Wednesday, February 4, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large -- Volume 15, Number 3: March 2015.

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:48 AM PST

Use the link to access the newsletter.

NASA's Physical Science Informatics Database Now Open to the Public | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:44 AM PST

"At NASA, we are excited to announce the roll-out of the Physical Science Informatics (PSI) data repository for physical science experiments performed on the International Space Station (ISS). The PSI system is now accessible and open to the public. This will be a resource for researchers to data mine the PSI system and expand upon the valuable research performed on the ISS using it as a research tool to further science, while also fulfilling the President's Open Data Policy. Since 2001, microgravity experiments have been conducted on ISS in the physical sciences and have yielded rich results, some unexpected and most would not be observed in Earth-based labs. These results provided valuable insights into fundamental physical behavior that can apply to both terrestrial and space environments. Collecting this data in a single location not only provides scientists with scientific data from hundreds of NASA experiments, it also helps identify fields where more study is needed. Open Science 'brings together the community of researchers to define an envelope of experiments that will be conducted and analyzed, leveraging modern high content analytics in the life and physical sciences', said Marshall Porterfield, NASA's Director of Space Life and Physical Sciences at NASA Headquarters in Washington ..."

Brill and IFLA Announce the 2015 IFLA/Brill Open Access Award

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:42 AM PST

"The IFLA/Brill Open Access award is created to reward initiatives that facilitate and/or promote Open Access Scholarly Monographs in the humanities or social sciences. This is in line with IFLA's stated position on Open Access, which aims to promote open access across its membership. This is also in line with Brill's open access policy. 'Open Access' in the context of this award refers to any structural publication model, where the reader does not have to pay a fee to access the leading version of a monograph and where the content is made available without embargo. The award will be given to the person/institute behind the initiative in recognition of outstanding work and effort in facilitating, promoting, advocating, raising awareness in regard to and/or disseminating Open Access Scholarly Monographs published with an open license. In 2013 the award was given to Open Book Publishers, Cambridge (UK). In 2014, the award winner was Knowledge Unlatched, London (UK). The 2015 prize consists of ..."

Launch of new journal PeerJ Computer Science means speedier, more open publishing for the field - News - MyScienceWork

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:40 AM PST

"There's good news for computer scientists today as award-winning publisher PeerJ unveils its new open access journal, PeerJ Computer Science. A cross-disciplinary publication encouraging exchange across the full spectrum of the discipline, the journal starts accepting preprints today and peer-reviewed articles next week. PeerJ is offering free publication to all those who register their email with the journal, so read on to learn more ..."

Zoological Letters has Launched! A Q&A with the Editor-in-Chief. - On Biology

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:37 AM PST

"January 2015 marks the launch of an exciting new journal in the field of Zoology, Zoological Letters. We spoke to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Shigeru Kuratani, about the origin, aims and scope of this new journal ..."

C&RL News | Mobile

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:34 AM PST

"For this month's column, the editors are gearing up for the Library Publishing Forum, which will be held March 29–30, 2015, at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. We have interviewed the forum's keynote speakers, Martin Paul Eve and John Willinsky, who will share their vision of open access in the humanities and social sciences as well as their thoughts on future developments ..."

Library Proposal Spawns New SEC Academic Collaboration Award Workshop Feb. 6-8 | Texas A&M Today

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:22 AM PST

"When Texas A&M University proposed the teaming of student government and university libraries in the Southeastern Conference to improve scholarly communication, the SEC took notice and presented it the first-ever SEC Academic Collaboration Award. The award-winning idea will become a reality Friday-Sunday (Feb. 6-8) at a workshop at the Sterling C. Evans Library, bringing students and representatives from each SEC university together to formulate a strategy. The proposal calls for the two-day workshop to focus on raising the profile of research produced by SEC universities through the use of high-quality, openly-licensed textbooks. The workshop will enable students and representatives from each SEC university to build strategic plans advancing open access and open educational resource initiatives at SEC universities.  Since winning the award, Texas A&M library officials have partnered with The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Right to Research Coalition to organize the workshop ... Teams of SEC university representatives in attendance at the workshop will be comprised of two student leaders from student governments (one undergraduate, one graduate), as well as relevant library experts, scholarly communication librarians and library directors. Each team will design and complete an open-access initiative that draws upon the strengths of the library-student government partnership, while aligning with other campus initiatives and meeting the needs of the team's campus community.  The workshop will also feature nationally recognized experts on programs that effectively promote open access and open educational resources ..."

