{"found":57951,"hits":[{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/03c4mmv16","name":"University of Ottawa"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Haustein","given":"Stefanie","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-1430"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"1b84e1b5-c7ff-432d-844f-32e175e0f7c4","created":1690675200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/scholcommlab","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/1b84e1b5-c7ff-432d-844f-32e175e0f7c4/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"scholcommlab","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab","updated":1793197818,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab","blog_slug":"scholcommlab","content_html":"

Telling data reuse stories with scrollytelling: research data citation and reuse explored with scrollytelling as a new way to show the impact of datasets.

\n

You publish an article, deposit the dataset behind it in a repository, and move on. Months or years later, someone may have built on that dataset in a new study. Chances are you never find out.

\n

Evgeny Bobrov, who leads open data and research data management at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charit\u00e9 (BIH) and is part of QUEST, has been working on a way to change that. He built a prototype that tells the story of a single dataset as a short, scroll-driven web page so you can “scrollytell” through from the researcher’s original article, to the dataset they shared, to consecutive works that reused it. At the ScholCommLab, we are planningto implement scrollytelling for our own heavily used datasets on Article Processing Charges (APCs).

\n

From mention to story

\n

The idea is simple. Researchers receive plenty of signals about their articles, such as citations and downloads, social media posts, blogs, news and more recently podcasts, but very few about their data. Evgeny’s scrollytelling approach speaks to researchers directly (“your article,” “your dataset”) and walks them through four steps:

\n
    \n
  1. Your article and your dataset. The original article, with the passage that points to the shared dataset and its identifier in the repository.
    2. \n
  2. How reuse becomes discoverable. Matching dataset identifiers across the literature can reveal where a dataset has turned up again.
    3. \n
  3. The dataset in another article. The same identifier appears in a later publication.
    4. \n
  4. What the reuse contributed. A plain-language account of what the new researchers did with the data.
    5. \n
\n

The page is built from a single configuration, so the same design can be applied to a different article, dataset and reusing publication. Evgeny’s prototype applied it to the institutional level using his very own Charit\u00e9 as an example; ours applies it to the APC datasets created in the context of the VW Foundation financed ROARA project.

\n

How reuse gets found

\n

Discovering reuse depends on infrastructure that links data to publications. The Data Citation Corpus, developed by our friends at DataCite and Make Data Count, collects references to datasets in the research literature, which makes it possible to see where a given identifier is mentioned. Evgeny’s and his work co-authored with Avihay Cohen and colleagues on matching data references and institutional output to map the reuse of biomedical research data shows how such references can be connected to an institution’s research output.

\n

This connects to our earlier work on Meaningful Data Counts within the Make Data Count initiative. A recurring question in the project and particularly its qualititative approaches led by Kathleen Gregory (at the time Postdoc in the lab, now researcher at CWTS) there was what counts of data citations and mentions actually tell us. The same question applies here.

\n

Disclaimer: A mention is not always reuse

\n

An identifier appearing in an article does not guarantee that the authors analysed the data. They may be citing it as background, comparing against it, or only listing it among related resources. For this reason, we checked the full text of the reusing article before including it, and we only describe the reuse where the authors state what they did with the data. Automated matching helps find candidates; it cannot replace reading the paper.

\n

Why we are experimenting with this

\n

Evgeny’s hope is that showing researchers the afterlife of their data might encourage them to share again. That is a hypothesis, not a result. We don’t yet know whether stories like this change attitudes or behaviour, whether they are clear to people outside the field, or whether they feel rewarding or intrusive. For now, we are testing the format on our own data, and learning what works and what needs improving.

\n

Try it and tell us what you think

\n

Have a look at the scrollytelling page and let us know whether the story is clear and what you would change. If you work on research data sharing, reuse or metrics and would like to adapt it for another dataset, we would be glad to hear from you.

\n

 

\n
\n

AI Acknowledgements: Stefanie used Claude [Sonnet 5.5] for the initital draft of this blog post using the email exchange with Evgeny and Kathleen and the Scrollytelling example as inputs.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/88k6w-z7p81","guid":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/?p=6362","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793145600,"rid":"garqp-epg06","summary":"You publish an article, deposit the dataset behind it in a repository, and move on. Months or years later, someone may have built on that dataset in a new study. Chances are you never find out. Evgeny Bobrov, who leads open data and research data management at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charit\u00e9 (BIH) and is part of QUEST, has been working on a way to change that.","tags":["Research","Article Processing Charge","CIHR","NSERC","Open Access"],"title":"Scrollytelling: What happens after you share your data?","updated_at":1793197926,"url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/2026/10/28/scrollytelling/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"community_id":"79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content on Research Software Alliance","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/researchsoft","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"researchsoft","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Research Software Alliance","updated":1793145600,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Research Software Alliance","blog_slug":"researchsoft","content_html":"

Building on the outcomes of the Research Software Engineering in the Age of Generative AI: Building a Community Vision workshop, convened by ReSA and Schmidt Sciences in Edinburgh in March 2026, ReSA is collaborating with organisations and initiatives across the international research software community on a series of public webinars exploring the opportunities and challenges of generative AI (GenAI) for research software.

\n

The workshop identified key opportunities and risks across nine themes and proposed approximately 50 potential activities to advance the safe, reproducible, and effective use of GenAI in research software and research workflows. These outcomes are detailed in the workshop report.

\n

The webinar series aims to broaden participation in these discussions, facilitate the international exchange of experiences and good practices, and identify opportunities for further collaboration.

\n

Upcoming Webinars

\n

AI Guidance for Research Software Engineering Team Leaders

\n

10 November 2026 | 15:00\u201316:00 CET / 14:00\u201315:00 UTC

\n

As AI becomes more pervasive in research software engineering, new challenges emerge for team leaders across scientific domains, raising questions such as: How do you ensure high-quality research software while still protecting your developers' agency? And how do you navigate ethical and technical concerns related to AI practice in research software?

\n

Organised in collaboration with the EVERSE project as part of the EVERSE Network webinar series, this webinar will provide practical guidance to research software managers and open science team leaders on the appropriate and sustainable use of AI in their projects.

\n

Michael Sparks (University of Manchester) will introduce new practical AI guidance developed by EVERSE in the Research Software Quality Toolkit (RSQKit), highlighting the importance of RSE expertise and evaluation skills. Faruk Diblen (Netherlands eScience Center) will share practical tips for RSE managers, drawing on his work on rseng-agent-skills, which packages research software engineering practice for use by AI coding agents. The session will be facilitated by Carlos Martinez-Ortiz (Netherlands eScience Center).

\n

Related workshop theme: Developing a playbook for RSE managers and open-source software project leaders.

\n

Register for the webinar

\n
\n

When Green Does Not Mean Right: Specifying, Verifying, and Scaling Evaluation of AI-Assisted Research Software

\n

30 November 2026 | 15:00\u201316:00 UTC

\n

This talk explores why validation of AI-assisted research software has to stay anchored in the science. The reason is simple. AI tools tend to make the signal go away rather than fix the problem, so explicit scientific invariants matter: they give the AI something it can't silently change. It then turns to specifying behaviour separately from implementation. Executable specifications preserve what matters through regeneration and refactoring - if and only if the checks come from a person or a different system. The AI should not mark its own homework. Finally, it considers how evaluation must scale with AI intensity. Line-by-line review gives way to invariants, reproducible checks and adversarial review, yet designing those checks still rests on human expertise. Manual practice at different levels of AI autonomy remains a key part of the evaluation infrastructure.

\n

Presented by Michael Sparks, chaired by Oscar Seip, and organised by event manager Kyro Hartzenberg, this session is part of the Institute for Research Software's AI Series, taking place from 24 November to 3 December.

\n

Related workshop theme: Verifying and validating research software.

\n

Register for the webinar

\n
\n

Understanding Future Incentives Around Publishing, Preserving, and Crediting Software

\n

Date to be confirmed

\n

The goal of this session is to explore publishing, preserving, and crediting open-source and research software. The current academic landscape disincentivises publishing software as opposed to other research outputs, rewards throwaway vibe-coded scripts over well-engineered and robust frameworks, and limits software citations to salient, charismatic projects.

\n

Facilitated by Richard Littauer (CURIOSS), the session will feature three consecutive 15-minute group discussions highlighting aspects of each of these areas, sharing best practices, and exploring ongoing efforts. Each group discussion will begin with a short presentation introducing the topic. Participants will also be able to collaboratively share notes before and after the session.

\n

A recording and transcript of the introductory presentations will be made available following the webinar. The small-group discussions may not be recorded.

\n

Related workshop theme: Understanding future incentives around publishing, preserving and crediting software.

\n

Registration details coming soon.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/bkgp8-trm90","guid":"https://www.researchsoft.org/events/2026-10/","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793145600,"rid":"41g73-jjk24","summary":"Building on the outcomes of the Research Software Engineering in the Age of Generative AI: Building a Community Vision workshop, convened by ReSA and Schmidt Sciences in Edinburgh in March 2026, ReSA is collaborating with organisations and initiatives across the international research software community on a series of public webinars exploring the opportunities and challenges of generative AI (GenAI) for research software.","tags":["Event","Ongoing"],"title":"Webinar series: Research software in the age of Generative AI","updated_at":1793195708,"url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/events/2026-10/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0524sp257","name":"University of Bristol"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Taylor","given":"Mike","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-5675"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mike Taylor","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-5675"},{"name":"Matt Wedel","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6082-3103"}],"community_id":"0e13541f-417e-46c0-a859-65927249df72","created":1675209600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"SV-POW! ... All sauropod vertebrae, except when we're talking about Open Access. ISSN 3033-3695","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/svpow","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/0e13541f-417e-46c0-a859-65927249df72/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://svpow.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://svpow.com","issn":"3033-3695","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"svpow","status":"active","subfield":"1911","title":"Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week","updated":1793185145,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week","blog_slug":"svpow","content_html":"

At the end of October, I submitted a paper that’s been hanging over me for a couple of years. I’ve been in the habit of tracking nearly all my submissions since I started out in palaeontology, it happens that this one is number 50 in the list. It feels like an interesting time to stop and take stock of them all.

\n
\"\"

NHMUK PV R5937, “The Archbishop”, cervical vertebra S (probably C7). A. Reconstruction of right lateral view with neural spine, prezygapophysis, diapophysis, parapophysus, condyle and cervical rib restored. Most anatomical features are as in the reconstruction of Cervical V: only unique elements are labelled. B. Left lateral view. C. Dorsal view with anterior to the right. D. Posterior view. E. Right lateral view. F. Anterior view. Scale bar 20 cm.
And, no, the recently submitted paper in question is not the Archbishop description. I just tossed this image in because, hey, this is Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week.

\n

Before I get into the details of what happened to those submissions, I want to note that of the 31 papers listed in my CV, eight are not listed in my submissions database. Five of them I didn’t track because I was not the lead author and so not involved in the submission process (Sharing: public databases combat mistrust and secrecy; Running a question-and-answer website for science education: first hand experiences; Neural spine bifurcation in sauropod dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation: ontogenetic and phylogenetic implications; The Anatomy and Phylogenetic Relationships of \"Pelorosaurus\" becklesii (Neosauropoda, Macronaria) from the Early Cretaceous of England; The Moral Dimensions of Open). And three more don’t appear because they were minor works that didn’t go through the full formal review process (The Open Dinosaur Project; Better ways to evaluate research and researchers; Comment (Case 3700) \u2013 Support for Diplodocus carnegii Hatcher, 1901 being designated as the type species of Diplodocus Marsh, 1878).

