It would be good if we could work out some way to find the most popular tweets that use certain hashtags, so we can retweet/comment with links to FOK. It would also be good to figure out how to 'game' the twitter algorithm, so we can get maximum exposure with our own tweets.

Hashtags
'#science
'#research
'#scicomm
'#phdlife
'#OpenAccess
'#OpenScience
'#academictwitter
'#phd
'#phdchat
'#publishing
'#library
'#researchers
'#ECRchat

(add any others here that you think of)

stretch goal: would also be great to catch other related tweets that don't use these hashtags, but guessing that might require too much coding or a paid app

The problem
Multiple people have commented that the impact-based thresholds we're currently using for the 3 flagship open access campaigns (#5 #6 and #7) are too confusing and holding back pledges, so I thought we could discuss possible alternatives here.

Background
I went with this method (described in detail here) because a much simpler metric -- based on the number of pledges -- might fail to capture the value (citations) that maintains the legacy publishing system (note that there was some previous discussion on this topic in the Pubreform forum and the platform repository). Specifically, imagine that the threshold triggers almost exclusively due to pledges by researchers who aren't very active or publishing in high-impact journals. This would mean that high-impact journals can carry on as usual (because we fail to extract a critical mass of 'value' from legacy journals) and those few high-impact researchers who joined the campaign would now be forced to change their behaviour without sufficient protection (i.e., without a critical mass of value going into the OA journals). So to address this, I thought it better to use a citation-based metric to quantify 'support' -- i.e. the proportion of citations that reference articles (or other research outputs) produced by pledgers in the last X years (controlling for time since publication -- see the About page for details. Because the metric is complex, I thought we could clarify it with a short animated video (but we haven't won any funding to pay for this yet).

Given that the OA campaigns haven't been overly successful, I think it's worth considering alternatives that might be simpler and reduce barriers to entry.

Current pledge settings
The following text boxes pop up when someone clicks 'Pledge' on the campaign page:

Pledge textbox 1
I pledge to uphold the above Criteria if and when the signatories to this campaign equate to the following proportion of impact in my research field (see the 'About' page for calculation details). You can adjust this setting at any time during beta development. Note that selecting 0% means your pledge will activate immediately.
Chosen value: X (slider from 0 to 100)

Pledge textbox 2
This pledge will apply to research outputs for which I am an author in the following position/s (only select positions for which you are sure you will be able to comply with the pledge). You can change this setting at any time during beta development.
First / Middle / Last

Possible solutions
Maybe we could use a simple eligibility criteria to ensure that pledgers are somewhat influential in their field? Some options:

• Minimum one publication in a journal with an impact factor of X or more (this could be difficult, as impact factors vary wildly across disciplines)
• Minimum one publication in a journal with a Scimago quartile rank of 2 or more
• Minimum H-index

This would then give us a simple count of the number of pledges, which we could use to activate pledges.

Additional considerations
If we move to one of the above solutions, how will we deal with pledgers who don't want their pledge to apply to all of their papers (e.g. only those that are first-author)? Do we simply remove this option and make the pledges unanimous? An analysis of the Cost of Knowledge boycott showed that many authors renegged on their pledges when it came to middle-author papers, so the idea here was to allow people the flexibility to decide where and how their pledge will apply.

Alternatively, we could just leave the campaigns as is, and see what happens over time. The new campaigns might bring additional advertising/interest, and with it additional pledges to the OA campaigns. All thoughts welcome :)

Note: Comments for this campaign are mirrored from our Github repository to the website. Please feel free to add comments at either location.

The "Join our Google Group" link on the READNE.md file leads me to a page that says "content unavailable"

The link is currently redirected to this URL:
https://groups.google.com/g/free-our-knowledge-community/

Is there a new join link that would work?

Action
This campaign will ask researchers to pledge to refuse to serve as unpaid scientific reviewers from profitable publishers once a threshold of pledges has been received.

Threshold
Pledges will activate when 100 researchers have pledged to quit reviewing.

Anonymity
Pledges will be optional- people can choose whether they want their names to be public or not.

Rationale

1. Scientific publishers rely on the unpaid labour of reviewers and editors to reap massive amounts of profit. This one is obvious.

2. Publishers have pitted us against each other.
   The publishing industry has created the perfect system that makes everyone feel like they should contribute for free.
   Authors need editors and reviewers. Editors need to find reviewers. Reviewers (sometimes) need to review papers “for their jobs”. All for free. If one part of the triangle quits, the others suffer. Why do we feel bad about turning down reviews when the publisher is clearly taking advantage of us all?

3. There is no way to improve our review system.
   There are many problems with peer review, but with the current publishing system it’s nearly impossible to fix these issues. How do you hold reviewers accountable for passing a bad paper? For late reviews? For writing a mean or hurtful review? Stop inviting them? That’s not much of a punishment when it’s just free work.

Some thoughts and Questions

The letter
I have created a draft letter that can be returned to the editor when a review request is received. I welcome comments and feedback on it. Although, I think individuals will probably need to tailor it a bit for their own situation.
Review response.docx

1. Which publishers/journals to boycott/support?
Based on this information (https://www.wischenbart.com/upload/Global50-2018_overview_ToC.pdf) I compiled a list of the most profitable publishers who publish psychology journals. I suggest we boycott the following publishers:
Elsevier (RELX Group)
Springer Nature (Nature Publishing Group including Frontiers Media)
Wiley
Taylor & Francis (Informa PLC)
Oxford University Press
Wolters Kluwer
APA (not in the above document)
Sage (no published profit information)

1b. Where to review instead?
Rather than creating a list of 'blacklisted' journals, which would be very long, it's probably easier to create a 'whitelist' of fee-free/community-friendly journals. This list is under development here. Please add any journals that you think should be on there by editing the document.

