisierung der OA-Journals in denen im Zeitraum 2009-2013 mindesten 10 Artikel erschienen sind.
Interessanterweise weisen die Bibliotheken insgesamt nur Ausgaben von $365’000 f\u00fcr Open Access ($159’000 OA memberships + $206’000 APC Payments) aus. Daraus l\u00e4sst sich klar schliessen, dass das Geld, das AutorInnen f\u00fcr Open Access bisher aufgewendet haben, nur zu einem winzigen Teil von den Bibliotheken stammt. D.h. auch die nordamerikanischen Bibliotheken haben es in den vergangenen Jahren verschlafen, das wachsende Bed\u00fcrfnis nach finanzieller Unterst\u00fctzung beim OA-Publizieren anzugehen.
\nc) Preisberechnung mit Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
\n
Nun ist es kein Geheimnis, dass insbesondere kommerzielle Verlage zurzeit ihre Preise nicht an ihren realen Kosten, sondern h\u00e4ufig an der Reputation (Impact Factor) ihrer Journals ausrichten.
\nDie “Pay it forward”-Studie hat diese g\u00e4ngige Preissetzung untersucht und eine positive Korrelation zwischen der H\u00f6he der APC und der “Qualit\u00e4t” gemessen als Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP ; = Elseviers offenes Pendant zum Impact Factor) eines Journals festgestellt. Nach einer Regressionsanalyse getrauen sich die StudienautorInnen sogar eine Formel bekannt zu geben, mit welcher sich f\u00fcr jedes Journal mit einem SNIP die voraussichtliche APC ausrechnen l\u00e4sst.
\nAPC = 1147.68 + 709.4 * SNIP
\nBeispiel: F\u00fcr das Journal\u00a0Water Research (IF 6 / SNIP 2.4) w\u00e4re die APC demzufolge:
\n1147.68+ 709 * 2.4 = 2849 USD
\n(Wobei Elsevier heute im Hybrid-Modus interessanterweise 3500$ verlangt).
\nd) effektive Verlagskosten
\n
Aus der Literatur und teils anonymen Quellen der Verlagsindustrie, den Steuerangaben von Non-Profit-Verlagen in den USA (990 Tax Form) und einer Umfrage bei der Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) versuchten die Studienautorinnen ebenfalls die effektiven Verlagskosten in Erfahrung zu bringen.
\n
Man erkennt schnell, dass keine Klarheit \u00fcber die effektiven Kosten besteht. Ein \u00e4hnliches Resultat hatte schon der Beitrag “The true cost of science publishing” ergeben. Die Pay it Forward-Studie legt jedoch nahe, dass mit mindestens $1000 Dollar als Kosten eines Artikel gerechnet werden muss.
\nMit dem verf\u00fcgbaren Subskriptionenbudget der Bibliothek und dem Publikationsverhalten konnte pro Hochschule Break-Even APCs ausgerechnet werden. Dabei wurde vorsichtshalber davon ausgegangen, dass k\u00fcnftig f\u00fcr alle Artikel eine APC bezahlt werden m\u00fcsste:
\n
Man sieht schnell, dass der Umstieg f\u00fcr auf ein vollst\u00e4ndig APC basiertes Modell alleine mit dem heute eingesetzten Bibliotheksbudget und dem heutigen Durchschnittspreis von ca. 1850$ pro APC f\u00fcr die meisten Universit\u00e4ten finanziell nicht m\u00f6glich sein wird.
\nDie Studie geht deshalb in Folge davon aus, dass bei einer Umstellung zu Gold OA das Geld zunehmend auch von anderen Quellen, insbesondere die von Forschungsf\u00f6rderer kommen muss. Es werden verschiedene Modelle skizziert, wie bei einem Wechsel auf Gold OA die Kosten f\u00fcr APCs zwischen Bibliothek, Forschungsf\u00f6rderer und anderen Geldquellen sinnvoll aufgeteilt werden k\u00f6nnen. Ein wesentliches Element dieser Modelle ist der st\u00e4rkere finanzielle Einbezug der Forschenden. Die Hoffnung besteht, dass diese eine (neue) Sensibilit\u00e4t hinsichtlich Preis von Verlagsleistung entwickeln.
