As we integrate #OpenAlex data into the #Bonfire #OpenScience flavor, we're displaying familiar metrics: works count, citations, h-index, research topics, institutional affiliations... These might be exactly what you need, or perhaps just a starting point. What additional information would help you find collaborators or understand someone's work better? We're opening this design process to the open science community. Share what works, what doesn't, what's missing. @open_science 1/2
For those curious about what's technically possible, here's the OpenAlex API docs: docs.openalex.org/ We could explore research networks, collaboration patterns, open access rates, interdisciplinary connections, and more... The question is: what would make profiles genuinely useful for how you work? Let's build this together 🔬 @open_science
One question I am often asked is : how do I find people in a given institution that work on a given field ? It is technically possible to get this from OpenAlex. One idea could be : allow to automatically create circles from field and institutions. For instance : a circle for a given university, or a circle for a given field, or the intersect of both. Bonfire helping find people and communities would be great !
OpenAlex has added a new metadata matching strategy co-developed by ROR and Crossref to its affiliation matching processes: ROR is also investigating the prospect of incorporating this new matching strategy into the ROR API in 2025.
Great that you integrate #OpenAlex! I really appreciate your efforts.
However, I am very skeptical about displaying the h-index and i10 index (and probably also about the overall citation count). With #DORA and #CoARA, we want to get away from these indexes. (They are readily available - but that's their deceptive seduction).
To stay in the analogy: At a campfire gathering, I am looking for deep (and also funny and affiliative) conversations with fellow researchers. If there is a guy shouting out his impressive h-index as a greeting, I would immediately leave.
If we try to build a utopian community place, we should not recreate the dysfunctional incentive structures of default academia.
@nicebread This is exactly the kind of feedback we're looking for! we were thinking of hiding the quantitative metrics widget by default and letting users show it on demand if they want it... to be more aligned with coara.eu/agreement/the-commitm… (which also @fresseng pointed us to few days ago) Would this approach make sense to you? @openscience
@fresseng @openscience Not providing the metrics at all would be a value statement. But hiding it by default is definitely a step in the right direction!
Another idea, focused on the discussion content (and again depending on computational resources): Could you provide on-the-fly literature suggestions for current discussions? And in particular flag members of the community that have published to that topic?
Similar: Ping members of the community if a discussion touches an area of their expertise?
(Which all should be opt-in features, as not all members may want that).
This is a crucial question to discuss in the open and possibly create a statement from it somewhere for future reference... Should the open science network commit to the #DORA and #CoARA agreements and therefore not include researchers quantitative metrics at all ? Pinging among others: @jorgeluis @fresseng @brembs @JACoates @kfitz @pierre @markwilliams @openscience
I agree that it should definitely not be shown by default and prominently, that's for sure.
Whether this kind of information should be available in principle, for vanity searches or for people who go digging after them, one could discuss, I think.
In the German Reproducibility Network @GermanRepro, we developed an academic code of conduct: "Creating a friendly and intellectually stimulating space" (reproducibilitynetwork.de/coc/).
This explicitly says: "We discuss views and claims based on the evidence and the quality of arguments, not based on the status of the people making the claim, nor their personal characteristics or their academic rank."
This is the atmosphere I'd like to see at a campfire. Maybe more aspects of that CoC are inspiring for an academic Bonfire.
@GermanRepro What else could be extracted from #OpenAlex? I would find this helpful:
1. The most recent publication/preprint of a member (as a first author, or also as coauthor?) 2. The most cited publication 3. Affiliation history: Maybe we have a common university in our history?
If your computing resources and the framework allow dyadic information (i.e., how do I relate to every member in the community):
3. What is my coauthor network distance? (I.e., how many hops do you need). If <=3, show the link. 4. What is the publication of that member that is closest to my own works? (e.g., based on embedding dimensions of title and abstract)
That is information that would foster a substantive discourse.
Some relevant data that can be computed from the API and show on user profile: The most recent publication/preprint of a member (as a first author, or also as coauthor?) The most cited publication ...
Here's an updated mockup with widgets for: - Most recent publication/preprint - Most cited publication These are fairly easy to include... Currently showing only part of the available metadata to avoid overloading the widget, standard previews show more data (e.g., openscience.network/discussion…) We've already included the affiliation history (we call them present/past institutions, shown below the user profile avatar in the mockup...maybe wrong wording?) @open_science @GermanRepro
@nicebread @GermanRepro I'd argue against most cited as this isn't the best metric to promote. I'd suggest that most recent (preprint or open access) article and then one chosen by the individual. Not everyone would highlight their most cited work but what currently interests them most or what they're proudest of.
oh, just when they happened to reset my profile and now I have 5+ OpenAlex accounts again, and while one has most, it also have stuff of other people 🙁
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. It would be wonderful to be able to move an account and all its posts from a Mastodon instance. Describe the solution you'd like Follo...
