Book Review: Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an inherent tension to the central argument of Open and Equitable Scholarly Communications: Creating a More Inclusive Future.Scholarly communication (and specifically peer review) are inherently exclusive, but here the ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) is trying to work out what a more inclusive version would look like.How can a gatekeeping process become more open, while continuing to perform its primary function?This report presents a research agenda for the field of Scholarly Communications within research libraries.It divides its subject into three main themes -People, Content, and Systems -and considers for each a variety of areas of progress, research practical actions, and next directions for research.This current research agenda is a follow up to another report issued by the ACRL in 2007, Establishing a Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication: A Call for Community Engagement.Where the previous work examined existing and emerging themes in the profession, this report looks forward, anticipating and suggesting future directions, and deliberately trying to change the course of the profession, to bend it towards equity.It also operates in an explicit framework of social justice, a framework it articulates in the first of several valuable appendices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".