Open Access Reader

Open Access Reader (OAR) is a project to systematically ensure that all significant open access research is cited in Wikipedia.

There's lots of great research being published in good quality open access journals that isn't cited in Wikipedia. It's peer reviewed, so it should count as a reliable source. It's available for anyone to read and probably comes with pretty decent metadata too. Can we set up a process to make it easy to find and cite these papers?

We propose the creation of a desktop and mobile crowdsourcing tool that guides users through setting up a Wikipedia account, finding and summarising a significant, uncited open access article in their area of interest, and inserting this summary into an existing Wikipedia article with a correctly formatted citation link.

If you like this idea, please endorse it!

An initial grant from The Wikimedia Foundation IEG programme produced:

• Strong recommendations for CORE as the source for OA metadata.
• A small but promising proof of concept (source), generated from a static metadata dump from CORE.
• Discovery of research outlining a method of matching OA articles from CORE to Wikipedia categories.
• A set of wireframes for a desktop UI, with mockups coming soon.
• A proposal from the CORE team to produce and support:
  • the backend required to supply open access metadata in the form we require for OAR.
  • a considered and justified ranking methodology.
• Discovery of Citoid, a tool to automatically generate correct citation links.
• A press list for a campaign to develop a crowdsourcing community.

See also: Project Diary

We break down this endeavour into four parts:

There exist projects to provide API access to the aggregation of all open access repositories, such as CORE. It makes sense to use one of these instead of re-inventing the wheel, but which should we use?

There are millions of papers published every year. What's the best way to decide which papers editors should tackle first?

It's likely that OA papers come with metadata. How can we use this to find contributors that are likely to take an interest?

How can we make this convenient for contributors to use?

Milestones to MVP:

1. Identify best Open Access Aggregator - Done! (CORE)
2. Identify and assess available open metrics to create specification for significance filter.
3. Produce a system that generates an up-to-date list of most significant papers.
4. Assess quality of topic metadata to create specification for paper-to-keyword filter.
5. Build and demonstrate paper-to-keyword filter.
6. Configure automated report of most significant papers for a particular keyword
7. Create feedback process
8. Introduce the report to sample communities via Wikiprojects, lists.

• Project Lead: EdSaperia (talk)
• Grantwriter: Katherine Bavage
• Open Access consultants
  • Stuart Lawson
  • Simon Knight
  • Michelle Brook
  • Daniel Mietchen
  • Blue Rasberry (talk)
  • Luke Hewitt
• Developer
  • A930913
• Designer
  • Kimi

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer?

• Build MVP
• New citations generated
• New contributors

This general principle (take large open repository, remove things already cited, rank by significance) could be extended to other areas, e.g.

• Patents (relevant research)
• Legal texts
• Source code

If you think this is a cool idea, please put your name below!

• EndorseKristey Flores Sisneros {24 April 2014}{User:Crazylady505} *Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Making open access content easier to find and cite would be beneficial, as the resulting references could be read and accessed by *all* readers.[reply]
• This would help us a great deal. ----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• By allowing Wikipedians to find and city Open Access content easier, this project would strengthen the Open Access ecosystem. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Jane023 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse --Aubrey (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse --Kerberosmansour (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Dennymeta (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Helen Lambert 17:25, 30 March 2014
• Rod McKinley 17:41, 30 March 2014
• Alex Davies 17:49, 30 March 2014
• Rahul Ranjan 22:50 30 March 2014
• Oliver Pitt 09:24 31 March 2014
• Aditya Chaturvedi (talk) 23:50 IST, 30 March
• Crispin Cooper 10:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• --Netha Hussain (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Robert Hayes (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (PST)
• Dr. Paul A. Higgins --Pohuigin (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Patricia Castillo-Briceño 18:38 , 31 March 2014
• Shane Greenup 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Nmillerche (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like an idea with potential. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Humpath (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• --Lambo (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to see more of this.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• James Knight
• NoPolyMath (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Would love to hear more about this! Minuette Le 11:02, 24 April 2014
• OR drohowa (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• littlepurplegoth
• --86.110.153.249 08:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• LuxMundy 23.46 , 3 November 2014
• Mattsenate (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This project would be good for onboarding new editors. Maximilianklein (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Popcrate (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]