Here is another feature that came to my mind that might be interesting to put in the roadmap.
As OSN aims to provide the place to write articles and peer-reviews, with DOIs for each, as well as to provide DOIs for online scientific communication that is worth it, there is a deeper connection to make to ORCID. Aside from reading from ORCID, Bonfire could write these contributions to the scholarly record directly to the authors' ORCID records, with no action from them apart from allowing once Bonfire to write to their profile. Moreover, this would be a certified piece of information, making Bonfire part of the trust network that enables trustworthy scientific conversation.
To my opinion, that would involve two things. The first one is to certify Bonfire, the software, as an ORCID integrated service provider. This is free of charge. All information is there : info.orcid.org/vendors-and-ser…. For example, PKP is certified.
The second one, is the actual writing to the authors' ORCID record. It requires being an ORCID member, and is thus not free of charge. However, I think this is not to be done by Bonfire itself but rather by the institution that installed a particular instance. For example, in my university, we already are ORCID members, for other reasons, and using another piece of software to write to ORCID would be free of charge.
Thus, the main task for the Bonfire would be to get certified.
The services listed here are ORCID-recommended Certified Service Providers (CSPs) that adhere to best practices recognized throughout the research ecosystem. If your service is not on this list, learn more […]
@liaizon Kinda sorta, but not really. 😀 @encyclia just consumes the public ORCID API, it doesn't try to channel anything back into ORCID records, nor indeed does it give people any facilities at all for original authorship. It's strictly an ORCID → ActivityPub one-way bridge.
I wrote a bit about the similarities and differences between Encyclia and OSN in the FAQ: encyclia.pub/faq#opensciencene… OSN's scope has expanded since then, but I think it's still all accurate! 🙂
Bonfire
in reply to Bonfire • • •We could explore research networks, collaboration patterns, open access rates, interdisciplinary connections, and more...
The question is:
what would make profiles genuinely useful for how you work?
Let's build this together 🔬
@open_science
Overview | OpenAlex technical documentation
docs.openalex.orgTim Chambers reshared this.
Nicolas Fressengeas
in reply to Bonfire • • •Egon Willighagen
in reply to Nicolas Fressengeas • • •Nicolas Fressengeas
in reply to Egon Willighagen • • •Bonfire
in reply to Nicolas Fressengeas • • •wonder if this integration between @RoRInstitute and @OpenAlex can help as well?
ror.org/blog/2025-01-27-faster…
Faster Affiliation Matching at Scale
Research Organization Registry (ROR)Egon Willighagen
in reply to Bonfire • • •Felix Schönbrodt
in reply to Bonfire • • •Great that you integrate #OpenAlex! I really appreciate your efforts.
However, I am very skeptical about displaying the h-index and i10 index (and probably also about the overall citation count). With #DORA and #CoARA, we want to get away from these indexes. (They are readily available - but that's their deceptive seduction).
To stay in the analogy: At a campfire gathering, I am looking for deep (and also funny and affiliative) conversations with fellow researchers. If there is a guy shouting out his impressive h-index as a greeting, I would immediately leave.
If we try to build a utopian community place, we should not recreate the dysfunctional incentive structures of default academia.
1/
Bonfire
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •Would this approach make sense to you?
@openscience
The Commitments – CoARA
coara.euFelix Schönbrodt
in reply to Bonfire • • •@fresseng @openscience Not providing the metrics at all would be a value statement. But hiding it by default is definitely a step in the right direction!
Another idea, focused on the discussion content (and again depending on computational resources): Could you provide on-the-fly literature suggestions for current discussions? And in particular flag members of the community that have published to that topic?
Similar: Ping members of the community if a discussion touches an area of their expertise?
(Which all should be opt-in features, as not all members may want that).
Bonfire
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •Should the open science network commit to the #DORA and #CoARA agreements and therefore not include researchers quantitative metrics at all ?
Pinging among others: @jorgeluis @fresseng @brembs @JACoates @kfitz @pierre @markwilliams @openscience
Björn Brembs
in reply to Bonfire • • •I agree that it should definitely not be shown by default and prominently, that's for sure.
Whether this kind of information should be available in principle, for vanity searches or for people who go digging after them, one could discuss, I think.
Felix Schönbrodt
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •In the German Reproducibility Network @GermanRepro, we developed an academic code of conduct: "Creating a friendly and intellectually stimulating space" (reproducibilitynetwork.de/coc/).
