Monday, June 1, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Online Portal Expands Global Visibility of Kentucky Research University of Kentucky Libraries

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:48 AM PDT

"The University of Kentucky Libraries has collaborated with several counterparts and Berkeley Electronic Press to create Kentucky Research Commons, an online portal that highlights and provides access to scholarly works produced at different institutions in the Commonwealth.  With a real-time readership map that tracks the downloads of available items, Kentucky Research Commons illustrates that the scholarly endeavors in the Commonwealth hold broad appeal and generate impact around the globe ..."

EPSRC Research Data and Publication Policies

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:44 AM PDT

"EPSRC has recently introduced policies that require work they fund to both publish results in open access journals and make data generated or collected in that research openly available. These policies are likely to be applied across all UK research councils in the near future. EPSRC are going to be auditing funded research to evaluate adherence to these policies and will impose sanctions on those found not to be applying these policies. That means that if you have EPSRC grants you and the University may face fines or other sanctions if you are not making your data or publications publicly available. This seminar will present EPSRC's requirements on data and publications and discuss what impact that has on EPCC's work and what university systems there are to support researchers in adhering to these policies."

Open science resources for the discovery and analysis of Tara Oceans data : Scientific Data

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:41 AM PDT

"The Tara Oceans expedition (2009–2013) sampled contrasting ecosystems of the world oceans, collecting environmental data and plankton, from viruses to metazoans, for later analysis using modern sequencing and state-of-the-art imaging technologies. It surveyed 210 ecosystems in 20 biogeographic provinces, collecting over 35,000 samples of seawater and plankton. The interpretation of such an extensive collection of samples in their ecological context requires means to explore, assess and access raw and validated data sets. To address this challenge, the Tara Oceans Consortium offers open science resources, including the use of open access archives for nucleotides (ENA) and for environmental, biogeochemical, taxonomic and morphological data (PANGAEA), and the development of on line discovery tools and collaborative annotation tools for sequences and images. Here, we present an overview of Tara Oceans Data, and we provide detailed registries (data sets) of all campaigns (from port-to-port), stations and sampling events ..."

Data: Is It Grey, Maligned or Malignant? [eScholarship]

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:38 AM PDT

[Abstract]  Cancers, growths, past events, social issues, conditions, and trends are each proverbially described as on a spectrum from maligned to malignant and scientists, physicians, journalists, commentators, politicians and other specialists offer opinions and commentary on what frames the answer to this question of the title. This paper explores not just the color and tone of data, but attempts to resolve what characterizes whether data is maligned or malignant. Hues of greyness distinguish the perils of failing to share, publish nor make accessible research data and the contemporary consequences to scholarship and open access are critical objectives in today's information arcade. Access to data is determined by those who can afford it, discover and know about it, and can thus manipulate it. Grey literature can take the offensive approach to further the role of data, and promote it to advance the common good, contribute to social responsibility and human actions. Data, while increasingly ubiquitous and abundant is the driver of evidence- based foundations, and the link to academic credibility, communication, discourse, dialogue, and the platform for greater open access. Grey data, possessing some of the attributes of grey literature, difficult to identify, acquire and access, when endangered or threatened, not archived or preserved, requiring methods to organize, sort and stratify, forces nontraditional publishing to pursue data publication to enhance perpetual access and new interpretations fo r its utility in future learning and research applications. We know that there is a somewhat elevated likelihood that open data policies lead to more widespread knowledge and information sharing, greater self- confidence among information providers and scholars alike, but we know less of whether these patterns have any short or long term benefits or disadvantages fo r individuals or society and of the factors that moderate and mediate these effects. In the meantime, the new reality is that data is central to the work of science, social sciences and basic human conditions of health and wellbeing and data policies mostly proceed from a grey containment to this new reality. The argument that as libraries become active publishers by digitizing content, creating new content, supporting researchers by addressing new domains and formats, that other interpretations of grey data and data more generally are increasingly plausible and that further research on the factors moderating and mediating the effects of data management is needed. This paper explores the continuum for data from maligned to malignant and anticipates data approaching the benign stage emphasizing new hues of grey and open access.

