Open Access Reader: Difference between revisions
Project updates! |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Introduction== |
==Introduction== |
||
'''Open Access Reader''' is a project to systematically ensure that all significant open access research is cited in Wikipedia. |
'''Open Access Reader (OAR)''' is a project to systematically ensure that all significant open access research is cited in Wikipedia. As the proportion of research released open access expands, this will result in Wikipedia ultimately representing the cutting edge of human knowledge! |
||
There's lots of great research being published in good quality open access journals that isn't cited in Wikipedia. It's peer reviewed, so it should count as a reliable source. It's available for anyone to read and probably comes with pretty decent metadata too. Can we set up a process to make it super convenient |
There's lots of great research being published in good quality open access journals that isn't cited in Wikipedia. It's peer reviewed, so it should count as a reliable source. It's available for anyone to read and probably comes with pretty decent metadata too. Can we set up a process to make it super convenient to find and cite these papers? |
||
==Exploration Period, August - October 2014== |
|||
[https://tools.wmflabs.org/oar/bestuncitedlong3.html Example Output] |
|||
An [[Grants:IEG/Open_Access_Reader|initial grant]] from The Wikimedia Foundation IEG programme produced: |
|||
*A small but promising [https://tools.wmflabs.org/oar/bestuncitedlong3.html|example set of candidate papers], generated from a dump of metadata from [http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk CORE], using a very rudimentary method of significance ranking. |
|||
[[/v1specification]] |
|||
*A set of [[/v1specification|wireframes]] for a desktop UI. |
|||
*A proposal from the team behind [http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk CORE] to produce and support: |
|||
**the backend required to supply open access metadata in the form we require for OAR. |
|||
**a considered and justified [[OpenAccessReader/PrioritisingSignificance|ranking methodology]]. |
|||
[[/Project Diary]] |
See also: [[/Project Diary|Project Diary]] |
||
==Project Overview== |
==Project Overview== |
||
Line 35: | Line 40: | ||
Milestones to MVP: |
Milestones to MVP: |
||
# Identify best Open Access Aggregator |
# Identify best Open Access Aggregator - Done! ([http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk CORE]) |
||
# Identify and assess available open metrics to create specification for significance filter. |
# Identify and assess available open metrics to create specification for significance filter. |
||
# Produce a system that generates an up-to-date list of most significant papers. |
# Produce a system that generates an up-to-date list of most significant papers. |
||
Line 62: | Line 67: | ||
===Success Metrics=== |
===Success Metrics=== |
||
* Build MVP |
|||
How can we measure the success of this project? |
|||
* New citations generated |
|||
* New contributors |
|||
===Grants=== |
|||
The OAR team is creating '''[[Grants:IEG/Open_Access_Reader|an application]]''' for an IEG grant. |
|||
==Endorsements== |
==Endorsements== |
Revision as of 23:22, 3 November 2014
Introduction
Open Access Reader (OAR) is a project to systematically ensure that all significant open access research is cited in Wikipedia. As the proportion of research released open access expands, this will result in Wikipedia ultimately representing the cutting edge of human knowledge!
There's lots of great research being published in good quality open access journals that isn't cited in Wikipedia. It's peer reviewed, so it should count as a reliable source. It's available for anyone to read and probably comes with pretty decent metadata too. Can we set up a process to make it super convenient to find and cite these papers?
Exploration Period, August - October 2014
An initial grant from The Wikimedia Foundation IEG programme produced:
- A small but promising set of candidate papers, generated from a dump of metadata from CORE, using a very rudimentary method of significance ranking.
- A set of wireframes for a desktop UI.
- A proposal from the team behind CORE to produce and support:
- the backend required to supply open access metadata in the form we require for OAR.
- a considered and justified ranking methodology.
See also: Project Diary
Project Overview
We break down this endeavour into four parts:
I: Sourcing Papers
There exist projects to provide API access to the aggregation of all open access repositories, such as CORE. It makes sense to use one of these instead of re-inventing the wheel, but which should we use?
II: Prioritising Significance
There are millions of papers published every year. What's the best way to decide which papers editors should tackle first?
III: Identifying, Recruiting and Alerting Editors
It's likely that OA papers come with metadata. How can we use this to find editors that are likely to take an interest?
IV: Streamlining Editor Workflow
How can we make this convenient for editors to use?
Project Management
Roadmap
Milestones to MVP:
- Identify best Open Access Aggregator - Done! (CORE)
- Identify and assess available open metrics to create specification for significance filter.
- Produce a system that generates an up-to-date list of most significant papers.
- Assess quality of topic metadata to create specification for paper-to-keyword filter.
- Build and demonstrate paper-to-keyword filter.
- Configure automated report of most significant papers for a particular keyword
- Create feedback process
- Introduce the report to sample communities via Wikiprojects, lists.
The Team
- Project Lead: EdSaperia (talk)
- Grantwriter: Katherine Bavage
- Open Access consultants
- Developer
- Designer
Perhaps you'd like to volunteer?
Success Metrics
- Build MVP
- New citations generated
- New contributors
Endorsements
If you think this is a cool idea, please put your name below!
- Dennymeta (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Helen Lambert 17:25, 30 March 2014
- Rod McKinley 17:41, 30 March 2014
- Alex Davies 17:49, 30 March 2014
- Rahul Ranjan 22:50 30 March 2014
- Oliver Pitt 09:24 31 March 2014
- Aditya Chaturvedi (talk) 23:50 IST, 30 March
- Crispin Cooper 10:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- --Netha Hussain (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Robert Hayes (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (PST)
- Dr. Paul A. Higgins --Pohuigin (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Patricia Castillo-Briceño 18:38 , 31 March 2014
- Shane Greenup 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nmillerche (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like an idea with potential. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Humpath (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- --Lambo (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I want to see more of this.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- James Knight
- NoPolyMath (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Would love to hear more about this! Minuette Le 11:02, 24 April 2014
- OR drohowa (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- --86.110.153.249 08:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)