2. Do we begin with limiting pledges to psychology/behavioural science?
Perhaps we can expand to other fields if there is enough interest.

3. I also think we should continue to write and submit articles like normal, but just stop reviewing.
I think it's too much to ask people to quit submitting papers, as well. So I propose that we continue to submit papers to the outlets that we are no longer reviewing for. This will serve a few purposes. First, it will create a backlog of papers that need to be reviewed, keeping the demand for payment steady. Second, we technically do get paid to produce research. Third, this campaign is not about boycotting publishing as a whole (as much as I love preprints), or even about boycotting publishers, so we need to pick our battles. Plus, we all probably want to continue our work.

4. Timeline
How long should the pledge stage operate? If we don’t receive enough pledges within a certain period of time, what do we do?

5. How many pledges until the boycott starts?
Is 100 a reasonable number to begin the boycott?

Some extra literature and information
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/aca_data.asp
https://figshare.com/articles/Journal_subscription_costs_FOIs_to_UK_universities/1186832
https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/scholarly-publisher-profit-update/
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1403006111.abstract

• Campaign co-creator/s: @CooperSmout

• Rationale: We all spend some of our time writing peer reviews, so why don't we start making those reviews open and equitable? This campaign has three goals: 1) increase the visibility of pre-prints written by lesser known scientists, 2) provide constructive and critical feedback (i.e. peer review) for manuscripts written by lesser known scientists, and 3) increase awareness and use of PREreview, a progressive peer-to-peer review system that aims to "bring more diversity and equity to scholarly peer review".

• Action: Pledgees will submit one publicly-signed peer-review via PREreview. The review will be written with the same time and care as would be required of a review for any journal. Importantly, reviews will be written for manuscripts of "lesser known" scientists. This is obviously hard to quantify, but one simple metric may be to review a manuscript written by authors whose names you do not recognise.

• Eligibility criteria: Anyone can sign this pledge provided they are eligible to write a review on PREreview, which, at the time of writing, only requires an ORCiD.

• Optional anonymity: Yes

• Threshold: You will have to perform this action when 10 people in your designated field of research have taken the pledge. For example, if you consider yourself a cognitive psychologist, your pledge will become active when 9 other cognitive psychologists pledge, regardless of how many physicists have pledged.

Purpose of this marketing blitz

To inform people that the Github repository is now open for community input and invite contributions.

Once you've contacted the relevant channels below, check them off to keep track of where you're at

Internal channels (FOK)

Note: each of these channels needs it's own piece of text adapted to the format (can borrow from below)

• Mailchimp mailing list -- send out newsletter with project update/s (check with Cooper if any other info to include)
• Twitter -- see bottom of this list for directions
• Github Project -- to the right of this issue, click 'Projects' and allocate to 'General Kanban'
• Facebook -- check that the newsletter has auto-linked
• Google group -- only need to use if there's a private discussion to be had about this marketing blitz

Discussion forums

<SEE MD FILE HERE>

• Pubreform (original discussion forum)
• On science and academia
• Behsci

Slack workspaces

<SEE GOOGLE DOC HERE>

• OSMOOC
• ANZORN
• SIPS2019/2020
• Creative Commons
• ASAPbio
• OS Community Netherlands
• Open Life Science

Google groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Network of open science grassroots networks
• Center for Open Science Ambassadors
• OpenCon
• [Open Life Sciences

Mailing lists

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• UCL Transparency mailing list (via Grace Gottlieb)
• Schol Comm
• Open Science
• GOAL
• FORCE11
• RadicalOA
• Open Science Göttingen
• LIS bibliometrics
• PSCI COMM
• OpenAccess at Wikimedia
• Australian_OA_Community
• EMCR Forum Australia
• Liste des échos du RISC (ask Claire)
• OpenScience-NL
• OpenScience-DE
• Donders mailing list
• UQ cog neuro

Facebook groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Reviewer 2 must be stopped
• Psychological Methods Discussion Group
• ACNS ECRs
• March for Science

Twitter

<CREATE MULTI-COMMENT TWEET WITH LINKS, IMAGES, GIFS AND CALL TO ACTION (SEE THIS EXAMPLE), THEN TAG FOLLOWING ORGS BELOW POST. CAN ALSO MESSAGE SUPPORTERS DIRECTLY IN TWITTER, USING ONE OF THE OLD MESSAGE THREADS IN THE PROJECTFOK ACCOUNT, AND ASK THEM TO RETWEET/COMMENT.>

• LIBER
• EIFL
• SPARC NA
• SPARC EU
• R2RC
• FORCE11
• OpenAire
• OpenUP
• The Carpentries
• Creative Commons
• FOSTER
• Mozilla Open Leaders
• OpenCon
• Open Knowledge International
• Global Open Science Hardware Community
• SIPS
• OSI
• COPE
• TriangleSCI
• SCOAP3
• Open Library of the Humanities
• Open Scholarship Initiative
• Open Knowledge Maps
• United Nations University
• @radicaloa @COPIMproject @FORsymp @openscicomm @IGDOREinstitute @UCBITSS @PREreview_ @OpenScienceMOOC @osframework (NB: many of these are FOK partners and we should develop more targeted strategy with, e.g. blog/news posts)

Petition/pledge sites (can we get access these mailing lists?)