\nDie Studie beinhaltet auch einen qualitativer Teil, bei dem mit Fokusgruppen und Umfragen ermittelt wurde, was Forschende \u00fcber das wissenschaftliche Publizieren, OA und den finanziellen Aspekten denken. Dieser Teil wurde inzwischen separat ver\u00f6ffentlicht (Tenopir et al. 2016).
\nDie Resultate best\u00e4tigen grunds\u00e4tzlich vorhergehende Arbeiten (mitunter auch die Resultate meiner Masterarbeit). Die Idee von Open Access f\u00fcr Perspektive des Lesers wird durchg\u00e4ngig begr\u00fcsst. Beim eigenen Publizieren spielt OA jedoch nachwievor untergeordnet eine Rolle. Qualit\u00e4t, Reputation, inhaltliche \u00dcbereinstimmung, erwartetes Publikum, Chance angenommen zu werden, Geschwindigkeit vom Einreichen zur Publikation oder die Herausgeber sind wichtigere Faktoren bei der Wahl eines Journals als OA.
\nDesweiteren gibt es disziplin-spezifische Unterschiede. Etwas zugespitzt: Physiker und Mathematiker brauchen Gold OA nicht, da sie ja ArXiv haben. F\u00fcr Mediziner und Biologen sind APCs schon fast Alltag. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftler haben Vorbehalte gegen\u00fcber APCs.
\nDas wesentliche Resultat der Studie ist durchaus keine \u00dcberraschung, wie David Crotty auf Scholarly Kitchen zutreffend kommentiert. Es war immer wahrscheinlich anzunehmen, dass forschungsintensive Institutionen bei einem Wandel zu Gold OA st\u00e4rker zur Kasse gebeten werden k\u00f6nnten. Dennoch ist es wichtig diese Annahme einmal mit offiziellem Zahlenmaterial untermauert zu sehen.
\nWas die Studie leider nicht liefert, ist ein Vergleich zwischen den Ausgaben und Publikationen auf Stufe Verlag. Ich k\u00f6nnte mir gut vorstellen, dass es bei einer Transformation zu OA auch bei den Verlagen gr\u00f6ssere Gewinner und Verlierer geben w\u00fcrde.
\nZumindest zeigen die Zahlen aus der Schweiz, insbesondere diejenige der forschungintensiven ETH Z\u00fcrich, dass ein Wechsel auf Gold OA zumindest bei den Verlagen Elsevier, Springer und Wiley finanziell ohne weiteres m\u00f6glich w\u00e4re und bei diesen Verlagen sogar mit Kosteneinsparungen verbunden w\u00e4re. In Angesicht der Resultate von Pay it Forward stellt sich die Frage, ob dieser Unterschied daran liegt, weil man in der Schweiz und bei der ETH Z\u00fcrich grunds\u00e4tzlich mehr zahlt, als bei Harvard & Co., oder ob dies eher an dem spezifischen Fokus auf die drei gr\u00f6ssten Verlage liegt, der in Nordamerika ebenfalls zu Tage k\u00e4me, h\u00e4tte man die Zahlen auf Stufe Verlag verglichen.
\nEbenfalls muss in Betracht gezogen werden, dass eine nahezu 100% Umstellung auf OA finanzielle Einsparungen an vielen anderen Orten ergibt. Dabei meine ich nicht nur die radikale Vereinfachung von vielen bibliothekarischen Prozessen, sondern auch die Tatsache, dass ausserhalb der forschungsintensiven Hochschulen es noch zahlreiche andere \u00f6ffentliche Institutionen (z.B. Fachhochschulen, Spit\u00e4ler, Beh\u00f6rden etc.) gibt, bei denen bei einer Umstellung Subskriptionskosten entfallen w\u00fcrden. Diese Gelder k\u00f6nnten zumindest anteilsm\u00e4ssig zugunsten des finanziellen Mehrbedarf von forschungsintensiven Hochschulen umgeschichtet werden.
