Group items tagged

I've found some of these tools to be helpful in designing interaction online - particularly useful as we discuss collaboration and filtering.

Thanks for sharing. i definitely need to use Vyew.

Buen contenido. También existe un sitio llamado https://www.examtime.com/es/ para compartir y aprender en línea

Founding editor and previous co-editor of the open access journal Feminist Media Studies provides an in-depth account into her experiences engaging with feminist, open access processes. Lisa McLuaghlin spends a great deal of time discussing the implications of hierarchies in (academic) publishing and the political implications of editorial boards. Also engaged throughout the article is a conversation about diversity within academic publishing. She emphasizes how Feminist Media Studies does not have a very diverse authorship despite the journal's intention and specific policies and editorial policies that are intended to encourage non-English speakers to publish in the English journal. This reflection on feminism and open access demonstrates what these fields have accomplished, while also indicating how far we still have to go. Overall, the article provided many insights from someone on-the-ground in regards to feminist, open access initiatives.

Open access publishing in Feminist/Gender studies should reflect objectivism and diversity; therefore a diverse editorial board should be elected to recruit and select journal content that suits the target profile. It seems as if the editorial management of this journal is run more along business ethics than the principles of the journal.

I would say that ethics should nearly always come ahead of journal principles.

Here is a list of the core readings and additional resources for each module from the Open Knowledge Changing the Global Course of Learning MOOC--a partial textbook for the course.

Sitios muy interesantes: http://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/five-the-university/the-history-of-the-university-press/ http://www.amacad.org/publications/spring2002/hesse.pdf http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/1.full.pdf+html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule2/files/rule2.html#ch33 http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262512664_Download_the_full_text.pdf

thanks for sharing this

Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review.

This article is certainly controversial, and I believe in some way did a service to the Open Access community by highlighting the practice of predatory journals. However, the irony of Bohannon's article, being an example of the kind of "bad science" he describes in his own article is inescapable. First, there is no randomization of his "experimental group", and there is no control group; second, there was elimination of non-responders; third, there was no application of the intention to treat principle in the analysis; and finally there were no inferential statistics and no references! Using his own standard, there is nothing that can be concluded from his study. For the criticism regarding Bohannon's targeting of OA journals exclusively, it is important to note that this experiment has been done before with 'traditional' journals as well- and many of them failed the test of peer review. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

I think Bohannens "study" should be considered more "investigative journalism" than scientific study. While it may have some flaws if held against the standards of a scientific study, as a journalistic piece it goes a long way to justify its central accusation that there are predatory open access journals. He does not claim that there are no or evwen less predatory journals in the tradional sector (although it seems reasonable to believe that it might seem easier to predatory publishers to dupe unsuspecting scientists rather than subscription paying librarians). It demonstrates that open access is not a cure for all the problems besetting acacemic publishing. I think more deeply about it, it shows that author fees for publication may create a buisiness model just as open to abouse as the traditional subscription system. One answer might be to make the peer-review process more transparent, i.e. name the reviewers But that of course has other drawbacks.

Adobe has just given us a graphic demonstration of how not to handle security and privacy issues. A hacker acquaintance of mine has tipped me to a huge security and privacy violation on the part of Adobe. That anonymous acquaintance was examining Adobe's DRm for educational purposes when they noticed that Digital Editions 4, the newest version of ...

The Internet is challenging its users privacy, and privacy carries a different meaning in the Digital Age.

It seems internet users might just have to become "comfortable" with software companies now having access to large amounts of information about them…the new normal

Wikipediocracy.com hosts articles examining Wikipedia's editorial failings and the governance flaws that lead to them, as well as a forum dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia's administrative culture.

Wikipediocracy's mission is so negatively stated, that one wonders when someone will have to create a site to examine it: "We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world's most frequently visited websites, the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit.'" Oversight of Wikipedia et al is a good thing. A more open minded approach is needed. As I've not yet read any of the articles in depth, I reserve judgment of the site itself. I'm only critiquing the mission statement.

This open access, academic book has chapters on a whole range of different aspects related to our course topics. It focuses on questions of knowledge systems and knowledge transfer, all throughout human history all over the world. Looks like a real gem!

I would like to encourage everyone that takes the OpenKnowledge course to contribute their top five favourite websites that can give us more information on open learning and information sharing and/or people, collectives and websites that are already doing it! This is a Library open to all which we can use now and in the future to search for the resources we need.

Hello, Teresa, As the amount of information taken from this course, as well as from resources related to it and taken from the web is simply overwelming, I decided to create a blog with all these resources. Some are from the course, others from different internet resources, all related to open learning and knowledge. I give you the adress here: learninglovers.wordpress.com Sorry for not compleating your document, but I am still in module 3 and I have recorded more than 300 resources, so it would take me for a little while to do so... Hope it's useful for you!