• DORA \
• Budapest Open Access Initiative
• Fair Open Access supporters
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2
• https://opennessinitiative.org/signatories/
• http://thecostofknowledge.com/
• http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
• http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/
• https://emckiernan.wordpress.com/pledge/

Additional people just for this blitz

• Michael Milford (said he would forward information to colleague involved with Cost of Knowledge)
• Eric Vanmann
• Susan Harris (PhD Balance)
• Jason Tangen (for RR/prereg campaign)
• Abbey Nydam (ask to forward RR/prereg campaigns to people she mentioned)

Pledge to prioritise open-access venues in how you allocate your reviewing time and organizational efforts

https://freeourknowledge.org/2021-07-30-no-free-view-no-review/

Dear FOK Community,

A group of cognitive scientists are planning to launch a new pledge on FOK. We intend to launch it around end of January, and would like to gather any advice on how to improve it, or how to promote it.

For a draft of the pledge, please follow the lin below (please dont share with people, from the dark side; but feel free to share with like-minded people). For your convenience, here is the main text of the pledge.

Main text of the pledge

I PLEDGE...
...as a researcher who works in, or relates to the field of cognitive science, that the excessive profiteering by third parties in the current publishing system in academia is highly problematic (for a problem analysis see [here]), and therefore I am willing to declare that:

[checkbox I] will publish 1 of my first-authored papers with an open access journal that does not charge article processing fees (i.e., under a diamond open access agreement) within 5 years if 1,000 other cognitive science researchers pledge to do the same
checkbox

[checkbox II] Additionally, for 5 years I will publish at least 20% of my first-authored papers in an open access journal that does not charge article processing fees (i.e., under a diamond open access agreement) if 10,000 other cognitive science researchers pledge to do the same

If and only if the following conditions are met:
That it is ensured that my pledge will not be made public without my permission if the pledge does not activate. When the pledge activates my pledge becomes automatically public, and I will be notified at this point.

Full pledge (temporary site)

https://wimpouw.com/pledge.html

Final remarks

We are now in a phase, where we are reaching out to leaders of the field to publicly sign it already before we launch it. We also are reaching out to institutions/universities and funding agencies the coming weeks. We plan to add new organizations and other public support continuously. Any ideas to increase the success of this pledge, or if you want to help out, please reach out!

Thank you very much,
Wim Pouw, on behalf of group of cognitive scientists and FOK

Campaign creator/s: Gavin Taylor

• Rationale: Open peer review is a principle of open science, although it seems to have received less attention than open-source/data/access. There are now a variety of publishers of both generalist and specialist journals that either use or are trialling open peer review and problematic reviewing of COVID related research (see here) has recently highlighted the limitations of the traditional and closed peer-reviewing format (particularly if it is rushed). This seems like a good time to draw more attention to open peer review.

• Action: Only publish in and review for journals that use an open peer-review process. (This could be also split into two campaigns, one for reviewing and one for publishing.)

• Eligibility criteria: Ideally none.

• Optional anonymity: Yes

• Threshold: 1000(?).

Preregistration Pledge

Pledge to preregister at least one study in the next two years, along with 100 of your peers

http://freeourknowledge.org/2020-12-03-preregistration-pledge/

Note that the previous discussion of this campaign can be seen here: #11

Subtitle

Pledge to post any journal-commissioned peer reviews that you perform to an open review platform, whenever the reviewed paper is available as a preprint

Campaign co-creator/s

@CooperSmout, @fraserlab, @jpolka, @mbeisen

Rationale

Preprints are increasingly used to share research in a rapid and accessible fashion, but despite this trend few people are linking reviews to preprints. Meanwhile, traditional journals continue to recruit researchers to perform peer reviews for free, but then typically do not make these valuable reviews available for public view. This campaign aims to leverage the existing practice of journal review to accelerate preprint review culture, with a view to creating a more constructive and democratic review culture along the way.

What am I being asked to do?

By signing this pledge, you commit to sharing any reviews that you perform on behalf of a journal to an open review platform, providing that the reviewed paper is publicly available as a preprint (e.g., on a preprint repository like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Research Square, SSRN, etc.). You can choose to sign your reviews, or post them anonymously/pseudo-anonymously (see below). You can choose which review platform to use, providing it is freely accessible and links your review to the preprint in question, but ideally we suggest choosing a platform that renders Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) so that others can easily cite your review. As an additional pledge, you can also agree to exclusively review papers that have been shared as a preprint.

Who can sign?

This campaign is open to researchers in all fields.

When will my pledge activate?

Your pledge will activate as soon as you sign it, meaning that you should share the very next review that you perform, if the reviewed paper is available as a preprint. If you would be interested in signing the pledge only when more people have signed, please contact the campaign organisers.

How can I post my review anonymously/pseudo-anonymously?

Some review platforms enable you to post reviews pseudo-anonymously. An example is PREreview, where you can use an alias that is linked to your PREreview account but does not reveal your identity. In addition, [James Fraser](mailto: [email protected]) and [Michael Eisen](mailto: [email protected]) have both committed to posting reviews on behalf of anyone who would like to maintain their anonymity (please get in touch directly to pursue this option).

Suggested review platforms

See this spreadsheet for a range of platforms that accept preprint reviews and the various features they offer

Subtitle

Pledge to share the postprints of your articles

Campaign Supporters

Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Phil Hiver
Peter De Costa
Jean-Marc Dewaele
Susan Gass
ZhaoHong Han
James Lantolf
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Wei Li
Peter MacIntyre
Bonny Norton
Rebecca Oxford
Luke Plonsky
Peter Robinson
John Schumann
Ema Ushioda
Lawrence Zhang
Brian Nosek
See: https://www.ali-alhoorie.com/postprint-pledge

Rationale

Accessibility of scientific research is a cornerstone of an equitable and fair academy. Paywalls have become a major obstacle that disadvantages many researchers in the Global South, preventing them from keeping up with the latest scholarship, let alone contributing to it.