India’s Science and Technology Outputs are Now Under Open Access | Open Knowledge Blog

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:16 AM PST

"As a new year 2015 gift to the scholars of the world, the two departments (Department of Biotechnology [DBT] and Department of Science and Technology [DST]) under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India had unveiled Open Access Policy to all its funded research. The policy document dated December 12, 2014 states that 'Since all funds disbursed by the DBT and DST are public funds, it is important that the information and knowledge generated through the use of these funds are made publicly available as soon as possible, subject to Indian law and IP policies of respective funding agencies and institutions where the research is performed'. As the Ministry of Science and Technology funds basic, translational and applied scientific research in the country through various initiatives and schemes to individual scientists, scholars, institutes, start-up, etc., this policy assumes very significance and brings almost all the science and technology outputs (here published articles only) generated at various institutes under Open Access ..."

Ventaja competitiva sobre las citas de las publicaciones en Acceso Abierto | Universo Abierto

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:15 AM PST

Use the link to access the complete list.  The list is available in English.  The introduction, from Google's English, reads as follows:  "Summary of results of studies on the benefits of citation of articles in open access (OA). He has OpCit project for many years kept up a list of published studies on whether there is an advantage of quotes in articles open access was closed and the list is no longer being updated, now is SPARC Europe organization maintains this list."

University of Leipzig: News -- University of Leipzig breaks negotiations with academic publisher Elsevier

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:10 AM PST

[From Google's English] "The negotiations at the University of Leipzig with the academic publisher Elsevier for the licensing of scientific journals for the current year have failed. Was mainly due to the view of the university clearly exaggerated ideas on price of large publishing house ... As early as 2013 had to cancel due to lack of resources, the consortial licensing agreement for the Free State of Saxony unilaterally the University of Leipzig. The follow-on contract in 2014 was associated with a significant reduction in the content and thus a significantly poorer cost-benefit ratio for the university.Among the last 300 magazines there were several, for a five-digit annual fee has been paid - the cost of the most expensive magazine amounted to more than 21,000 euros. 'For the University of Leipzig course, it is primarily about economic behavior, which we see committed. It concerns but increasingly also the question of how academic institutions which indeed produce a large portion of the content provided by Elsevier only the information supply their researchers to organize in the future. The Elsevier apparently unchanged favored, inflexible business model of the so-called big deals we believe to be overhauled,' explains Prof. Dr. Ulrich Johannes Schneider, director of the Leipzig University Library. Rector Beate Schücking has long been touting for introducing so-called national licenses for the major scientific publishers ..."

Open Access: Who, what and why? | The bilingual brain

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 02:06 AM PST

From Google's English] "Open Access is 'hot' in the research world. The Max Planck Society is committed to as much of the studies published by its researchers accessible to everyone. Now therefore, each Max Planck Institute ambassadors to promote Open Access policies and possible. The MPI for Psycholinguistics has three, two of which are in the Neurobiology of Language works department; Evelien Heyse Laar and Gwilym Lockwood. But what is Open Access actually, and why is it important? Gwilym explains it ..."