\n

That means that the 50 submissions I have in my database represent only 23 published papers \u2014 a hit-rate of less than 50%. What’s going on?

\n

Well, first, my submissions list includes three “published” papers that aren’t on my CV: a Europasaurus entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a nomenclatural correction to my Giraffatitan JVP paper, and the Barosaurus neck preprint. So that means 26 of the 50 submissions are published.

\n

What about the rest?

\n

Five more submissions are still open: the Barosaurus neck paper based on that preprint, still in review limbo after eight years; an accepted chapter in a long-delayed edited volume; a paper on Joni Mitchell that was given Major Revisions from a humanities journal for (I thought) spurious reasons; an anatomy paper at PeerJ whose revisions should soon be finished; and the newly submitted paper that I mentioned at the top of the page.

\n

Four more submissions, I have just abandoned. One was the original submission of what became Almost all known sauropod necks are incomplete and distorted, which I later resubmitted as new after I stalled for six years on responding to reviews. Another was a short note correcting a nomenclatural error in a Nature paper, which was basically ignored. Two more are chapters for the Phylonyms volume, which … well, that’s a long and depressing story for another day.

\n

That leaves 15 submissions that were rejected. Some of these are dead forever: for example, the first palaeo paper I ever submitted, a dinosaur diversity analysis, which I ended up “publishing” as a sort of post-preprint ten years later. Some I gave up on after rejection, such as an attempt to reconcile phylogenetic and Linnaean taxonomy (rejected twice), a brief summary of dinosaur diversity that I optimistically sent to Science when I was young and stupid, and an RWA-era comment on what a “private-sector research work” is (three times at different journals!).

\n

The other eight rejections, more happily, having been rejected from one or more journals eventually found homes elsewhere: my first (eventually) published paper, on phylogenetic nomenclature of diplodocoids; the Xenoposeidon description, our neck-posture paper (twice!), Why Giraffes Have Long Necks (also twice!), the Brontomerus description, and the paper on vertebral orientation (rejected from PeerJ as “out of scope”, idiotically).

\n

So the final score comes out as follows:

\n\n

What to make of all this?

\n

One thing to think about here is whether 50% is actually a decent batting average. Maybe a 50-50 chance of any given submission making it into the journal in question is not too bad?

\n

And the reason why that may be so is that persistence tends to pay off: of my ten rejected manuscripts, more than half have gone on to be published elsewhere \u2014 garnering 400 citations so far (42, 57, 156, 95, 48 and 2, in chronological order). That is a happy thought to have in mind the next time I run into a rejection.

\n

Another encouraging observation is that the rejections have tended to be concentrated towards the earlier part of my career: 14 of them in the eight years from 2004 to 2012, and only one in the twelve years since. I think there are three reasons for this, two of them good and one bad.

\n
    \n
  1. I’ve got better at writing papers. That’s good.
    2. \n
  2. I’ve got better at judging what to submit and where. I’ve stopped aiming optimistic opinion pieces at Science and Nature and Biological Reviews. That’s good, too.
    3. \n
  3. I’m better known now, and that’s bad. Or, at least, it’s bad that being better known means I get better outcomes.
    4. \n
\n

As scientists of course we strive to evaluate every work on its merits, not according to the name or status of the author, and deliberate actions are often taken to make sure that’s what’s done. For example, the reviewers don’t know who wrote the abstracts submitted to get a talk at SVP or SVPCA. And yet, and yet. The truth is that I have had a few ad-hominem reviews, and I’m sorry to say they were all concentrated in the first few years of my career.

\n

Dear SV-POW! readers: don’t be That Guy. When you’re asked to review a manuscript by someone you’ve never heard of, put the fact that you’ve never heard of him or her aside, and review the damn manuscript, not the author. That’s not too much to ask.

\n

Anyway, that’s my fifty submissions in 20 years. (In fact, now I come to check the dates, I see that today is exactly the 20th anniversary of getting back the Reject Without Review verdict on the first palaeo paper I even submitted!). Let’s hope I can get more efficient in the next 20.

\n

 

\n
\n

doi:10.59350/rexga-6y368

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rexga-6y368","guid":"https://svpow.com/?p=23001","image":"https://svpow.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/cervical-s-composite.jpeg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1731024000,"rid":"a6397-t2e84","summary":"At the end of October, I submitted a paper that's been hanging over me for a couple of years. I've been in the habit of tracking nearly all my submissions since I started out in palaeontology, it happens that this one is number 50 in the list.","tags":["How The Sausage Is Made","Navel Blogging","Papers By SV-POW!sketeers","Stinkin' Reviewers","Timely"],"title":"The fate (so far) of my 50 submitted papers","updated_at":1793185216,"url":"https://svpow.com/2024/11/08/the-fate-so-far-of-my-50-submitted-papers/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence"}],"content_html":"

\"BookThis self-published book is a bit of a mixed bag. There has been a lot of thought put into it but, in the process of explaining the author's theories, they've forgotten that brevity makes a book like this readable and enjoyable.

\n\n

It could really have done with a strong editor to tighten things up. The first two chapters are filler. There's a mini introduction to evolution and the basics of the theory of knowledge. I'm not really sure what they're doing there. It seems to be an attempt by the author to prove that he knows what he's talking about. While a short lesson in thermodynamics may be useful, it's just overkill here. The start of chapter three is in thrall to the Cult of St Jobs of Apple, but then finally starts talking about food production. Which is where things get interesting.

\n\n

The book takes a long time to get to its central point - raising and slaughtering animals for meat is inefficient. It's a poor use of energy, water, crops, and space. We should be able to do better.

\n\n

But then the book goes a bit off-piste. It returns to a graduate level intro to synthetic biology and modern day genetic manipulation. Again, interesting up to a point, but goes too far into the weeds for a book for the general public. There are some weird and inappropriate comments scattered through the chapters - he casually dismisses the concerns GMO opponents have about proprietary and secretive practices without ever acknowledging them. Similarly, he unfairly lumps vegans in with antivaxers. Despite hundreds of citations throughout the book, there's no footnote for that!

\n\n

Then there's a bizarre section on meditation. I sort of get the tie in to hedonism and desires but again feels like a brain dump of padding out content.

\n\n

Finally, we get an excellent chapter on \"beyond food\". He raises some interesting and exciting questions about the limits of our culinary imaginations. Why are we recreating burgers and steak when we could be making something better?

\n\n

Annoyingly, it only lightly touches on the history of meat-replacement technology. For example, there's a paragraph about the technology behind Quorn - but nothing about how the population boom in the mid-20th century led to fears of mass starvation.

\n\n

Can we \"3D print\" something similar to steak? Can we genetically engineer yeast to produce protiens similar to cheese? This book makes a powerful argument that the tech is nearly here and that it is a moral necessity.

\n\n

I've been a vegetarian since the turn of the century - and I've tried loads of \"meat substitutes\". A Quorn burger, once drenched in ketchup, mustard, and pickles, doesn't taste any different from a beef burger. I've eaten the Beyond Meat burgers and, again, they're hardly any different from the existing veggie-burgers.

\n\n

I get the need to make food for efficiently. And for new flavours, better textures, and more nutrition. The book does a reasonable job for explaining how we're going to get there. We're moving to a world where Synthetarianism is becoming mainstream. This raises interesting ethical questions. Sadly, the book doesn't touch on the ethics of this.

\n\n

Reduction of meat consumption is probably necessary for our future on this planet - and our eventual off-world adventures. Once you get into this book, there are some excellent ideas and some fascinating science - but you'll need to skim through a lot before you reach the payoff.

\n\n

Thanks to BookSirens for the review copy.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/qkkks-sk141","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=40686","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/after-meat.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1635379200,"rid":"2npac-4yn41","summary":"This self-published book is a bit of a mixed bag. There has been a lot of thought put into it but, in the process of explaining the author's theories, they've forgotten that brevity makes a book like this readable and enjoyable. It could really have done with a strong editor to tighten things up. The first two chapters are filler.","tags":["/etc/","Arc","Book Review","Vegan","Vegetarian"],"title":"Book Review: After Meat - The Case for an Amazing, Meat-Free World by Karthik Sekar","updated_at":1793180970,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/10/book-review-after-meat-the-case-for-an-amazing-meat-free-world-by-karthik-sekar/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Kramer","given":"Bianca"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Bianca Kramer"}],"community_id":"c9d5e0ed-a4d1-48d6-a8dd-7eb357f2c146","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content in Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/sesameopenscience","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c9d5e0ed-a4d1-48d6-a8dd-7eb357f2c146/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/index.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"sesameopenscience","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","updated":1792972800,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","blog_slug":"sesameopenscience","content_html":"

\n\"screenshot

\n

Journal lists in OpenAlex\n \n\n\n\n

\n

\nOpenAlex shared a blog post last week about their implementation of journal lists: \nhttps://blog.openalex.org/trusted-journal-lists-come-to-openalex/. OpenAlex previously had 'in_scopus' as a variable (which is no longer available) as well 'in_core' to indicate inclusion in the 'core journal list' from the Leiden Ranking (Open Edition). Since September 2026, coverage has been extended to include first 22 and now 61 journal lists of all stripes.

\n

What to think?\n \n\n\n\n

\n

Personally, I am of two minds about this - on one hand, having this information available as open data, and made interoperable with the other data in OpenAlex, is useful and meeting a need that has been articulated often by users. Also, the fact that OpenAlex implements a broad set of lists (including e.g. LatIndex, SciELO and AJOL) does allow people to take their own responsibility for what they choose to use, shows the diversity in indexes/journal lists, and can help expand the concept of 'visibility' beyond 'included in Web of Science or Scopus'.

\n

On the other hand, OpenAlex positions this as a trust signal, which I think can be problematic, and mixes different types of lists, which compounds the issue - crucially including many national research evaluation lists.

\n

Mixed messaging\n \n\n\n\n

\n

In the blog post, it is claimed that 'allow lists' (whitelists by any other name \ud83c\udf39) are the preferred approach to assess the 'trustworthiness' of a journal. Ironically, \nThinkCheckSubmit is quoted to justify this, which instead advocates assessment at journal level, and does not mention or advocate using whitelists as proxies.

\n

More importantly, the inclusion of national research evaluation lists mixes (proxy) assessment of trustworthiness with assessment of prestige. The use of such lists for decisions on funding and evaluation goes directly against \nDORA. The inclusion of them as proxies of trustworthiness is questionable in my opinion, and it could be argued that the inclusion of these lists further entrenches the use of journal lists in research assessment.

\n

Where does responsibility lie?\n \n\n\n\n

\n

Of course it can be argued that OpenAlex' role is not to explicitly support responsible research evaluation, and that, in their words 'Judgment stays with the people who made the list\", as well as those that use the list(s).