\nLetztlich scheint es nachvollziehbar, dass die Kosten des heutigen Systems auch bereits durch jemanden bezahlt werden und die Transformation mehr eine Frage der Organisation der Umschichtung von Geldern ist, als tats\u00e4chlich ein finanzielles Problem. SCOAP3 hat dies ja unl\u00e4ngst gezeigt.
\nMeines Wissens ist Pay it Forward die erste \u00f6ffentliche Studie, bei welcher das Potential der Subskriptionskosten auf institutioneller Ebene f\u00fcr OA solide analysiert wurde. Das weckt Hoffnung, dass auch andere Institutionen dem Beispiel folgen und sich Kennzahlen zu ihrem Potential f\u00fcr OA verschaffen und dies ver\u00f6ffentlichen.
\nZum Schluss sei noch auf eine Pr\u00e4sentation der Studie von MacKenzie Smith, University Librarian, UC Davis am 21. September 2016 verwiesen.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/t4nep-8ma25","guid":"http://wisspub.net/?p=11879","image":"https://wisspub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/payitforward-header.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1478390400,"rid":"af8ph-db813","summary":"Wie wird sich ein globaler Wechsel zu Gold OA basierend auf Article Processing Charges (APCs) finanziell auf forschungsintensive Universit\u00e4ten auswirken? Die mit einem 800'000$-Grant der Mellon-Foundation unterst\u00fctzte Studie \"Pay it Foward\" (185 Seiten) ging dieser Frage an den Beispielen der grossen nordamerikanischen Universit\u00e4ten British Columbia, California, Harvard und Ohio State nach.","tags":["Open Access","Publikationsverhalten","Universit\u00e4ten"],"title":"\"Pay it Forward\"-Studie","updated_at":1788407552,"url":"https://wisspub.net/2016/11/06/pay-it-forward-studie/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Grassmuck","given":"Volker"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"03c1b30d-4ade-474e-8cf2-282ffe91c498","created":1761523200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"the vonderful vorld of virtual v","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/vgrass","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/03c1b30d-4ade-474e-8cf2-282ffe91c498/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://vgrass.de/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://vgrass.de","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"vgrass","status":"active","subfield":"3315","title":"vgrass.de","updated":1783172416,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"vgrass.de","blog_slug":"vgrass","content_html":"At the Netzpolitischer Abend (npa) of Digiale Gesellschaft, on 4 December at c-base, Ivan Zassoursky, Head of the New Media and Communication Theory department of the School of Journalism at Moscow State University, publisher of the daily Chastny Korrespondent (Private Correspondent, translated) and the OA repository and aggregator Nauchny Korrespondent (Scientific Correspondent, translated) and Noosphere.ru (translated), president of the Webpublishers Association and film producer (must-see: \"Generation P\", 2011), spoke about \"The digital public sphere in RU and its discontents.\"
\n\n“Who laughs as the last, laughs the best.” (old Russian proverb)
\n
Data Processing and production: Jamie Diprose
Cross-posted from the COKI blog.
There is a lot of lip service paid to the idea of diversity in scholarly publishing and often diversity of language is used as an example. The Helsinki Initiative is one example of an explicit call for multilingualism and the Jussieu Call for bibliodiversity, while it does not explicitly mention language, is an implicit criticism of anglo-centric publishing. The UNESCO Open Science Recommendation states that
\n\n\u2026open science should embrace a diversity of knowledge, practices, workflows, languages, research outputs and research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of the scientific community as a whole\u2026
\n
The State of the Internet's Languages Report extends this to the internet as a whole showing how these issues extend far beyond scholarly communications.
But while the groups that work actively in languages other than English have been making this point consistently and forcefully, it has had limited traction in the scholarly anglophone literature. A few articles have implemented or suggested indicators that track language diversity but there appears to be relatively few examples of analyses at scale (for a nice counter-example see Kulczycki et al 2018 and 2020). To address this gap, we have mapped the 122 million objects in Crossref up to the end of May 2022 to languages (based on titles and abstracts, where available) and done an initial analysis. The results are a mix of the expected and surprising.
We took a quick approach to mapping the languages that can definitely be improved (see below for details). We would welcome suggestions and contributions on how to improve the methodology, with an eye towards including this as a standard parameter for scholarly outputs. Obviously all of this analysis is limited to outputs in the Crossref metadata dataset, which will result in some bias, both against publications without a DOI as well as publications with DOIs from different registrars, with the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) being an important example.
