Wednesday, May 27, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

The Inevitable Success of Transitional Green Open Access - Open Access Archivangelism

Posted: 27 May 2015 01:29 PM PDT

This is a response to: Michael Eisen (2015) The inevitable failure of parasitic green open access 
Here are my first observations: I think it is subscription journal publishing that is parasitic on the work of researchers, peer-reviewers and their institutions, as well as on the money of the tax-payers who fund the research -- not the other way round.

In Defence of Elsevier - Open Access Archivangelism

Posted: 27 May 2015 07:01 AM PDT

I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as in the past. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect.

Principles of the Self Journal of Science: bringing ethics and freedom to scientific publishing

Posted: 27 May 2015 05:11 AM PDT

"I present the core principles of the 'Self-Journal of Science' (SJS), an open repository as well as a new paradigm of scientific publication. Rooted in Science ethics, a full and consistent solution is proposed to address the many flaws in current systems. SJS implements an optimal peer review, which itself becomes a measurable process, and builds an objective and unfalsifiable evaluation system. In addition, it can operate at very low costs. One of the essential features of SJS is to allow every scientist to play his full role as a member of the scientific community and to be credited for all contributions – whether as author, referee, or editor. The output is the responsibility of each scientist, and no subgroup can dictate scientific policy to all. By fully opening up the process of publication, peer pressure becomes the force that drives output towards the highest quality in a virtuous self-regulating circle. SJS also provides a self-organizing and scalable solution to handle an ever-increasing number of articles ..."

best practice - Cases where open data has been removed? - Open Data Stack Exchange

Posted: 27 May 2015 05:06 AM PDT

"I'm looking for cases where data (including software) that once was open is not anymore, or was not for periods of several months or more. I can imagine several scenarios for this, including Technical problems (e.g. server failures, bandwidth issues) Legal problems (e.g. uncertainties over applicability of EU database rights) Social issues (e.g. new management at data producer, financial problems at data host) I am interested in all of these and would appreciate pointers to concrete examples and attempted remedies. I have seen this related question that addresses the symptom of missing once-open data, but not the underlying causes. As for link rot, I am right now only interested in cases where the data is actually not available any more, as opposed to not available on the original location, though distinguishing the two may of course be difficult."

Open Access and the ASPP: Policy Position

Posted: 27 May 2015 04:59 AM PDT

"In October 2013, the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences embarked on a multi-year project to develop an Open Access policy for the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program (ASPP). The initial phase focused on research and information gathering, including a scan of international and Canadian policy and practice, and informal discussions with several groups from Canada and around the world. The next phase focused on drafting a policy position followed by an open consultation period, which took place between May and September 2014. The responses received during the consultation period were synthesized, analyzed, and informed the policy. This document describes the current policy as of April 1, 2015. The policy is based on the following principles: • The Federation supports Open Access; and • A dynamic Canadian scholarly publishing sector continues to be of utmost importance to the dissemination of Canadian research ... Most Open Access discussions to date, both in Canada and internationally, have focused on academic journals. For example, in Canada the Tri-Councils, comprised of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, released an Open Access policy for the dissemination of Tri-Council funded research in journal articles on February 27, 2015.2 The discussion on Open Access and journals is important, but it is not sufficient to inform the discussion on Open Access for scholarly books. Therefore, as part of the research phase of its policy development project, the Federation commissioned a thorough review of international policy and practice of Open Access for monographs. (See Appendix for the report.) This review clearly shows a growing trend worldwide to implement Open Access for monographs whose research and/or publication is supported by public funding. Based on the Federation's commitment to Open Access and the clear direction of international policy and practice towards Open Access for scholarly books benefiting from public funds, it is the Federation's position that it is desirable to facilitate Open Access for ASPP-funded books. The Federation believes this would improve access to Canadian scholarship published in the form of monographs, benefiting i) authors whose research will be disseminated more broadly, ii) Canadian, international and independent scholars who will be able to consult Canadian scholarship more easily, and iii) the broader public who will gain access to a broad range of scholarly works that directly address the social, cultural and intellectual debates affecting Canada ..." 