Analysis of the effectiveness of the documents in Open Access Political Science | Open Universe

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 01:31 AM PST

[From Google's English]  "The digital revolution has made it easier for political scientists share high quality research online. However, many of these items are stored in proprietary databases that some institutions can not afford. Products of high quality, peer-reviewed journal articles first level have been deposited in Open Access should theoretically be more easily accessible and be more cited than articles of similar quality that are only available to paying customers. Research on the effectiveness of Open Access (OA) have focused so far mainly in the natural sciences, and the results have been mixed. Because OA has not been as widely adopted in the social sciences, disciplines such as political science have received little attention in research on their impact on open access. In this study, we sought to determine the effectiveness of OA in Political Science. In this study, we sought to determine the effectiveness of OA in Political Science. The main hypothesis is that items in OA should be mentioned that the articles have barriers (TA), ie they are only available to paying customers. To do this, this hypothesis is verified by analyzing the mean citation rates of articles left in OA published in eight of the best magazines of Political Science. The conclusion, according to the results, is that OA publications obtained a clear advantage appointment in the area of ​​knowledge of Political Science."

RCUK demonstrates positive impact achieved throughout 2014 - Research Councils UK

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:40 AM PST

"Research Councils UK (RCUK) has today (19 January) published the RCUK Impact Report 2014, demonstrating how the Research Councils have worked together to achieve greater impact for the research, training and innovation they support. Professor Rick Rylance, Chair of RCUK, said: 'The UK research base is one of the best in the world and we should be proud of the impact it has both here and abroad. This year, our impact report reflects our vision that the UK remains the best place in the world to do research, innovate and grow business. Long-term investment in world-class research and innovation, and working together effectively and efficiently, will enable us to realise the full potential of the UK research and innovation ecosystem.' The report complements the impact reports prepared by the individual Research Councils and highlights the ways in which RCUK adds value to their activities. It also looks forward to activities we are undertaking now that will have impact in the future, with details of some exciting developments for 2015 ..."

Policy recommendations for open access to research data | European Public Sector Information Platform

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:35 AM PST

"The FP-7 RECODE project has published a report that includes policy recommendations, practical guides for developing policies, and resources to expedite the process of policy development and implementation. In order to create the document, titled - Policy recommendations for open access to research data - RECODE identified two main over-arching issues in the mobilisation of open access to research data: a lack of a coherent open data ecosystem; and a lack of attention to the specificity of research practice, processes and data collections.  These findings, along with the horizontal analysis of case studies in relation to the main challenges, have informed these policy recommendations on open access to research data.  The policy recommendations are targeted at key stakeholders: research funders, research institutions, data managers, and publishers. They will assist each of the stakeholders in furthering the goals of open access to research data by providing both over-arching and stakeholder-specific recommendations. These function as suggestions to address and attend to central issues that RECODE identified through the research work.  The full report (PDF) is available here."

Still a long way to go for OA? - Analysis & News - Research Information

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:29 AM PST

"According to conservative estimates, the UK's higher education institutions are paying £160m per year for subscriptions to peer-reviewed academic journals; Research Libraries UK (RLUK) puts the figure even higher, at £192m. These are significant ongoing costs that reflect the central importance to UK research of having the widest possible access to articles in scholarly journals. The steady advance of open access is changing journal publishing models irrevocably, but not evenly, across the globe. Things are moving particularly fast in the UK, where government, research councils' and research funders' policies are accelerating the move towards publishing publicly-funded research outputs in open access, sometimes with a preference for gold open access under CC-BY licences. Here, especially since 2012, more and more research outputs are being published in the open access sections of hybrid journals so that they are available to read and use, for free, from day one of publication. Though these articles are free to read and use, the costs associated with getting them to publication still have to be paid – and, in many cases, publishers are recouping them via article processing charges (APCs), usually paid by the authors' institutions. In this rapidly changing environment, where all parties are trying to develop practical new processes quickly, it has become increasingly difficult to track the cost of APCs. It is not easy because the market is not transparent and price comparisons are difficult: list prices for subscriptions and APCs sometimes bear little relation to what institutions are actually paying. But there is a pressing need for institutions to understand the true cost of publishing in open access, so that they can manage transition from a position of authority and monitor their costs effectively. As things stand currently, the true total cost of hybrid journals for institutions engaged in research is made up of subscription charges, APCs and also the significant (but hard to quantify) administration costs associated with making and managing APC payments and then reporting on compliance with funder open access policies. So the real cost is probably higher than many have realised and it also seems that the majority of APCs are being paid to the largest, traditional journal publishers who are also receiving a substantial proportion of universities' total subscription payments. In one recent year, one institution we spoke to spent more than £28,000 in subscriptions with just one publisher, and also published 12 journal articles with the same company. Those 12 APCs amounted to an extra £21,000 paid by the university – a 71 per cent increase in charges from that publisher ..."

