Category Archives: digital life

A visualization of how the ecosystem of digital tools built by academics makes papers, but also non-academic reports, findable and reusable.

Frictionless reports: harnessing the power of digital and open for knowledge sharing

A large part of the economy deals in knowledge – and I’m not talking about education alone. Knowledge is a major ingredient, as well as a byproduct of, any credible attempt at societal change. A host of institutions – universities, governments, parliaments, think tanks and what have you – continuously produce knowledge. Much of that is codified into reports and other publications, which are then made available for download from their respective websites.

However, many reports are rarely read. A famous 2014 World Bank study found that about a third of their reports received zero downloads. This does not mean no one reads them, but it does highlight how difficult it is for non-intended readers—like researchers or practitioners in related fields—to find them. The current system is low in serendipity. Additionally, as websites change, old URLs break, resulting in 404 errors and lost access to content. This phenomenon is known as “link rot”.

We can do better. Academia has faced the challenge of serendipitous knowledge reuse for centuries. Over the past thirty years, it has built a robust ecosystem by leveraging the digital revolution and the power of open standards and open licenses. If your work includes producing reports and publications for public consumption, you too can adopt these practices to make them more discoverable and reusable, increasing their impact.

Unique identifiers enable a digital ecosystem of services

At the heart of this ecosystem are Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). A DOI uniquely identifies any file—article, report, dataset, or executable application. DOIs are an ISO standard, issued by Registration Agencies that maintain metadata (authors, year, organisation, keywords, etc.) in interoperable databases. The largest is Crossref, a consortium of 23,000 publishers, currently handling two billion API requests per month. In a similar way, authors are uniquely identified by ORCID Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides an open, API-accessible database of researchers, automatically updated as new papers are uploaded. DOIs and ORCIDs create a web of linked data: papers link to their authors, and authors link back to their works.

These open, machine-readable datasets of uniquely identified knowledge products and authors have enabled a rich ecosystem of services. Repositories like arXiv, Mendeley and Zenodo allow researchers to upload papers and assign DOIs. Applications like Altmetric index documents in these repositories to measure their impact by tracking citations and aggregating them into bibliometric indicators. These, in turn, influence inclusion in major academic databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, Lens and Google Scholar.

Academic repositories accept papers before they get peer reviewed (“preprints”), acknowledging that some knowledge is at most useful when its fresh, and academic review processes typically takes months. So, knowledge products from non-academic organizations (like NGOs) and academic research papers have become interoperable, part of the same digital space. The research community has come to read and cite reports more often, and this adds to their serendipity and impact. UNDP and other organizations could even take advantage of this to curate their own series and even journals, displaying content from repositories via API and experimenting with forms of review and curation. The European Commission’s Open Research Europe is an example of this model. These innovations, and others that will come, are enabled by community-created software libraries to access Crossref’s APIs, for example for Python and R.

The ecosystem includes bibliography management applications like Zotero. Instead of manually creating a bibliography for every publication, researchers maintain libraries of works they cite, from which these applications create bibliography on the fly. Such applications download metadata from Crossref and transform them into citations and bibliographies in any format, via plugins for LaTeX, Word, Google Docs, Obsidian and other editing applications.

Legal interoperability unlocks the power of open

The digital revolution enables remixing and cross-referencing from a technical perspective, but legal barriers remain. Knowledge products are governed by intellectual property rights (IPRs), which by default restrict many uses. Licenses specify what can and cannot be done. For example, Google Maps data is not open. This means that you can use Google Maps as a service, but you are not allowed to do anything else with the data. Say you use Google Maps to obtain the coordinates of UNDP’s offices around the world and put the coordinates in a CSV file. Although you knew the locations of the offices and have produced the file, the fact of having used Google Maps to find out the coordinates entangles your file with Google’s IPRs. You cannot publish it without calling in the lawyers.

To be truly frictionless, knowledge products must be both technically and legally open: irrevocably cleared by their copyright holder for use, redistribution, modification, and remixing by all, as per the open definition. This is crucial for datasets, as researchers avoid data with legal hurdles. Failing to use open licenses limits the spread, and therefore the impact, of your work. If you have a say in crafting your organization’s policies on licensing its own content, I would recommend you push for an explicit and blanket authorization to publish using open licenses, like those provided by Creative Commons. 

Publish for frictionlessness

To wrap up, here’s some recommendations for publishing reports and publications. 

  • Use Zenodo as a long-term repository. It provides free DOIs, supports versioning, and is run by CERN, ensuring reliability.
  • Obtain a (free) ORCID for each author or contributor and include them in the metadata. Zenodo supports multiple contributor roles, such as “team leader” and “data curator”.
  • If your report is based on data you collected, publish the dataset separately with its own DOI and cite it in the report. Publishing open data is nontrivial; see a detailed guide to do that.
  • Use open licences, such as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (versions 4 and above protects your readers from copyleft trolling), which is widely used and protects both creators and users.
  • Link your website’s report page to Zenodo for downloads to centralise page views and download statistics.
  • Consider using bibliometric services such as Altmetric to track your impact over time.

Image made by Notebook LLM, based on the text of the post and a prompt written by myself.

Fool me twice, shame on me: the return of Alec Ross

UPDATE June 20th. I have realised I may have been too emotional about this. I have decided to try to learn more about what the Diplomacy 2.0 vision looks like in 2016, and then make up my mind.

This post is a part of a series of reflections aimed at cutting back on the noughties’ hype about the wonderful changes of modern technology. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but, in retrospect, we seem to have gotten a little overenthusiastic. I am as guilty as anyone else, and am now trying to regain a more critical perspective (example).

