- John Wiley & Sons have no plans to endorse the Research Works Act
- Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century
- Do more tweets mean higher citations? If so, Twitter can lead us to the ‘personalised journal’; pinpointing more research that is relevant to your interests.
- Open Access Digital Repository: Sharing Student Research with the World
- How do we mobilize anthropologists to support open access?
- Call to action: Tell Congress you support the Bipartisan Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)
- FRPAA Introduced in House and Senate: Bipartisan measure supports public access to research
- The Future of Taxpayer-Funded Research: Who Will Control Access to the Results?
- Open Access Advocates Cheer New Bill Seen as Slayer of Research Works Act
- Knowledge Unlatched
- Open access by the numbers
- Social media sites about OA
- Seven Public Health Groups write to oppose the "Research Works Act" | Knowledge Ecology International
- Science of the Invisible: How to fix academic publishing again already
- Bill Would Require Public Access to Taxpayer-Supported Research
- Open Science Revolt Occupies Congress | Wired Science | Wired.com
- New bill in Congress would EXPAND federal public access policies!
- American Anthropological Association Position on Dissemination of Research « American Anthropological Association
- The Other Academic Freedom Movement
- Doyle Introduces Bill to Ensure Public Access to Federally-Funded Research
- The inevitability of free? The inevitability of open access? (Part 2)
- The inevitability of free? The inevitability of open access? (Part 1)
- Die Rückkehr des Kommunitarismus
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 06:50 AM PST
Open and Shut?, (10 Feb 2012)
"As opposition to the Research Works Act (RWA) grows, more and more scholarly publishers are distancing themselves from the proposed new bill. The latest is John Wiley & Sons...."
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 03:22 AM PST
SURFfoundation, (Feb 2012)
From the Executive summary: This report explores the explosion of tracking tools that have accompanied the surge of web based information instruments. The report therefore advises to start a concerted research programme in the dynamics, properties, and potential use of new web based metrics which relates these new measures to the already established indicators of publication impact. Its goal would be to contribute to the development of more useful tools for the scientific and scholarly community. This programme should monitor at least the following tools: F1000, Microsoft Academic Research, Total-Impact, PlosONE altmetrics, and Google Scholar. The programme should moreover develop the following key research themes: concepts of new web metrics and altmetrics; standardisation of tools and data; and the use and normalisation of the new metrics.
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 03:06 AM PST
Impact of Social Sciences, (09 Feb 2012)
"We need more research like the Eysenbach paper about what it means if someone is linking to a scholarly paper via social media."
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 03:03 AM PST
Journal of Public Affairs Education 18 (1), 157-81 (2012)
Note, this link will download the pdf of the full Winter 2012 journal issue - go to page 157. From the Abstract: We study the impact of content factors and search engine optimization factors on download rates of capstone papers. We examined all 290 MPA capstone papers at Texas State University which have been made available through an online digital repository for public consumption. Results show strong support for the impact of search engine factors on download rates. The implications of high download rates of MPA capstone papers on public administration research, practice, and education are discussed in this paper.
