Saturday, June 27, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Blog UNLP institutional repository - SEDICI

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 02:07 AM PDT

"In May 2004, under the II International Symposium on Digital Libraries, held in Campinas (Brazil), members LibLink Initiative ISTEC signed a joint statement in support of open access policies. The text set out in Blog Peter Suber , counts among its signatories to Marisa De Giusti , representative of the UNLP in SIBD II and director of PrEBi-SEDICI (UNLP), as well as the LibLink Initiative ISTEC. Sometimes it is interesting to stop exercising, look back and see the path, the achievements and the challenges that lie ahead. In this sense, it is also interesting to bring up a great achievement for Open Access as it was and remains the Resolution 78/11 of the UNLP, why all graduate thesis must be compulsory sent to SEDICI, as a effective way to contribute to the socialization of knowledge and reward those who financed the research. Then we leave the full text of this joint statement of 2004: 'We, the members of the Initiative Liaison ISTEC Digital Libraries recognize the power of open access to more affordable research and scientific information, and stimulating innovation, research, and economic development. Therefore, we voted to encourage all agencies Brazilian research funding, the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT) and university administrations to study and implement Open Access policies that promote systems based on the principles Declaration of Open Access Berlin. It is especially important to ensure that government-funded research reaches the public domain within one year after its publication. We also believe that this is an appropriate and symbolic celebration of the 50th anniversary of IBICT. Therefore ...'"

Group calls for more transparency in science research, announces guidelines

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 02:04 AM PDT

"What will these new guidelines mean in practice? We hope to see journals take active steps to increase their commitment to practices such as sharing of data and analysis code, the support of replication studies, and the pre-registration of study protocols (all of which are rare in many sciences). For instance, in 2013 we called for journals in the life sciences to offer a new format of journal article called a Registered Report, which combats research bias by agreeing to publish articles before the results of experiments are known. Registered Reports were originally launched at the journals Cortex and Perspectives on Psychological Science – they have since been adopted by journals across the life, social and physical sciences and feature prominently in the TOP guidelines ..."

OSF | TOPGuidelines.pdf

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 02:00 AM PDT

Use the link to access the guidelines.

The first imperative: Science that isn’t transparent isn’t science | Science | The Guardian

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:57 AM PDT

"In today's issue of Science Magazine we unveil a series of guidelines to promote transparency and reproducibility in research practices - critical aspects of science that are frequently overlooked in the pursuit of novelty and impact. Transparency and reproducibility are the beating heart of the scientific enterprise. Transparency ensures that all aspects of scientific methods and results are available for critique, compliment, or reuse. This not only meets a social imperative, it also allows others to test new questions with existing data, makes it easier to identify and correct errors, and helps unmask academic fraud. Transparent practices such as sharing data and computer code, in turn, safeguard reproducibility: the idea that for a scientific observation to count as a discovery it must reveal something real and repeatable about the natural world ... Today we take what we hope will be an important step in realigning these incentives. Together with 37 colleagues we have published the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, a set of criteria that scientific journals can adopt to enhance the transparency of the research they publish. These guidelines represent a concrete and actionable strategy toward improving research and publishing practices. Already, over 100 journals and 30 organizations have expressed their support for the principles of transparency and reproducibility, and journals have committed to conducting a review within a year of the standards for potential adoption ... What will these new guidelines mean in practice? We hope to see journals take active steps to increase their commitment to practices such as sharing of data and analysis code, the support of replication studies, and the pre-registration of study protocols (all of which are rare in many sciences). For instance, in 2013 we calledfor journals in the life sciences to offer a new format of journal article called aRegistered Report, which combats research bias by agreeing to publish articlesbefore the results of experiments are known. Registered Reports were originally launched at the journals Cortex and Perspectives on Psychological Science – they have since been adopted by journals across the life, social and physical sciences and feature prominently in the TOP guidelines ..."

COS | TOP Guidelines

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:54 AM PDT

"Transparency, open sharing, and reproducibility are core features of science, but not always part of daily practice. Journals can increase transparency and reproducibility of research by adopting the TOP Guidelines. TOP includes eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to adopt for their journal, and select a level of implementation for the selected standards. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards ..."