Not surprisingly, English dominates the literature (although with a slowly dropping proportion) with other European languages following including German, French, Spanish and then Portuguese, with Bahasa Indonesian as the next largest language. Spanish and Portuguese grew strongly over the period with Portuguese growing from around 7,000 outputs captured in 2000 to over 150,000 in 2021, reflecting the rise of Brazil as a research powerhouse, and the effectiveness of SciELO as a dissemination platform over that period. Indonesian shows massive growth, probably in part reflecting improved coverage of Crossref metadata over this period along with the massive growth of Indonesian publishing efforts.
The types of content are different as well with German having a much higher proportion of book chapters and books (and French having a large number of component DOIs) and the large number of preprints (posted-content) in Indonesian. The latter example also illustrates issues with the data collection. After INA-Rxiv closed to new submissions in 2020 and submissions moved to RINarxiv this content was not assigned Crossref DOIs and therefore will disappear from our analysis. These differences between languages are likely to have complex effects on the analysis of qualities of the content, particularly open access and citations. In most of this analysis we've left all types of content in, but the processed dataset is split out by Crossref type so you can look more closely at those issues!
Open access shows substantial differences across languages. Perhaps even more importantly, our ability to classify open access types is leading to issues across different languages. Indonesian is a great example. Currently we use DOAJ as the marker of a \"completely OA journal\" (and we differ from Unpaywall in this at the moment). Many Indonesian journals are not in DOAJ and therefore show as \"hybrid\". Unpaywall is also not always able to pick up license information so full OA journals that are not in DOAJ may also get characterized as \"bronze\". In Portuguese it is likely that a large proportion of \"hybrid\" is actually fully OA journals published through SciElO. Categories of open access publishing in Hungarian, Polish, Turkish and many other languages are also likely to need closer examination. We used DOAJ to identify non-APC journals as well and this is likely undercounting this category for Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese and Spanish outputs.
Nonetheless, we observe high proportions of articles in non-APC journals in Spanish and Portuguese (attesting to the success of the diamond OA model in Latin America), as well as in a number of other languages, including Nordic languages, many Eastern European languages, and others. Overall, when looking at 2020-2022, for English articles in DOAJ journals, 21% are in non-APC journals, but for articles in languages other than English, this percentage is a massive 86%. Non-APC models appear to dominate the landscape for non-English full OA journals. And amongst English language articles in OA journals (as defined by registration in DOAJ) the APC model definitely dominates. As is often the case, innovation rooted in community needs is more common away from traditional centres of prestige.
Some countries with high levels of open access in English have comparatively low levels in the local language. This is the case for the Netherlands and to some extent France and Germany. This is most likely related to disciplinary differences in what is published in English (with a bias towards STEM and higher levels of OA) vs local language (with a bias towards HSS subjects). By contrast Nordic languages and Norwegian in particular show high levels of open access with an emphasis on APC-free OA journals, likely as a result of local initiatives to fund the conversion of national language journals (which tend to focus on HSS) to open access. The Hr\u010dak central portal providing support for Croatian journals is another example with Croatian also showing a similar pattern.
In this dataset outputs in languages other than English remain a fairly small proportion, less than 20%, of the total. But within that segment is a far greater diversity of practice, and substantial differences to the English majority. If we are looking for examples of different practice, and successes beyond the \"standard\" models of APC-OA publishing, hybrid and transformative agreements there is a wealth of case studies here. Pointing to Latin America has long been a go-to exemplar, but Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Indonesia are rich in examples. And we have barely scratched the surface here.
Similarly, just looking at that surface has revealed real issues with the way we categorise open access publishing that do not reflect the realities on the ground in settings beyond Europe and North America. As with so many aspects of scholarly practice and evaluation, you can't find what you can't look for. We are providing the language mapping and analysis datasets for others to dig deeper, and ideally improve on our methodology.
There are obvious improvements that could be made to the language mapping, including determining language for titles (of which there may be more than one) and abstracts separately, applying an acceptance threshold rather than just selecting the top scoring language, and ultimately refining the language model to work specifically on scholarly content. Again, we hope that sharing the dataset will prompt others to look at how to improve on the process.