\n

I am broadly suportive of that from an open research information perspective. However, I do think that the use of journal list still deserves critical reflection and that it is important to be aware of the nature and purpose of various lists, and how that affects their inclusion criteria. OpenAlex takes on some responsibility on this when they integrate these lists - and could, for example, include such information, either as a list typology or by including a list's own description as a variable in the source list entity.

\n

About the author:\n \n

\n

The author of this response is independent advisort and research analyst at Sesame Open Science (working in the areas of open science, open metadata and open infrastructure) as well as Executive Director of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. This response is written in a personal capacity, representing my personal views and opinions.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/hn90j-0hn45","guid":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex/","image":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex//featured_202610_journal_lists_in_openalex.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792972800,"rid":"erskm-h0v20","summary":"Journal lists in OpenAlex OpenAlex shared a blog post last week about their implementation of journal lists: https://blog.openalex.org/trusted-journal-lists-come-to-openalex/. OpenAlex previously had ' in_scopus ' as a variable (which is no longer available) as well ' in_core ' to indicate inclusion in the 'core journal list' from the Leiden Ranking (Open Edition). Since September 2026, coverage has been extended to include","title":"Journal lists in OpenAlex - mixed feelings","updated_at":1793178909,"url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schmeja","given":"Stefan"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b","created":1749772800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Das Blog der TIB \u2013 Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/tib","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.65527","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tib","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"TIB-Blog","updated":1793088124,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"TIB-Blog","blog_slug":"tib","content_html":"
\"Cover
Cover des Filmkatalogs f\u00fcr Medizin des IWF
\n read this article in english\n

Der allj\u00e4hrlich von der UNESCO ausgerufene World Day for Audiovisual Heritage am 27. Oktober bietet diesmal Anlass, eine historische Medizinfilmsammlung vorzustellen, die zum Filmerbe der G\u00f6ttinger IWFWissen und Medien gGmbH (vormals Institut f\u00fcr den Wissenschaftlichen Film \u2013 IWF) an der TIB geh\u00f6rt.

\n

Mit ihren rund 1.200 Titeln zur Humanmedizin deckt sie \u00fcber 100 Jahre Medizin- und Filmgeschichte ab. Erste Aufnahmen eines chirurgischen Eingriffs wurden bereits zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts erstellt, die letzten Filme entstanden erst vor knapp 20 Jahren.

\n

Inhaltlich verteilt sich die Sammlung \u00fcber das gesamte Spektrum der Grundlagen wie Anatomie, Pathologie, Physiologie, Zytologie bis hin zu den klinischen F\u00e4chern wie Innere Medizin, Chirurgie, Gyn\u00e4kologie, P\u00e4diatrie, Neurologie und Psychiatrie.\u00a0Was die Medizinfilme so besonders macht: Sie geben authentische Einblicke in eine Welt, die sich normalerweise hinter verschlossenen T\u00fcren abspielt.

\n

Klinische Krankheitssymptome werden in einer Vielzahl der Filme anhand echter Fallbeispiele demonstriert, Untersuchungen, Behandlungen und Operationen an realen Patient:innen gezeigt. Selbst in Notarztwagen, psychiatrische Kliniken und Obduktionss\u00e4le werden Einblicke gew\u00e4hrt. F\u00fcr Medizinstudierende bieten solche Aufnahmen eine wertvolle Erg\u00e4nzung ihrer praktischen Ausbildung. Zugleich er\u00f6ffnen sie wichtige Perspektiven f\u00fcr die (medizin-)historische Forschung.

\n

Verantwortungsvolle Bereitstellung des sensiblen Filmerbes

\n

Metadaten und Abstracts der IWF-Medizinfilme k\u00f6nnen bereits vielfach \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal recherchiert werden \u2013 vgl. die spezifische Suche mit einschl\u00e4gigen Filtern. Die Filme selbst werden sukzessive digitalisiert und bereitgestellt, soweit dies rechtlich m\u00f6glich ist.

\n

Hierzu geh\u00f6ren vor allem Titel ohne Personenaufnahmen (zum Beispiel Lymphgef\u00e4\u00dfmotorik von 1961) sowie sehr alte Titel, bei denen die Rechte der abgebildeten Personen bereits erloschen sind (zum Beispiel Tracheostoma von 1925). Durchaus bekannt und viel gesehen ist auch Der Muskelmann Wilhelm Emter aus L\u00f6rrach von 1925:

\n
\n

 

\n

Eine Vielzahl der Digitalisate darf jedoch aus pers\u00f6nlichkeits- und datenschutzrechtlichen Gr\u00fcnden nicht ohne Weiteres \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal zug\u00e4nglich gemacht werden. Patient:innen geh\u00f6ren zur Gruppe der sensiblen Personen und genie\u00dfen daher einen besonderen Schutz.

\n

Die hohe Authentizit\u00e4t der Filme stellt die TIB vor Herausforderungen: Einerseits soll der Fachwelt eine zeitgem\u00e4\u00dfe digitale Filmnutzung erm\u00f6glicht werden, andererseits m\u00fcssen die Rechte der gefilmten Personen gewahrt bleiben.

\n
\"Logo
Logo des REMEDY-Projekts an der TIB
\n

An dieser Stelle setzt das Projekt REMEDY an, das 2025 gestartet ist. Es schafft die Voraussetzungen, um die Medizinfilme k\u00fcnftig rechtskonform und verantwortungsvoll \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal bereitzustellen. Hierf\u00fcr wird ein rechtliches Risikoabsch\u00e4tzungskonzept erarbeitet, ein Paket an technischen Schutzma\u00dfnahmen geschn\u00fcrt sowie ein eigenes Tool zur irreversiblen Anonymisierung entwickelt.

\n

Dabei leistet REMEDY Grundlagenarbeit: Die Ergebnisse sollen nachnutzbar sein, damit auch andere sensible Filmsammlungen davon profitieren k\u00f6nnen (zum Beispiel Ethnologiefilme oder Unterrichtsfilme mit Kindern).

\n

Das Projekt wird von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft gef\u00f6rdert und l\u00e4uft noch bis Mitte 2027. Es ist Teil der DFG-Pilotphase Digitalisierung und Bereitstellung (noch) rechtebewehrter Objekte, in der 13 Projekte vernetzt sind, die an \u00e4hnlichen Fragestellungen arbeiten.

\n

Im TIB-Blog wird REMEDY weiter \u00fcber Neuigkeiten berichten.

\n
\n

Fr\u00fchere Beitr\u00e4ge im TIB-Blog\u00a0zum Welttag des audiovisuellen Erbes:

\n\n
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/t5xf1-arv03","guid":"https://blog.tib.eu/?p=34610","image":"https://blog.tib.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/REMEDY_Logo_BK_3c.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"4qam6-z5c05","summary":"read this article in english Der allj\u00e4hrlich von der UNESCO ausgerufene World Day for Audiovisual Heritage am 27. Oktober bietet diesmal Anlass, eine historische Medizinfilmsammlung vorzustellen, die zum Filmerbe der G\u00f6ttinger IWFWissen und Medien gGmbH (vormals Institut f\u00fcr den Wissenschaftlichen Film \u2013 IWF) an der TIB geh\u00f6rt.","tags":["FORSCHUNG & PROJEKTE","BIBLIOTHEKSWELT","Wissenschaftsgeschichte","UNESCO","Medizin"],"title":"Sensibles Filmerbe: Einblicke in historische Medizinwelten zum Welttag des audiovisuellen Erbes","updated_at":1793172615,"url":"https://blog.tib.eu/2026/10/27/sensibles-filmerbe-einblicke-in-historische-medizinwelten/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Royle","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8927-6967"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Royle"}],"community_id":"d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327","created":1673740800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"x == (s || z). You say it kwontized","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/quantixed","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://quantixed.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://quantixed.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"quantixed","status":"active","subfield":"1307","title":"quantixed","updated":1793101738,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"quantixed","blog_slug":"quantixed","content_html":"

As an academic, I receive a number of cold emails from prospective PhD students. I am always happy to hear from genuine students who are interested in working with me. However, a significant fraction of these emails are simply spam. I call them PhDishing emails.

\n\n\n\n

A few years back, PhDishing emails were easy to spot because they were totally untargeted. The emails were typically “Dear Professor” or if their mail merge program used your name, the text had no personalisation. The sender was “interested in my research” without saying what it was. Nor would they say how their experience (usually in an unrelated area) led them to write to me.

\n\n\n\n

These cold emails, sent to many lab heads at once, could be deleted with impunity. I had a simple rule: they hadn’t crafted an email to me, so I was not obligated to respond. DELETE. Cold emailers who wrote a genuine email, received a reply whether they were a suitable candidate or not.

\n\n\n\n

The advent of LLMs has substantially changed the game. Now, the PhDishing emails are verbose, syntactically perfect and personalised with a summary of my research interests that are clearly hoovered from my website and homogenised into bland prose. In short, LLM use considerably ups the ante. It is now hard to tell if the sender is a genuine candidate who has used an LLM in a misguided attempt to write a cold email, or is no different from the spammers of old.

\n\n\n\n

I’ve noticed these LLM-generated emails are a kind of boilerplate – which I suppose is not too surprising.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

I find paragraph 3 to be the closest thing to a “tell”. The vibe is that the candidate has their own research direction and would like to benefit from my lab to further their own research goals. This is both unrealistic and undesirable.

\n\n\n\n

First, at this level, candidates typically have a maximum of two years’ research experience, usually much less. By definition this experience is within another lab, addressing that group’s research goals. The notion that the candidate has ownership over that research is not realistic. At this stage, they should embark on a PhD and begin to form their research ideas. Second, why would I accept a student who would come and work on an unrelated topic? It’s true that the dream candidate should be able to work independently and have their own ideas, but they cannot be on a different research trajectory. LLMs – currently at least – seem to think that this is a winning formula for a cold PhDishing email.

\n\n\n\n

Am I being unfair here? A genuine candidate may be uncertain about how to write an approach email or not be confident in their written English and seek the assistance of an LLM. Those things shouldn’t be a barrier preventing people from contacting me. However, is it too much effort to sense check what you are about to send? I don’t think so. Would I want to work with someone who does not agree?

\n\n\n\n

To any genuine applicants who may be reading this and want to join my research group: please just write your own email. With your own words. Typos and all. I don’t care. These days it will make you stand out.

\n\n\n\n

—

\n\n\n\n

The post title comes from “Starfishing” by The Pooh Sticks from their “Optimistic Fool” album.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/k03he-q1n24","guid":"https://quantixed.org/?p=3836","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"1qdqf-3vy10","summary":"As an academic, I receive a number of cold emails from prospective PhD students. I am always happy to hear from genuine students who are interested in working with me. However, a significant fraction of these emails are simply spam. I call them PhDishing emails.","tags":["Science","Academia","PhD"],"title":"Starfishing: when cold emailing goes wrong","updated_at":1793172610,"url":"https://quantixed.org/2026/10/27/starfishing-when-cold-emailing-goes-wrong/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0153tk833","name":"University of Virginia"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen D. Turner","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"community_id":"382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A practicing data scientist's take on AI, genomics, biosecurity, and the ways AI is reshaping how science gets done. Weekly updates from the field. Occasional notes on programming.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/stephenturner","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"stephenturner","status":"active","subfield":"1311","title":"Paired Ends","updated":1793090712,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"
\"\"

Some days I buy into the AI as Normal Technology argument that and popularized in their essay by the same title.