Metadata Training Resources - OpenAIRE Guidelines: Promoting Repositories Interoperability and Supporting Open Access Funder Mandates

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:52 AM PDT

Abstract: The OpenAIRE Guidelines for Data Source Managers provide recommendations and best practices for encoding of bibliographic information in OAI metadata. They have adopted established standards for different classes of content providers: (1) Dublin Core for textual publications in institutional and thematic repositories; (2) DataCite Metadata Kernel for research data repositories; and (3) CERIF-XML for Current Research Information Systems. The principle of these guidelines is to improve interoperability of bibliographic information exchange between repositories, e-journals, CRIS and research infrastructures. They are a means to help content providers to comply with funders Open Access policies, e.g. the European Commission Open Access mandate in Horizon2020, and to standardize the syntax and semantics of funder/project information, open access status, links between publications and datasets. The presenters will provide an overview of the guidelines, implementation support in major platforms and tools for validation.

YOU MUST COMPLY!!! Funder mandates and OA compliance

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:50 AM PDT

Use the link to access the presentation.

Publish and flourish: PhD students turn journal editors | Times Higher Education

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:47 AM PDT

"Students at a doctoral training centre in England's South West are trying their hands at managing an academic journal to boost the skills they develop over the course of their doctorates. The first issue of TOR: The Open Review for the Social Sciences, whose name is a nod to the rocky peaks of the West Country, was published earlier this month. The open access journal is designed to give students a place to publish their work and to provide them with experience of working on a journal. TOR was the brainchild of Benjamin Bowman, a final-year PhD student in the department of politics, languages and international studies at the University of Bath. Mr Bowman told Times Higher Education that the initiative grew out of his interest in open access and his awareness of the importance of publications to PhD students ..."

Walt at Random » Blog Archive » Not giving up on OA just yet, but…

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:44 AM PDT

"…it's tough sometimes, especially for a library person and one who believes in facts. I was tempted to write a pseudo-apology to one JB, since his slanderous attack on all OA advocates for trying to tear down the current journal system en masse turned out to have one or two actual instances, so he's only 99% (or so) wrong. But, after rereading his article, it's so wrong on so many 'facts' (e.g., the idea that thousands of 'journals' without articles somehow outweigh thousands of legitimate OA journals publishing hundreds of thousands of articles) that I just couldn't. I'm still tempted to write a post on The Trouble with Blacklists, since I truly believe that blacklists are inherently the wrong way to go about things, from the McCarthy era back to Church's Index and forward to Beall's list. A 'better blacklist' just isn't the way to improve the situation. But, well, my time may be better spent on continuing my completist analysis. But then there's that instance, an apparently serious (?) suggestion that All The Academic Libraries just shut down all their subscriptions: THAT'll show the publishers! And a post that the suggestion apparently springs from–which I just reread, including an assertion that the average APC for OA articles is $3,000. That assertion–it references a properly credentialed paper, but…–is so wrong it's almost bizarre. Of the 6,400+ journals in DOAJ I've already looked at, all of 16 (that is, less than 0.25%) charge $3,000 or more, and those 16 published a whopping 2,800 or so of the nearly-400,000 OA articles in 2014 (less than 1%). Even drawing the line at $2,000 or more yields only 241 of 6,400+ journals and about 48,000 articles. The actual average for 2013 was $1,045 per article for articles involving APCs, $630 per article overall–just a trifle less than $3,000. (I'll publish the 2014 overall figures this fall as part of the expanded DOAJ study: they won't be a lot higher.) ..."

Door 'slammed on open access' to academic work | Sci-Tech | Science | M&G

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:41 AM PDT

"South African universities and government agencies have banded together against international academic publisher Elsevier's new hosting and sharing regime, which they argue "curtails scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering the benefits of research back to the public". They join thousands of other institutions around the world – including Oxford and Yale universities – in signing the Confederation of Open Access Repositories' petition against the new regulations that extend republication embargoes for up to three years. It is expensive for South African libraries and nonacademics to get access to knowledge that is generated by South African tax money if they have been published in international journals, with library bills for academic journals often running into millions of rands. It is difficult to quantify how much South Africa's universities and institutions pay to publish research, and to get access to research by local and international colleagues."