Ultimately, we believe that including a language analysis might be something that can be easily included as part of any discussion of scholarly communications. We could make this possible in a matter of months, not years, if we work collectively. And in doing so we will provide new ways to look at the diversity of scholarly publishing to everyone's benefit.
A subset of the COKI Academic Observatory Dataset, which is produced by the Academic Observatory Workflows codebase [1], was extracted and converted to CSV with Bigquery and downloaded to a virtual machine. The subset consists of all publications with DOIs in our dataset, including each publication's title and abstract from both Crossref Metadata (as of 28 May, doi20220528) and Microsoft Academic Graph (the final dump of 6 December 2021 as available in doi20220528). The CSV files were then processed with a Python script. The titles and abstracts for each record were pre-processed, concatenated together and analyzed with fastText. The titles and abstracts from Crossref Metadata were used first, with the MAG titles and abstracts serving as a fallback when the Crossref Metadata information was empty. Language was predicted for each publication using the fastText lid.176.bin language identification model [2]. fastText was chosen because of its high accuracy and fast runtime speed [3]. The output dataset [4] consists of DOI, title, ISO language code and the fastText language prediction probability score. The dataset is also publicly viewable on Google BigQuery (you may need a free Google Cloud account to view this).
The language mapping dataset was joined to the Academic Observatory Dataset [1] and queried for open access, Crossref output type and citation characteristics (see graph_data.sql in the coki-language repository), and downloaded and saved as CSV (output_graphs/downloaded_data.csv). The downloaded data was processed using a python script (graphs.py) to generate the graphs in this post. Open access status was derived from Unpaywall data as defined in the relevant Academic Observatory query with the exception of \"diamond\" which was determined by querying a local copy of the DOAJ data dump for journals which are registered as having no APC (see graph_data.sql line 20 in the coki-language repository).
The COKI Language Dataset is publicly accessible in BigQuery in the following two tables:
COKI Language Detection [5]: https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory/coki-language
Academic Observatory Workflows: https://github.com/The-Academic-Observatory/academic-observatory-workflows
Madness: A Philosophical Exploration
\nJustin Garson
\nOxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, \u00a347.99
\nISBN 9780197613832
I cannot remember the last time I read a book of philosophy that taught me something new and also took me on such a journey of images and sounds\u2014a powerful reminder that, yes, rigorous philosophical ideas can be expressed in many forms, including excellent prose. Justin Garson's Madness reads like a novel but instructs like an encyclopaedia. I revelled in an engaging narrative filled with suspense and cliff-hangers, where I challenged myself to anticipate the next twist: will my favourite philosopher be a strategist or a dysfunctionalist about madness? This was a journey of self-transformation and, as such, it was an often uncomfortable read: I have always thought of myself as someone who accepts a largely medicalized view of madness but is vocal about madness having meaning and purpose. While reading the book and for a long time afterwards, however, I became seriously concerned that I could not be both; that I had to choose. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that we can see madness as purposeful in a medical framework, although Garson may disagree.
\nIn the introduction, Garson describes the point of the book in terms of 'extracting a certain vision' of madness: madness not as a defect but as 'a goal-driven process, a well-oiled machine, one in which all of the components work exactly as they ought'. The contrast is between madness-as-strategy ('in the mad, a purpose is being fulfilled') and madness-as-dysfunction ('when someone is mad, it is because something has gone wrong inside of that person'). This polarity is beautiful in its simplicity but it transpires as a fiction over the course of the book, as Garson masterfully proves that the two visions collide and combine in multiple ways, to the point that it is difficult to tell whether any statement about madness is an endorsement of strategy or dysfunction.
\nGarson's project is itself one of contrasts. The teleological mode of interpretation of madness (madness-as-strategy) has always been there, but it has been buried; the book is described as 'an exercise in concept building', but none of the concepts are new. The book indeed shows that the idea of madness-as-strategy has always been an option\u2014not always the dominant or the only approach, but certainly an available approach. To my mind, the book does more and does less than building concepts: it does more because it endorses and passionately defends, rather than merely explicating, the vision that emerges when the right concepts are combined; and it does less because these concepts already exist and need not be built ex novo. Mostly what the book does is create an irresistible thread, establishing a connection between different versions of the same core idea.
