#publons — Public Fediverse posts

@ORCID_Org
As your website states:

"A key ORCID principle is that you are in control of the data on your ORCID record, including who you share it with. "

But that is not true if deleting my profile in a completely separate company (Clarivate) that I did not originally agree to share my Publons data with ends up deleting my reviews from my orcid record, right?

source: https://support.orcid.org/hc/en-us/articles/360006897634-Download-all-your-data
#ORCID #Clarivate #Publons

@elduvelle oh, I just found out that #Publons was bought by #Clarivate grr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publons

I recently deleted my #Clarivate researcher profile because I don't think I ever agreed to it being created from my #Publons profile in the first place.. And it automatically deleted half of my peer-review record in #Orcid! Without even asking me! Apparently it had writing access to it, but I don't remember agreeing to that either.

Anyone had this problem and managed to recover the deleted records in Orcid? I emailed them but no news so far..

@eric_normandeau @jonny @LudoWaltman @eLife

It's all too clear, isn't it. #WebOfScience would like the status quo to not change at all – they are profiting enormously from it. Whereas scientists would like the status quo to change – our grants are being drained dry from publishing fees, our libraries are also drained dry from subscription fees, and academic administrators spend countless moneys on bibliometrics supplied by Clarivate to "evaluate" academics for their "throughput" – in quotes because using these words for what they actually do (counting papers and citations) is a perversion.

By the way #Clarivate owns #EndNote, #Publons and #ScholarOne – we really ought to not use *any* of these. It's in our power.

#ScientificPublishing #academia

I received an email from #Clarivate that a reviewer of an article I handled would like feedback on their #PeerReview.

I am usually inclined to support development, but I cannot find out how the data I provide are going to be used.

I am asked for quantitative ratings (clarity, helpfulness etc) which won't be shared with the reviewer. And I can provide written comments, which will be shared.

Anyone experience to share?

#AcademicChatter #AcademicEditing #AcademicPublishing #Publons

#Clarivate will support conversational #AI in its tools and allow an AI company to train on its #paywalled #data.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clarivate-announces-partnership-with-ai21-labs-as-part-of-its-generative-ai-strategy-to-drive-growth-301857301.html

Or at least that's my plain-language summary of a pretty opaque press release.

Note that Clarivate owns or controls the #WebOfScience, #JournalImpactFactor (#JIF) data, #Publons, #EndNote, #ScholarOne, and #ProQuest.

The @ReproducibiliTeaGlobal #podcast talked about the acquisition of #publons: It "was a free service for #academics to track, verify, and showcase their #peerreview [...] for #academic #journals" [Wikipedia].
https://soundcloud.com/reproducibilitea/s2e11-puckfublons

Has anybody thought of a #fediverse version of an #contributions #portfolio like publons? Maybe we could use a similar technique like #Mastodon uses for #verification?

#openpeerreview #openscience #reproducibility #reproducibilitea #science #humanities

Dieses #Publons gehört übrigens zu #Clarivate. Was von denen zu halten ist, kann man in der englischen Wikipedia nachlesen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarivate#cite_ref-10

Eine Fachzeitschrift informiert per Mail, dass sie jetzt mit #Publons zusammenarbeitet. Laut deren Nutzungsbedingungen gibt man als Gutachter*in Publons (registriert in Neuseeland) das Recht, kostenlos erstellte wissenschaftliche Gutachten kommerziell zu vermarkten, mit ihnen zu handeln, sie an Dritte zu geben und die zugehörigen Metadaten auszuwerten.

Offiziell geschieht dies alles unter Einhaltung von CC-BY (!) - aber sie versprechen, die Namen der Gutachter*innen dabei anonym zu halten. 🤨