Then I'll read something like Anthropic's S-1 filing, and the founder's letter that precedes it. Anthropic is not pitching investors \"AI as normal technology.\" In the S-1 they describe ambitions for biology that go way beyond helping scientists write code and summarize papers.

On discoveries it says it has already made:

We have started to directly make biological discoveries with Claude: among them is the discovery of a molecular machine that might have the potential to be developed into a novel biotechnology tool, perhaps for gene editing.

On what it expects to follow:

First, we believe that AI will profoundly accelerate the rate of progress in biology and medicine, potentially curing diseases that have plagued humanity for millennia, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, rare genetic diseases, and the major infectious diseases.

On biological misuse:

AI can be misused by those who wish to do harm, for example to conduct cyberattacks or to design biological weapons. We have strict guardrails and trusted access programs that are designed to block misuse of our technology while still enabling positive applications.

And on the incentives of the company developing it:

AI has unusually large externalities, both positive and negative. Cultivating the positive externalities, and defending against the negative ones, is to some degree in tension with the natural incentives of a for-profit company, and with the standard governance structure of a publicly traded company.

On economic disruption:

The incredible economic value of AI may come with economic disruption, similar to what has happened with previous technologies but greater in magnitude.

On empowering bad governments:

Authoritarian governments may use AI to create high-tech surveillance states, deepen repression, and make themselves much more difficult to dislodge.

Subscribe now

It's fine to be skeptical of some of their claims. But at the same time, take seriously what Anthropic is asking investors to believe: that the technology they're developing could cure diseases and create biological weapons, could result in economic abundance or upheaval, could empower democratic and authoritarian governments alike. And that ordinary, normal technology commercial incentives are almost certainly inadequate to manage the consequences.

I don't think this is the S-1 of a normal technology.

We believe that Al is one of the most consequential technologies in human history. If managed well, it could rapidly accelerate scientific innovation, greatly increase economic growth rates, bring cures for major diseases within reach, and solve problems that have resisted generations of human effort.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ny31b-72969","guid":"222305199","image":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!giS4!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5c59d001-2906-4c57-a3d4-f8fb5198b1f9_1203x639.jpeg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"n1abd-7tj94","summary":"Anthropic's S-1 prospectus describes ambitions for biology that go well beyond helping scientists write code and summarize papers.","tags":["AI"],"title":"Anthropic is not pitching Normal Technology","updated_at":1793172610,"url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/p/anthropic-s1-prospectus","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Fischer","given":"Georg"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"52aefd81-f405-4349-b080-754395a5d8b2","created":1694476800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/oaberlin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/52aefd81-f405-4349-b080-754395a5d8b2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"oaberlin","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Open Research Blog Berlin","updated":1793106125,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Open Research Blog Berlin","blog_slug":"oaberlin","content_html":"

Die TU Berlin verk\u00fcndet auf ihrer Website die Ernennung eines Teams von insgesamt sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten:

\n

\"Als erste Universit\u00e4t in Deutschland hat die TU Berlin ein interdisziplin\u00e4res Team von Open-Science-Beauftragten ernannt. Die Expert*innen aus Forschung und Wissenschaftsinfrastruktur sollen die offene Wissenschaft an der Universit\u00e4t weiter voranbringen und das Pr\u00e4sidium bei strategischen Entscheidungen beraten.\"

\n

Mit der Neu-Ernennung werde die bisherige Funktion der Open-Access-Beauftragten weiterentwickelt und der gewachsenen Bedeutung von Open Science in Forschung und Lehre Rechnung getragen, so die TU.

\n

\n

Mit Open Science erweitert sich das Handlungsfeld deutlich, denn neben Open Access werden auch der offene Zugang zu Forschungsdaten, Forschungssoftware und Lehrmaterialien sowie weitere Praktiken, die Transparenz, Nachnutzbarkeit und Qualit\u00e4t von Forschung st\u00e4rken, ein Thema. Gleichzeitig bedankt sich die TU Berlin bei Prof. Dr. Vera Meyer, die als Open-Access-Beauftragte der TU Berlin seit 2016 entscheidend dabei mitwirkte, Open Access an der TU Berlin zu verankern und durch ihr Engagement zu bereichern.

\n

Zur Abbildung der thematischen und disziplin\u00e4ren Breite des Handlungsfelds Open Science setzt die TU Berlin f\u00fcr drei Jahre folgende Beauftragte ein:

\n\n

Das Open Research Office Berlin gratuliert dem neuen Team und freut sich auf die Zusammenarbeit in strategischen Fragen, um Open Research in Berlin weiter zu st\u00e4rken und institutionell zu verankern!

\n

Eine aktuelle \u00dcbersicht der Beauftragten f\u00fcr Open Access und Open Science in Berlin findet sich hier.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/r2j1x-3y534","guid":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/?p=4413","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"qk9b3-yer90","summary":"Die TU Berlin verk\u00fcndet auf ihrer Website die Ernennung eines Teams von insgesamt sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten: \"Als erste Universit\u00e4t in Deutschland hat die TU Berlin ein interdisziplin\u00e4res Team von Open-Science-Beauftragten ernannt.","tags":["Allgemein","Aktuelles","Open Science","Beauftragte","TU Berlin"],"title":"Technische Universit\u00e4t Berlin ernennt interdisziplin\u00e4res Team aus sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten","updated_at":1793172607,"url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/2026/10/27/technische-universitaet-berlin-ernennt-interdisziplinaeres-team-aus-sechs-open-science-beauftragten/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Iskri\u0107","given":"Mitja V."}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"081292c6-78c5-4531-8523-5d3c7874c1d3","created":1736208000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"O stvareh, ki zanimajo knji\u017eni\u010darje - info@biblioblog.si","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/biblioblog","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/081292c6-78c5-4531-8523-5d3c7874c1d3/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/feeds/posts/default","filter":null,"generator":"Blogger","home_page_url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/","issn":"2536-2356","language":"slv","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"biblioblog","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"BIBLIOBLOG","updated":1793116467,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"BIBLIOBLOG","blog_slug":"biblioblog","content_html":"

Spo\u0161tovane knji\u017eni\u010darke, spo\u0161tovani knji\u017eni\u010darji,


\u00a0vljudno vas vabimo na 4. dan ob\u010danske znanosti \u00bbOd ljudi do politik\u00ab, ki bo potekal v \u010detrtek, 5. novembra 2026, v Univerzitetni knji\u017enici Maribor.

Leto\u0161nji dogodek poudarja tudi vlogo knji\u017enic pri povezovanju raziskovalcev in \u0161ir\u0161e javnosti ter vklju\u010devanju prebivalcev v znanstveno raziskovanje. V Mre\u017eo ob\u010danske znanosti je vklju\u010denih \u017ee 15 knji\u017enic, med njimi splo\u0161ne, visoko\u0161olske, nacionalna in specialne knji\u017enice. Njihovo sodelovanje potrjuje pomembno vlogo knji\u017enic pri razvoju ob\u010danske znanosti in povezovanju lokalnih skupnosti z raziskovanjem.

Med gosti bodo tudi knji\u017eni\u010darke iz tujine, ki bodo predstavile mednarodne izku\u0161nje in prilo\u017enosti za sodelovanje knji\u017enic v projektih ob\u010danske znanosti. Vabljeno predavanje bo imela D\u00f3ra Kalydy, namestnica generalnega direktorja Knji\u017eni\u010dnega in informacijskega centra Mad\u017earske akademije znanosti v Budimpe\u0161ti ter \u010dlanica delovne skupine za ob\u010dansko znanost pri evropskem zdru\u017eenju raziskovalnih knji\u017enic LIBER. Spregovorila bo o knji\u017enicah kot pomembnih partnericah v projektih ob\u010danske znanosti. Med projekti bo predstavljen tudi projekt \u00bbR\u00e1day Mih\u00e1ly Eml\u00e9kprojekt\u00ab iz Mestne knji\u017enice Szab\u00f3 Ervin v Budimpe\u0161ti (F\u0151v\u00e1rosi Szab\u00f3 Ervin K\u00f6nyvt\u00e1r), ki bo ponudil konkreten primer vklju\u010devanja knji\u017enice v projekt ob\u010danske znanosti ter povezovanja lokalne skupnosti z raziskovanjem in ohranjanjem kulturne dedi\u0161\u010dine.

Eden od soorganizatorjev dogodka je tudi Mariborska knji\u017enica, zato si \u0161e posebej \u017eelimo udele\u017ebe kolegic in kolegov iz slovenskih splo\u0161nih knji\u017enic.

\ud83d\udcc5 5. november 2026, od 9.00 do 16.00
\ud83d\udccd Univerzitetna knji\u017enica Maribor
Udele\u017eba je brezpla\u010dna! Celoten program in prijava:


https://citizenscience.si/dan-obcanske-znanosti-2026/

Veseli bomo va\u0161e udele\u017ebe, izmenjave izku\u0161enj in novih povezav med knji\u017enicami.
Prisr\u010dno vabljeni!

Organizatorji 4. dneva ob\u010danske znanosti

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/negrt-fx206","guid":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1942534357777072016.post-2901708602381859827","image":"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhIMdkygcdSQPsGYFHsl6nAqEGONb37SXhGVfh0-vwTFTqbd7xQ8Kz7-eZNoh-BS-MFJ-NhIXtDsU7q3NkT-Mo550TS1tsi6l6Rlm9K6UE0pnht2H7oAQnZL1WxVAWbmzHDFy-FQCyaU6dKlcTMrPvxtap24BuwyOuoy9WlUOtmPOdA0jDmlhyTXSx0z9/s72-w640-h118-c/DOZ_PASICA_3_PIX_2026.jpg","language":"sl","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"2q1w2-3vk85","summary":"Spo\u0161tovane knji\u017eni\u010darke, spo\u0161tovani knji\u017eni\u010darji, vljudno vas vabimo na 4. dan ob\u010danske znanosti \u00bbOd ljudi do politik\u00ab, ki bo potekal v \u010detrtek, 5. novembra 2026, v Univerzitetni knji\u017enici Maribor. Leto\u0161nji dogodek poudarja tudi vlogo knji\u017enic pri povezovanju raziskovalcev in \u0161ir\u0161e javnosti ter vklju\u010devanju prebivalcev v znanstveno raziskovanje.","tags":["Knji\u017enice","Ob\u010danska Znanost","Odprta Znanost","Znanstveno Komuniciranje"],"title":"Vabilo knji\u017eni\u010darjem k udele\u017ebi na 4. dnevu ob\u010danske znanosti \u2013 5. 11. 2026","updated_at":1793172606,"url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/2026/10/vabilo-knjiznicarjem-k-udelezbi-na-4.html","version":"v1"}}],"items":[{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/03c4mmv16","name":"University of Ottawa"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Haustein","given":"Stefanie","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-1430"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"1b84e1b5-c7ff-432d-844f-32e175e0f7c4","created":1690675200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/scholcommlab","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/1b84e1b5-c7ff-432d-844f-32e175e0f7c4/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"scholcommlab","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab","updated":1793197818,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab","blog_slug":"scholcommlab","content_html":"

Telling data reuse stories with scrollytelling: research data citation and reuse explored with scrollytelling as a new way to show the impact of datasets.

