Beyond the Grey Zone: Organization Research Publishing and Bibliodiversity in the Research Communication System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research publishing involves the production, use and management of research in a variety of genres and formats by commercial and non-profit academic publishers, and by organizations in government, civil society, university and industry sectors. However discussion of research publishing mainly tends to focus on the production and circulation of peer-reviewed academic journals and to a lesser extent books produced by commercial academic publishers. Research reports and papers produced by organizations outside the formal publishing system play a critical role in the research and development (R&D) system, yet they are often overlooked in studies on open scholarship and research communication. This is partly due to a lack of terminology to adequately describe the diverse publishing practices of organizations which operate across a spectrum from formal to informal economic activity. In this article I define and contextualise research publishing by organizations in relation to other forms of academic publishing and recent calls for greater bibliodiversity in scholarly communication. Commonly used terms such as ‘grey literature’ or ‘unpublished literature’ are inadequate to describe and account for the proliferation and importance of diverse research genres and formats able to be produced, published and disseminated in print and online by think tanks, government agencies, industry bodies and research centres. By taking a more holistic, systems-oriented approach to research publishing we can begin to understand the diverse actors, institutions and practices involved in knowledge production and develop appropriate policies, infrastructure and management practices to support an effective, efficient, equitable, credible and sustainable research knowledge commons in the public interest.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.051 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".