Empfehlungen zur Zukunft des wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystems

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:33 AM PDT

Use the link to access the report.

Future of scientific communication system

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:28 AM PDT

[From Google's English] "On 26.05.2015 the BBAW has published recommendations "On the future of scientific publishing system". The full text of recommendation with a detailed analysis can be found here . This blog aims to present the recommendations and discuss. We have a total of 16 recommendations assigned to the following four topics. You are cordially invited to participate in the discussion! ..."

Reviewing and Adapting Open Textbooks – pedagogical and practical considerations | Open Textbook Summit

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:25 AM PDT

"Reviewing a textbook is a common way that faculty can get involved in supporting open textbooks. Dr. Hendricks recounts her role in taking part in the building of a book as an early reviewer, while the book was still being written. Her background as a philosophy professor was welcome in framing the ethics of the subject matter. Being a known (not blind) reviewer was a welcome part of the process, as she was able to get to know the writers, and give valuable feedback that was readily accepted and welcomed. The book continues to grow in a collaborative way. Why would someone do it? There is little to no financial incentive or professional recognition. With a traditional publisher, sales are an indicator of success. With open texts, adoption is harder to measure. BCcampus only hears about adoption if teachers self-report ..."

JMIR ResProtoc-Retrieval of Publications Addressing Shared Decision Making: An Evaluation of Full-Text Searches on Medical Journal Websites | Blanc | JMIR Research Protocols

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:21 AM PDT

Use the link to access the full text article.  "Background: Full-text searches of articles increase the recall, defined by the proportion of relevant publications that are retrieved. However, this method is rarely used in medical research due to resource constraints. For the purpose of a systematic review of publications addressing shared decision making, a full-text search method was required to retrieve publications where shared decision making does not appear in the title or abstract. Objective: The objective of our study was to assess the efficiency and reliability of full-text searches in major medical journals for identifying shared decision making publications. Methods: A full-text search was performed on the websites of 15 high-impact journals in general internal medicine to look up publications of any type from 1996-2011 containing the phrase "shared decision making". The search method was compared with a PubMed search of titles and abstracts only. The full-text search was further validated by requesting all publications from the same time period from the individual journal publishers and searching through the collected dataset. Results: The full-text search for "shared decision making" on journal websites identified 1286 publications in 15 journals compared to 119 through the PubMed search. The search within the publisher-provided publications of 6 journals identified 613 publications compared to 646 with the full-text search on the respective journal websites. The concordance rate was 94.3% between both full-text searches. Conclusions: Full-text searching on medical journal websites is an efficient and reliable way to identify relevant articles in the field of shared decision making for review or other purposes. It may be more widely used in biomedical research in other fields in the future, with the collaboration of publishers and journals toward open-access data."

Altmetrics and analytics for digital special collections and institutional repositories

Posted: 01 Jun 2015 12:17 AM PDT

Konkiel, Stacy; Dalmau, Michelle; Scherer, David (2015): Altmetrics and analytics for digital special collections and institutional repositories. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1392140 Retrieved 11:16, Jun 01, 2015 (GMT)   [Abstract] This white paper describes uses for usage statistics, altmetrics, and other quantitative and qualitative impact metrics in the context of services for digital special collections (DSCs) and institutional repositories (IRs) stewarded by academic libraries. First, we articulate a problem statement, which describes the current state of metrics. We then outline recommendations for how libraries can leverage usage statistics and altmetrics to measure the value of their IR and digital special collections and prove their worth to stakeholders. Finally, we discuss further work related to retroactively implementing metrics into existing digital repositories.