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 07:56 PM PST
Savage Minds, (01 Feb 2012)
"We’ve been here before. We’ve tried to explain why it is important. We’ve written a lot about it. But nothing seems to have changed. What can we do to make anthropologists care about open access? To make them care what the AAA says about open access? (This is an open thread for constructive suggestions about how mobilize for open access, not a place to rehash old debates about the merits of open access. Thanks!) ..."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 07:26 PM PST
Alliance for Taxpayer Access - Full Feed, (09 Feb 2012)
"Today (February 9, 2012), Senators Cornyn (R-TX), Wyden (D-OR), and Hutchinson (R-TX) and Representatives Doyle (D-PA), Yoder (R-KS), and Clay (D-MO) introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act, a bill that would ensure free, timely, online access to the published results of research funded by eleven U.S. federal agencies....Act now!....Thank FRPAA's introducing co-sponsors. Even if you're not in their districts, it's important to thank FRPAA's introducing sponsors (Sens. Cornyn, Wyden, Hutchinson; and Reps. Doyle, Yoder, and Clay) to let them know there is a large community of support behind the bill. Write your legislators, via the Alliance for Taxpayer Access Action Center. A letter of support is the best way to influence your legislators if you're contacting them as an individual. Through our action center, you can send letters to your legislators directly using pre-made templates that you can add to and customize....Raise awareness of and build support for FRPAA. Tell your colleagues about FRPAA, encourage them to contact their legislators as well. Sign the ATA Petition in support of FRPAA. Click here to view signatories of the petition. Like SPARC's Facebook Page and follow us on Twitter. Share our call to action and updates on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. Tweet at or post of the Facebook wall of your legislators to ask them to support and co-sponsor FRPAA; or, if they're already a sponsor, thank them for their leadership. Write a letter to the editor or op-ed for your local newspaper. You can write directly to them or by using our legislative action center. ..."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 07:03 PM PST
SPARC - Full Feed, (09 Feb 2012)
"In a move that signals the growing momentum toward openness, transparency, and accessibility to publicly funded information, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2012 (FRPAA) has been introduced today in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Cornyn (R-TX), Wyden (D-OR), and Hutchinson (R-TX) and in the House by Reps. Doyle (D-PA), Yoder (R-KS) and Clay (D-MO). The proposed bill would build on the success of the first U.S. mandate for public access to the published results of publicly funded research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and require federal agencies to provide the public with online access to articles reporting on the results of the United States’ $60 billion in publicly funded research no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 03:16 PM PST
"This report examines the costs and benefits of increased public access, and proposals to either extend or overturn the NIH policy. It looks at increased public access to research results through the lens of “openness,” with a particular interest in how greater openness affects the progress of science, the productivity of the research enterprise, the process of innovation, the commercialization of research, and economic growth....This report finds that: Public-access policies should be judged by their impact on the society and the development and dissemination of high-quality scientific research and not by their impact on proprietary publishers, open-access publishers (publishers that rely on author payments rather than subscriptions) digital repositories or any particular means of disseminating knowledge. The NIH public-access policy has substantially increased public access to research results with benefits as described below that far outweigh the costs. Similar benefits can be expected from extending such a publicaccess policy to other major federal funders....No persuasive evidence exists that greater public access as provided by the NIH policy has substantially harmed subscription-supported STM publishers....The benefits of increased access are so great than any delay in availability of research should be minimized. A maximum six month delay, now employed by other government and private research funders has not been shown to have any negative impact; those who seek delay should bear the burden of proof that the benefits of delay to the development and dissemination of highquality research outweigh the costs....Digital depositories and other mechanisms for dissemination of knowledge provide high returns on investment; a solely private system would be unlikely to realize these returns...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 02:01 PM PST
The Digital Shift, (09 Feb 2012)
"Doyle’s bill would mandate policies similar to the National Institute of Health’s Public Access Policy, but it would reduce the NIH’s maximum embargo from 12 months to six, and the policy would govern all major federal agencies. It also doesn’t specify what repository authors must deposit their manuscripts in, as NIH’s policy does. Peter Suber, a prominent open access advocate, has provided a breakdown of Doyle’s bill for the Harvard Open Access Project. “FRPAA would mandate OA for more research literature than any other policy ever adopted or ever proposed,” Suber wrote...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 01:49 PM PST
"Specialist books in the Humanities and Social Sciences (including but not exclusively monographs) are under threat due to spiralling prices and reduced library funds. Access is restricted. While academics could choose to bypass existing publishers and just post content on the Web, the general consensus within academia is that they would prefer to have their books professionally published. Only a few hundred copies make it into the eight to twelve thousand research universities, and very few teaching universities have access to these materials. For many individuals private purchase is beyond their reach. A Possible Solution Cover the costs of creating the first digital copy through a library consortium and make the titles open access. Publishers would continue to generate additional revenues from the sale of print, ePub and PDFs in bespoke formats...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 01:46 PM PST