\nOne difficulty in grasping the scope of this analysis is that the buzz words are left buzzing. If madness is a strategy, what is a strategy for, exactly? If madness is a dysfunction, which are the dysfunctional processes? But the reason for this vagueness becomes apparent over the course of the book: each point in time, each historical and cultural context, offers different answers to such questions, until the only thing that persists is this sense of purpose on the one hand, and this sense of failure on the other.
\nGarson is explicit about the four benefits of his 'recovery operation': We gain new tools for the historian as we go beyond interpretations of madness that rely on the tension between dualism and physicalism. We acquire a new lens through which we can appreciate the debates about madness and disorder in the philosophy of psychiatry as we move to a deeper level of analysis than that necessary for understanding challenges to medicalization. We develop a new logic of intervention as we start conceiving of treatment not as an elimination of harmful symptoms, but as a recognition of symptoms as adaptive responses to a crisis. And we are also gifted a new foundation for mad activism that views madness not as a pathology or a defect, but as a positive identity and 'the default state of humankind, ground zero of the conscious mind' (p. 12).
\nIn Part 1, Garson argues that it is a mistake to view the contraposition between Hippocrates and the alternative conceptions of healing as a version of the contemporary distinction between naturalism and anti-naturalism. Rather, we should read their disagreement in terms of Hippocrates proposing a view of disease as dysfunction, and his opponents endorsing instead a view of disease as teleology. Garson defends the view that Hippocrates and his followers did not exclude the divine from medicine, but wanted to separate religion (which they thought relevant) from magic (which they despised as a form of superstition). Nonetheless, some magical and superstitious thinking remains in Hippocrates' writings, highlighting a difficulty for any naturalist interpretation of his thought. For Garson, Hippocrates' legacy is seeing disease as a negation of teleology: medicine 'restores the creature's capacity to attain its good' (p. 25).
\nThen, Garson offers a beautiful reconstruction of how, after the advent of Christianity, madness was viewed as an instrument of punishment and redemption. Magicians and conjurors are replaced by exorcists and witch-hunters as proponents of the purposive nature of madness. Garson claims that there is no transmission of knowledge from the former to the latter (no lineage); the idea simply resurfaces. The Christianization of medicine is characterized by a change in the way gods relate to humans. Whereas the Greek gods did not care much, the Christian god is concerned about our moral worth. This is where punishment and redemption come from, from the concern of god for us.
\nAn interesting discussion of the scope of medicine ensues. How much responsibility and authority do physicians have in this picture? God intervenes, but not on the individual's circumstances. He created reality in such a way that if one misbehaves, one gets punished; and if one suffers, by doing so one redeems oneself ('if you overindulge in food or drink, you get sick', as Garson puts it; p. 41). This means that there is still some room for the physician: we can ask what god is punishing a person for, but also what natural mechanisms connect the person's sin with their disease. In the Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), Robert Burton develops a notion of madness as misuse, where madness is due to irresponsibility: people are mad when they misuse their god-given faculties and the blame is on them, not god. Bad behaviour is at the origin of this: 'disposition becomes habit' and 'habit, so fixed, is itself a form of madness' (p. 51). Garson also discusses George Cheyne's work on melancholy in The English Malady (1733) . Melancholy is a dissatisfaction with what god gave us, a punishment for sin that we deserve, but it also enables us to reform. Redemption requires a change of moral character. A legitimate question is why god does not make us good to start with, and the answer is that he wants us to be free to choose, to err and to mend. Madness is as much a cure as it is a disease: it enables god to punish and purify us without taking away our free will.