\n

You publish an article, deposit the dataset behind it in a repository, and move on. Months or years later, someone may have built on that dataset in a new study. Chances are you never find out.

\n

Evgeny Bobrov, who leads open data and research data management at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charit\u00e9 (BIH) and is part of QUEST, has been working on a way to change that. He built a prototype that tells the story of a single dataset as a short, scroll-driven web page so you can “scrollytell” through from the researcher’s original article, to the dataset they shared, to consecutive works that reused it. At the ScholCommLab, we are planningto implement scrollytelling for our own heavily used datasets on Article Processing Charges (APCs).

\n

From mention to story

\n

The idea is simple. Researchers receive plenty of signals about their articles, such as citations and downloads, social media posts, blogs, news and more recently podcasts, but very few about their data. Evgeny’s scrollytelling approach speaks to researchers directly (“your article,” “your dataset”) and walks them through four steps:

\n
    \n
  1. Your article and your dataset. The original article, with the passage that points to the shared dataset and its identifier in the repository.
    2. \n
  2. How reuse becomes discoverable. Matching dataset identifiers across the literature can reveal where a dataset has turned up again.
    3. \n
  3. The dataset in another article. The same identifier appears in a later publication.
    4. \n
  4. What the reuse contributed. A plain-language account of what the new researchers did with the data.
    5. \n
\n

The page is built from a single configuration, so the same design can be applied to a different article, dataset and reusing publication. Evgeny’s prototype applied it to the institutional level using his very own Charit\u00e9 as an example; ours applies it to the APC datasets created in the context of the VW Foundation financed ROARA project.

\n

How reuse gets found

\n

Discovering reuse depends on infrastructure that links data to publications. The Data Citation Corpus, developed by our friends at DataCite and Make Data Count, collects references to datasets in the research literature, which makes it possible to see where a given identifier is mentioned. Evgeny’s and his work co-authored with Avihay Cohen and colleagues on matching data references and institutional output to map the reuse of biomedical research data shows how such references can be connected to an institution’s research output.

\n

This connects to our earlier work on Meaningful Data Counts within the Make Data Count initiative. A recurring question in the project and particularly its qualititative approaches led by Kathleen Gregory (at the time Postdoc in the lab, now researcher at CWTS) there was what counts of data citations and mentions actually tell us. The same question applies here.

\n

Disclaimer: A mention is not always reuse

\n

An identifier appearing in an article does not guarantee that the authors analysed the data. They may be citing it as background, comparing against it, or only listing it among related resources. For this reason, we checked the full text of the reusing article before including it, and we only describe the reuse where the authors state what they did with the data. Automated matching helps find candidates; it cannot replace reading the paper.

\n

Why we are experimenting with this

\n

Evgeny’s hope is that showing researchers the afterlife of their data might encourage them to share again. That is a hypothesis, not a result. We don’t yet know whether stories like this change attitudes or behaviour, whether they are clear to people outside the field, or whether they feel rewarding or intrusive. For now, we are testing the format on our own data, and learning what works and what needs improving.

\n

Try it and tell us what you think

\n

Have a look at the scrollytelling page and let us know whether the story is clear and what you would change. If you work on research data sharing, reuse or metrics and would like to adapt it for another dataset, we would be glad to hear from you.

\n

 

\n
\n

AI Acknowledgements: Stefanie used Claude [Sonnet 5.5] for the initital draft of this blog post using the email exchange with Evgeny and Kathleen and the Scrollytelling example as inputs.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/88k6w-z7p81","guid":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/?p=6362","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793145600,"rid":"garqp-epg06","summary":"You publish an article, deposit the dataset behind it in a repository, and move on. Months or years later, someone may have built on that dataset in a new study. Chances are you never find out. Evgeny Bobrov, who leads open data and research data management at the Berlin Institute of Health at Charit\u00e9 (BIH) and is part of QUEST, has been working on a way to change that.","tags":["Research","Article Processing Charge","CIHR","NSERC","Open Access"],"title":"Scrollytelling: What happens after you share your data?","updated_at":1793197926,"url":"https://www.scholcommlab.ca/2026/10/28/scrollytelling/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"community_id":"79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content on Research Software Alliance","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/researchsoft","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"researchsoft","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Research Software Alliance","updated":1793145600,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Research Software Alliance","blog_slug":"researchsoft","content_html":"

Building on the outcomes of the Research Software Engineering in the Age of Generative AI: Building a Community Vision workshop, convened by ReSA and Schmidt Sciences in Edinburgh in March 2026, ReSA is collaborating with organisations and initiatives across the international research software community on a series of public webinars exploring the opportunities and challenges of generative AI (GenAI) for research software.

\n

The workshop identified key opportunities and risks across nine themes and proposed approximately 50 potential activities to advance the safe, reproducible, and effective use of GenAI in research software and research workflows. These outcomes are detailed in the workshop report.

\n

The webinar series aims to broaden participation in these discussions, facilitate the international exchange of experiences and good practices, and identify opportunities for further collaboration.

\n

Upcoming Webinars

\n

AI Guidance for Research Software Engineering Team Leaders

\n

10 November 2026 | 15:00\u201316:00 CET / 14:00\u201315:00 UTC

\n

As AI becomes more pervasive in research software engineering, new challenges emerge for team leaders across scientific domains, raising questions such as: How do you ensure high-quality research software while still protecting your developers' agency? And how do you navigate ethical and technical concerns related to AI practice in research software?

\n

Organised in collaboration with the EVERSE project as part of the EVERSE Network webinar series, this webinar will provide practical guidance to research software managers and open science team leaders on the appropriate and sustainable use of AI in their projects.

\n

Michael Sparks (University of Manchester) will introduce new practical AI guidance developed by EVERSE in the Research Software Quality Toolkit (RSQKit), highlighting the importance of RSE expertise and evaluation skills. Faruk Diblen (Netherlands eScience Center) will share practical tips for RSE managers, drawing on his work on rseng-agent-skills, which packages research software engineering practice for use by AI coding agents. The session will be facilitated by Carlos Martinez-Ortiz (Netherlands eScience Center).

\n

Related workshop theme: Developing a playbook for RSE managers and open-source software project leaders.

\n

Register for the webinar

\n
\n

When Green Does Not Mean Right: Specifying, Verifying, and Scaling Evaluation of AI-Assisted Research Software

\n

30 November 2026 | 15:00\u201316:00 UTC

\n

This talk explores why validation of AI-assisted research software has to stay anchored in the science. The reason is simple. AI tools tend to make the signal go away rather than fix the problem, so explicit scientific invariants matter: they give the AI something it can't silently change. It then turns to specifying behaviour separately from implementation. Executable specifications preserve what matters through regeneration and refactoring - if and only if the checks come from a person or a different system. The AI should not mark its own homework. Finally, it considers how evaluation must scale with AI intensity. Line-by-line review gives way to invariants, reproducible checks and adversarial review, yet designing those checks still rests on human expertise. Manual practice at different levels of AI autonomy remains a key part of the evaluation infrastructure.

\n

Presented by Michael Sparks, chaired by Oscar Seip, and organised by event manager Kyro Hartzenberg, this session is part of the Institute for Research Software's AI Series, taking place from 24 November to 3 December.

\n

Related workshop theme: Verifying and validating research software.

\n

Register for the webinar

\n
\n

Understanding Future Incentives Around Publishing, Preserving, and Crediting Software

\n

Date to be confirmed

\n

The goal of this session is to explore publishing, preserving, and crediting open-source and research software. The current academic landscape disincentivises publishing software as opposed to other research outputs, rewards throwaway vibe-coded scripts over well-engineered and robust frameworks, and limits software citations to salient, charismatic projects.

\n

Facilitated by Richard Littauer (CURIOSS), the session will feature three consecutive 15-minute group discussions highlighting aspects of each of these areas, sharing best practices, and exploring ongoing efforts. Each group discussion will begin with a short presentation introducing the topic. Participants will also be able to collaboratively share notes before and after the session.

\n

A recording and transcript of the introductory presentations will be made available following the webinar. The small-group discussions may not be recorded.

\n

Related workshop theme: Understanding future incentives around publishing, preserving and crediting software.

\n

Registration details coming soon.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/bkgp8-trm90","guid":"https://www.researchsoft.org/events/2026-10/","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793145600,"rid":"41g73-jjk24","summary":"Building on the outcomes of the Research Software Engineering in the Age of Generative AI: Building a Community Vision workshop, convened by ReSA and Schmidt Sciences in Edinburgh in March 2026, ReSA is collaborating with organisations and initiatives across the international research software community on a series of public webinars exploring the opportunities and challenges of generative AI (GenAI) for research software.","tags":["Event","Ongoing"],"title":"Webinar series: Research software in the age of Generative AI","updated_at":1793195708,"url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/events/2026-10/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0524sp257","name":"University of Bristol"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Taylor","given":"Mike","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-5675"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mike Taylor","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-5675"},{"name":"Matt Wedel","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6082-3103"}],"community_id":"0e13541f-417e-46c0-a859-65927249df72","created":1675209600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"SV-POW! ... All sauropod vertebrae, except when we're talking about Open Access. ISSN 3033-3695","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/svpow","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/0e13541f-417e-46c0-a859-65927249df72/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://svpow.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://svpow.com","issn":"3033-3695","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"svpow","status":"active","subfield":"1911","title":"Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week","updated":1793185145,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week","blog_slug":"svpow","content_html":"

At the end of October, I submitted a paper that’s been hanging over me for a couple of years. I’ve been in the habit of tracking nearly all my submissions since I started out in palaeontology, it happens that this one is number 50 in the list. It feels like an interesting time to stop and take stock of them all.

\n
\"\"

NHMUK PV R5937, “The Archbishop”, cervical vertebra S (probably C7). A. Reconstruction of right lateral view with neural spine, prezygapophysis, diapophysis, parapophysus, condyle and cervical rib restored. Most anatomical features are as in the reconstruction of Cervical V: only unique elements are labelled. B. Left lateral view. C. Dorsal view with anterior to the right. D. Posterior view. E. Right lateral view. F. Anterior view. Scale bar 20 cm.
And, no, the recently submitted paper in question is not the Archbishop description. I just tossed this image in because, hey, this is Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week.

\n

Before I get into the details of what happened to those submissions, I want to note that of the 31 papers listed in my CV, eight are not listed in my submissions database. Five of them I didn’t track because I was not the lead author and so not involved in the submission process (Sharing: public databases combat mistrust and secrecy; Running a question-and-answer website for science education: first hand experiences; Neural spine bifurcation in sauropod dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation: ontogenetic and phylogenetic implications; The Anatomy and Phylogenetic Relationships of \"Pelorosaurus\" becklesii (Neosauropoda, Macronaria) from the Early Cretaceous of England; The Moral Dimensions of Open). And three more don’t appear because they were minor works that didn’t go through the full formal review process (The Open Dinosaur Project; Better ways to evaluate research and researchers; Comment (Case 3700) \u2013 Support for Diplodocus carnegii Hatcher, 1901 being designated as the type species of Diplodocus Marsh, 1878).