This explicitly says: "We discuss views and claims based on the evidence and the quality of arguments, not based on the status of the people making the claim, nor their personal characteristics or their academic rank."
This is the atmosphere I'd like to see at a campfire. Maybe more aspects of that CoC are inspiring for an academic Bonfire.
2/
GRN · Code of Conduct
reproducibilitynetwork.deFelix Schönbrodt
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •@GermanRepro What else could be extracted from #OpenAlex?
I would find this helpful:
1. The most recent publication/preprint of a member (as a first author, or also as coauthor?)
2. The most cited publication
3. Affiliation history: Maybe we have a common university in our history?
If your computing resources and the framework allow dyadic information (i.e., how do I relate to every member in the community):
3. What is my coauthor network distance? (I.e., how many hops do you need). If <=3, show the link.
4. What is the publication of that member that is closest to my own works? (e.g., based on embedding dimensions of title and abstract)
That is information that would foster a substantive discourse.
3/3
Bonfire
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •@nicebread Awesome! I've just created an issue to keep track of this: github.com/bonfire-networks/bo…
@open_science @GermanRepro
Open Science: better OpenAlex integration
ivanminutillo (GitHub)Bonfire
in reply to Felix Schönbrodt • • •- Most recent publication/preprint
- Most cited publication
These are fairly easy to include...
Currently showing only part of the available metadata to avoid overloading the widget, standard previews show more data (e.g., openscience.network/discussion…)
We've already included the affiliation history (we call them present/past institutions, shown below the user profile avatar in the mockup...maybe wrong wording?)
@open_science @GermanRepro
Discussion · Open Science
Open ScienceJonny Coates
in reply to Bonfire • • •Egon Willighagen
in reply to Bonfire • • •Nicolas Fressengeas
in reply to Bonfire • • •Will there be a possibility to migrate from a Mastodon account to Bonfire, or OSN, as it is possible between Mastodon instances ?
It might be needed to lower the migration barrier and foster Bonfire OSN uptake.
Of course, it comes along with the possibility to migrate between Bonfire, or OSN, instances as smoothly as possible.
Any plans of thoughts on that ?
#OpenAlex #Bonfire #OpenScience
Bonfire
in reply to Nicolas Fressengeas • • •We have an open issue about migrating also posts and media which requires more thoughts: github.com/bonfire-networks/bo…
@open_science
Feature Proposal: full Mastodon instance migration
xplosionmind (GitHub)Nicolas Fressengeas
in reply to Bonfire • • •Here is another feature that came to my mind that might be interesting to put in the roadmap.
As OSN aims to provide the place to write articles and peer-reviews, with DOIs for each, as well as to provide DOIs for online scientific communication that is worth it, there is a deeper connection to make to ORCID. Aside from reading from ORCID, Bonfire could write these contributions to the scholarly record directly to the authors' ORCID records, with no action from them apart from allowing once Bonfire to write to their profile. Moreover, this would be a certified piece of information, making Bonfire part of the trust network that enables trustworthy scientific conversation.
To my opinion, that would involve two things. The first one is to certify Bonfire, the software, as an ORCID integrated service provider. This is free of charge. All information is there : info.orcid.org/vendors-and-ser…. For example, PKP is certified.
The second one, is the actual writing to the authors' ORCID record. It requires being an ORCID member, and is thus not free of charge. However, I think this is not to be done by Bonfire itself but rather by the institution that installed a particular instance. For example, in my university, we already are ORCID members, for other reasons, and using another piece of software to write to ORCID would be free of charge.
Thus, the main task for the Bonfire would be to get certified.
These are my thoughts for a summer day.
Have a great summer !
Become an ORCID Certified Service Provider - ORCID
ORCIDNicolas Fressengeas
in reply to Nicolas Fressengeas • • •ORCID Certified Service Providers List - ORCID
ORCIDBonfire
in reply to Nicolas Fressengeas • • •we sent a mail to @ORCID_Org to start the procedure, will keep you updated!
@open_science
wakest ⁂
in reply to Bonfire • • •Bonfire
in reply to wakest ⁂ • • •Julian Fietkau
in reply to wakest ⁂ • • •@liaizon Kinda sorta, but not really. 😀 @encyclia just consumes the public ORCID API, it doesn't try to channel anything back into ORCID records, nor indeed does it give people any facilities at all for original authorship. It's strictly an ORCID → ActivityPub one-way bridge.
I wrote a bit about the similarities and differences between Encyclia and OSN in the FAQ: encyclia.pub/faq#opensciencene… OSN's scope has expanded since then, but I think it's still all accurate! 🙂
@bonfire @fresseng @ORCID_Org
Frequently Asked Questions – Encyclia.pub
Encyclia.pub