The inevitable failure of parasitic green open access

Posted: 27 May 2015 04:45 AM PDT

"On the surface of it, it's not clear why these two paths to OA should be in opposition. Indeed, as a great believer in anything that would both make works freely available, I had always liked the idea of authors who had published in subscription journals making their works available, in the process annoying subscription publishers (always a good thing) and hastening the demise of their outdated business model. I agreed with Stevan's entreaty that creating a new business model was hard, but posting articles online was easy. But at the Budapest meeting I learned several interesting things. First, Harnad and other supporters of green OA did not appear to view it as a disruptive force – rather they envisioned a kind of stable alliance between subscription publishers and institutional repositories whereby authors sent papers to whatever journal they wanted to and turned around and made them freely available. And second, big publishers like Elsevier were supportive of green OA. At first this seemed inexplicable to me – why would publishers not only allow but encourage authors to post paywalled content on their institutional repositories? But it didn't take long to see the logic. Subscription publishers correctly saw the push for better access to published papers as a challenge to their dominance of the industry, and sought ways to diffuse this pressure. With few functioning institutional repositories in existence, and only a small handful of authors interested in posting to them, green OA was not any kind of threat. But it seemed equally clear that, should green OA ever actually become a threat to subscription publishers, their support would be sure to evaporate. Unfortunately, Harnad didn't see it this way. He felt that publishers like Elsevier were 'on the side of the angels', and he reserved his criticism for PLOS and BMC as purveyors of 'fools gold' who were delaying open access by seeking to build a new business model and get authors to change their publishing practices instead of encouraging them to take the easy path of publishing wherever they want and making works freely available in institutional repositories ... But the fundamental logical flaw with green OA never went away. It should always have been clear that the second Elsevier saw green OA as an actual threat, they would no longer side with the angels. And that day has come ..."

Green and Gold: the possible futures of Open Access | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

Posted: 27 May 2015 04:34 AM PDT

Provoked by Mike Eisen's post today, The inevitable failure of parasitic green open access, I want to briefly lay out the possible futures of scholarly publishing as I see them. There are two: one based on what we now think of as Gold OA, and one on what we think of as Green OA. Eisen is of course quite right that the legacy publishers only ever gave their blessing to Green OA (self-archiving) so long as they didn't see it as a threat, so the end of that blessing isn't a surprise. (I think it's this observation that Richard Poynder misread as "an OA advocate legitimising Elsevier's action"!) It was inevitable that this blessing would be withdrawn as Green started to become more mainstream — and that's exactly what we've seen, with Elsevier responding to the global growth in Green OA mandates with a regressive new policy that has rightly attracted the ire of everyone who's looked closely at it. So I agree with him that what he terms "parasitic Green OA" — self-archiving alongside the established journal system — is ultimately doomed. The bottom line is that while we as a community continue to give control of our work to the legacy publishers — follow closely here — legacy publishers will control our work. We know that these corporations' interests are directly opposed to those of authors, science, customers, libraries, and indeed everyone but themselves. So leaving them in control of the scholarly record is unacceptable. What are our possible futures? ... We may find that in ten years' time, all subscriptions journals are gone ... We may find that essentially all new scholarship is published in open-access journals such as those of BioMed Central, PLOS, Frontiers and PeerJ. That is a financially sustainable path ... We may even find that some of the Gold OA journals of the future are run by organisations that are presently barrier-based publishers. I don't think it's impossible that some rump of Elsevier, Springer et al. will survive the coming subscription-journals crash, and go on to compete on the level playing-field of Gold OA publishing. (I think they will struggle to compete, and certainly won't be able to make anything like the kind of money they do now, but that's OK.)  This is the Gold-OA future that Mike Eisen is pinning his hopes on — and which he has done as much as anyone alive to bring into existence. I would be very happy with that outcome ..."

Open Access content from EIFL’s publishing partners | EIFL

Posted: 27 May 2015 04:26 AM PDT

"One of the jobs of academic librarians is to promote e-resources to their users. This includes licensed e-resources as well as Open Access (OA) content that is available for free, without the need to register or sign a licence. EIFL has been an early supporter of the open access movement through our Open Access Programme. We see it as a positive development that many of EIFL's Licensing Programme publishing partners are publishing open access journals and books. Below is a list of open access resources available through all of EIFL's publisher partners ..."

: Open Access Collaborative Program SciELO Partners...

Posted: 27 May 2015 04:21 AM PDT

"ReadCube is thrilled to announce the integration of ReadCube Connect's Interactive PDF viewer for over 285 scientific journals and over 280,000 articles of the SciELO Brazil collection. The core of ReadCube's Connected Article technology includes annotation tools, bundled supplementary information, hyperlinked in-line citations, and clickable author names that initiate searches to find related articles. Aside from on the SciELO platform, ReadCube Enhanced Articles are also available offline, in the ReadCube desktop and mobile apps (Android/iOS). Readers can now save Enhanced Articles directly from SciELO platform ..."