\n

That means that the 50 submissions I have in my database represent only 23 published papers \u2014 a hit-rate of less than 50%. What’s going on?

\n

Well, first, my submissions list includes three “published” papers that aren’t on my CV: a Europasaurus entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a nomenclatural correction to my Giraffatitan JVP paper, and the Barosaurus neck preprint. So that means 26 of the 50 submissions are published.

\n

What about the rest?

\n

Five more submissions are still open: the Barosaurus neck paper based on that preprint, still in review limbo after eight years; an accepted chapter in a long-delayed edited volume; a paper on Joni Mitchell that was given Major Revisions from a humanities journal for (I thought) spurious reasons; an anatomy paper at PeerJ whose revisions should soon be finished; and the newly submitted paper that I mentioned at the top of the page.

\n

Four more submissions, I have just abandoned. One was the original submission of what became Almost all known sauropod necks are incomplete and distorted, which I later resubmitted as new after I stalled for six years on responding to reviews. Another was a short note correcting a nomenclatural error in a Nature paper, which was basically ignored. Two more are chapters for the Phylonyms volume, which … well, that’s a long and depressing story for another day.

\n

That leaves 15 submissions that were rejected. Some of these are dead forever: for example, the first palaeo paper I ever submitted, a dinosaur diversity analysis, which I ended up “publishing” as a sort of post-preprint ten years later. Some I gave up on after rejection, such as an attempt to reconcile phylogenetic and Linnaean taxonomy (rejected twice), a brief summary of dinosaur diversity that I optimistically sent to Science when I was young and stupid, and an RWA-era comment on what a “private-sector research work” is (three times at different journals!).

\n

The other eight rejections, more happily, having been rejected from one or more journals eventually found homes elsewhere: my first (eventually) published paper, on phylogenetic nomenclature of diplodocoids; the Xenoposeidon description, our neck-posture paper (twice!), Why Giraffes Have Long Necks (also twice!), the Brontomerus description, and the paper on vertebral orientation (rejected from PeerJ as “out of scope”, idiotically).

\n

So the final score comes out as follows:

\n\n

What to make of all this?

\n

One thing to think about here is whether 50% is actually a decent batting average. Maybe a 50-50 chance of any given submission making it into the journal in question is not too bad?

\n

And the reason why that may be so is that persistence tends to pay off: of my ten rejected manuscripts, more than half have gone on to be published elsewhere \u2014 garnering 400 citations so far (42, 57, 156, 95, 48 and 2, in chronological order). That is a happy thought to have in mind the next time I run into a rejection.

\n

Another encouraging observation is that the rejections have tended to be concentrated towards the earlier part of my career: 14 of them in the eight years from 2004 to 2012, and only one in the twelve years since. I think there are three reasons for this, two of them good and one bad.

\n
    \n
  1. I’ve got better at writing papers. That’s good.
    2. \n
  2. I’ve got better at judging what to submit and where. I’ve stopped aiming optimistic opinion pieces at Science and Nature and Biological Reviews. That’s good, too.
    3. \n
  3. I’m better known now, and that’s bad. Or, at least, it’s bad that being better known means I get better outcomes.
    4. \n
\n

As scientists of course we strive to evaluate every work on its merits, not according to the name or status of the author, and deliberate actions are often taken to make sure that’s what’s done. For example, the reviewers don’t know who wrote the abstracts submitted to get a talk at SVP or SVPCA. And yet, and yet. The truth is that I have had a few ad-hominem reviews, and I’m sorry to say they were all concentrated in the first few years of my career.

\n

Dear SV-POW! readers: don’t be That Guy. When you’re asked to review a manuscript by someone you’ve never heard of, put the fact that you’ve never heard of him or her aside, and review the damn manuscript, not the author. That’s not too much to ask.

\n

Anyway, that’s my fifty submissions in 20 years. (In fact, now I come to check the dates, I see that today is exactly the 20th anniversary of getting back the Reject Without Review verdict on the first palaeo paper I even submitted!). Let’s hope I can get more efficient in the next 20.

\n

 

\n
\n

doi:10.59350/rexga-6y368

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rexga-6y368","guid":"https://svpow.com/?p=23001","image":"https://svpow.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/cervical-s-composite.jpeg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1731024000,"rid":"a6397-t2e84","summary":"At the end of October, I submitted a paper that's been hanging over me for a couple of years. I've been in the habit of tracking nearly all my submissions since I started out in palaeontology, it happens that this one is number 50 in the list.","tags":["How The Sausage Is Made","Navel Blogging","Papers By SV-POW!sketeers","Stinkin' Reviewers","Timely"],"title":"The fate (so far) of my 50 submitted papers","updated_at":1793185216,"url":"https://svpow.com/2024/11/08/the-fate-so-far-of-my-50-submitted-papers/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence"}],"content_html":"

\"BookThis self-published book is a bit of a mixed bag. There has been a lot of thought put into it but, in the process of explaining the author's theories, they've forgotten that brevity makes a book like this readable and enjoyable.

\n\n

It could really have done with a strong editor to tighten things up. The first two chapters are filler. There's a mini introduction to evolution and the basics of the theory of knowledge. I'm not really sure what they're doing there. It seems to be an attempt by the author to prove that he knows what he's talking about. While a short lesson in thermodynamics may be useful, it's just overkill here. The start of chapter three is in thrall to the Cult of St Jobs of Apple, but then finally starts talking about food production. Which is where things get interesting.

\n\n

The book takes a long time to get to its central point - raising and slaughtering animals for meat is inefficient. It's a poor use of energy, water, crops, and space. We should be able to do better.

\n\n

But then the book goes a bit off-piste. It returns to a graduate level intro to synthetic biology and modern day genetic manipulation. Again, interesting up to a point, but goes too far into the weeds for a book for the general public. There are some weird and inappropriate comments scattered through the chapters - he casually dismisses the concerns GMO opponents have about proprietary and secretive practices without ever acknowledging them. Similarly, he unfairly lumps vegans in with antivaxers. Despite hundreds of citations throughout the book, there's no footnote for that!

\n\n

Then there's a bizarre section on meditation. I sort of get the tie in to hedonism and desires but again feels like a brain dump of padding out content.

\n\n

Finally, we get an excellent chapter on \"beyond food\". He raises some interesting and exciting questions about the limits of our culinary imaginations. Why are we recreating burgers and steak when we could be making something better?

\n\n

Annoyingly, it only lightly touches on the history of meat-replacement technology. For example, there's a paragraph about the technology behind Quorn - but nothing about how the population boom in the mid-20th century led to fears of mass starvation.

\n\n

Can we \"3D print\" something similar to steak? Can we genetically engineer yeast to produce protiens similar to cheese? This book makes a powerful argument that the tech is nearly here and that it is a moral necessity.

\n\n

I've been a vegetarian since the turn of the century - and I've tried loads of \"meat substitutes\". A Quorn burger, once drenched in ketchup, mustard, and pickles, doesn't taste any different from a beef burger. I've eaten the Beyond Meat burgers and, again, they're hardly any different from the existing veggie-burgers.

\n\n

I get the need to make food for efficiently. And for new flavours, better textures, and more nutrition. The book does a reasonable job for explaining how we're going to get there. We're moving to a world where Synthetarianism is becoming mainstream. This raises interesting ethical questions. Sadly, the book doesn't touch on the ethics of this.

\n\n

Reduction of meat consumption is probably necessary for our future on this planet - and our eventual off-world adventures. Once you get into this book, there are some excellent ideas and some fascinating science - but you'll need to skim through a lot before you reach the payoff.

\n\n

Thanks to BookSirens for the review copy.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/qkkks-sk141","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=40686","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/after-meat.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1635379200,"rid":"2npac-4yn41","summary":"This self-published book is a bit of a mixed bag. There has been a lot of thought put into it but, in the process of explaining the author's theories, they've forgotten that brevity makes a book like this readable and enjoyable. It could really have done with a strong editor to tighten things up. The first two chapters are filler.","tags":["/etc/","Arc","Book Review","Vegan","Vegetarian"],"title":"Book Review: After Meat - The Case for an Amazing, Meat-Free World by Karthik Sekar","updated_at":1793180970,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/10/book-review-after-meat-the-case-for-an-amazing-meat-free-world-by-karthik-sekar/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Kramer","given":"Bianca"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Bianca Kramer"}],"community_id":"c9d5e0ed-a4d1-48d6-a8dd-7eb357f2c146","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content in Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/sesameopenscience","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c9d5e0ed-a4d1-48d6-a8dd-7eb357f2c146/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/index.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"sesameopenscience","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","updated":1792972800,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Thoughts on Open on Sesame Open Science","blog_slug":"sesameopenscience","content_html":"

\n\"screenshot

\n

Journal lists in OpenAlex\n \n\n\n\n

\n

\nOpenAlex shared a blog post last week about their implementation of journal lists: \nhttps://blog.openalex.org/trusted-journal-lists-come-to-openalex/. OpenAlex previously had 'in_scopus' as a variable (which is no longer available) as well 'in_core' to indicate inclusion in the 'core journal list' from the Leiden Ranking (Open Edition). Since September 2026, coverage has been extended to include first 22 and now 61 journal lists of all stripes.

\n

What to think?\n \n\n\n\n

\n

Personally, I am of two minds about this - on one hand, having this information available as open data, and made interoperable with the other data in OpenAlex, is useful and meeting a need that has been articulated often by users. Also, the fact that OpenAlex implements a broad set of lists (including e.g. LatIndex, SciELO and AJOL) does allow people to take their own responsibility for what they choose to use, shows the diversity in indexes/journal lists, and can help expand the concept of 'visibility' beyond 'included in Web of Science or Scopus'.

\n

On the other hand, OpenAlex positions this as a trust signal, which I think can be problematic, and mixes different types of lists, which compounds the issue - crucially including many national research evaluation lists.

\n

Mixed messaging\n \n\n\n\n

\n

In the blog post, it is claimed that 'allow lists' (whitelists by any other name \ud83c\udf39) are the preferred approach to assess the 'trustworthiness' of a journal. Ironically, \nThinkCheckSubmit is quoted to justify this, which instead advocates assessment at journal level, and does not mention or advocate using whitelists as proxies.

\n

More importantly, the inclusion of national research evaluation lists mixes (proxy) assessment of trustworthiness with assessment of prestige. The use of such lists for decisions on funding and evaluation goes directly against \nDORA. The inclusion of them as proxies of trustworthiness is questionable in my opinion, and it could be argued that the inclusion of these lists further entrenches the use of journal lists in research assessment.

\n

Where does responsibility lie?\n \n\n\n\n

\n

Of course it can be argued that OpenAlex' role is not to explicitly support responsible research evaluation, and that, in their words 'Judgment stays with the people who made the list\", as well as those that use the list(s).

\n

I am broadly suportive of that from an open research information perspective. However, I do think that the use of journal list still deserves critical reflection and that it is important to be aware of the nature and purpose of various lists, and how that affects their inclusion criteria. OpenAlex takes on some responsibility on this when they integrate these lists - and could, for example, include such information, either as a list typology or by including a list's own description as a variable in the source list entity.

