Monday, April 13, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Library-Press Collaboration Report

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 07:11 AM PDT

"The Library Relations Committee of the Association of American University Presses (AAUP) today issued a number of broad conclusions and recommendations for successful collaboration between presses and libraries. These conclusions are the product of extensive surveying and interviews with member institutions of both AAUP and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), conducted through 2012-2013. Forty-two libraries and forty-one presses participated in this information gathering process."

PeerJ/paper-now · GitHub

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 03:35 AM PDT

"In contrast to the more traditional process of submit > peer review > publish at PeerJ, or even the less formal preprints at PeerJ Preprints or arXiv, Paper Now is an experiment to see where the future may go with scholarly communication. Initially, it may be that co-authors collaborate either privately or publicly on GitHub and then proceed to submitting to PeerJ or other journals for formal peer-review or preprinting. Or perhaps this is where the traditional medium of publication begins to diverge. There is no end goal other than to see what the academic community wants, which is why this is completely open to fork, extend, and build upon ..."

Check which references in an article are free to read in PubMed Central. | Mozilla Science Lab

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 03:14 AM PDT

"Finding which references (and the percentage) of a paper that are free to access in PubMed Central. The idea being if you have to pay for an article you can check what percentage of its references are free. Current set up is an API built with Node (& Express.js) retrieving data from a MongoDB datastore ..."

Open Access in Horizon 2020 | H2020

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 03:04 AM PDT

"Open access to scientific peer reviewed publications has been anchored as an underlying principle in the Horizon 2020 and is explained in the Regulation and the Rules of Participation as well as through the relevant provisions in the grant agreement (see Article 29 'Dissemination of results - Open Access - Visibility of EU funding: pages 60-63 of the Multi-beneficiary General Model Grant Agreement, Version 1.0, December 11, 2013') as well as exceptions for confidentiality (article 36), security (article 37), personal data (article 39) ..."

Prof, no one is reading you - Opinion More Opinion Stories ST Editorial - The Straits Times

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 02:57 AM PDT

" ... Even debates among scholars do not seem to function properly. Up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific communities - 82 per cent of articles published in humanities are not even cited once. No one ever refers to 32 per cent of the peer-reviewed articles in the social and 27 per cent in the natural sciences. If a paper is cited, this does not imply it has actually been read. According to one estimate, only 20 per cent of papers cited have actually been read. We estimate that an average paper in a peer-reviewed journal is read completely by no more than 10 people. Hence, impacts of most peer-reviewed publications even within the scientific community are minuscule. Many scholars aspire to contribute to their discipline's knowledge and to influence practitioners' decision-making. However, practitioners very rarely read articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We know of no senior policymaker or senior business leader who ever read regularly any peer-reviewed papers in well-recognised journals like Nature, Science or Lancet. No wonder. Most journals are difficult to access and prohibitively expensive for anyone outside of academia. Even if the current open-access movement becomes more successful, the incomprehensible jargon and the sheer volume and lengths of papers (often unnecessary!) would still prevent practitioners (including journalists) from reading and understanding them ... If academics want to have an impact on policymakers and practitioners, they must consider popular media, which has been ignored by them - although media firms have developed many innovative business models to help scholars reach out.  One effective model is Project Syndicate (PS), a non-profit organisation, which distributes commentary by the world's thought leaders to more than 500 newspapers comprising 300 million readers in 154 countries. Any commentary accepted by PS is automatically translated into 12 other languages and then distributed globally to the entire network ..."

New Report: “Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness” | LJ INFOdocket

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 02:52 AM PDT

"The following report was released earlier this week and is available from arXiv or from the PASTEUR4OA web site ..."

Archivalia: Only 12% of the scientific journal article can be accessed via the green way Open Access

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 02:43 AM PDT

[From Google's English] "The new study, to me Richard Poynder pointed out, shows that despite all OA policies as they propagate Harnadianer (Harnad is co-author) tirelessly, the yield of Institutional Repositories is pitifully small. Examines Journal Articles 2011-2013 were in Web of Knowledge. 77% was not included in the IR. 8% (of the total) are only present as metadata. 3% are dark deposits (restricted access). To see them http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/1022220766/ This means for the IR content (division of 23%): 100 articles that are available there are about 52 of cost as OA full text, 35 are just as metadata, and 13% are dark deposits. This way also means: 50%. Not Full Text Müllen the Search for eg BASE Of the 4240 articles in WoK the University of Liege are only 37% Open Access, 50% are Restricted acccess. institutions without a mandate are significantly different from those with mandate. In the former, the percentage of non-set items is 90%, OA is only 3%. The necessity of mandates were of Harnad et al. grounds that they could so significantly increase the scheduled approximately 25% spontaneous deposit rate. But if even with long-established mandates end up only about 25% of the articles in IRs, something is wrong in this earlier argument."