Rewarding Open Science Practices in Research - NIH OBSSR: The Connector

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:27 AM PST

"Being a scientist is a competitive career choice. Career advancement relies heavily on being the first to publish novel and exciting findings. As scientists compete to be first to publish, transparency and reproducibility in research may be sacrificed. Concerns surrounding reproducibility of research have been gaining attention in recent years. As such, the NIH is stepping in to lead the effort to improve reproducibility in pre-clinical research.  In a recent commentary in Nature, NIH Director, Dr. Francis Collins, and NIH Principal Deputy Director, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, tackle the concerns of low reproducibility and transparency in pre-clinical research. In the commentary, the authors highlight an initiative to increase transparency, a funding opportunity calling for the development of a Data Discovery Index, a platform to facilitate sharing and citation of primary unpublished data. While NIH is exploring a number of initiatives to increase transparency and reproducibility, it alone cannot solve the problem. Enacting change will required a coordinated effort across academia, non-profit, industry and government.  Initiatives to increase transparency and reproducibility have already begun throughout the scientific community.The Center for Open Science, a non-profit organization founded in March 2013, has been developing tools that are designed to provide researchers with new incentives to conduct transparent and reproducible research. In an effort to increase openness and transparency, COS has created the Open Science Framework, an open source web app that serves as a centralized system for data sharing. This app functions as a project management tool for researchers that allows individuals to upload project data to a private site and share data with collaborators or with the public. Any data or component of a project that is made public becomes an independent citable unit. This provides an incentive for researchers to upload and share data. The OSF provides a means to track these citations and other metrics related to data usage available on the site.  As an additional incentive to use data sharing resources such as the OSF, COS has developed a number of badges for open practices. COS is working with organizations and journals to promote the use of the open practice badges. In the social and behavioral sciences, a number of journals, such as Psychological Science, have adopted the use of open practice badges to acknowledge and reward transparency ..."

Share some negative data in 2015 | Kenneth Witwer | LinkedIn

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:21 AM PST

" ... While the 'no' answer cannot be as important as the 'yes,' it still has value. Science is exploration of the unknown. That's why hypotheses, however well founded, are usually wrong, and why most experiments have negative results. How can we know what has been explored, though, unless someone has blazed a trail, putting down markers in the wilderness of that unknown? The 'no' result, furthermore, takes on enhanced importance when it stands in contrast to a previous 'yes'…that is, when there's an indication that we might want to reconsider before pumping more exploration resources into an initially promising but possibly misleading direction. How can we better mark the trail of negative results so other scientists can benefit from our experiences? Certainly, several journals exist for the express purpose of publishing negative results. These journals were founded because of the perceived barriers to publication in traditional outlets. Without taking a position on the value of these journals or whether they're necessary, I would point out that negative results can be published elsewhere. A growing number of journals like PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports, and BMC Research Notes encourage submission of negative results. If you value negative findings, submit your work to them. Should you encounter resistance based on the traditional novelty and impact criteria, don't hesitate to remind the editor and reviewers that negative findings are welcome. Even higher impact journals are often willing to consider negative results, especially as letters to the editor. In a recent case, Nature Biotechnology published a negative results paper contradicting previous findings, even though the original study had been published elsewhere. Make a strong case in the submission letter accompanying your manuscript, and you might be surprised at the willingness to consider negative data. Although peer-reviewed publication should be seen as the ultimate destination of data, positive or negative, there are also ways to share your negative results with the community prior to publication. For example, you can ..."