Open Textbook Library | Utah OER

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:39 AM PDT

"Open Textbook Library (http://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/) ... As an instructor, you want your students to have the best textbooks possible. Unfortunately, not all students can afford the high cost of traditional textbooks. You can change that! You can ensure that ALL of your students will have access to your course textbook content. In addition, you can edit the textbooks to fit your courses and best meet the needs of your students. Open textbooks are real, complete textbooks licensed so teachers and students can freely use, adapt, and distribute the material. Open textbooks can be downloaded for no cost, or printed inexpensively. This library is a tool to help instructors find affordable, quality textbook solutions. All textbooks in this library are complete and openly licensed."

A giant leap for science « The Berkeley Blog

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:36 AM PDT

"This week the scientific community takes a major step forward, with the publication of a set of flexible but ambitious guidelines for the open reporting of research findings. The guidelines, intended for adoption by academic journals in all disciplines, were developed by the Transparency and Openness Committee (TOP) and published in Science this week: TOP is a group of research leaders (including several at Berkeley) that seeks to improve integrity and reliability across the sciences. It represents a bottom-up effort by the scientific community to return to our core values of openness, peer review, and the pursuit of truth. The guidelines already have been endorsed by 111 journals and 34 organizations — ranging from psychology and political science to cell biology and geophysics. They also have captured significant media attention, perhaps because of the recent retraction of a highly publicized study by political scientists Don Green and Michael Lacour. The retraction followed an effort by two Berkeley graduate students to replicate and extend the original study's findings ..."

Digital Public Library makes push for national coverage by 2017 | KnightBlog

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:34 AM PDT

"Today, Knight Foundation announced a $1.5 million investment in the Digital Public Library, which will help the national online collection of American history provide national coverage by 2017. Here, Executive Director Dan Cohen shares the library's progress. A little over two years ago, the Digital Public Library of America launched with the ambitious goal of maximizing access to our shared cultural heritage. At the center of this effort were state- and regional-based 'Service Hubs,' or organizations that could do the hard, but important work of ensuring that every collection in the United States had a way to bring their materials online, and to make them part of a unified national digital collection. Just like the U.S., then, we would work to create a larger whole out of many parts ..."

Business process costs of implementing “gold” and “green” open access in institutional and national contexts - Johnson - 2015 - Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology - Wiley Online Library

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:29 AM PDT

[Abstract] As open access (OA) publication of research outputs becomes increasingly common and is mandated by institutions and research funders, it is important to understand different aspects of the costs involved. This paper provides an early review of administrative costs incurred by universities in making research outputs OA, either via publication in journals ("Gold" OA), involving payment of article-processing charges (APCs), or via deposit in repositories ("Green" OA). Using data from 29 UK institutions, it finds that the administrative time, as well as the cost incurred by universities, to make an article OA using the Gold route is over 2.5 times higher than Green. Costs are then modeled at a national level using recent UK policy initiatives from Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Councils' Research Excellence Framework as case studies. The study also demonstrates that the costs of complying with research funders' OA policies are considerably higher than where an OA publication is left entirely to authors' discretion. Key target areas for future efficiencies in the business processes are identified and potential cost savings calculated. The analysis is designed to inform ongoing policy development at the institutional and national levels.

Open Content Licensing: A Three-Step Guide for Academics

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:27 AM PDT

"Aimed at the individual academic, this guide will enable you to make informed and purposeful decisions around licensing your work in line with international open access principles. Based on the framework of open content licensing – a legitimate, internationally-recognised legal practice located within the boundaries of copyright law – it has been designed to protect the author against unauthorized forms of content exploitation in the digital realm, and is beneficial to the global user community in that it limits bureaucracy associated with obtaining permissions for re-use ..."

Genome Biology | Full text | When will ‘open science’ become simply ‘science’?