This does not have to be the case. According to most publishers’ copyright policies, authors are legally permitted to share the accepted version (the “postprint”) of their manuscripts online. While the preprint is the paper that has not gone through peer review yet, the postprint is the version that has been accepted for publication but has not been copyedited by the publisher. It is basically the final, pre-formatted draft that you submit to the journal to be published. Posting this postprint on your personal website or on a nonprofit repository does not violate the copyright requirements of most publishers (see table below).

By taking this pledge, you undertake to make scholarship accessible to readers who may not have institutional subscriptions by making available the postprints of all articles you publish in the following applied linguistics journals (they give you the right to do so), either on your personal website or on a public repository.

What this Pledge is NOT asking you to do:

1. This Pledge does not ask you to break any laws. Sharing postprints is within your rights (see details in the table).

2. This Pledge does not ask you to share “preprints” (i.e., your manuscript before it was accepted), but to share the “postprint” (the accepted version before it is formatted and copyedited by the publisher). Simply put, you convert the final word document into pdf and share it. See example here. (It is your choice if you also want to share your preprints.)

3. This Pledge does not limit you to publishing in these journals.

4. This Pledge does not require you do anything else (like boycotting certain publishers or not reviewing for them).

What this Pledge ASKS you to do:

1. Whenever you publish in these journals, share the postprint of your accepted manuscript online, either on your personal website and/or a public repository. (This assumes that your article will be behind a paywall and not already open access, of course.)

2. Remember to include publication details on the first page (e.g., journal title, etc.) so that others can cite your paper properly.

3. You are free to go for a repository of your choice. The recommended repositories are:
   http://osf.io/preprints generalist repository
   http://psyarxiv.org/ more toward linguistics
   http://socarxiv.org/ more toward education

​4. After posting your postprint, you are welcome to announce it with the hashtag #PostprintPledge at the Facebook group Applied Linguistics Research Methods--Discussion. Don't wait until you publish a new paper; pick a paper you have already published and share it now!

Who can sign?

This campaign is open to researchers in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, but all researchers in Linguistics are welcome. We compiled a list of journals in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, each with its copyright policies to make things clearer for potential Pledgers. We invite advocates from other fields to do the same.

When will my pledge activate?

Your pledge will activate as soon as you sign it, meaning that you should share your postprints immediately. You are also invited to share postprints of your previously published papers if they are behind paywalls.

Linguistics Journals Policies

This campaign will ask researchers to pledge not to submit their papers to journals that publish work in which the well being of test subjects is compromised without informed consent, such as work involving caged animals.
Supporters can also pledge not to cite such work in their own papers.

This can be relevant to psychology journals, as well as neuroimaging journals such as Cortex or Neuroimage.

• Campaign co-creator/s:

• @itchyshin
• @szymekdr
• @roseodea
• @p-pottier
• @LisaSpitzerZPID
• @CooperSmout

• Rationale: In psychology, a large number of journals have already adopted Registered Reports -- a style of publication where peer-review is conducted before data are collected and studies are provisionally accepted on the basis of the quality of their proposed study, regardless of their results (https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports?_ga=2.134659825.147208067.1606965728-527458024.1606965728). Meanwhile, in other scientific disciplines, the numbers are more limited, which makes it more difficult for these researchers to implement this open science technique. To counter this issue, the 'Registered Reports Now!' campaign contacts editors to convince them to adopt Registered Reports (see https://osf.io/3wct2/wiki/Journal%20Responses/). While some journals changed their policies, many did not answer, and there are of course also a large number of journals that were not contacted. With the present campaign, we aim at building upon 'Registered Reports Now!' by asking researchers to sign a letter which will be sent to journals that were already contacted in the 'Registered Reports Now!' campaign but didn't answer, and journals that have not been contacted before.

• Action: This campaign will ask researchers to pledge to co-sign an open letter that will be sent to editor-in-chiefs of various academic journals. The open letter will describe what are Registered Reports, their importance, and their under-prevalence in academic journals.

• Eligibility criteria: Everyone that has (co-)authored a publication before or has an academic affiliation

• Optional anonymity: yes

• Threshold: Pledges will activate when 200 signatures are collected

• Campaign expiration: no specified expiry date.

• Pledge duration: 1 year.

Note: This campaign idea has now been merged with a hackathon at the 2021 SORTEE conference, in which we will email journal editors and request they adopt the Registered Reports format. See the campaign page for more info.

Purpose of this marketing blitz

To inform people that the Preregistration Pledge campaign is now live and accepting pledges

Once you've contacted the relevant channels below, check them off to keep track of where you're at

Internal channels (FOK)

Note: each of these channels needs it's own piece of text adapted to the format (can borrow from below)

• Mailchimp mailing list -- send out newsletter with project update/s (check with Cooper if any other info to include)
• Mailing list (campaign-specific) (provide text to share on social media)
  • Psych 15th March
  • Neuro 15th March
  • Psych 15th April
  • Neuro 15th April
• Github Project -- to the right of this issue, click 'Projects' and allocate to 'FOK Kanban'
• Google group -- only need to use if there's a private discussion to be had about this marketing blitz

Partners (contact to determine ways they can support campaign)