\nIn Part 2, Garson explores the crystallization of madness-as-dysfunction as the dominant view: by the eighteenth century 'madness is mere pathology' (p. 75), and when someone is mad it means that something is wrong inside them. This differs from the Hippocratic approach in the classification and enumeration of forms of madness according to the faculties of the human mind, a persistent tendency that Garson attributes to Kant. Kant makes a good start with this project of classification and enumeration in his Essay on the Maladies of the Head (1764), where he makes some distinctions between derangement as an aberration of experience, dementia as an aberration of judgement, and insanity as an aberration of reason. But, importantly, Kant also concedes that there is method in madness and that even the 'unhinged mind' is arranged into a system rather than being in a state of pure chaos. For Kant, the healer's job is to identify which faculty of the mad person's mind has stopped working properly. Madness is objectified and hides a secret to be discovered, and this discovery is the healer's task, a task to which the mad person cannot and should not contribute. The mad person's speech is the result of their madness, not something meaningful in its own right.
\nThe rest of the discussion in this part is an examination of the relationship between madness and reason offered by various other influential authors. Locke's perspective on madness differs from that of Kant: Locke's assumption is not that the mental faculties are operating badly, but that they have defective material on which to operate. The mad person does not lack reason, but makes valid inferences from flawed premises. For John Haslam in Bedlam hospital, the mad person rejects reason, but needs to pretend to use reason. So, there is a sort of dissimulation of reason, a form of other-deception, in which the mad person is proficient. But for Arthur Ladbroke Wigan, author of A New View of Insanity (1844), the dissimulation is a form of self-deception made possible by the dual nature of the mind: madness as a 'deliberate diversion from the unremitting tragedy of everyday life' (p. 125). This understanding of madness as a coping strategy is first found in Johann Heinroth's Textbook on the Disorders of the Soul (1818), where he argues that some forms of madness can be a response to trauma. Madness constructs a fiction because reality is unbearable: imagination is allowed to take precedence and create a reality that is preferable for the person. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Philippe Pinel and Wilhelm Griesinger seemed to agree with Kant that madness is due to a faculty of the mind breaking down, but they also recognized that some forms of madness have a healing function. This view of madness as a fix is applied to delusions in particular, where what the person desires comes true: delusions fulfil the mad person's wishes. The project in Emil Kraepelin’s Clinical Psychiatry: A Textbook for Students and Physicians (1902) is described by Garson as the 'biologization of Kant', is the author who most consistently exemplifies the madness-as-dysfunction approach, excluding purposiveness and goal-directedness from all instances of genuine madness.
\nPart 3 focuses on madness and evolution, and takes us from Freud to the present day. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud views all forms of madness as functional by introducing the 'teleology of the unconscious wish', but there is still a sense in which madness can be a failure. Madness may provide a strategy that does not succeed in fulfilling its goals. More recently, stories of madness as an adaptation take centre stage, and Garson observes how the clash between the dysfunction view and the product-of-evolution view of madness has been largely ignored. This part of the book is as worthy of attention as the previous two, but covers better known material, so I will not describe it in detail here. It will suffice to say that Chapter 14 offers an excellent description of the principles behind the DSM.
\nThe magic of Garson's book is that it shows that conflicting conceptions of madness can co-exist in the same historical period, in the same philosophy, even in the same thinker. Maybe this tells us something: madness-as-dysfunction and madness-as-strategy are two sides of the same coin. Madness is a strategy in that it serves an important end; but it is sub-optimal as a strategy, because it does not wholeheartedly promote the well-being and agency of the mad person. This idea has been advanced in the recent philosophical literature on delusions that Garson knows so well\u2014most notably in work by Ryan McKay and Daniel Dennett ([2009]), where they discuss the possibility that some delusions are adaptive misbeliefs, and in my work on epistemic innocence (Bortolotti [2020]), where I speculate that delusions may offer not just psychological relief from a state of uncertainty but also some opportunities for the person to exercise their epistemic agency in a time of crisis. There is an interesting comparison to be drawn here: in these contemporary and partial renditions of the madness-as-strategy vision, madness is just one of the many ways in which big and little irrationalities support our agency, just as in Medieval times, madness was one of the means available to god to bring about our moral reformation.
