Friday, September 25, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Scholarly Communication Librarian at Texas Woman's University Libraries | ALA JobLIST - Jobs in Library & Information Science & Technology

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 07:29 AM PDT

"This position reports to the Assistant Dean of Libraries and is responsible for developing a broad range of services in support of evolving models of scholarly communication, open access initiatives, and intellectual property rights. The Librarian in this position supports university scholars such as faculty, graduate students, researchers, librarians, and administrators by establishing mechanisms to support the research, writing, and publishing process. The candidate must be able to assess and understand national and international issues, trends, policies, legislation, evolutionary changes in academic and commercial publishing, intellectual property rights, and information technologies impacting research and scholarly communication...."

Open Access Manager | Laxenburg, Wien, Austria | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) | All-Acad.com

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 03:43 AM PDT

"The open access manager manages both the "human" and technical side of the repository, ranging from developing and updating content policies to maximizing the amount of material deposited and the use of the repository. In addition, the open access manager assists scientific staff with general requests on open access and interacts with the national and international open access community to further strengthen collaboration...."

Open Access Support Assistant | Admin/Secretarial/PA Jobs in Glasgow | s1jobs

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 03:40 AM PDT

"The successful candidate will be based in the University Library and will first work on research materials deposited in the Institutional Repository. This will involve the delivery of effective administrative and organisational support within the Library for the processing of Gold OA article processing charges arising from research outputs which are the outcome of RCUK, COAF and the European Research Council funding.  The role will also involve validating metadata, including correcting, generating and approving metadata, describing a wide variety of digital research assets, using both PURE (the University's research information system) and Strathprints (the Library's Open Access Institutional Repository)...."

Briefing paper: Open Access, from PASTEUR4OA

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 03:37 AM PDT

An introduction to OA from PASTEUR4OA.

The Global Gold Open Access “Flip”: A Realistic Plan or Magical Thinking? | The Scholarly Kitchen

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 03:18 AM PDT

"As long as there has been open access (OA), there has been talk of a global 'flip' of research journals away from the subscription business model. The difficulties in coordinating an enormous number of stakeholders with different interests have continued to make this unlikely. However, a recent paper from the Max Planck Digital Library claiming that, 'An internationally concerted shifting of subscription budgets is possible at no financial risk, maybe even at lower overall costs,' has once again fueled talk of a flip. Has this paper discovered a golden ticket to global OA sustainability, or is it based on flawed assumptions? Long-time green OA advocate Stevan Harnad has written at length about the improbable nature of a global overnight flip to Gold OA via an organized system of membership deals, and about the adverse selection such a system would create ... Much of the drive toward a flip is based in the EU and the UK, where public higher education is highly centralized at the national level. This creates the notion that there exists a global pool of funds that could be diverted away from subscriptions and toward OA fees. But the difficulties in coordinating action between self-interested parties becomes even more evident when one thinks about how libraries are funded and subscriptions are paid for in the US, still the major producer of scholarly articles worldwide.  I frequently ask US librarians where their subscription budget comes from and the responses vary widely, but the most common answers are tuition, student fees and some portion of grant overheads. Because tuition and student fees are collected by individual institutions, there's no big pool of funds that can be diverted centrally from one purpose to another. Such a flip would massively increase the financial burden on productive institutions, while freeing non-productive institution from any responsibility in funding research access.  If I'm running a small teaching school and can save money by cancelling subscriptions, my Dean is going to be much more interested in spending our students' tuition fees on our students, rather than sending that money off to Harvard to help their poor professors publish papers.  US universities are increasingly cash-strapped, which makes any coordinated give-aways like this unlikely. And having major contributors to the literature like the US, Japan and Australia choose the Green route puts a damper on any global move to Gold OA  But a recent paper from three members of the Max Planck Digital Library suggests the whole thing could be done immediately and at a cost-savings. Their thesis is that each individual library could stop paying subscription fees and instead divert those same funds toward article processing charges (APCs) for their campus authors, and that doing this could happen within current library budgets, requiring no additional funds from outside, and no pooling of funds between institutions.  As Rick Anderson recently pointed out, there's a difference between advocacy and analysis. Reading this paper, it's clear which this is. The authors clearly state that they are trying to advocate for a cause ..."

Space Is Big: How To Explore All Of NASA's Open Data - ARC - ARC

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 02:10 AM PDT

" ... Back in April, the federal agency announced that it would be giving developers and space enthusiasts the opportunity to explore the vastness of the data that it had gathered over the years through its NASA Data Portal. As part of its ongoing mission to 'reveal the unknown' and improve life on Earth, the portal would be a one-stop shop for thousands of data sets, code and application program interfaces that could be used to stimulate creative thought (and build really cool apps) ... Early this month, NASA revealed a bunch of shiny, new features on its Open NASA website, many of which give a mouthwatering glimpse into what could be possible for apps developers among others. The site has been designed, according to a blog post, to make it easy for a variety of stakeholders—Citizen Scientist, Developer, Citizen Activist, Govvie and the Curious are its official categorizations—to find what they need when they want it.  There are currently 31,382 Data Sets, 194 Code Repositories and 36 APIs in the Open NASA portal. It is a treasure trove of information and an open invitation for people to get involved in finding solutions to problems that are not limited to the conquest of space.  The key to the NASA Data Portal is engagement with the agency's open source software. Developers can dive into the resources made available and integrate the data into their apps as they wish by accessing tools that have been designed to be useful and—potentially—inspire innovation ..."

