The Living Library: a process-based tool for open literature review, probing the boundaries of open science

Authors : Elisabeth Angerer, Maura Cassidy Burke, Simon Dirks, Arthur Bakker, Aitana Bilinski Torres, Toine Pieters

The Living Library is a novel tool for opening the scientific process of literature reviewing. We here present its core features, set-up and workflow, and provide the open-source code via GitHub (https://github.com/Simon-Dirks/living-library). The Living Library allows researchers to sort articles thematically and temporally, has a built-in open logbook, and uses a responsive methodology.

These core features render the Living Library both a practical tool, and an educative framework for reflection on the research process. Its use deepened our understanding of what it means and what it takes to open science, which we summarise in three main lessons: openness is multidirectional, involving sharing and receiving; openness is relational and as such requires boundary work; and openness entails judgments of relevance.

This highlights the intimate connection between research relevance and open science: Opening science is no categorical practice, but the continuous syncing to a world in motion—opening up for it and to it, to varying degrees at different boundaries, in response to what is happening and what matters.

The Living Library models what such syncing can look like in relation to the evolving academic conversation. We encourage further experimentation with the Living Library to probe the boundaries of open science.

URL : The Living Library: a process-based tool for open literature review, probing the boundaries of open science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00964-z

What Is Wrong With the Current Evaluative Bibliometrics?

Author : Endel Põder

Bibliometric data are relatively simple and describe objective processes of publishing articles and citing others. It seems quite straightforward to define reasonable measures of a researcher’s productivity, research quality, or overall performance based on these data. Why do we still have no acceptable bibliometric measures of scientific performance?

Instead, there are hundreds of indicators with nobody knowing how to use them. At the same time, an increasing number of researchers and some research fields have been excluded from the standard bibliometric analysis to avoid manifestly contradictive conclusions.

I argue that the current biggest problem is the inadequate rule of credit allocation for multiple authored articles in mainstream bibliometrics. Clinging to this historical choice excludes any systematic and logically consistent bibliometrics-based evaluation of researchers, research groups, and institutions.

During the last 50 years, several authors have called for a change. Apparently, there are no serious methodologically justified or evidence-based arguments in the favor of the present system.

However, there are intractable social, psychological, and economical issues that make adoption of a logically sound counting system almost impossible.

URL : What Is Wrong With the Current Evaluative Bibliometrics?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.824518