• IGDORE (January newsletter, IGDORE forum)
• Center for Open Science (April newsletter, COS blog post, webinar?)
• UK Reproducibility Network (March annual meeting, April news post?)
• Open Science MOOC
• Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (Twitter, possible other avenues after meeting?)
• Future of Research -- CONTACTED 6/4/21 (waiting on Board meeting)
• Bullied Into Bad Science -- CONTACTED 15/4/21 (no channels aside from Twitter)

Social media

• Twitter -- see bottom of this list for directions
• Facebook -- check that the newsletter has auto-linked
• LinkedIn

Discussion forums

R-MARKDOWN FILE

• Pubreform (original discussion forum)
• On science and academia
• Behsci

Slack workspaces

<CREATE GOOGLE DOC WITH HYPERLINKS (SEE THIS EXAMPLE) AND LINK HERE FOR REFERENCE>

• OSMOOC
• AIMOS
• ANZORN
• SIPS2019/2020
• Creative Commons
• ASAPbio
• Int. Network of OS & Scholarship Communities
• Psychological Science Accelerator
• Open Life Science

Google groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Network of open science grassroots networks
• Center for Open Science Ambassadors
• OpenCon

Mailing lists

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• UCL Transparency mailing list (via Grace Gottlieb)
• UKRN lists for local network leads (and possibly institutional leads?) -- mailing list to be confirmed with UKRN
• Schol Comm
• Open Science
• GOAL
• FORCE11
• RadicalOA
• Open Science Göttingen
• LIS bibliometrics
• PSCI COMM
• OpenAccess at Wikimedia
• Australian_OA_Community
• EMCR Forum Australia
• Liste des échos du RISC (ask Claire Bradley)
• OpenScience-NL
• OpenScience-DE
• Donders mailing list
• UQ cog neuro

Facebook groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Reviewer 2 must be stopped
• Psychological Methods Discussion Group
• ACNS ECRs
• March for Science

Twitter

NOTE: need to figure out best Twitter strategy. For now, just tagged a few accounts from initial tweet.

<CREATE MULTI-COMMENT TWEET WITH LINKS, IMAGES, GIFS AND CALL TO ACTION (SEE THIS EXAMPLE), THEN TAG FOLLOWING ORGS BELOW POST. CAN ALSO MESSAGE SUPPORTERS DIRECTLY IN TWITTER, USING ONE OF THE OLD MESSAGE THREADS IN THE PROJECTFOK ACCOUNT, AND ASK THEM TO RETWEET/COMMENT.>

• LIBER
• EIFL
• SPARC NA
• SPARC EU
• R2RC
• FORCE11
• OpenAire
• OpenUP
• The Carpentries
• Creative Commons
• FOSTER
• Mozilla Open Leaders
• OpenCon
• Open Knowledge International
• Global Open Science Hardware Community
• SIPS
• OSI
• COPE
• TriangleSCI
• SCOAP3
• Open Library of the Humanities
• Open Scholarship Initiative
• Open Knowledge Maps
• United Nations University
• @radicaloa @COPIMproject @FORsymp @openscicomm @IGDOREinstitute @UCBITSS @PREreview_ @OpenScienceMOOC @osframework (NB: many of these are FOK partners and we should develop more targeted strategy with, e.g. blog/news posts)

Petition/pledge sites (can we get access these mailing lists?)

• DORA \
• Budapest Open Access Initiative
• Fair Open Access supporters
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2
• https://opennessinitiative.org/signatories/
• http://thecostofknowledge.com/
• http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
• http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/
• https://emckiernan.wordpress.com/pledge/

Purpose of this marketing blitz

To collect signatures for the letters we will send out to Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Journals during SORTEE, asking them to adopt the Registered Reports format (see campaign on website)

Once you've contacted the relevant channels below, check them off to keep track of where you're at

Channels specific to this campaign (targeting ecology and evolutionary biology)

EMAIL:

• Daniel Dunn, director for the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science @uq (@CooperSmout)
• evoldir mailing list (@p-pottier)
• email contacts and university (@p-pottier)
• Hannah Fraser, asking her to contact previous signatories

TWITTER:

• Ecology/Evol Biol FOK pledgers
• SORTEE plenary speakers
• ecol/evol twitter organisations (googled 'ecology evolutionary biology society twitter' and combinations thereof): @PCI_RegReports @EcolSocAus @ESA_org @ecologyaus @Ecol_Evol @systbiol @sse_evolution @eseb_org @HumanEcology @ESAEcology @soilecol @BritishEcolSoc @ekoevoder
  @MPI_EvolBio @CornellEEB @Trends_Ecol_Evo @UCIEEB @EcoEvo_ANU @UMichEEB @PurdueEEB @EEB_Brown @KU_EEB @NLSEB_evolution @EvolEcoLincoln @BiologyANU @UCLAEEB @yale_eeb @EEB_POC @sbuEcoEvo
• environmental agencies:

Internal channels (FOK)

• Mailing list (general) (mention campaign in newsletter)
• Mailing list (campaign-specific) (provide text to share on social media)
• Github Issues (for discussing campaigns)
• Project board (for organising tasks)
• Project email (info_at_freeourknowledge.org)
• GoFundMe (for donations)
• Google group
• Slack (pretty much defunct due to inactivity)
• Google doc (for discussing campaigns, now superceded by Github)

Social media

• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn

Blogs

• UKRN
• Centre for Open Science -- contact Claire Riss
• Cooper Smout homepage
• Joint Roadmap for Open Science Tools
• BITSS -- contact Aleksandar Bogdanoski
• Open Science MOOC
• Future of Research