BBC News - Ebola: Call for more sharing of scientific data

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:16 AM PST

"Ebola is an international emergency so why isn't more data on the virus being made public? asks Helen Briggs. The devastation left by the Ebola virus in west Africa raises many questions for science, policy and international development. One issue that has yet to receive widespread media attention is the handling of genetic data on the virus. By studying its code, scientists can trace how Ebola leapt across borders, and how, like all viruses, it is constantly evolving and changing. A world leading tropical disease expert told me last year that he had concerns about why so little genetic data about the virus was being released.

In the last few days, scientists have been speaking on and off the record about their concerns.  One researcher said few teams working on the virus had been prepared to share valuable information that could have helped in the quest for knowledge.  Another scientist told me that governments had not put enough pressure on research teams to release data that could help other scientists make medical discoveries ..."

Sephatrad MEI: "Open access" should be translated as "open access"

Posted: 04 Feb 2015 12:10 AM PST

[From Google's English] "When the movement of 'open access' was launched twelve years ago, the aim was also to launch a new concept, near the free access, it is true, but newer and a little different. Free access affects many media, open access would affect primarily publications - first scientific journals and scientific books, and any form of publication, media or not. For twelve years now, the Spanish translate 'open access' by 'acceso abierto' Italians translate 'open access' by 'accesso aperto', the Portuguese translate 'open access' by 'acesso aberto' Romanians translate 'open access 'with' access deschis 'Catalans translate' open access "with" access obert' etc. In the Francophone world, we got used to translate 'open access' with 'open access', which is an interpretation, not a translation. With so impossible to distinguish 'open access' (open access) 'free access' (free access), since we use the same term. Imagine translating a paragraph trying to explain the difference between the two terms, or juxtaposing the two terms to explain a third. As a result, not only we do not understand much about a concept that is already not so easy to understand, but we multiply misinterpretations ..."

Digital Science | Shaking Up Science

Posted: 03 Feb 2015 11:47 PM PST

"The Norwegian Research Council (NRC) released a new funding scheme for article publication charges (APCs) for author pays, open access (OA) articles, in June this year. In short, the NRC will refund up to 50 % of APC costs incurred by Higher Education (HE) institutions to the institutional publication fund – provided that such a fund exists. No fund, no refund, is the message from the NRC. Or, rather: Get yourself a fund! It is clear that the NRC sees the creation of institutional publication funds as an important step towards an OA future and as a policy to foster the establishing of those funds, this is likely to be highly effective. In the HE sector, funds are widespread, 15 funds have been established so far and all major institutions have one. For sectors outside of higher education (For instance, health), publications funds are not as common and so the NRC plans to work out mechanisms for partial APC refunds without insisting on a fund. The thinking behind a 50 per cent figure – which will be given no matter who originally financed the research – is that the NRC pays for about half of all research in Norway, so therefore, they should shoulder half the cost. The mechanism also addresses concerns about "post-project" publications, the cost of which cannot be charged to grants once their respective projects are concluded. The NRC's policy is that all publications arising from research that it funds should be OA, but they have previously shown no preference for Gold or Green. The new scheme could be seen as a change in attitude and a strong preference towards the Gold OA path. There are limits to what the NRC will fund, though. They have two clear rules: Journals must have a minimal level of quality assurance, for instance through adequate peer review. This requirement is feasible because the Norwegian financing system already has an accreditation framework for journals. This takes care of the quality aspect. The journals must be listed in the DOAJ. This means that delayed OA, and more strikingly hybrid journals will not qualify for funding. While some international funding agencies have expressed concern about the cost of hybrid journals, few are as direct about discouraging their use by authors ..."
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)