"Over the past few months +Emily Kilcer has been expanding and updating OA by the numbers <http://goo.gl/tsjNR>, the catalog of OA-related counts and tallies at the Open Access Directory. (Thanks, Emily!) This list should be everyone's first stop when looking for numerical answers to questions about the growth or current state of open access to research. For example: How many OA journals use CC licenses? How many universities have institutional memberships in BMC? How many OA repositories are there around the world? How many articles are on deposit in arXiv? How many people have signed the "Cost of Knowledge" petition? Every entry includes a link allowing users to verify the update the numbers. We're sure that list is not complete. But OAD is a wiki and encourages users to help keep it current and comprehensive. As you come across useful, relevant numbers in your own research, please lend a hand and post them to this list. If you're too busy, just send them to me and I'll make sure they make it to the wiki...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 01:43 PM PST
"The Open Access Directory just launched a new list of social media sites focused on open access to research. This version of the list covers Facebook, Google+, Linkedin, and Twitter. OAD is a wiki and depends on the OA community to keep it current and comprehensive. We launched this list when we had a critical mass of entries worth distributing, but we're sure there are many more out there. Please help us add the ones we're missing...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 11:57 AM PST
"On February 8, 2012, seven public health organisations submitted a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the other thirty-nine members of this committee opposing H.R. 3699, the "Research Works Act." This bill, originally introduced on December 16, 2011 by Rep. Issa and Rep. Maloney (D-NY) would prohibit federal agencies from conditioning its federal grants on recipients making its published research results available to the public. The bill would prohibit the current NIH policy of requiring open access to the published works supported by research grants from the NIH. Written from the perspective of consumers and providers of health services, the letter says the bill would "significantly inhibit the ability to advance scientific discoveries and stimulate innovation in all scientific disciplines," "prevent public health groups, patients, researchers, and physicians from accessing the results of crucial biomedical research," have an adverse impact on "the creation of knowledge and information," and undermine "the dissemination and sharing of critical advancements in life-saving research and scientific discovery." The seven groups signing the letter included Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), American Medical Student Association (AMSA), Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), Health Action International (HAI), Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Public Citizen (PC), and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 11:46 AM PST
“Last week I was ranting about academic publishing. A paper I submitted to a journal in June was finally reviewed... On 23rd October I was asked to submit a revised manuscript, but because the journal is moving from one publisher to another (you can probably figure out who it is)... The other email was from the manager of our institutional repository, saying: ‘...for the month of October one of your publications archived on the Leicester Research Archive was accessed 373 times. This made it the 2nd most accessed Leicester research publication on the Leicester Research Archive (LRA) last month....’ I really have just about had it with academic publishers... So here's a message to all repository managers: Give me my personal impact data. I need to know how many people are reading what I write and who (i.e. where) they are. That data trumps journal citation factors. Give me that and the repository becomes my first choice publishing destination.”
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 11:18 AM PST
The Ticker, (09 Feb 2012)
Brief coverage of FRPAA, but likely to generate a lengthy comment stream.
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 09:31 AM PST
"The open-science revolt, catalyzed just a few weeks ago as a reaction to publisher Elsevier’s backing of a clumsy bill introduced to the U.S. .Congress, now has a champion in that Congress, Representative Mike Doyle, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, who has introduced legislation to encourage [PS: actually, require] open access to government-sponsored science. It’s notable that this bill, the Federal Research Public Access Act, seems to have bipartisan support in both houses, including from some, such as Texas’s Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who aren’t exactly of the the radical left...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 09:05 AM PST
it is NOT junk, (09 Feb 2012)
"A showdown is looming in Congress as defenders of the public interest have moved to counter the special interest sellout of the pending Research Works Act (RWA), which would end public access to the results of Federally funded research. A bipartisan group of legislators in both houses of Congress just introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) of 2012 which would require Federal agencies that fund significant amounts of extramural research (more than $100 million per year) to implement public access policies similar in aims to that already in place at the NIH. Let’s make sure the good guys win by transforming the public outcry against RWA into support for FRPAA...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 09:02 AM PST