Open access lobby attacks Elsevier | The Australian

Posted: 27 May 2015 01:34 AM PDT

"Academic, library and technology organisations are denouncing a new sharing and hosting policy adopted last month by publisher Elsevier, saying it undermines open access policies at universities and prevents authors from sharing their work. Elsevier, which publishes thousands of journals, introduced the policy last month. It aims to strike a balance between making sharing 'simple and seamles' and 'being consistent with access and usage rights associated with journal articles,' the publisher said in a blog post. Many librarians and open access advocates, however, see the policy as an attack on institutional repositories, where colleges collect and make available research their faculty members produce. The new policy does not allow authors to share their journal article manuscripts publicly through those repositories, only privately 'with a colleague or with an invitation-only online group.' Availability through the repositories is subject to journals' embargo periods, which in some cases last for several years. Last week, 23 organisations, among them Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and library and open access associations in countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, China, Brazil and the UK, issued a joint statement calling on Elsevier to reconsider the policy. The Confederation of Open Access Repositories and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, or SPARC, organised the campaign ..."

Editorial Independence Or Extortion? Frontiers Sacks 31 Editors

Posted: 27 May 2015 01:19 AM PDT

" ... Open access Frontiers has gotten into a high-profile spat with editors at two of their publications; the editors say the company is just interested in making money and risking patients - which is the sort of hysterical claim we see in papers invoking 'endocrine disruptors' in sketchy epidemiology papers - while the company says the editors are extorting them. The editors wrote the manifesto making the claim because of a policy they don't like - authors can hand-pick an associate editor and if it passes two review editors, it can be published, without any oversight from the Chief Editors. If that sounds a lot like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, well, yeah, they pioneered it. And almost every open access company does the same thing. Peer review may have been flawed in the past but at a lot of places now it is just a fluid term. After being startled by a number of really stupid papers in PNAS last year (men don't take female hurricane names seriously, Facebook emotional manipulation, everything they do in social sciences) I noted that their lax standards for publication were not always harmless - over a decade ago a paper about frog toxicology got a whole EPA special panel convened despite the fact that it had no data and no one ever asked if the author was personal friends with the hand-picked reviewer and had an office next door. After I mentioned it in the Wall Street Journal, PNAS announced they were making some changes to the ability to hand-pick a friendly review ..."

Ariel Waldman on new ways to collaborate in science and tech

Posted: 27 May 2015 01:15 AM PDT

"Have you ever yearned to make a scientific discovery about space but felt hampered by, say, the lack of a PhD in astrophysics? Or maybe you can see better ways of designing tech, but how do you make that a reality? San Francisco-based Ariel Waldman can help, by enabling citizen science, where anyone with an interest and an internet connection can contribute online through collaborative websites, or in person through hackathons. 'I focus on creating 'massively multi-player science',' she explains. 'That means getting people without formal science backgrounds to actively contribute to science and, equally, getting scientists to engage in multi-disciplinary collaborations to produce serendipitous discoveries' ... Her time with NASA inspired Waldman to set up spacehack.org, an online directory of projects where people can contribute online to space exploration, perhaps by sourcing images of Mars for surface features, seeking out new exoplanets or spotting solar explosions ...' Waldman is also global director of Science Hack Day, which started in 2010. 'It's a two-day, all-night event in which scientists, designers, developers and people from all different backgrounds get together in the same physical space to see what they can rapidly prototype in 24 consecutive hours,' she explains. 'The mission is really around getting people excited and making things with science.'  More than 50 Science Hack Days have now taken place around the world, including several in Ireland, where rocket scientist and engineer Dr David McKeown is a driving force of Science Hack Day Dublin ..."

Open Access and Open Data Policies and Statistics for UGC - a Freedom of Information request to University Grants Committee Secretariat - accessinfo.hk

Posted: 27 May 2015 01:06 AM PDT

"With more and more government departments releasing their Public Sector Information outputs in the new Data.Gov.Hk repository, are there any policies or plans for UGC funded research outputs (i.e. publications and data) to be made available in a similar manner? I appreciate your organisation attaches great importance to both the monitoring of on-going projects and the assessment of those that are completed. Can you tell me how much money is spent per year on disseminating your research outputs? Looking at your statistics page, in 2011-2012 your funded institutions published 16,594 papers, so how much did you spend on journal subscriptions and open access charges in the same period? If you do not have specific numbers, what is the most granular level you can give me of the individual library budgets?"
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)