Geoffrey Bilder at CrossRef suggested the title “CrossRef and the Pursuit of Truthiness” to capture a critical issue facing scholarly publishers. On the Internet traditional systems of trust and authority are being questioned and dismissed in some quarters. There is a battle being waged between opposing camps about whether it is best to rely on experts as authoritative sources of information or whether the “wisdom of crowds” and web 2.0 magic will replace experts.
Cross Ref And The Pursuit Of Truthiness 1
CrossRef and the Pursuit of Truthiness STM 2008 Frankfurt Conference 14 October 2008
A Word to Worry About <ul><li>"truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>"the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006) </li></ul>
Internet Trust Anti-Pattern <ul><li>System is started by self-selecting core group of high-trust technologists (or specialists of some sort). </li></ul><ul><li>System is touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc. But this is not true (see 1). </li></ul><ul><li>The general population starts using the system. </li></ul><ul><li>The system nearly breaks under the strain of untrustworthy users. </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory controls are instituted to restore order. Sometimes they are automated, sometimes not. </li></ul><ul><li>If the regulatory controls work, the system is again touted as authority-less, non-hierarchical, etc. But this is not true (see 5). </li></ul>In Google We Trust? Geoffrey Bilder, Journal of Electronic Publishing, vol. 9, no. 1, Winter 2006
How can we determine whether we can trust the material emanating from a site? The Web was originally conceived as a tool for researchers who trusted one another implicitly; strong models of security were not built in. We have been living with the consequences ever since. As a result, substantial research should be devoted to engineering layers of trust and provenance into Web interactions. ..."
Sir Tim told BBC News that there needed to be new systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they had been proved reliable sources…So I'd be interested in different organisations labeling websites in different ways.
Authoritative article The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. Name verification is by telephone number (US only) or credit card Knol is a wasteland of…text copied from elsewhere, outdated entries abandoned by their creators, self-promotion, spam, and a great many old college papers
Reliability and quality We write under our real names Participants write for academic credit
Problem #1 The publishing process is invisible Solution #1 Make it more visible
Open Journal Systems: An example of open source software for journal management and publishing, J Willinsky. Library Hi Tech. 2005, Vol 23, Issue 4, p 504 doi:10.1108/07378830510636300
Problem #2 Solution #2 Thinking that publisher’s job is done on publication of the “final” version Recognize there is no final version and publisher has role post-publication
http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/ Version of Record Enhanced VoR Corrected VoR
CrossMark <ul><li>A visible kitemark for humans – licensed from CrossRef </li></ul><ul><li>A mechanism for publishers to make a statement of ongoing stewardship </li></ul><ul><li>A reliable mechanism for users to identify the version of the document the publisher is taking responsibility for </li></ul>
CrossMark <ul><li>Metadata for machines (and human geeks) </li></ul>
Erratum Version of Record DOI:10/1037/1114 Crackpot Press Peer Reviewed: Yes CrossChecked: Yes Review Type: Double Blind Protocols: Carberry protocol on hum Funding: 30% Templeton
CrossMark <ul><li>Highlight pre-publication added value – publishing as a managed process </li></ul><ul><li>Highlight ongoing post-publication management of content (errata, corrections, retractions) – counter false notion that once something is published the publisher’s job is done </li></ul><ul><li>What about pre-prints? No claim of ongoing responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>What about alternate Versions of Record? </li></ul>
CrossMark <ul><li>Basic metadata to be simple but extensible by the publisher </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Beyond the minimum publishers decide what metadata gets included </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Record and advertise processes employed to ensure trustworthiness – peer review, link to journal information pages </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Linked in with DOI to ensure user can locate and access the latest version of the metadata or the content if updated </li></ul>
CrossMark Pilot <ul><li>Detailed use cases </li></ul><ul><li>Examples of use in different formats (HTML, PDF) </li></ul><ul><li>Develop techniques and processes to ensure integrity of the system </li></ul><ul><li>Draft business case and policies (who can use it and on what content) </li></ul>
"together we can create a reality that we all agree on — the reality we just agreed on…any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true."
Mission Statement <ul><li>To enable easy identification and use of trustworthy electronic content by promoting the cooperative development and application of a sustainable infrastructure </li></ul>