社会正义:开放运动中的金线

IF 4.6 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
R. Raju, Jill Claassen, Kaela De Lillie
{"title":"社会正义:开放运动中的金线","authors":"R. Raju, Jill Claassen, Kaela De Lillie","doi":"10.3390/publications11030036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current publishing landscape perpetuates biases that continue to exclude those who have been previously marginalized, specifically from the Global South including Africa. Incorporating philanthropy as the only driving principle to openly share knowledge is insufficient to truly empower and be inclusive to those who have been relegated to the periphery of the scholarly communication ecosystem. Social justice principles have to underpin the foundation of this ecosystem, in tandem with philanthropy, to shed light on these exclusionary, systemic publishing practices and processes. This will entail first breaking down these unfair practices and then rebuilding the ecosystem by advancing equity, diversity and inclusion. This paper highlights the current gaps in the openness movement and demonstrates, through an exemplar of a publishing platform, how the publishing landscape can be transformed. The publishing platform employs a multi-tenant model that enables multiple institutions to publish and disseminate knowledge on one shared instance of the software. The continental platform and the tenant model that it utilizes address the technological and infrastructural barriers often experienced in the Global South and Africa, while simultaneously serving as a collective hub for hosting African scholarship. This case study methodology is used to investigate how the alternate publishing route recaptures the philanthropic pillars of the openness movement. The findings provide evidence for a return to the founding principles of the openness movement and, as importantly, demonstrates the impact of open access on student success.","PeriodicalId":37551,"journal":{"name":"Publications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Justice: The Golden Thread in the Openness Movement\",\"authors\":\"R. Raju, Jill Claassen, Kaela De Lillie\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/publications11030036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current publishing landscape perpetuates biases that continue to exclude those who have been previously marginalized, specifically from the Global South including Africa. Incorporating philanthropy as the only driving principle to openly share knowledge is insufficient to truly empower and be inclusive to those who have been relegated to the periphery of the scholarly communication ecosystem. Social justice principles have to underpin the foundation of this ecosystem, in tandem with philanthropy, to shed light on these exclusionary, systemic publishing practices and processes. This will entail first breaking down these unfair practices and then rebuilding the ecosystem by advancing equity, diversity and inclusion. This paper highlights the current gaps in the openness movement and demonstrates, through an exemplar of a publishing platform, how the publishing landscape can be transformed. The publishing platform employs a multi-tenant model that enables multiple institutions to publish and disseminate knowledge on one shared instance of the software. The continental platform and the tenant model that it utilizes address the technological and infrastructural barriers often experienced in the Global South and Africa, while simultaneously serving as a collective hub for hosting African scholarship. This case study methodology is used to investigate how the alternate publishing route recaptures the philanthropic pillars of the openness movement. The findings provide evidence for a return to the founding principles of the openness movement and, as importantly, demonstrates the impact of open access on student success.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Publications\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Publications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的出版环境使偏见持续存在,继续排斥那些以前被边缘化的人,特别是来自全球南方包括非洲的人。将慈善作为公开分享知识的唯一驱动原则,不足以真正赋予那些已经被降级到学术传播生态系统边缘的人权力和包容性。社会正义原则必须支撑这一生态系统的基础,与慈善事业相结合,以揭示这些排斥性的、系统性的出版实践和流程。这需要首先打破这些不公平的做法,然后通过促进公平、多样性和包容性来重建生态系统。本文强调了目前开放运动中的差距,并通过一个出版平台的范例来展示如何改变出版格局。发布平台采用多租户模型,使多个机构能够在软件的一个共享实例上发布和传播知识。大陆平台和它利用的租户模式解决了全球南非和非洲经常遇到的技术和基础设施障碍,同时作为主办非洲奖学金的集体中心。本案例研究方法用于调查替代出版路线如何重新抓住开放运动的慈善支柱。这些发现为回归开放运动的基本原则提供了证据,同样重要的是,证明了开放获取对学生成功的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social Justice: The Golden Thread in the Openness Movement
The current publishing landscape perpetuates biases that continue to exclude those who have been previously marginalized, specifically from the Global South including Africa. Incorporating philanthropy as the only driving principle to openly share knowledge is insufficient to truly empower and be inclusive to those who have been relegated to the periphery of the scholarly communication ecosystem. Social justice principles have to underpin the foundation of this ecosystem, in tandem with philanthropy, to shed light on these exclusionary, systemic publishing practices and processes. This will entail first breaking down these unfair practices and then rebuilding the ecosystem by advancing equity, diversity and inclusion. This paper highlights the current gaps in the openness movement and demonstrates, through an exemplar of a publishing platform, how the publishing landscape can be transformed. The publishing platform employs a multi-tenant model that enables multiple institutions to publish and disseminate knowledge on one shared instance of the software. The continental platform and the tenant model that it utilizes address the technological and infrastructural barriers often experienced in the Global South and Africa, while simultaneously serving as a collective hub for hosting African scholarship. This case study methodology is used to investigate how the alternate publishing route recaptures the philanthropic pillars of the openness movement. The findings provide evidence for a return to the founding principles of the openness movement and, as importantly, demonstrates the impact of open access on student success.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Publications
Publications Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
1.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of Publications includes: Theory and practice of scholarly communication Digitisation and innovations in scholarly publishing technologies Metadata, infrastructure, and linking the scholarly record Publishing policies and editorial/peer-review workflows Financial models for scholarly publishing Copyright, licensing and legal issues in publishing Research integrity and publication ethics Issues and best practices in the publication of non-traditional research outputs (e.g., data, software/code, protocols, data management plans, grant proposals, etc.) Issues in the transition to open access and open science Inclusion and participation of traditionally excluded actors Language issues in publication processes and products Traditional and alternative models of peer review Traditional and alternative means of assessment and evaluation of research and its impact, including bibliometrics and scientometrics The place of research libraries, scholarly societies, funders and others in scholarly communication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信