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:22 AM PDT

"Open science is the practice of making everything in the discovery process fully and openly available, creating transparency and driving further discovery by allowing others to build on existing work. When I read such definitions, I think 'but isn't that just science?' Sadly not. In his review of Michael Neilsen's book Reinventing Discovery[1], Timo Hannay describes academic science as 'self-serving' and 'uncooperative', 'replete with examples of secrecy and resistance to change' and describes the natural state of researchers as 'one of extreme possessiveness' [2]. And who can argue? The majority of publications are behind a paywall, raw data are hidden, methods ill-described, software unreleased and reviews anonymous. Open science is often described as a 'movement', bringing to mind images of revolution, a few plucky visionaries fighting against an unfair ruler; but revolution against what? Who is the unfair ruler? At what point did we allow science to become closed? How did we allow this to happen? At present, open science is seen as an optional extra, on the fringes of everyday research: open access to articles is offered at additional cost; including raw data in publications isn't mandatory; anonymous peer review is the default. Imagine the opposite. Imagine having to pay to make your work closed; imagine having to state and then justify why your raw data should remain secret. In other words, imagine if open science was considered normal, and closed science considered weird. Wouldn't the world be a better place? Of course, in some cases, privacy and anonymity are justified ..."

So you want to publish open access? — Medium

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:20 AM PDT

"Yes, but I don't have money. I know. Either legacy publishers are charging prohibitive Article Processing Charges (APC; and it's unlikely they give your university a discount), or pure open access publishers are… well, they do the same thing. Publishing open access costs money; up to $6000 per paper, according to Ross Mounce's survey. So, unless I have money, I can't make my papers open access? Not quite. There are a list of ways to make your papers open at low cost. Let me walk you through them ..."

Science | From AAAS -- Promoting an open research culture

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:06 AM PDT

"Promoting an open research culture Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6). A likely culprit for this disconnect is an academic reward system that does not sufficiently incentivize open practices (7). In the present reward system, emphasis on innovation may undermine practices that support verification. Too often, publication requirements (whether actual or perceived) fail to encourage transparent, open, and reproducible science (2, 4, 8, 9). For example, in a transparent science, both null results and statistically significant results are made available and help others more accurately assess the evidence base for a phenomenon. In the present culture, however, null results are published less frequently than statistically significant results (10) and are, therefore, more likely inaccessible and lost in the "file drawer" (11). The situation is a classic collective action problem. Many individual researchers lack strong incentives to be more transparent, even though the credibility of science would benefit if everyone were more transparent. Unfortunately, there is no centralized means of aligning individual and communal incentives via universal scientific policies and procedures. Universities, granting agencies, and publishers each create different incentives for researchers. With all of this complexity, nudging scientific practices toward greater openness requires complementary and coordinated efforts from all stakeholders. THE TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS PROMOTION GUIDELINES. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Committee met at the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia, in November 2014 to address one important element of the incentive systems: journals' procedures and policies for publication. The committee consisted of disciplinary leaders, journal editors, funding agency representatives, and disciplinary experts largely from the social and behavioral sciences. By developing shared standards for open practices across journals, we hope to translate scientific norms and values into concrete actions and change the current incentive structures to drive researchers' behavior toward more openness. Although there are some idiosyncratic issues by discipline, we sought to produce guidelines that focus on the commonalities across disciplines.  Standards. There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each moves scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources. The complete guidelines are available in the TOP information commons athttp://cos.io/top, along with a list of signatories that numbered 86 journals and 26 organizations as of 15 June 2015. The table provides a summary of the guidelines ..."

2015 Scholar Metrics released - Google Scholar Blog

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 01:02 AM PDT

"Scholar Metrics provide an easy way for authors to quickly gauge the visibility and influence of recent articles in scholarly publications. Today, we are releasing the 2015 version of Scholar Metrics. This release is based on citations from all articles that were indexed in Google Scholar as of mid-June 2015 and covers articles published in 2010–2014. Scholar Metrics include journal articles from websites that follow our inclusion guidelines, selected conference articles in Computer Science & Electrical Engineering and preprints from arXiv, SSRN, NBER, and RePEc. As in previous releases, publications with fewer than 100 articles in the covered period, or publications that received no citations are not included. You can browse publications in specific categories such as African Studies & History, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition or Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery as well as broad areas like Business, Economics & Management or Chemical & Material Sciences. You will see the top 20 publications ordered by their five-year h-index and h-median metrics. Since articles published in 2009 are not included anymore, most publications have a renewed h-core (the top h most cited articles) that you can see by clicking on the h-index number. Scholar Metrics also includes a large number of publications beyond those listed on the per-category pages. You can find these by typing words from the title in the search box, e.g., [stem cells], [enfermagem], or [conservation]. Fun fact: while computing the 2015 metrics, we saw over 9,000 different ways to refer to the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition and over 4,000 ways to refer to the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. For more details, see the Scholar Metrics help page ..."

