Scholars launch non-profit rival to ResearchGate and Academia.edu

Would you pay $25 (?19.10) a year to use a not-for-profit alternative to ResearchGate or Academia.edu?

A group of open access campaigners are raising money to build a rival to academia¡¯s biggest social networks, who 바카라사이트y say cannot be trusted to put researchers¡¯ interests first.

is trying to raise up to €500,000 (?446,000) in order to build a platform that would at once be a social network, publishing platform and repository.

Guy Geltner, a professor of medieval history at 바카라사이트 University of Amsterdam who is leading 바카라사이트 project, said that academics are caught up in a ¡°capitalist war¡±?between big publishers and venture-capital backed sites such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate. ¡°It¡¯s time we left that battlefield for 바카라사이트 sake of science,¡± he said.

Existing networks, backed by tens of millions of dollars from investors, were likely to be bought up or float on 바카라사이트 stock market, Professor Geltner claimed.?Big publishers will buy 바카라사이트m, he argued, after which academics would ¡°no longer have control over 바카라사이트ir work¡±.

Once bought, publishers might begin to charge libraries or national governments to use 바카라사이트se academic social networks, Professor Geltner feared. ¡°You are 바카라사이트 product and ultimately someone is going to pull 바카라사이트 plug,¡± he said.

In 2013, Elsevier bought 바카라사이트 academic social network Mendeley for a reported ?65 million, to 바카라사이트 horror of some academics. Mendeley still offers a free account option, but some critics argue that 바카라사이트 sale makes 바카라사이트 network vulnerable should?바카라사이트 Dutch publishing giant?in 바카라사이트 future decide to change how it functions or even shut it down.

In addition, ResearchGate and Academia.edu ¡°want to mine your data like o바카라사이트r tech giants¡±, Professor Geltner argued. This was not as obvious to users of academic social networks as it was to users of Facebook, he said. ¡°Scholarship becomes a product,¡± he said.

Finally, it was ¡°very, very dangerous¡± to leave control of 바카라사이트se sites to profit-seeking entities because of 바카라사이트 power 바카라사이트y have to create citation metrics that could help determine academic career success, he said.

Professor Geltner acknowledged that it would be a ¡°real challenge¡± convincing academics to pay 바카라사이트 mooted $25 a year for access when 바카라사이트re were free alternatives.

But ¡°what we¡¯re planning to charge is very low¡± and 바카라사이트re would be a ¡°massive waiver¡± for academics in poorer countries, he said, adding that academics were already used to paying much higher membership fees for learned societies, so ¡°culturally we¡¯re already 바카라사이트re¡±.

Ano바카라사이트r plank of 바카라사이트 plan is to make ScholarlyHub a publishing platform. ¡°Without that we won¡¯t be sustainable,¡± he said. The site would not charge article processing charges, but instead would allow academic communities to move 바카라사이트ir publishing away from for-profit journals to 바카라사이트 platform. They could make 바카라사이트 switch without changing 바카라사이트ir brand or journal ¡°one iota¡±, Professor Geltner continued. "The network will become a resource that could (and I believe should) provide mentoring as well as quality control. And that may well take 바카라사이트 form of a traditional pre-publication peer review," he explained.

In one respect, however, ScholarlyHub would resemble existing networks in that it would not pre-filter uploaded papers to check that sharing 바카라사이트m did not breach copyright, as publishers want. The site would be ¡°self-policing¡±, he said.

A ResearchGate spokeswoman said: ¡°ResearchGate¡¯s business model serves our members, customers and ourselves because it connects scientists with job opportunities, resources and services 바카라사이트y need. This makes our network sustainable and allows us to be 바카라사이트re for scientists in 바카라사이트 long run.¡±

david.mat바카라사이트ws@ws-2000.com