\nIt is also interesting that recent attempts at seeing madness as purposeful recognize that the big and little irrationalities we learn to live with, the same irrationalities that can support our agency and help us thrive, are not dysfunctions. They are not deficits, faults, pathologies, glitches. They can become part of a problem, but they begin as imperfect responses to crises. A good illustration of this are the 'insight paradox' stories (Belvederi Murri et al. [2016]): it may be surprising to hear that people can become unwell, severely depressed and suicidal, when they start gaining insight into their delusions. But if delusions are a coping mechanism to help people overcome an extremely difficult time, then this should not be surprising. 'Curing' people of their delusions means taking away the only response they have to what Garson aptly calls the 'unremitting tragedy of everyday life', leaving nothing in their place. Some irrationalities can kill us and some can rescue us, and those that can kill us at one time can rescue us at another. There is no broken mechanism inside us; rather, there is a world collapsing around us and we constantly adapt to face it. That does not mean that we do not need help when we are in the line of fire, and it is a great merit of Garson's nuanced account that he never indulges in the easy step from madness-as-strategy to the rejection of the role of medicine in providing some means of support. There does not need to be a dysfunction for us to receive medical support, as we turn to medical professionals in pregnancy and when our lifestyles do not serve us well\u2014when we eat too much or sleep too little. Similarly, we may need medical support as mad persons.
\nAs promised, Garson's reconstruction of the two visions of madness successfully provides new resources and inspiration for historians, philosophers of psychiatry, and clinicians. However, I am not so sure how consistent it is with mad activism, the movement for which Garson intends to provide 'intellectual scaffolding'. For the most part, the madness-as-strategy vision as reconstructed by Garson does not sit comfortably with madness as a positive identity and as a force of political change and resistance. In the history of madness-as-strategy that Garson reconstructs, madness is not the means by which we can pursue the goals with which we identify; it is the means by which we are made to chase an inscrutable end\u2014almost an explicit negation of our capacity to shape our own lives according to our values. When madness is seen as a strategy, it is not our own strategy, but the actualization of some obscure plan that we do not fully understand. It's the strategy of a god who punishes before redeeming and maybe saves, but who has little compassion for our struggles. It is the strategy of the homuncular, divided mind that drives us to escape reality for a world of illusions and dreams, and leaves us somewhere in between. It is the 'strategy' of natural selection, which 'wants' us all well fed and well rested until we bear fruit, but does not care about how authentic and fulfilling our lives are. The hope is that a new version of the madness-as-strategy account will emerge and lead us into a future where the coping mechanisms we adopt are more robustly under our control.
\nLisa Bortolotti
\nUniversity of Birmingham
\nl.bortolotti@bham.ac.uk
References
\nBelvederi Murri, M., Amore, M., Calcagno, P., Respino, M., Marozzi, V., Masotti, M., Bugliani, M., Innamorati, M., Pompili, M., Galderisi, S. and Maj, M. [2016]: 'The \"Insight Paradox\" in Schizophrenia: Magnitude, Moderators, and Mediators of the Association between Insight and Depression', Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42, pp. 1225\u201333.
\nBortolotti L. [2020]: The Epistemic Innocence of Irrational Beliefs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nMcKay, R. T. and Dennett, D. C. [2009]: 'The Evolution of Misbelief', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, pp. 493\u2013510.
\nCite as
\nBortolotti, L. [2022]: 'Justin Garson’s Madness: A Philosophical Exploration',
\nBJPS Review of Books,\u00a02022
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Thumbnail-Wilson-on-Brading-and-Stan.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-18 07:00:442025-03-25 15:49:13Katherine Brading and Marius Stan, Philosophical Mechanics in the Age of Reason // Reviewed by Mark Wilson\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thumbnail-Planer-and-Tennie-on-Enquist-et-al.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-11 07:00:272025-03-25 15:49:51Enquist, Ghirlanda & Lind, The Human Evolutionary Transition // Reviewed by Ronald Planer & Claudio Tennie\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t https://i0.wp.com/www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thumbnail-Brown-on-Anderson-and-Mitchel.png?fit=398%2C280&ssl=1\n\t\t\t\t\t 280\n\t\t\t\t\t 398\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\tThe BJPS\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t http://www.thebsps.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BSPS-blue.gif\n\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t The BJPS2025-03-04 07:00:382025-03-04 20:38:47Andersen and Mitchell, The Pragmatist Challenge // Reviewed by Matthew J Brown