2009, remember? A charismatic, charming, pre-drone strikes and let-Guantanamo-be Barack Obama sat in the White House, heralding a new era of Internet-powered transparency, accountability and collaboration. It was government 2.0’s finest hour.

In 2009, a man named Alec Ross visited Italy on behalf of the State Department. He toured the country, and everywhere he went he asked to meet the local bloggers. The city authority in Bologna invited me to one such meeting. Wide-eyed with admiration at the cool of the Obama administration,  a half dozen bloggers attended. Relaxed and confident, Ross looked and spoke more like a social media marketing early mover than like a diplomat. He also seemed to have no agenda: he just wanted State Department to be friends with the bloggers. That seemed very forward thinking. It still does. He called it “diplomacy 2.0”. Transparency and openness are in the interest of diplomats, he explained. The more clearly a country communicates, the better its positions can be understood, even more so in a media landscape where bloggers were becoming the main opinion makers. There will still be classified information, but the new normal was to be one of openness.

What a great concept, we all thought. How far behind we are lagging in our own country. Then CableLeaks happened, and State Department did not like transparency so much anymore. The administration maintained on the one hand that there was no dirty secret to uncover in the cables, and on the other hand that people had no business knowing what was in there. The pool of highly prestigious newspapers redacting the leaks before publication (The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Paìs, Le Monde…) were told in no uncertain terms to hand over the material. It all ended in a major mess, involving Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, John Perry Barlow and just about any government worth its salt (or not). All this led the Executive Office of the President to circulate a memorandum (January 2011), addressed to every branch of the American government. It is signed by the then-director, of the National Counterintelligence Agency, and comes down to: “are you sure you got your employees on tight lockdown?” My favourite question is this:

Do you use psychiatrist and sociologist to measure: (i) Relative happiness as a means to gauge trustworthiness? (ii) Despondence and grumpiness as a means to gauge waning trustworthiness?

So much for openness.

But why reminesce about this now? Because I made a mistake: I endorsed the Diplomacy 2.0 concept. I tried to convince people I respect that yes, “diplomacy is the prosecution of war by other means” and all that, but you could trust these guys. They were like us. It made so much sense.

And because Mr. Ross is back. He’s got a book out. It’s called “The Industries of the Future”, and it sets itself an ambitious goal:

Leading innovation expert Alec Ross explains what’s next for the world: the advances and stumbling blocks that will emerge in the next ten years, and how we can navigate them.

His 2009 prediction about an open, transparent diplomacy “being next” turned out to be very wrong, as Clay Shirky pointed out. That’s an interesting failure, and we can all learn from it. So I contacted Ross to ask him if I could look forward to a chapter about diplomacy 2.0 being blown to hell by the old guard’s reaction to Wikileaks. His reply:

You can keep waiting. Diplomacy 2.0 is as strong today as ever. And I agree 100% with Clinton on Wikileaks. The wikileaked cables changed nothing. If anything, they showed what an excellent job American diplomats were doing. They did not reveal wrongdoing. They revealed right-doing. (whole discussion at 2016-05-25 17.35, image file)

The discussion that ensued was civilised, but unproductive and unpleasant. Ross insisted on blaming Senator Joe Lieberman, not the Obama administration, for the US reaction to the Cableleaks. Senator Lieberman has his sins to answer for, but this is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie. The memorandum quoted above does not come from the U.S. Senate. It comes from a very senior officer in the executive branch. I backed off – we were getting nowhere, and I have no interest in trolling. I was in it for the learning.

Still, I do not think Ross’s position (that everything is smooth sailing) is credible. I don’t think I will be reading this book. It’s not so much the wrong prediction, that happens to everyone, especially experts. It’s the refusal to acknowledge it that I cannot respect. Toeing the party line is just what you do not want in a futurist. Shame: Ross is smart and has been around, but I just cannot bring myself to trust him after this. Fool me once, shame on you. But fool me twice?

Photo credit: Cathy Davey. 

Seven years of blogging: the new Contrordine Compagni

More than five years after its setup (!) and more than seven after my first post on a now-forgotten Blogger blog (!!), it was time to refresh Contrordine Compagni. The media landscape looks very different from the one I ventured in in 2005; in 2013 it is social networks, not blogs, that function as the default terrain for individual expression on the Internet. I, however, stand by my choice. This blog was a very successful investment. It now contains seven years of musings, and this helps me stay aware of my intellectual trajectory and not stray too far; what’s more, it helped many strangers to find me, and some of them are now precious colleagues and even friends. What’s more – and this is critical – I am the one who controls it: the database is my property, and I have the keys to the server. Should Facebook and Twitter decline in the future, just as MySpace did in the Noughties, my content will stay online and easy to find.

The new Contrordine Compagni has three characteristics.

  1. A much cleaner and – for the first time – responsive theme (TwentyTwelve). Cleanliness is to highlight content over form; responsiveness is a friendly gesture towards the 20% of my readers that use mobile devices.
  2. A new hosting, Host Europe.
  3. Most importantly, a new way to manage multiple languages. Most of my posts are both in Italian and English. So far, I managed this with a plugin called Polyglot, which still works but is not maintained anymore. The new system is based on Polylang; it buys me a more usable back end, a cleaner database and a better control on RSS feeds, that are now completely separated. As a result, I now have an English-language-only feed. The solution was found and implemented by sterling-silver hacker Matthias Ansorg. The migration script from Polyglot to Polylang is documented here.

Say hi to the new Contrordine Compagni. If you appreciated these last seven years-plus of blogging, use the Recommend box to give me a +1 or a Facebook like: you’ll help others to find it on search engines. And if you want to know what Contrordine Compagni means, it’s been there all the time. Ready for the next seven years?