Discussion forum threads

• Pubreform
• On science and academia
• Behsci

Slack workspaces

• OSMOOC
• ANZORN
• SIPS
• Creative Commons
• ASAPbio
• OS Community Netherlands
• Open Life Science

Google groups

• Network of open science grassroots networks
• Center for Open Science Ambassadors
• OpenCon

Mailing lists

• UCL Transparency mailing list (via Grace Gottlieb)
• UKRN lists for local network leads (and possibly institutional leads?) -- mailing list to be confirmed with UKRN
• Schol Comm
• Open Science
• GOAL
• FORCE11
• RadicalOA
• Open Science Göttingen
• LIS bibliometrics
• PSCI COMM
• OpenAccess at Wikimedia
• Australian_OA_Community
• EMCR Forum Australia
• Liste des échos du RISC (ask Claire Bradley)
• OpenScience-NL
• OpenScience-DE
• Donders mailing list
• UQ cog neuro

Facebook groups

• Reviewer 2 must be stopped
• Psychological Methods Discussion Group
• ACNS ECRs
• March for Science

Twitter

• @radicaloa @COPIMproject @FORsymp @openscicomm @IGDOREinstitute @UCBITSS @PREreview_ @OpenScienceMOOC @osframework (NB: many of these are FOK partners and we should develop more targeted strategy with, e.g. blog/news posts)
• summary open science conferences: @open_con @okfn @improvingpsych @aimos_inc
• summary open science networks: @libereurope @EIFLnet @sparc_na @sparc_eu @r2rc @force11rescomm @fosterscience
• summary misc:
• SIPS
• AIMOS
• LIBER
• EIFL
• SPARC NA
• SPARC EU
• R2RC
• FORCE11
• OpenAire
• OpenUP
• The Carpentries
• Creative Commons
• FOSTER
• Mozilla Open Leaders
• OpenCon
• Open Knowledge International
• Global Open Science Hardware Community
• OSI
• COPE
• TriangleSCI
• SCOAP3
• Open Library of the Humanities
• Open Scholarship Initiative
• Open Knowledge Maps
• United Nations University

Petition/pledge sites (can we get access these mailing lists?)

• DORA \
• Budapest Open Access Initiative
• Fair Open Access supporters
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2
• https://opennessinitiative.org/signatories/
• http://thecostofknowledge.com/
• http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
• http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/
• https://emckiernan.wordpress.com/pledge/

Field-specific

Social Psychology

• https://sasp.org.au
• https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?nodeid=1
• http://www.spsp.org
• https://www.easp.eu

Channels that will only be used occasionally

Note that these channels are not populated when you create a 'marketing blitz' issue in Github, because they require a more customised communication strategy.

Podcasts

• Everything Hertz
• Road 2 Open Access
• Blackgoat
• PhD career stories
• QBI
• http://www.openscienceradio.org/

Blogs

• eLife labs blog
• Scholarly Communications @ Duke blog, Kevin Smith
• https://science20.wordpress.com/
• LSE Impact blog
• The Scholarly Kitchen
• The Conversation
• Undark
• the-scientist.com
• Learned Publishing
• UKSG
• LQ
• The Wire

Media contacts

• Michael Schulson (michael_at_undark.org) -- contacted and Skyped in Sept 2019

Influencers

• Randy Schekman
• Michael Eisen
• Brian Nosek
• Susannah Harris
• Timothy Gowers
• David Prosser (the head of Research Libraries UK, and a prominent voice for reforming the publishing industry)
• Brett T. Buttliere
• Sydney Brenner (Nobel laureate)
• Alexandra Elbakyan (Sci-Hub founder)
• Authors of “Reproducibility Initiative” (Baker, 2012)
• Authors of “Reproducibility Project” (Collaboration, 2012)
• Chris Chambers
• Tal Yarkoni
• Richard Morey
• Alexander Holcombe
• Simon Batterbury
• Scott Aaronson (“…much of the serious content on the Internet remains sequestered behind pointless, artificial walls—walls that serve the interests of neither the readers nor the authors, but only of the wall-builders themselves. If I have a medical problem, why can’t I download the full text of clinical studies dealing with that problem? Why do so many researchers still not post their papers on their web pages—or if they do, then omit their early papers? When will we in academia get our act together enough to make the world’s scholarly output readable, for free, by anyone with a web browser?"
• Sir/Prof. Tim Gowers (argues, journals these days exist only to accommodate author prestige)

Conferences

• see https://www.freeourknowledge.org/pages/news/ for list of conference presentations to date

Purpose of this marketing blitz

<e.g., To inform people that the Github repository is now open for community input and collaboration>

Once you've contacted the relevant channels below, check them off to keep track of where you're at

Internal channels (FOK)

Note: each of these channels needs it's own piece of text adapted to the format (can borrow from below)

• Mailchimp mailing list -- send out newsletter with project update/s (check with Cooper if any other info to include)
• Twitter -- see bottom of this list for directions
• Github Project -- to the right of this issue, click 'Projects' and allocate to 'FOK Kanban'
• Facebook -- check that the newsletter has auto-linked
• Google group -- only need to use if there's a private discussion to be had about this marketing blitz

Discussion forums

<CREATE R-MARKDOWN FILE (SEE THIS EXAMPLE) AND LINK HERE FOR REFERENCE>

• Pubreform (original discussion forum)
• On science and academia
• Behsci

Slack workspaces

<CREATE GOOGLE DOC WITH HYPERLINKS (SEE THIS EXAMPLE) AND LINK HERE FOR REFERENCE>

• OSMOOC
• ANZORN
• SIPS2019/2020
• Creative Commons
• ASAPbio
• OS Community Netherlands
• Open Life Science