ASCO Commits to Open-Access Publishing | ASCO Annual Meeting

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:58 PM PDT

"ASCO believes in making the cutting-edge scientific studies and research published in its journals as widely available as possible to clinicians, researchers, and the public to help advance the Society's goal of one day curing cancer. As part of this mission, ASCO is committed to increasing access to research published in Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP), and Journal of Global Oncology (JGO). ASCO recently revised its open-access publishing policies to enable authors to comply with their funder's or institution's open-access requirements. ASCO's delayed-access policy has not changed. Unless otherwise stated, original research articles published in JCO and JOP are available to the public 12 months after the online publication date. This practice allows for widespread access to academic research, the best method for accelerating the pace of scientific and scholarly discovery. And to ensure researchers and clinicians in resource-constrained nations have access to JCO and JOP, both journals are accessible to institutions in low-resource countries for free or minimal cost via ASCO's longstanding participation in the World Health Organization's HINARI program. Open access provides delayed or immediate online access to articles. Delayed, or green, open access allows authors to upload their final published manuscript to institutional or funding body repositories 6 months after the article is first published online in an ASCO journal. The final uploaded published manuscript must include a link to the article published online on the journal's site. Authors must declare at the time of submission that the green open-access option is a requirement of their institution or funder, with a link to the relevant open-access policy as well as a link to the repository. Authors deciding to use the green open-access option may only upload their final published manuscript to their institutional or funding body repository. All papers in an ASCO publication that report research supported by the National Institutes of Health will have their final published manuscript deposited by ASCO to PubMed Central a year after the date of online publication. Sometimes, however, a year is simply too long to wait. For these occasions, ASCO offers two immediate, or gold, open access options for JCO, JOP, and JGO that provide differing levels of re-use rights via a Creative Commons license. The two gold options offered through the Creative Commons licenses are CC BY and CC BY-NC-ND. More information about each plan is listed online at the journal's information for contributors page ..."

Journal substitutability, hassle factor, and green open access | Gavia Libraria

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:54 PM PDT

"Elsevier, for those living beneath rocks, has announced its latest set of outrageous restrictions regarding green open access. Same guano, different day, sighed the Loon, dismissing it from her mind; making life as difficult as possible for those seriously desirous of open access has been Elsevier's stock in trade for quite some time. If it works, the big pigs want no part of it. (See also Kevin Smith's commentary with a bit of Loonish gloss.) Otherwise sensible commentators Mike Eisen and Mike Taylor, however, see in this the more-or-less imminent end of green open access as currently constituted. (N.b.: the Loon does not particularly disagree with either Eisen or Taylor's longer-term suggestions.) This rather astounds the Loon. What she cannot fathom is why either of them thinks Elsevier can make this stick. Let us not forget that amidst Elsevier's fanfare, Elsevier quietly gave up on its prior outrageous restriction: those subject to campus or departmental open-access policies no longer labor under a retributive policy from Elsevier. Bluntly, Elsevier couldn't beat campus mandates, so it gave up. Moreover, almost no other toll-access publisher, big or small, joined Elsevier in this particular public folly, something of a departure from its past efforts. (Possibly the history of failure is too much to ignore. PRISM Coalition, the anti-NIH bandwagon, Research Works Act and its various analogues, CHORUS…) Think about that for a moment. Individually, campuses are not particularly powerful opponents stacked against the mighty Elsevier, the biggest of the big pigs. Yet Elsevier couldn't, or at least didn't, squash them like bugs. What would happen should Elsevier meet an opponent something close to its own weight? Hold that thought. The Loon thinks there are two ways to read Elsevier's retreat (aside from the obvious inference that Elsevier's lawyers couldn't find a toehold to oppose the policies from). One is that Elsevier no longer adjudges campus mandates a threat, considering them ineffectual. This may well be so; the Loon hasn't seen any impact assessments yet (aside from Harvard's rather wearisomely constant trumpeting), and her professional cynicism whispers that in the absence of fairly serious staff infrastructure aimed at collecting eligible materials from faculty, which to date very few institutions with campus policies have, such policies indeed won't accomplish much. This reading requires, however, that Elsevier be shortsighted enough not to realize that there has hardly been time to design and build such infrastructure at the lion's share of institutions; that such infrastructure doesn't exist does not necessarily mean it never will. The other way to read it is that the policy's major impact on Elsevier was disaffected authors and fewer submissions, doubtless a small revolt in an absolute sense, but enough that Elsevier smelled trouble. The Loon would very much like this to be true, but again she has no way to assess it. It is a provocative hypothesis regardless of actual truth value, however, because it suggests that a fairly standard economic view of journals is incomplete ..."