"No one on the SCA [Society for Cultural Anthropology] Executive Committee was aware that, on January 12, AAA Executive Director Bill Davis had already sent his letter to the White House..., which while not mentioning the Research Works Act, was nevertheless unrepentantly defensive of the status quo and unequivocally opposed to open access mandates from the federal government....On February 3, the SCA executive board received an email from AAA President Leith Mullings, which simply directed them to see the [anti-OA] statement posted above. But there is no reference to the Research Works Act (the subject of the [pro-OA] SCA resolution sent to Mullings and Davis); there is no date, or any account of why the executive board made this statement at this time; there is no mention of Davis’s letter; there is no link to this “position” of the AAA on either the “Issues & News” page, or on the “Public Policy/Advocacy” page, or on the “Public Position Statements” page. It just sort of floats out here in cyberspace, unattached to anything, only creating confusion should you happen to find it....As a former editor of Cultural Anthropology, I thought I had become inured to the murk, doublespeak, or outright hostility that any mention of open access elicited from the upper levels of AAA. But apparently not: I find this [AAA] statement, which skillfully avoids stating anything at all of substance, absolutely discouraging. Who could possibly want to join in a “conversation” about the sustainability of AAA publishing, which the AAA claims it wants to have, when Davis’s strongly and clearly worded letter isn’t even posted here as a AAA “position” or “statement,” but instead we get this kind of non-statement from the executive board, completely untethered from real world events and issues? And who could possibly want to join in a “conversation” about the sustainability of AAA publishing, when years of previous “conversation” with numerous dedicated AAA members have only led to Bill Davis informing the White House that “we know of no research that demonstrates a problem with the existing system”?!?! That’s a recipe for frustration, and I have had enough of that…"
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 08:58 AM PST
Slate Articles, (09 Feb 2012)
"In the summer of 1991, Paul Ginsparg, a researcher at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, set up an email system for about 200 string theorists to exchange papers they had written. The World Wide Web was a mere infant—it had been opened to the public on Aug. 6 of that year. The string theorists weren’t particularly interested in making their research widely available (outsiders would have a tough time following the conversation anyhow). Ginsparg’s archive was a way for the theorists to communicate with one another....By 1996, Ginsparg would write: “Many of us have long been aware that certain physics journals currently play NO role whatsoever for physicists. Their primary role seems to be to provide a revenue stream to publishers, a revenue stream invisibly siphoned from overhead on research contracts through library systems.” ...The Federal Research Public Access Act, reintroduced today by a bipartisan assortment of politicians, would broaden the open-access requirement [at the NIH] to nearly all federally funded research. The rationale is that taxpayers, having paid once for the research, shouldn’t have to pay again to read what was done. Today’s bill is a response to the Research Works Act, which was introduced in December. The Research Works Act would roll back NIH’s open-access policy and prohibit the government from imposing any similar policies in the future.... Elsevier [is] a multinational conglomerate that made $1.1 billion last year on $3.2 billion in revenue —a 36 percent profit margin. This is typical of the industry. It helps that the “referees” who peer-review journal articles perform the job for free. (Almost 5,000 scholars are now boycotting Elsevier in protest of price-gouging and other practices, in a movement started by a British mathematician on Jan. 21.) Erik Engstrom, Elsevier’s current CEO, made $3.2 million in 2010; his predecessor Ian Smith got more than $1.7 million as a parting gift when he left after eight months on the job...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 08:43 AM PST
"U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) today introduced bipartisan legislation that directs federal agencies to encourage open public access to federally funded scientific research. “Americans have the right to see the results of research funded with taxpayer dollars,” Congressman Doyle said in introducing the Federal Research Public Access Act. “Yet such research too often gets locked away behind a pay-wall, forcing those who want to learn from it to pay expensive subscription fees for access.” “The Federal Research Public Access Act will encourage broader collaboration among scholars in the scientific community by permitting widespread dissemination of research findings. Promoting greater collaboration will inevitably lead to more innovative research outcomes and more effective solutions in the fields of biomedicine, energy, education, and health care.” The Federal Research Public Access Act would require federal agencies with an extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make federally-funded research available for free online access by the general public, no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal...."
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 08:17 AM PST
Omega Alpha | Open Access, (08 Feb 2012)
In Part 1, I interacted with Caroline Sutton’s recent article in College & Research Libraries News (Vol. 72, No. 11, December 2011, pp. 642-45) where she engages with the thesis of Chris Anderson’s 2009 book Free (Hyperion)...
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 08:15 AM PST
Omega Alpha | Open Access, (31 Jan 2012)
Caroline Sutton writes a provocative article in the December 2011 issue of College & Research Libraries News entitled, “Is free inevitable in scholarly communication? The economics of open access.” Drawing on Chris Anderson’s book Free: The Past and Future of a Radical Price (Hyperion, 2009), Sutton makes a bold assertion regarding the economics of academic journal publishing in the online space...
Posted: 09 Feb 2012 07:47 AM PST
|You are subscribed to email updates from Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag oa.new |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|