Google groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Network of open science grassroots networks
• Center for Open Science Ambassadors
• OpenCon

Mailing lists

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Schol Comm
• Open Science
• GOAL
• FORCE11
• RadicalOA
• Open Science Göttingen
• LIS bibliometrics
• PSCI COMM
• OpenAccess at Wikimedia
• Australian_OA_Community
• EMCR Forum Australia
• Liste des échos du RISC (ask Claire)
• OpenScience-NL
• OpenScience-DE
• Donders mailing list
• UQ cog neuro

Facebook groups

<USE SAME TEXT AS SLACK CHANNELS, I.E. CONTAINING HYPERLINKS>

• Reviewer 2 must be stopped
• Psychological Methods Discussion Group
• ACNS ECRs

Twitter

<CREATE MULTI-COMMENT TWEET WITH LINKS, IMAGES, GIFS AND CALL TO ACTION (SEE THIS EXAMPLE), THEN TAG FOLLOWING ORGS BELOW POST. CAN ALSO MESSAGE SUPPORTERS DIRECTLY IN TWITTER, USING ONE OF THE OLD MESSAGE THREADS IN THE PROJECTFOK ACCOUNT, AND ASK THEM TO RETWEET/COMMENT.>

• LIBER
• EIFL
• SPARC NA
• SPARC EU
• R2RC
• FORCE11
• OpenAire
• OpenUP
• The Carpentries
• Creative Commons
• FOSTER
• Mozilla Open Leaders
• OpenCon
• Open Knowledge International
• Global Open Science Hardware Community
• SIPS
• OSI
• COPE
• TriangleSCI
• SCOAP3
• Open Library of the Humanities
• Open Scholarship Initiative
• Open Knowledge Maps
• United Nations University
• @radicaloa @COPIMproject @FORsymp @openscicomm @IGDOREinstitute @UCBITSS @PREreview_ @OpenScienceMOOC @osframework (NB: many of these are FOK partners and we should develop more targeted strategy with, e.g. blog/news posts)

Petition/pledge sites (can we get access these mailing lists?)

• DORA \
• Budapest Open Access Initiative
• Fair Open Access supporters
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2
• https://opennessinitiative.org/signatories/
• http://thecostofknowledge.com/
• http://www.nodealnoreview.org/
• http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/
• http://www.openaccesspledge.com/
• https://emckiernan.wordpress.com/pledge/

Rationale
Pre-registration requires researchers to specify their planned research protocol, objectives and hypotheses, and plans for data collection and the confirmatory analysis to be conducted in order to test the stated hypotheses prior to beginning a study. This means that researchers are accountable to producing the research as intended and will help to protect against practices such as “hypothesising after results are known” or “p-hacking”, which can inflate positive results in scientific research.

Pledge
By joining this campaign, you pledge to pre-register all one of your conducted studies via one of the pre-registration formats specified by the Center for Open Science (https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/articles/360019738834-Create-a-Preregistration#Go-to-the-OSF-Prereg-Challenge-landing-page). This does not need to be hosted on the Open Science Framework (e.g., it could be on a site like AsPredicted.org). There simply needs to be a time-stamped, publicly available document that can be verified as existing before the study was conducted.

Issues to work out (all sorted, see comments below):
1. I wrote this as all studies conducted since the pledge activates, but perhaps some buffer time is needed so that studies just about to launch at the time won't be suddenly help back by a pledge activation. Maybe a grace period for pledgers to adjust?

2. Should this focus instead on hitting a target number of pre-registered studies (instead of creating a pre-registration 'habit')? It is a smaller step, but maybe we need the smaller step to allow people to committing to pre-registering X studies in a time frame before making a larger pledge.

3. Threshold — Your pledge will activate when 100 researchers have joined the campaign. --> what is a reasonable threshold to set?

4. Duration—Your pledge will expire after 2 years, but you are encouraged to renew it! --> is expiration a good idea for this? This is also related to point (2) about whether the commitment should be all studies in the specified duration or X number of studies pre-registered in the specified duration.

5. Anonymity?—Your pledge will be public once the threshold is activated. --> does this seem reasonable?

Note: We'll be developing the campaign text using HackMD here

Hi,

We have finished preparing the "Postprint Pledge for Linguistics", and I am now trying to figure out how to publish this issue on the FOK website.

Here is the issue:
#48

I am trying to make it appear on the FOK website as a campaign:
https://freeourknowledge.org/

Help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Ali

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The number of proposed campaigns is growing by the day, so it could be useful to formalise a peer-review process so that we can (a) strengthen proposals, and (b) choose the most appropriate campaigns to post on the website.

Describe the solution you'd like
Some kind of codified review process, ideally with metrics representing different qualities. At a first pass, these might be:

• Novelty. How dissimilar is the proposal to other campaigns that have been proposed/posted on FOK?
• Importance. If the campaign is successful, how beneficial will it be to the signatories and broader community?
• Community-interest. This could be as simple as counting the number of likes and comments in the Github Issue thread.
• Clarity. Is the proposed action simple and clearly specified? Is the target audience and threshold clearly specified?
• Likelihood of success. What are the chances the campaign will reach the target threshold?
• Accountability. Can the actions be monitored in some way to check compliance?

Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternatively, we could just post every campaign that gets proposed, see what kind of traction they get, and only leave up those that seem like they're getting community interest. One downside of this strategy is that we miss an opportunity to strengthen campaigns before posting to the website. Another is that we might overwhelm users by giving them too many options and/or dilute our 'brand' by posting poorly-conceived campaigns. I think that in the early days of the project at least, it's probably best to screen campaigns to some extent, and use the Github features to gauge community interest before posting.

