Metajournals. A federalist proposal for scholarly communication and data aggregation

While the EU is building an open access infrastructure of archives (e.g. Openaire) and it is trying to implement it in the Horizon 2020 program, the gap between the tools and the human beings – researchers, citizen scientists, students, ordinary people – is still wide. The necessity to dictate open access publishing as a mandate for the EU funded research – ten years after the BOAI - is an obvious symptom of it: there is a chasm between the net and the public use of reason. To escalate the advancement and the reuse of research, we should federate the multitude of already existing open access journals in federal open overlay journals that receive their contents from the member journals and boost it with their aggregation power and their semantic web tools. The article contains both the theoretical basis and the guidelines for a project whose goals are: 1. making open access journals visible, highly cited and powerful, by federating them into wide disciplinary overlay journals; 2. avoiding the traps of the “authors pay” open access business model, by exploiting one of the virtue of federalism: the federate journals can remain little and affordable, if they gain visibility from the power of the federal overlay journal aggregating them; 3. enriching the overlay journals both through semantic annotation tools and by means of open platforms dedicated to host ex post peer review and experts comments; 4. making the selection and evaluation processes and their resulting data as much as possible public and open, to avoid the pitfalls (e. g, the serials price crisis) experienced by the closed access publishing model. It is about time to free academic publishing from its expensive walled gardens and to put to test the tools that can help us to transform it in one open forest, with one hundred flowers – and one hundred trailblazers.

[1]  Siegfried Handschuh,et al.  Semantic annotation for knowledge management: Requirements and a survey of the state of the art , 2006, J. Web Semant..

[2]  Björn Brembs,et al.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[3]  Barry Smith,et al.  Beyond the paper , 2021, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[4]  Adrian Paschke,et al.  Future content authoring , 2010 .

[5]  O. H. V. D. Gablentz,et al.  Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung ? , 1965 .

[6]  J. Guédon Open Access and the divide between “mainstream” and “peripheral” science , 2008 .

[7]  José María Calvo Moreno,et al.  You are not a gadget , 2010 .

[8]  M. Rose The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship , 1988 .

[9]  S. van der Hof,et al.  Code As Law , 2006 .

[10]  R. Merton The Normative Structure of Science , 1973 .

[11]  M. Ferraris Science of Recording , 2013 .

[12]  Eli Pariser The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[13]  G. Cerri La poetica di Platone: una teoria della comunicazione , 2007 .

[14]  Bernhard Haslhofer,et al.  Augmenting Europeana content with linked data resources , 2010, I-SEMANTICS '10.

[15]  G. Bodenhausen,et al.  Bibliometrics as weapons of mass citation. , 2010, Chimia.

[16]  G. Bodenhausen,et al.  Bibliometrics as Weapons of Mass Citation - La bibliométrie comme arme de citation massive , 2010 .

[17]  Francesco Piazza,et al.  Enriching Digital Libraries Contents with SemLib Semantic Annotation System , 2012, DH.

[18]  J. D. Meulemeester Quels modèles d’université pour quel type de motivation des acteurs ? Une vue évolutionniste , 2011 .

[19]  Jean-Claude Guédon,et al.  In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing , 2005 .

[20]  Simone Basso,et al.  The hitchhiker's guide to the Network Neutrality Bot test methodology , 2011 .

[21]  Kristina Oldenburg Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology and the future of the academy , 2012 .

[22]  Paul A. David,et al.  The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution , 2008 .

[23]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[24]  Kathleen Fitzpatrick Planned Obsolescence , 2011 .

[25]  David K. Levine,et al.  Against Intellectual Monopoly , 2008 .

[26]  M. Biagioli From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review , 2002 .

[27]  Doc Searls,et al.  World of Ends. What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else , 2003 .

[28]  David Osimo,et al.  Science 2.0 (change will happen....) , 2010, First Monday.

[29]  Paul Ginsparg,et al.  Can Peer Review Be Better Focused? , 2002 .

[30]  Jason Priem Scholarship: Beyond the paper , 2013, Nature.