The evolution of open access to research and data in Australian higher education

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:49 PM PDT

Use the link to access the full text article from figshare.  "Open access (OA) in the Australian tertiary education sector is evolving rapidly and, in this article, we review developments in two related areas: OA to scholarly research publications and open data. OA can support open educational resource (OER) efforts by providing access to research for learning and teaching, and a range of actors including universities, their peak bodies, public research funding agencies and other organisations and networks that focus explicitly on OA are increasingly active in these areas in diverse ways. OA invites change to the status quo across the higher education sector and current momentum and vibrancy in this area suggests that rapid and significant changes in the OA landscape will continue into the foreseeable future. General practices, policies, infrastructure and cultural changes driven by the evolution of OA in Australian higher education are identified and discussed. The article concludes by raising several key questions for the future of OA research and open data policies and practices in Australia in the context of growing interest in OA internationally."

May 20, 2015 – Minutes | CASRAI

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:46 PM PDT

Use the link to access more information about the recent event.  

A distinction without a difference - Scholarly Communications @ Duke

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:38 PM PDT

"The discussion of the new Elsevier policies about sharing and open access has continued at a brisk pace, as anyone following the lists, blogs and Twitter feeds will know.  On one of the most active lists, Elsevier officials have been regular contributors, trying to calm fears and offering rationales, often specious, for their new policy. If one of the stated reasons for their change was to make the policy simpler, the evidence of all these many 'clarifying' statements indicates that it is already a dismal failure. As I read one of the most recent messages from Dr. Alicia Wise of Elsevier, one key aspect of the new policy documents finally sunk in for me, and when I fully realized what Elsevier was doing, and what they clearly thought would be a welcome concession to the academics who create the content from which they make billions, my jaw dropped in amazement. It appears that Elsevier is making a distinction between an author's personal website or blog and the repository at the institution where that author works. Authors are, I think, able to post final manuscripts to the former for public access, but posting to the latter must be restricted only to internal users for the duration of the newly-imposed embargo periods. In the four column chart that was included in their original announcement, this disparate treatment of repositories and other sites is illustrated in the 'After Acceptance' column, where it says that 'author manuscripts can be shared… [o]n personal websites or blogs,' but that sharing must be done 'privately' on institutional repositories. I think I missed this at first because the chart is so difficult to understand; it must be read from left to right and understood as cumulative, since by themselves the columns are incomplete and confusing.  But, in their publicity campaign around these new rules, Elsevier is placing a lot of weight on this distinction ..."

Research & Innovation - A new start for Europe: opening up to an ERA of Innovation - Home

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:30 PM PDT

"Bringing together key players from the fields of research, business and innovation, the conference will address Open Science, the European Research Area, and Innovation. Scientists, innovators, and policy-makers will make up over 500 participants and discuss how Europe can open up to an ERA of Innovation, where ideas will be forged to bring growth and jobs to Europe. This is an excellent opportunity to share your views on the Innovation Union, to network with key stakeholders and decision makers and shape the future of Europe's research and innovation policy."

Open Science: a simple proposal | Erik Duval's Weblog

Posted: 31 May 2015 11:25 PM PDT

"Last week, I spent two days discussing 'open science' in an EU meeting, as part of what will culminate in a meeting on "opening up to an ERA of Innovation" next month. We were asked to make suggestions for what the European Commission could do to promote the idea of open science. Most suggestions were about 'raising awareness', 'removing barriers', 'creating incentives', and all these other things that are no doubt very useful, but also, at least to me, rather boring… So I tried to come up with a very concrete proposal and suggested the following: I propose that the European Commission takes the bold step to ensure that, before the end of this decade, all metadata about all scientific publications ever published would be put in the public domain.  By all metadata, I mean things like title, authors and affiliations, but also papers cited and papers that cite a paper.  Of course, I don't mind if the EC collaborates with our friends across the world to make this happen, but it should do this on its own if that collaboration leads to long delays.  And I know that this simple proposal doesn't realise the vision of Open Science on its own, but I do think it will make innovation possible where it is currently very difficult to innovate because all the data is locked behind the walls of Web of Science or Google Scholar etc ..."
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)