Additional context
We'll also need to work out how to source peer-reviewers from the community and allocate them to campaigns

This campaign will ask researchers to pledge to submit a single Registered Report to a journal if and when a pre-specified threshold of community support has been met (e.g. X researchers have signed a pledge). Some of the parameters we will need to work out:

1. Should we target a particular field (e.g., Psychology) or make the campaign open to researchers in all fields?

2. What should be the threshold for pledge activation (e.g., pledges activate when 100 researchers have signed the pledge)? (this should be considered in conjunction with [1] above)

3. Should there be a time limit on the pledge (e.g., people have to submit the RR within 2 years of their pledge activating)?

4. Should the campaign expire within some period if it doesn't reach threshold (e.g. if we don't reach threshold within a year, take the campaign down)?

5. Any other considerations?

Note: If you're interested in joining this campaign and would like to be notified when it goes live, please add your name here

• Campaign co-creator/s: Manuel Illanes @rmib200

• Rationale: Many areas of Neuroscience are critically dependent on computational tools for things like analysis of large volumes of data, tasks, visualization, etc. Right now, we can say that sharing code is the exception when new research is published. Only certain journals require papers to include a statement on whether programs are available.
  We belive that all jounals should adopt policies that strongly encourage or mandate the sharing of code. Sharing all code and data needed to allow others to reproduce our work should be considered a regular practice. At least the key parts when this is not possible or practical.

• Action: (1) Whenever you publish an article, also publish the code you used for the analysis and implementation via an open, freely available platform (e.g., Github, OSF, papers with code). (2) Generate a DOI for the code and link to this DOI in the article. (Optional)
  * Make sure that at least one or more figures from the manuscript are reproducible.
  * If you think the work is too computationally intensive, one small "toy" example could be used to demostrate it.
  * Also, you can upload a config file when possible.
  
  We can demonstrate, leading by example, the obvious benefits of adopting these practices like more transparency, reliability and faster adoption of new methods. This will improve the future work produced on Neuroscience, even if the code doesn't fully work in 20 years. Because it will still be more precise and complete than text in a paper.
  
  Open-source code can be used for promotion, reference letters, and mentions. Take into account that right now, the limitation is cultural rather than technical so let's take a part in changing that. Let's free our knowledge.

If you can provide feedback on anything that could be done differently to benefit the field or get more people motivated to do anything regarding science, please don't doubt to comment. For Example, we could start by listing all the possible best practices for this.

• Eligibility criteria: All fields (but we will target neuroscience researchers initially).

• Optional anonymity: Yes.

• Threshold: 100 500 (calculated separately for each field)

• Pledge duration: 18 months. Lifetime

https://twitter.com/KFenbyHulse/status/1302579864935960579

Please feel free to rephrase.

Note: Comments for this campaign are mirrored from our Github repository to the website. Please feel free to add comments at either location.

Internships are an occasional phenomenon in academia, notionally providing students the opportunity to get "valuable workplace / research experience" ahead of application for jobs or post-graduate training while also providing researchers an affordable (read: free) labour force.

However, these practices are unethical, entrenching privilege, suppressing diversity and inclusion, and devaluing labour, and in many jurisdictions, these practices are also illegal - skating by on lack of scrutiny and the perverse incentives to preserve the status quo (i.e. prospective interns are motivated to perpetuate the internship programs in order to get experience to remain competitive with students with internships).

We need to break this cycle, and it only happens through collective disarmament. In each field we need to agree to:

1. Stop offering unpaid internship opportunities, despite the fact that it might hurt us
2. Stop considering unpaid internships in recruitment and selection.

PUBLISH YOUR DATA BEFORE YOUR PAPER, along with [10] of your peers

• Rationale:
  Data are valuable assets and legitimate scientific outcomes. Publish now, not later.

• Action:

Select a project.
Tidy up data.
Write meta-data (if you have not done so already).
Publish data with DOI.
Work on ms.
Invite collaborators and peers to review data.

• Eligibility criteria:

Data. :)

• Optional anonymity: [Yes/No]

No.

• Threshold:

10

• Pledge duration: ?

Note: Comments for this campaign are mirrored from our Github repository to the website. Please feel free to add comments at either location.

Campaign creator/s: @sparsh717

• Rationale: Science communication has followed an archaic format of displaying important relevant information in text-only content. Despite evidence demonstrating that humans process visuals 60 000x faster, abstracts and papers have been delivered primarily through text. In this day and age of research oversaturation, this makes understanding outcomes cumbersome and difficult to digest. We propose that researchers communicate their results using open-access graphical abstracts that make it intuitive to access and understand complex information. The idea behind this is that summarized information can be delivered effectively in our world of byte-sized information, but also drive increased readership to the full-text. Keeping this open access under a creative commons license would allow for easy dissemination and knowledge translation for relevant papers. This will improve knowledge translation in the field of scientific communication that is longing for disruption.

• Action: Create open-access infographic abstracts (Tidbits) on your publications using our free Tidbit Creator Tool on www.readatidbit.com.

• Eligibility criteria: Currently, we are focusing on medical visual abstracts, given our background and expertise, but we have plans to expand into all fields of science in the near future. There are no constrains on the size of the infographic abstract - they can be as short or as long and complex as you like.

• Optional anonymity: Yes

• Threshold: 50

• Campaign expiration: 1 Year

• Pledge duration: N/A