Digital Public Library of America » Blog Archive » Digital Public Library of America makes push to serve all 50 states by 2017 with $3.4 million from the Sloan and Knight foundations

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 12:59 AM PDT

"The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is on the way to connecting online collections from coast to coast by 2017 – an effort boosted by a new $3.4 million investment, comprising $1.9 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and $1.5 million from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. These two new awards, coupled with significant earlier support from the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment for the Humanities, will allow DPLA to open new Service Hubs that provide a way for all cultural heritage organizations across the country to connect through one national collection. The Digital Public Library of America brings together the riches of America's libraries, archives and museums, and makes them freely available to the world. DPLA provides public access to more than 10 million items – including the written word plus works of art and culture – from 1,600 institutions.  This series of investments represents a significant milestone in the development and growth of DPLA's Service Hubs. These Services Hubs are state or regional digital collaboratives that host, aggregate or otherwise bring together digital objects from libraries, archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions in their state or region. At the library's launch in 2013, DPLA represented a collaborative of 16 major partners, covering nine states. The number has since doubled to more than 20 states, and is on the way to 50 in the next two years. As thousands of digital collections have been brought together through DPLA's platform, fascinating new projects and tools using America's cultural heritage have emerged, including curated exhibitions on historical topics and eras,dynamic visualizations and other cutting-edge apps, community engagement opportunities at an international scale, and much more.  These new grants will accelerate the growth of the Hubs program so that all collections and item types in America can easily be a part of DPLA ..."

Top scientists call for improved incentives to ensure research integrity | EurekAlert! Science News

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 12:54 AM PDT

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands recently convened top scientists from Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology and other leading institutions to examine ways to return to high scientific standards. In an opinion piece published in Science, the group outlines what can be done to better ensure research integrity. Attempting to do so begins with acknowledging and addressing the problems that exist at every level, from the notion that science is self-correcting to academia's incentive structures that encourage researchers to publish novel, positive results, to the greater opportunities open-access and other platforms provide to publish less-scrutinized studies. In addition, a lack of data sharing leads to the inability to replicate results, universities that want to make headlines exaggerate findings, and the media's quest for ratings and readership often trumps quality reporting ... The NAS and Annenberg group identified several ways to change incentives for quality and correction, including rewarding researchers for publishing high-quality work rather than publishing work more often; mentoring young peer-reviewers to increase clarity and quality of editorial responses during the journal publishing process; and using 'voluntary withdrawal' and 'withdrawal for cause' instead of the blanket 'retraction' term, which has negative connotations that can prevent some researchers from taking action when a paper is wrong, but not as a result of fraud or misconduct ..."

Your work on the OSF: Persistent. Citable. Discoverable.

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 12:51 AM PDT

"Persistent identifiers allow for long-term reference to digital resources. The Open Science Framework (OSF) provides persistent identifiers in the URL for projects, files, registrations, and user profiles. These unique identifiers make it easier to cite, discover, and access your research. Also, when you publicly register your project on OSF, you can create a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and Archival Resource Key (ARK). The OSF makes it easy for you to get credit for all your research. Watch the video to get started ..."

Scientific Utopia: Improving the Openness and Reproducibility of Research - The Ubiquitous Librarian - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Posted: 27 Jun 2015 12:43 AM PDT

"I had hoped to do a full interview on this but that's not going to happen: running out of time. Short version, Brian Nosek (Center for Open Science & UVA) spoke at our Open Access Week event last year. He outlined the Open Science Framework (OSF)—it aims to help the way research is conducted. Main theme: there are many different tools and services that address certain niches of the workflow, but OSF tackles the entire lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery. Here is the talk ... Lots of great content, but check out: 27 minutes in… talks about incentives for openness and how researchers can be cited for particular elements, such as tools or code they develop. This serves as a functional citation. 30 minutes in… new contributor models. Right now everything is vertical integration—you do everything: idea, design, collect data, analysis, and generate the final report ..."
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)