Tuesday, April 7, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Science Is Ignoring its "Publication Pollution" Problem | Mother Jones

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:49 AM PDT

"In a damning op-ed published Friday, Arthur Caplan, a medical ethicist at NYU's Langone Medical Center, called out scientists who are turning a blind eye to the scientific publishing industry's 'publication pollution problem.' At the root of the matter: pay-to-publish journals with weak or nonexistent pre-publication review standards that are 'corroding the reliability of research.' As he wrote in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 'neither the leadership nor those who rely on the truth of science and medicine are sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy.'   Consider this recent experiment, as described in the (unfortunately paywalled) commentary ..."

JHU Politik - Open Access: A Hidden Insurgency in Scientific Publishing

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:45 AM PDT

" ... A natural solution to this, of course, is to simply reduce or eliminate subscription fees altogether. This is the guiding principle of the Open Access movement. While efforts to make academic literature freely accessible began in the 1960s, the modern Open Access (OA) movement began with the Internet's first scientific forum, arXiv, in 1991. By 2011, 12 percent of scientific literature was published in articles with either immediate or delayed OA. Even industry giants, such as Elsevier or Nature Publishing Group, have started a number of OA journals. The differences in cost are striking: publishing a scientific paper costs around $3500 to $4000, but OA journals publish papers for an average of $660. Much of the disparity comes from differences in operating cost. Traditional publishers operate and maintain expensive printing equipment, as they publish in print, whereas OA journals tend to be exclusively online. Newer, more dynamic OA journals also benefit from more streamlined workflows, whereas huge publishing companies have not adapted to modern technologies and methods as quickly. However, OA publishing is not without its flaws. In 2013, Science correspondent John Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 different OA journals. Bohannon's papers all contained such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they would not have survived even a cursory review. The flawed papers were accepted by more than half of the tested OA journals, including some published by Elsevier. With the growth of OA, there has been an explosion of predatory journals, which publish with essentially no review or editorial process as long as the publication fee is paid. OA increases access to scientific literature for all, but it means sacrificing some integrity in the review process. But perhaps the greatest challenge to OA is that it falls far short of the prestige commanded by journals like Nature, Science, or Cell. For better or for worse, faculty positions, grants, and recognition are still largely bestowed upon those who publish more in high-profile journals, almost all of which are still traditional subscription journals. For young scientists just starting their careers, publishing Nature-quality work in an OA journal would prove to be a drag on accumulating citations and achieving recognition ..."

Open access | The Inquisitive Rockhopper

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:39 AM PDT

" ... Open access publishers need to recoup their expenses, which are not trivial (significant IT costs, editorial staff, administrative staff). PLOS One and the EGU journals, among others, do this by charging article processing charges (APCs). These can be very significant: a 10-15 page paper with a couple figures and a table or two may cost $1-2k. To put this number in context, let's consider the typical (median) NSF award. The 2013 awards are summarized in this report (1.6 MB pdf) from the NSF, which is an interesting read.[5] For 2013, the median annualized award amount was $130k [see report, page 19]. If you have a 3-year grant which you use to publish two papers at $1300 each[6], that will use 1% of your budget. As was pointed out earlier, funding agencies don't like pay for publication, because it's money you're not spending on doing science. On the other hand, they should insist on open access because they want to maximize the number of people benefiting from the research ..."

Science and medicine have a 'publication pollution' problem - ScienceBlog.com

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:34 AM PDT

" ... Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics in the Department of Population Health at NYU Langone Medical Center, shares these and other observations in a commentary publishing April 3 in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.  'The pollution of science and medicine by plagiarism, fraud, and predatory publishing is corroding the reliability of research,' writes Dr. Caplan. 'Yet neither the leadership nor those who rely on the truth of science and medicine are sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy.' In his commentary, Dr. Caplan describes several causes of publication pollution ..."

Warns poor quality when research articles are free | forskning.no

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:30 AM PDT

"Open Access (OA) states, and has become popular worldwide. The movement, which works to make research freely available to all via the Internet, is a reaction to the traditional multinational journals require increasingly higher license fees.  This has led to the journals are too expensive, especially for researchers in developing countries and researchers at small institutions in Norway. One of those who has keenly focused, is Norwegian media magazine and editor Steen Steensen. The journal, which is published by University Press, has so far been based subscriptions, but in March it becomes available free ..."

Podcast: Open Science in Action | openscienceASAP

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:25 AM PDT

[From Google's English] "Open Science in Action is an interview podcast in which it is about to open science activities - mostly from Austria. There are people and institutions visited, dealing with Open Science and / or operated by you. In 30-60 minutes innovative and exciting activities around the opening of science are shown and it brought closer to the listener * inside the various aspects. Open access to university libraries about open source in research institutes to hack open spaces and Citizen Science - it will be something from the wide range of industries. Planned are 10 episodes in the first half of 2014 (funded by the Students' Union University of Graz), the further course depends on the interest of the audience."

A year in the life of Open Access support: continuous improvement at University of St Andrews

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:18 AM PDT

"The LOCH Project is pleased to announce the publication of its latest case study: A year in the life of Open Access support: continuous improvement at University of St Andrews. This case study explains the 'Lean Exercise' that the Open Access and Research Publications Support Team took part in during May 2014, as well as the follow-up to this exercise and the impact it has had on the team's day-to-day activities. The case study provides plenty of detail of the Lean method, details of process improvements undertaken at St Andrews and example documentation which is available for re-use. Case Study:  http://hdl.handle.net/10023/6430 St Andrews Lean Office:  https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/lean/  ..."

Elsevier’s contribution to the STM Voluntary Principles consultation request | Elsevier Connect

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:14 AM PDT

"Back in February, we wrote that we welcomed newly drafted STM Principles to facilitate academic sharing on Scholarly Collaboration Networks as a positive step for publisher-SCN collaboration. Since then, we have prepared our submission as part of the consultation period request for comment. We just submitted this statement to STM and are pleased to share it below.   As we mention, Elsevier is currently clarifying its sharing and posting policies in-line with these principles ..."

What happened to millions of Creative Commons-licensed photos in Flickr? | Bryan Alexander

Posted: 07 Apr 2015 01:02 AM PDT

"Something weird and potentially bad just happened to the Flickr photo-sharing site.  Specifically, their page listing photos published under Creative Commons licenses now shows far, far fewer of them. Where once there were tens of millions, there are now 400,000 and fewer. What happened, Flickr?  Yahoo, do you know anything? Here's a bit more background.  Flickr is one of the oldest, great social photo sharing sites.  I joined it way back in 2004 (my photos), pretty soon after it launched, and found the service extremely useful.  It's a fine place to share my images, an unusual place for getting feedback, a terrific site to discover other images, and good, even unique, at a bunch of other functions everyone should know.

One of its fine aspects is supporting search for non-copyrighted photos.  We can look just for images uploaded under the Creative Commons license suite (which everyone should know about; here's a starter).  It's a grand way to find materials for your next movie, PowerPoint, blog post, or whatever ..."
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)