Offsetting agreements for open access publishing | Jisc

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 02:35 AM PDT

"Last year my colleague Lorraine Estelle blogged about how we've unpicked the full cost of publishing in open access (OA). She reported a sharp increase in article processing charges (APCs) from UK universities' central funds, particularly over the previous two years.  Modelling the true cost of publishing in open access Lorraine also described our work on modelling and how much it really costs universities to comply with open access policies. During the course of that work it emerged that, even back in 2013, APCs represented an average of 10% of the cost of publication, with administration of those charges adding more to the total figure. And so, working with a mandate from Research Libraries UK (RLUK), the Russell Group, the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL), and Universities UK (UUK), and in response to an open letter from David Willetts at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), we asked publishers of hybrid journals to work with us on developing offsetting systems. These are the subscription journals in which some articles are open access because their author or their institution has paid an APC, and we had some early successes, developing various offset systems with several major publishers, each one designed to offset the cost of the university's APCs against their subscription fees ... Now there is a real sense of urgency in the air as the number of open access articles being published by UK institutions in hybrid journals continues to build. Many UK institutions, especially the most research-intensive ones, are seeing their total cost of publication continue to mount as they increasingly find themselves paying APCs for articles in journals to which they also subscribe.  Over the last four months we have made further strides towards a practical solution. We have worked proactively with even more leading journal publishers to develop offsetting systems that will reduce OA publishing costs for HEIs. So far, each version has been different as it's not been a simple case of a standardised solution to suit all ..."

Yahoo Answers Is Not Research, Or How Two Startups Are Fighting For The Future Of Knowledge | TechCrunch

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 02:25 AM PDT

"We're told never to forget the ultimate laziness of humans, but when it comes to research in the internet age, sometimes that laziness can shock even the most prepared of minds. Students in grade school have grown accustomed to "remixing" internet sources to create their research reports, copying a line from here and a line from there into a massive kludge of plagiarism often bereft of a single original thought. While the internet has made those original thoughts ever more precious, it has also provided new communication channels that can cultivate originality. Through social networks, researchers can connect and share their work quickly, avoiding dead ends and speeding up the process of finding answers to our most pressing challenges. Unfortunately, much of this research remains locked behind paywalls charging $45 an article, in marked contrast to the open nature fundamentally advocated in the web's design. Research – the original use case of the web – is still transforming, and two startups evince the remarkably different challenges facing it today. Imagine Easy Solutions, the owner of the popular EasyBib and Citation Machine online citation generators, is preparing to expand from their beachhead in citations to a new software platform it hopes will reinvigorate the training of research in primary and secondary schools. While Imagine Easy Solutions is rethinking the way we educate about research, ResearchGate, the well-known academic social network, is beginning to rethink the way that science should be conducted in the 21st century. What does an academic publication look like when we can publish with the push of a button? How do we ensure that knowledge isn't bottled up and is freely available to those who could benefit from it? The continuing transformation in research will both expand the number of researchers and connect them more fruitfully, and we will all be the beneficiaries ..."

Open access APSA journal: good idea « Political Science Rumors

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 01:26 AM PDT

Use the link to access the discussion thread.  " ... Odile, yeah, right, academic publishers are complete money making machines! Funny. The open access model sounds great in principle but in practice it's a disaster. You think Google cares that it's destroying newspapers? Peer review, editing, and production takes time and takes money. I love the poster above who says he/she provides a clean LaTeX file as if that is all that it takes to produce a journal. Hell if your work is so awesome then just publish it at SSRN. But if you want to validation that comes with double blind peer review and editing at a top flight journal, it's going to cost money. The top journals in our field review upwards of 1000 articles a year, or 80-100 articles a month, every month. That means 200-300 peer review requests sent out PER JOURNAL, likely over 1000 a month just for APSR JOP and AJPS. You could ramp the desk reject rates way up but who is going to act as the gatekeeper when there is no compensation in the form of course releases or summer money? How many schools are still going to subsidize journal editorship when there is no revenue stream coming from the publishers? Wave your hands all you want screaming open access and information must be free, but the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, major content is all moving behind paywalls or is subsidized by some sort of advertising. The notion that somehow academic research is going to be immune will involve a major rethinking of the way we do business ..."