\n

About the author:\n \n

\n

The author of this response is independent advisort and research analyst at Sesame Open Science (working in the areas of open science, open metadata and open infrastructure) as well as Executive Director of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. This response is written in a personal capacity, representing my personal views and opinions.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/hn90j-0hn45","guid":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex/","image":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex//featured_202610_journal_lists_in_openalex.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792972800,"rid":"erskm-h0v20","summary":"Journal lists in OpenAlex OpenAlex shared a blog post last week about their implementation of journal lists: https://blog.openalex.org/trusted-journal-lists-come-to-openalex/. OpenAlex previously had ' in_scopus ' as a variable (which is no longer available) as well ' in_core ' to indicate inclusion in the 'core journal list' from the Leiden Ranking (Open Edition). Since September 2026, coverage has been extended to include","title":"Journal lists in OpenAlex - mixed feelings","updated_at":1793178909,"url":"https://bmkramer.github.io/SesameOpenScience_site/thought/202610_journal_lists_in_openalex/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schmeja","given":"Stefan"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b","created":1749772800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Das Blog der TIB \u2013 Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/tib","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/db0d8909-9e37-46d0-b16c-0551f575e86b/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.tib.eu/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.65527","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tib","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"TIB-Blog","updated":1793088124,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"TIB-Blog","blog_slug":"tib","content_html":"
\"Cover
Cover des Filmkatalogs f\u00fcr Medizin des IWF
\n read this article in english\n

Der allj\u00e4hrlich von der UNESCO ausgerufene World Day for Audiovisual Heritage am 27. Oktober bietet diesmal Anlass, eine historische Medizinfilmsammlung vorzustellen, die zum Filmerbe der G\u00f6ttinger IWFWissen und Medien gGmbH (vormals Institut f\u00fcr den Wissenschaftlichen Film \u2013 IWF) an der TIB geh\u00f6rt.

\n

Mit ihren rund 1.200 Titeln zur Humanmedizin deckt sie \u00fcber 100 Jahre Medizin- und Filmgeschichte ab. Erste Aufnahmen eines chirurgischen Eingriffs wurden bereits zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts erstellt, die letzten Filme entstanden erst vor knapp 20 Jahren.

\n

Inhaltlich verteilt sich die Sammlung \u00fcber das gesamte Spektrum der Grundlagen wie Anatomie, Pathologie, Physiologie, Zytologie bis hin zu den klinischen F\u00e4chern wie Innere Medizin, Chirurgie, Gyn\u00e4kologie, P\u00e4diatrie, Neurologie und Psychiatrie.\u00a0Was die Medizinfilme so besonders macht: Sie geben authentische Einblicke in eine Welt, die sich normalerweise hinter verschlossenen T\u00fcren abspielt.

\n

Klinische Krankheitssymptome werden in einer Vielzahl der Filme anhand echter Fallbeispiele demonstriert, Untersuchungen, Behandlungen und Operationen an realen Patient:innen gezeigt. Selbst in Notarztwagen, psychiatrische Kliniken und Obduktionss\u00e4le werden Einblicke gew\u00e4hrt. F\u00fcr Medizinstudierende bieten solche Aufnahmen eine wertvolle Erg\u00e4nzung ihrer praktischen Ausbildung. Zugleich er\u00f6ffnen sie wichtige Perspektiven f\u00fcr die (medizin-)historische Forschung.

\n

Verantwortungsvolle Bereitstellung des sensiblen Filmerbes

\n

Metadaten und Abstracts der IWF-Medizinfilme k\u00f6nnen bereits vielfach \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal recherchiert werden \u2013 vgl. die spezifische Suche mit einschl\u00e4gigen Filtern. Die Filme selbst werden sukzessive digitalisiert und bereitgestellt, soweit dies rechtlich m\u00f6glich ist.

\n

Hierzu geh\u00f6ren vor allem Titel ohne Personenaufnahmen (zum Beispiel Lymphgef\u00e4\u00dfmotorik von 1961) sowie sehr alte Titel, bei denen die Rechte der abgebildeten Personen bereits erloschen sind (zum Beispiel Tracheostoma von 1925). Durchaus bekannt und viel gesehen ist auch Der Muskelmann Wilhelm Emter aus L\u00f6rrach von 1925:

\n
\n

 

\n

Eine Vielzahl der Digitalisate darf jedoch aus pers\u00f6nlichkeits- und datenschutzrechtlichen Gr\u00fcnden nicht ohne Weiteres \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal zug\u00e4nglich gemacht werden. Patient:innen geh\u00f6ren zur Gruppe der sensiblen Personen und genie\u00dfen daher einen besonderen Schutz.

\n

Die hohe Authentizit\u00e4t der Filme stellt die TIB vor Herausforderungen: Einerseits soll der Fachwelt eine zeitgem\u00e4\u00dfe digitale Filmnutzung erm\u00f6glicht werden, andererseits m\u00fcssen die Rechte der gefilmten Personen gewahrt bleiben.

\n
\"Logo
Logo des REMEDY-Projekts an der TIB
\n

An dieser Stelle setzt das Projekt REMEDY an, das 2025 gestartet ist. Es schafft die Voraussetzungen, um die Medizinfilme k\u00fcnftig rechtskonform und verantwortungsvoll \u00fcber das TIB AV-Portal bereitzustellen. Hierf\u00fcr wird ein rechtliches Risikoabsch\u00e4tzungskonzept erarbeitet, ein Paket an technischen Schutzma\u00dfnahmen geschn\u00fcrt sowie ein eigenes Tool zur irreversiblen Anonymisierung entwickelt.

\n

Dabei leistet REMEDY Grundlagenarbeit: Die Ergebnisse sollen nachnutzbar sein, damit auch andere sensible Filmsammlungen davon profitieren k\u00f6nnen (zum Beispiel Ethnologiefilme oder Unterrichtsfilme mit Kindern).

\n

Das Projekt wird von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft gef\u00f6rdert und l\u00e4uft noch bis Mitte 2027. Es ist Teil der DFG-Pilotphase Digitalisierung und Bereitstellung (noch) rechtebewehrter Objekte, in der 13 Projekte vernetzt sind, die an \u00e4hnlichen Fragestellungen arbeiten.

\n

Im TIB-Blog wird REMEDY weiter \u00fcber Neuigkeiten berichten.

\n
\n

Fr\u00fchere Beitr\u00e4ge im TIB-Blog\u00a0zum Welttag des audiovisuellen Erbes:

\n\n
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.65527/t5xf1-arv03","guid":"https://blog.tib.eu/?p=34610","image":"https://blog.tib.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/REMEDY_Logo_BK_3c.png","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"4qam6-z5c05","summary":"read this article in english Der allj\u00e4hrlich von der UNESCO ausgerufene World Day for Audiovisual Heritage am 27. Oktober bietet diesmal Anlass, eine historische Medizinfilmsammlung vorzustellen, die zum Filmerbe der G\u00f6ttinger IWFWissen und Medien gGmbH (vormals Institut f\u00fcr den Wissenschaftlichen Film \u2013 IWF) an der TIB geh\u00f6rt.","tags":["FORSCHUNG & PROJEKTE","BIBLIOTHEKSWELT","Wissenschaftsgeschichte","UNESCO","Medizin"],"title":"Sensibles Filmerbe: Einblicke in historische Medizinwelten zum Welttag des audiovisuellen Erbes","updated_at":1793172615,"url":"https://blog.tib.eu/2026/10/27/sensibles-filmerbe-einblicke-in-historische-medizinwelten/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Royle","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8927-6967"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Royle"}],"community_id":"d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327","created":1673740800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"x == (s || z). You say it kwontized","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/quantixed","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://quantixed.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://quantixed.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"quantixed","status":"active","subfield":"1307","title":"quantixed","updated":1793101738,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"quantixed","blog_slug":"quantixed","content_html":"

As an academic, I receive a number of cold emails from prospective PhD students. I am always happy to hear from genuine students who are interested in working with me. However, a significant fraction of these emails are simply spam. I call them PhDishing emails.

\n\n\n\n

A few years back, PhDishing emails were easy to spot because they were totally untargeted. The emails were typically “Dear Professor” or if their mail merge program used your name, the text had no personalisation. The sender was “interested in my research” without saying what it was. Nor would they say how their experience (usually in an unrelated area) led them to write to me.

\n\n\n\n

These cold emails, sent to many lab heads at once, could be deleted with impunity. I had a simple rule: they hadn’t crafted an email to me, so I was not obligated to respond. DELETE. Cold emailers who wrote a genuine email, received a reply whether they were a suitable candidate or not.

\n\n\n\n

The advent of LLMs has substantially changed the game. Now, the PhDishing emails are verbose, syntactically perfect and personalised with a summary of my research interests that are clearly hoovered from my website and homogenised into bland prose. In short, LLM use considerably ups the ante. It is now hard to tell if the sender is a genuine candidate who has used an LLM in a misguided attempt to write a cold email, or is no different from the spammers of old.

\n\n\n\n

I’ve noticed these LLM-generated emails are a kind of boilerplate – which I suppose is not too surprising.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

I find paragraph 3 to be the closest thing to a “tell”. The vibe is that the candidate has their own research direction and would like to benefit from my lab to further their own research goals. This is both unrealistic and undesirable.

\n\n\n\n

First, at this level, candidates typically have a maximum of two years’ research experience, usually much less. By definition this experience is within another lab, addressing that group’s research goals. The notion that the candidate has ownership over that research is not realistic. At this stage, they should embark on a PhD and begin to form their research ideas. Second, why would I accept a student who would come and work on an unrelated topic? It’s true that the dream candidate should be able to work independently and have their own ideas, but they cannot be on a different research trajectory. LLMs – currently at least – seem to think that this is a winning formula for a cold PhDishing email.

\n\n\n\n

Am I being unfair here? A genuine candidate may be uncertain about how to write an approach email or not be confident in their written English and seek the assistance of an LLM. Those things shouldn’t be a barrier preventing people from contacting me. However, is it too much effort to sense check what you are about to send? I don’t think so. Would I want to work with someone who does not agree?

\n\n\n\n

To any genuine applicants who may be reading this and want to join my research group: please just write your own email. With your own words. Typos and all. I don’t care. These days it will make you stand out.

\n\n\n\n

—

\n\n\n\n

The post title comes from “Starfishing” by The Pooh Sticks from their “Optimistic Fool” album.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/k03he-q1n24","guid":"https://quantixed.org/?p=3836","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"1qdqf-3vy10","summary":"As an academic, I receive a number of cold emails from prospective PhD students. I am always happy to hear from genuine students who are interested in working with me. However, a significant fraction of these emails are simply spam. I call them PhDishing emails.","tags":["Science","Academia","PhD"],"title":"Starfishing: when cold emailing goes wrong","updated_at":1793172610,"url":"https://quantixed.org/2026/10/27/starfishing-when-cold-emailing-goes-wrong/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0153tk833","name":"University of Virginia"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen D. Turner","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"community_id":"382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A practicing data scientist's take on AI, genomics, biosecurity, and the ways AI is reshaping how science gets done. Weekly updates from the field. Occasional notes on programming.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/stephenturner","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"stephenturner","status":"active","subfield":"1311","title":"Paired Ends","updated":1793090712,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"
\"\"

Some days I buy into the AI as Normal Technology argument that and popularized in their essay by the same title.