Rep. Darrell Issa on the public's role in open data laws

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 02:06 AM PDT

"If members of the public want to track how the government is spending taxpayer money as easily as they check the weather on their smartphones, they must press those in power to make it possible. That was the call from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at a conference Wednesday held by open data advocacy group Data Transparency Coalition. Issa, who has helped shape recent open data legislation, implored people to embrace what is possible ..."

Elsevier embargo periods, 2013-2015

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 02:03 AM PDT

"This dataset contains all journal embargo periods published by Elsevier in 2013, 2014, and 2015, for both UK and non-UK authors. It also contains a set of notes on the overall statistics and annual changes between lists.  In summary, around 87% of Elsevier journals (in 2015) offer a twelve-month or less embargo period for UK authors, and 59% for non-UK authors; this proportion has increased since 2013, as has the number of journals covered. The majority of journals have a stated embargo period, though around 200 titles do not as yet have one.  A number of substantial anomalies developed between the lists in 2013 and 2014, with journals being removed or having their embargo periods extended. However, as of 2015, these have almost all been corrected."

Open Access: posting and reuse. [what is predatory?] — Publication and Data Services at MSU

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 02:01 AM PDT

"There has been some recent discussion about what it means to be a predatory journal, and who suffers as a result of these unscrupulous behaviors. And, while publishers bask under the safety of the illusion of a free market, Institutional Repositories are criticized for posting the manuscript version of articles with proper citation but without the specific publisher's unique requirements, even after a 12 month embargo. While trying to further the positive impact of spreading knowledge created at our higher education institutions, repository managers spend a great deal of time checking copyright, applying metadata and adding publisher's approved statements to articles so readers are fully aware of the original place of publication. We do this because it makes articles more useful, but also because publishers demand it on their often lengthy, shifting, and unique set of requirements for publishing in repositories ..."

Wikipeevedia

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 01:32 AM PDT

"A couple of weeks ago I unintentionally set off a bit of a firestorm regarding Wikipedia, Elsevier and open access. I was scanning my Twitter feed, as one does, and came upon a link to an Elsevier press release: 'Elsevier access donations help Wikipedia editors improve science articles: With free access to ScienceDirect, top editors can ensure that science read by the public is accurate' I read the rest of it, and found that Elsevier and Wikipedia (through the Wikipedia Library Access Program) had struck a deal whereby 45 top (i.e. highly active) Wikipedia editors would get free access to Elsevier's database of science papers – Science Direct – for a year, thereby 'improving the encyclopedia and bringing the best quality information to the public.' I have some substantive issues with this arrangement, as I will detail below. But what really stuck in my craw was the way that several members of the Wikipedia Library were used not just to highlight the benefits of the deal to Wikipedia and its users, but to serve as mouthpieces for misleading Elsevier PR, such as this: 'Elsevier publishes some of the best science scholarship in the world, and our globally located volunteers often seek out that access but don't have access to research libraries. Elsevier is helping us bridge that gap!' It was painful to hear people from Wikipedia suggesting that Elsevier is coming to the rescue of people who don't have access to the scientific literature! In reality, Elsevier is one of the primary reasons they don't have access, having fought open access tooth and nail for two decades and spent millions of dollars to lobby against almost any act anywhere that would improve public access to science. And yet here was Wikipedia – a group that IS one of the great heroes of the access revolution – publicly praising Elsevier for providing access to 0.0000006% of the world's population. Furthermore, I found the whole idea that this is a "donation" is ridiculous. Elsevier is giving away something that costs them nothing to provide – they just have to create 45 accounts. It's extremely unlikely that the Wikipedia editors in question were potential subscribers to Elsevier journals or that they would pay to access individual articles. So no revenue was lost. And in exchange for giving away nothing, Elsevier almost certainly increases the number of links from Wikipedia to their papers – something of significant value to them ... So I want to reiterate something I said over and over as these tweets turned into a kind of mini-controversy. In saying I thought that making this deal with Elsevier was a bad idea, I was not in any way trying to criticize Wikipedia or the people who make it work ... In no way do I question the commitment of Wikipedia to open access. I just think they made a mistake here, and I worry about a bit about the impact this kind of deal will have on Wikipedia. But it is a concern born of true love for the institution ... So the question to me isn't whether Wikipedia should make any deals with publishers. The question is should they have made this deal with this publisher. And just like I have strongly disagreed with deals universities (including my own) routinely make to provide campus access to Elsevier journals, I do not think this deal is good for Wikipedia or the public.  Here are my concerns ..."

Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 01:14 AM PDT

"The REDIB uses a single portal to give users direct access to scientific and academic documents of confirmed quality, put out by publishers and other producers of scientific and academic content in Ibero-American countries or relating to Ibero-American issues, either geographically or culturally.  As managers, first evaluators and disseminators of scientific work, scientific publishers represent the key element of and participant in the platform. As a consequence of playing this leading role, the REDIB provides users with direct and transparent access to the content put out by the publisher on its original site, respecting and highlighting its identity. At the same time, the REDIB aims to promote modernisation and the implementation of new publishing technologies, providing information, support and a meeting place for publishers to exchange experiences and knowledge directly.  The REDIB wants to stand out for a philosophy of cooperative work: access to content in the place it was originally produced, publishers working together voluntarily, and transparency in the process of communication between information users and producers. It also aims to foster technological innovation to manage and locate scientific information, and to generate ties between publishers and other producers of academic content, authors and users ..."

Gold statistics

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 01:06 AM PDT

"UCL paid just over 2000 APCs in the academic year 2014-15. The average APC paid, across all publishers, was £1,466. Of the articles for which APCs were paid: [1] 33% were RCUK-funded [2] 18% were COAF-funded [3] 9% were joint RCUK/COAF-funded [4] 40% were neither RCUK nor COAF-funded, and were paid for from UCL's central open access fund The graph below shows the average APC paid to UCL's 20 highest-paid publishers. Those in red are above UCL's average APC. Those in blue are below. The average figures for each publisher take into account offsetting benefits (eg. with Wiley, IOP and Taylor & Francis) ..."

Who’s Benefiting from MOOCs, and Why

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 01:03 AM PDT

"In the last three years, over 25 million people from around the world have enrolled in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) offered by Coursera, EdX, and other platforms. Initially heralded as a revolution in higher education access, expectations have been tempered as research revealed that only a small percentage of these millions were completing the courses, approximately 80% already had at least a bachelor's degree, nearly 60% were employed full-time, and 60% came from developed countries (defined as members of the OECD). MOOCs seemed to be serving the most advantaged, the headlines blared, and most people weren't even completing them. Are MOOCs merely an intellectual diversion for the well educated and well-off? Do they provide any tangible benefits? We are not neutral parties. Three of us work at Coursera, and the rest of us are from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Washington, institutions that have offered MOOCs on the Coursera platform. Two of us have taught Coursera courses, and we have analyzed Coursera's data for our research. Nonetheless, we believe we have some evidence that the MOOC skeptics are overly pessimistic. Our latest research demonstrates that among learners who complete courses, MOOCs do have a real impact: 72% of survey respondents reported career benefits and 61% reported educational benefits ..."

Princeton Joins edX as a Charter Member | edX Blog

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 12:58 AM PDT

"Today, we are proud to welcome Princeton University to edX. Recently ranked the #1 National University by U.S. News and World Report, Princeton is joining edX as a charter member. Princeton will launch their edX course offerings with MOOCs in social sciences and engineering. As Princeton continues to broaden its online teaching and learning efforts, they join edX looking forward to connecting with our millions of global learners and providing them an opportunity to take high-quality courses offered by their distinguished faculty. Princeton's first edX MOOCs are now open for enrollment: Making Government Work in Hard Places will be taught by Professor Jennifer Widner, and The Art of Structural Engineering: Bridges will be taught by Professor Maria Garlock ..."

Wrong Number: A closer look at Impact Factors | quantixed

Posted: 25 Sep 2015 12:57 AM PDT

"This is a long post about Journal Impact Factors. Thanks to Stephen Curry for encouraging me to post this ... I can actually remember the first time I realised that the JIF was a spurious metric. This was in 2003, after reading a letter to Nature from David Colquhoun who plotted out the distribution of citations to a sample of papers in Nature. Up until that point, I hadn't appreciated how skewed these data are. We put it up on the lab wall ... Now, the JIF for a given year is calculated as follows:  A JIF for 2013 is worked out by counting the total number of 2013 cites to articles in that journal that were published in 2011 and 2012. This number is divided by the number of "citable items" in that journal in 2011 and 2012.  There are numerous problems with this calculation that I don't have time to go into here. If we just set these aside for the moment, the JIF is still used widely today and not for the purpose it was originally intended. Eugene Garfield, created the metric to provide librarians with a simple way to prioritise subscriptions to Journals that carried the most-cited scientific papers. The JIF is used (wrongly) in some institutions in the criteria for hiring, promotion and firing. This is because of the common misconception that the JIF is a proxy for the quality of a paper in that journal. Use of metrics in this manner is opposed by the SF-DORA and I would encourage anyone that hasn't already done so, to pledge their support for this excellent initiative ... With the citation distribution in mind, why do Thomson-Reuters calculate the mean rather than the median for the JIF? It makes no sense at all. If you didn't quite understand why from the @statfact tweet above, then look at this ..."
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)