Smoke and mirrors - does open data consensus stand up to scrutiny

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 01:19 AM PDT

"Open data is like motherhood and apple pie. Everybody thinks it's a good idea. I am suspicious when everyone is in favour of something. Especially when they have conflicting views of how the world works, there is something going on there which needs consideration. So when governments, and business, and social justice advocates are all in favour of open data, what is going on? Well, allegedly, a revolution. The information that exists in the world is growing exponentially, and with it the possibilities of profound change. We all want change, we say – to change is to improve, and to perfect is to change often. But what do we all want? Are our goals the same? If they are, that seems so unlikely as to be incredible. Business usually argues for stability. You can make money in any situation, they say, provided you can predict what will happen. Yet here business is apparently in favour of big data, the internet of things, disruption. Governments don't generally want change. They want voters to vote for them, and tweak systems to try and get votes, but the only way governments change profoundly is when they are overthrown, and even then the new state often looks strangely like the old. And yet many seem to be in  the same corner as social justice advocates, arguing for open data. Classical neo liberals thinks open data delivers information symmetry, and thus better functioning markets. A function of the explosion in computer processing power is the information that is available and that we think we can see patterns in. That's money right there – information asymmetry, which companies can exploit. So open data gives us both symmetry and asymmetry? If it gives us symmetry, then that theoretically gives us more equal power. That is the classical 'information is power' argument. If I know what you know, we are equal in that respect, and if you are the state and I am a citizen then I am more powerful than I was, and I can hold you accountable. Or so the theory goes. So good governance advocates are in favor of open data. Governments are also in favour of open data, because they say it helps deliver better services for less money. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, they say, and it may be indeed that we are all in favor of open data.  But perhaps before we conclude that too quickly, let us consider a little more closely. We probably agree on a definition of open data. The question of what open data delivers is perhaps something we do not agree on. That is because what open data delivers in theory is quite different to what it delivers in practice. What data is open to whom? Open data evangelists would say, default open – that is information is made automatically available, as a matter of law, policy and practice, as open data. Only very limited categories of information are not available. Well yes, but whose information? Government's? Or big business? Does Google have to make its data open by default? Or Apple? No, wait, says business. Trade secrets, copyright, research information, that is our business model. We can't operate if we don't keep secrets. Government information? Well yes, says government. But not national security data, or data which relates to international relations, or tax or, even in the case of the Chinese, budgets. Those should not be open data. We need those secrets. Even data evangelists are a bit more wary of open data now. In a post Snowden era, the notion of a state which can collect data on you anywhere at any time, and apparently does, is suddenly not so attractive. So there are the privacy concerns, and the issues around confidentiality. Ontario's privacy commissioner discovered last year that the mental-health information of some Canadians is accessible to the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Some Ontario police services routinely uploaded attempted suicide calls to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), to which U.S. border guards and the FBI have access. Not so keen on open data now, are we? We all need secrets. So the devil is in the detail. My open data is your classified data – your private data is my business model. So, like applehood and mother pie, we agree. Until we get down to what is available to who and when ..."

Malmö Keynote on Open Access & the Humanities | Open Library of Humanities

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 01:14 AM PDT

"OLH Co-Director Dr Caroline Edwards has been invited by the National Library of Sweden to give the keynote for the "Meeting Place: Open Access Conference" in Malmö, April 2015. The title of Caroline's talk will be 'Opening Up Open Access Beyond the Sciences: Learning from the Open Library of Humanities' and it will introduce the conference's theme of open access, with sub-themes on open research data, societal impact and researcher support for open access publishing. Here's the abstract for the keynote, as well as a link to the PowerPoint slides Caroline will be using to accompany the talk ..."

Meeting Point Open Access 2015 - Royal Library

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 01:10 AM PDT

[From Google's English] "The conference is organized in cooperation between Malmö University and the program OpenAccess.se at the Royal. the library. This year's keynote speaker is Caroline Edwards (University of London and the Open Library of the Humanities ) who will talk about the mega journals in the humanities and Sarah Callaghan (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, Research Data Alliance's Working Group on Bibliometrics for data and Publishing Data Interest Group) which will to speak of research data. We also have a panel discussion with researchers from Malmö University, who give their perspectives on Open Access. Other presentations will include about publishing practices, the use of Open Access and research data. As in recent years, we have an 'open space' session with short poster presentations and opportunities for discussion and questions. Welcome to the Hurricane at Malmö University on 14-15 April!"

Is "open access" to scientific publications?

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 12:53 AM PDT

[From Google's English] "Scientific publishing, being concentrated in large groups such as Elsevier and Springer, an annual global market 7-10000000000 euros, with margins of almost 20%. To validate the results, in fact, a researcher submits articles to periodicals, according to the expert opinions requested, decide whether or not they are published in journals to which they subscribe interested institutions. This model, based on the principle of paying reader, is increasingly challenged while publishers use their monopoly to impose a continuing rise in prices and subscription terms (group purchasing magazines bouquets), difficult to sustain in times of fiscal restraint, and more for potentially excluded developing countries to scientific news.  During the editing process, what is more, researchers are both authors, reviewers and readers. The specific added value of the editor, which certainly provides the orchestration process and selects the evaluators before assuming the formatting and dissemination of works is discussed.  Researchers think a long time to other scientific publishing models.The first scientific archive available online, arXiv, was set up in 1991 to allow physicists to exchange business documents. The Open Access Initiative Budapest, launched in 2002, is the first formal international gathering of motion of open access ..."

10 questions about open access to increase visibility and use of deve…

Posted: 13 Apr 2015 12:48 AM PDT

"Presented by CLACSO at ACSS-Arab -Council for the Social Sciences. Second Conference, Beirut, Lebanon | March 13-15, 2015 http://www.theacss.org/pages/second-conference ..."
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)