Then I'll read something like Anthropic's S-1 filing, and the founder's letter that precedes it. Anthropic is not pitching investors \"AI as normal technology.\" In the S-1 they describe ambitions for biology that go way beyond helping scientists write code and summarize papers.

On discoveries it says it has already made:

We have started to directly make biological discoveries with Claude: among them is the discovery of a molecular machine that might have the potential to be developed into a novel biotechnology tool, perhaps for gene editing.

On what it expects to follow:

First, we believe that AI will profoundly accelerate the rate of progress in biology and medicine, potentially curing diseases that have plagued humanity for millennia, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, rare genetic diseases, and the major infectious diseases.

On biological misuse:

AI can be misused by those who wish to do harm, for example to conduct cyberattacks or to design biological weapons. We have strict guardrails and trusted access programs that are designed to block misuse of our technology while still enabling positive applications.

And on the incentives of the company developing it:

AI has unusually large externalities, both positive and negative. Cultivating the positive externalities, and defending against the negative ones, is to some degree in tension with the natural incentives of a for-profit company, and with the standard governance structure of a publicly traded company.

On economic disruption:

The incredible economic value of AI may come with economic disruption, similar to what has happened with previous technologies but greater in magnitude.

On empowering bad governments:

Authoritarian governments may use AI to create high-tech surveillance states, deepen repression, and make themselves much more difficult to dislodge.

Subscribe now

It's fine to be skeptical of some of their claims. But at the same time, take seriously what Anthropic is asking investors to believe: that the technology they're developing could cure diseases and create biological weapons, could result in economic abundance or upheaval, could empower democratic and authoritarian governments alike. And that ordinary, normal technology commercial incentives are almost certainly inadequate to manage the consequences.

I don't think this is the S-1 of a normal technology.

We believe that Al is one of the most consequential technologies in human history. If managed well, it could rapidly accelerate scientific innovation, greatly increase economic growth rates, bring cures for major diseases within reach, and solve problems that have resisted generations of human effort.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ny31b-72969","guid":"222305199","image":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!giS4!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5c59d001-2906-4c57-a3d4-f8fb5198b1f9_1203x639.jpeg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"n1abd-7tj94","summary":"Anthropic's S-1 prospectus describes ambitions for biology that go well beyond helping scientists write code and summarize papers.","tags":["AI"],"title":"Anthropic is not pitching Normal Technology","updated_at":1793172610,"url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/p/anthropic-s1-prospectus","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Fischer","given":"Georg"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"52aefd81-f405-4349-b080-754395a5d8b2","created":1694476800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/oaberlin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/52aefd81-f405-4349-b080-754395a5d8b2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"oaberlin","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Open Research Blog Berlin","updated":1793106125,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Open Research Blog Berlin","blog_slug":"oaberlin","content_html":"

Die TU Berlin verk\u00fcndet auf ihrer Website die Ernennung eines Teams von insgesamt sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten:

\n

\"Als erste Universit\u00e4t in Deutschland hat die TU Berlin ein interdisziplin\u00e4res Team von Open-Science-Beauftragten ernannt. Die Expert*innen aus Forschung und Wissenschaftsinfrastruktur sollen die offene Wissenschaft an der Universit\u00e4t weiter voranbringen und das Pr\u00e4sidium bei strategischen Entscheidungen beraten.\"

\n

Mit der Neu-Ernennung werde die bisherige Funktion der Open-Access-Beauftragten weiterentwickelt und der gewachsenen Bedeutung von Open Science in Forschung und Lehre Rechnung getragen, so die TU.

\n

\n

Mit Open Science erweitert sich das Handlungsfeld deutlich, denn neben Open Access werden auch der offene Zugang zu Forschungsdaten, Forschungssoftware und Lehrmaterialien sowie weitere Praktiken, die Transparenz, Nachnutzbarkeit und Qualit\u00e4t von Forschung st\u00e4rken, ein Thema. Gleichzeitig bedankt sich die TU Berlin bei Prof. Dr. Vera Meyer, die als Open-Access-Beauftragte der TU Berlin seit 2016 entscheidend dabei mitwirkte, Open Access an der TU Berlin zu verankern und durch ihr Engagement zu bereichern.

\n

Zur Abbildung der thematischen und disziplin\u00e4ren Breite des Handlungsfelds Open Science setzt die TU Berlin f\u00fcr drei Jahre folgende Beauftragte ein:

\n\n

Das Open Research Office Berlin gratuliert dem neuen Team und freut sich auf die Zusammenarbeit in strategischen Fragen, um Open Research in Berlin weiter zu st\u00e4rken und institutionell zu verankern!

\n

Eine aktuelle \u00dcbersicht der Beauftragten f\u00fcr Open Access und Open Science in Berlin findet sich hier.

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/r2j1x-3y534","guid":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/?p=4413","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"qk9b3-yer90","summary":"Die TU Berlin verk\u00fcndet auf ihrer Website die Ernennung eines Teams von insgesamt sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten: \"Als erste Universit\u00e4t in Deutschland hat die TU Berlin ein interdisziplin\u00e4res Team von Open-Science-Beauftragten ernannt.","tags":["Allgemein","Aktuelles","Open Science","Beauftragte","TU Berlin"],"title":"Technische Universit\u00e4t Berlin ernennt interdisziplin\u00e4res Team aus sechs Open-Science-Beauftragten","updated_at":1793172607,"url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/2026/10/27/technische-universitaet-berlin-ernennt-interdisziplinaeres-team-aus-sechs-open-science-beauftragten/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Iskri\u0107","given":"Mitja V."}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"081292c6-78c5-4531-8523-5d3c7874c1d3","created":1736208000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"O stvareh, ki zanimajo knji\u017eni\u010darje - info@biblioblog.si","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/biblioblog","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/081292c6-78c5-4531-8523-5d3c7874c1d3/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/feeds/posts/default","filter":null,"generator":"Blogger","home_page_url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/","issn":"2536-2356","language":"slv","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"biblioblog","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"BIBLIOBLOG","updated":1793116467,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"BIBLIOBLOG","blog_slug":"biblioblog","content_html":"

Spo\u0161tovane knji\u017eni\u010darke, spo\u0161tovani knji\u017eni\u010darji,


\u00a0vljudno vas vabimo na 4. dan ob\u010danske znanosti \u00bbOd ljudi do politik\u00ab, ki bo potekal v \u010detrtek, 5. novembra 2026, v Univerzitetni knji\u017enici Maribor.

Leto\u0161nji dogodek poudarja tudi vlogo knji\u017enic pri povezovanju raziskovalcev in \u0161ir\u0161e javnosti ter vklju\u010devanju prebivalcev v znanstveno raziskovanje. V Mre\u017eo ob\u010danske znanosti je vklju\u010denih \u017ee 15 knji\u017enic, med njimi splo\u0161ne, visoko\u0161olske, nacionalna in specialne knji\u017enice. Njihovo sodelovanje potrjuje pomembno vlogo knji\u017enic pri razvoju ob\u010danske znanosti in povezovanju lokalnih skupnosti z raziskovanjem.

Med gosti bodo tudi knji\u017eni\u010darke iz tujine, ki bodo predstavile mednarodne izku\u0161nje in prilo\u017enosti za sodelovanje knji\u017enic v projektih ob\u010danske znanosti. Vabljeno predavanje bo imela D\u00f3ra Kalydy, namestnica generalnega direktorja Knji\u017eni\u010dnega in informacijskega centra Mad\u017earske akademije znanosti v Budimpe\u0161ti ter \u010dlanica delovne skupine za ob\u010dansko znanost pri evropskem zdru\u017eenju raziskovalnih knji\u017enic LIBER. Spregovorila bo o knji\u017enicah kot pomembnih partnericah v projektih ob\u010danske znanosti. Med projekti bo predstavljen tudi projekt \u00bbR\u00e1day Mih\u00e1ly Eml\u00e9kprojekt\u00ab iz Mestne knji\u017enice Szab\u00f3 Ervin v Budimpe\u0161ti (F\u0151v\u00e1rosi Szab\u00f3 Ervin K\u00f6nyvt\u00e1r), ki bo ponudil konkreten primer vklju\u010devanja knji\u017enice v projekt ob\u010danske znanosti ter povezovanja lokalne skupnosti z raziskovanjem in ohranjanjem kulturne dedi\u0161\u010dine.

Eden od soorganizatorjev dogodka je tudi Mariborska knji\u017enica, zato si \u0161e posebej \u017eelimo udele\u017ebe kolegic in kolegov iz slovenskih splo\u0161nih knji\u017enic.

\ud83d\udcc5 5. november 2026, od 9.00 do 16.00
\ud83d\udccd Univerzitetna knji\u017enica Maribor
Udele\u017eba je brezpla\u010dna! Celoten program in prijava:


https://citizenscience.si/dan-obcanske-znanosti-2026/

Veseli bomo va\u0161e udele\u017ebe, izmenjave izku\u0161enj in novih povezav med knji\u017enicami.
Prisr\u010dno vabljeni!

Organizatorji 4. dneva ob\u010danske znanosti

","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/negrt-fx206","guid":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1942534357777072016.post-2901708602381859827","image":"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhIMdkygcdSQPsGYFHsl6nAqEGONb37SXhGVfh0-vwTFTqbd7xQ8Kz7-eZNoh-BS-MFJ-NhIXtDsU7q3NkT-Mo550TS1tsi6l6Rlm9K6UE0pnht2H7oAQnZL1WxVAWbmzHDFy-FQCyaU6dKlcTMrPvxtap24BuwyOuoy9WlUOtmPOdA0jDmlhyTXSx0z9/s72-w640-h118-c/DOZ_PASICA_3_PIX_2026.jpg","language":"sl","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1793059200,"rid":"2q1w2-3vk85","summary":"Spo\u0161tovane knji\u017eni\u010darke, spo\u0161tovani knji\u017eni\u010darji, vljudno vas vabimo na 4. dan ob\u010danske znanosti \u00bbOd ljudi do politik\u00ab, ki bo potekal v \u010detrtek, 5. novembra 2026, v Univerzitetni knji\u017enici Maribor. Leto\u0161nji dogodek poudarja tudi vlogo knji\u017enic pri povezovanju raziskovalcev in \u0161ir\u0161e javnosti ter vklju\u010devanju prebivalcev v znanstveno raziskovanje.","tags":["Knji\u017enice","Ob\u010danska Znanost","Odprta Znanost","Znanstveno Komuniciranje"],"title":"Vabilo knji\u017eni\u010darjem k udele\u017ebi na 4. dnevu ob\u010danske znanosti \u2013 5. 11. 2026","updated_at":1793172606,"url":"https://www.biblioblog.si/2026/10/vabilo-knjiznicarjem-k-udelezbi-na-4.html","version":"v1"}],"out_of":57951,"page":1,"per_page":10,"total-results":57951}