Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag oa.new (50 items) |
- OPEN ACCESS POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
- How Apple is sabotaging an open standard for digital books | ZDNet
- Locked in the Ivory Tower: Why JSTOR Imprisons Academic Research - Laura McKenna - Business - The Atlantic
- Rootstrikers » Help us fight SOPA v2!
- Cracking Open the Scientific Process
- Five Things to Do Instead of Protesting the Research Works Act (HR 3699)
- Push has come to shove on the "work for hire" front
- The Open Science Paradox | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
- The OA interviews: Francis Jayakanth of India’s National Centre for Science Information
- Access all areas
- Information Research - ideas and debate: The word is "corruption" I think
- Collaborative yet independent: Information practices in the physical sciences
- Ein Bärendienst an der Forschung (Hintergrund, Wissenschaft, NZZ Online)
- The OA interviews: Francis Jayakanth of India’s National Centre for Science Information
- Dissemination of public health information: key tools utilised by the NECOBELAC network in Europe and Latin America
- Accessibility and decay of web citations in five open access ISI journals
- Survey on open access in FP7
- Survey Results Highlights: Trends in Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Dissemination in the Age of Online Social Media
| OPEN ACCESS POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Posted: 25 Jan 2012 07:43 PM PST roarmap.eprints.org "All personnel employed after 1 January 2012 shall deposit a post print 9 version of scientific articles created in the course of their duties in the electronic, institutional repository 10 of the University of Oslo. Personnel employed before this date are encouraged to follow the same regime. If the employee has published in a journal that does not allow the deposit in an institutional repository, the employee is exempted from this duty...." |
| How Apple is sabotaging an open standard for digital books | ZDNet Posted: 25 Jan 2012 07:35 PM PST www.zdnet.com "Summary: For nearly two years, Apple has wooed digital book publishers and authors with its unconditional support of the open EPUB standard. With last week’s introduction of iBooks 2.0, Apple has deliberately locked out that standard. Here’s why you should care...." |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2012 02:50 PM PST |
| Rootstrikers » Help us fight SOPA v2! Posted: 25 Jan 2012 01:14 PM PST rootstrikers.org "I’m sure you’ve seen the continued battle about the 'PROTECT IP Act' and the 'Stop Online Piracy Act'—aka, PIPA and SOPA, aka Hollywood’s latest misguided efforts to fight 'piracy.' Now come the publishers: Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Darrell E. Issa (R-CA) have introduced ... The Research Works Act [which] targets a policy of the NIH to require free downloading of NIH funded work within 12 months of publication. The Maloney/Issa bill would forbid that policy, or any other policy that would encourage open-access distribution for government funded work... Our friend Michael Eisen at the Public Library of Science...calculated using MAPLight data, almost 40% of the contributions from the Dutch publisher Elsevier and its senior executives have gone to Maloney...That’s the same story that the SOPA opponents are telling us again and again: but for the endless cash coming from Hollywood interests, many who support SOPA wouldn’t have given it a second thought. |
| Cracking Open the Scientific Process Posted: 25 Jan 2012 01:13 PM PST www.nytimes.com "For centuries... research [was] done in private, then submitted to science and medical journals to be reviewed by peers and published for the benefit of other researchers and the public at large. But to many scientists... The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist... advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet... Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and thePublic Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years... And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity. Editors of traditional journals say open science sounds good, in theory... Maxine Clarke, executive editor of the commercial journal Nature...added that the traditional published paper is still viewed as 'a unit to award grants or assess jobs and tenure ...' ResearchGate, the social networking site for scientists ... has mushroomed to more than 1.3 million [members]...The Web site is a sort of mash-up of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn... [offering] a simple yet effective end run around restrictive journal access with its 'self-archiving repository...' Changing the status quo — opening data, papers, research ideas and partial solutions to anyone and everyone — is still far more idea than reality. As the established journals argue, they provide a critical service that does not come cheap...the journal Science... 'costs hover around $40 million a year to produce...' Peer-reviewed open-access journals, like Nature Communications and PLoS One, charge their authors publication fees — $5,000 and $1,350, respectively — to defray their more modest expenses...The largest journal publisher, Elsevier ...has drawn considerable criticism from open-access advocates and librarians, who are especially incensed by its support for the Research Works Act, introduced in Congress last month, which seeks to protect publishers’ rights by effectively restricting access to research papers and data... Dr. Madisch, of ResearchGate, acknowledged that he might never reach many of the established scientists for whom social networking can seem like a foreign language or a waste of time. But wait, he said, until younger scientists weaned on social media and open-source collaboration start running their own labs. 'We’re just at the beginning. The change is coming.'” |
| Five Things to Do Instead of Protesting the Research Works Act (HR 3699) Posted: 25 Jan 2012 01:10 PM PST Depth-First "As a scientist who has participated in the authoring and review of a few scientific papers in closed, for-profit journals, I believe the Research Works Act should be allowed to pass, and that opposition to it focusses on the wrong problem, despite good intentions...." |
| Push has come to shove on the "work for hire" front Posted: 25 Jan 2012 01:08 PM PST New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science, (23 Jan 2012) "We previously discussed Steven Shaviro's Jan 11 post in which he expressed his dismay at discovering that OUP had inserted "work for hire" language in his author's contract. Gordon Hull's comments here and at Shaviro's blog were particularly acute, explaining how "work for hire" differs from standard contracts: usually, an author retains various rights of ownership, re-use (e.g., in a later single-authored work), and distribution (e.g. private web archive), and allocates a limited set of rights pertaining to copyright to the press. However, with "work for hire" the author has no rights, as the press claims copyright from the start. Here Shaviro reports on the developments. More below the fold, but in brief, he will not sign the contract, will not submit his work, will not write for OUP in the future, and will not buy OUP books until the "work for hire" language is dropped from OUP contracts, on the grounds that such contracts spell the end of our status as scholars freely contributing to ongoing discussion in the public interest and its replacement with the status of "knowledge worker" producing privately owned "content." ..." |
| The Open Science Paradox | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network Posted: 25 Jan 2012 12:59 PM PST blogs.scientificamerican.com "I just read and enjoyed Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science, a new book by Michael Nielsen, recently reviewed by Bora Zivkovic... It urges scientists to fight for open access and open science—a call to action made more poignant by recent events. For example, this December, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Congressman Darrell Issa introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that would effectively revert the NIH’s Public Access Policy that allows taxpayer-funded research to be freely accessible online... Reinventing Discovery left me pondering a puzzle. A key obstacle to open science discussed in the book comes from within: from scientists, ourselves. Established, senior scientists...are often painted as fearing the open science movement or trying to block it. But ironically, it may be up-and-coming scientists trying to build careers that perennially have good reasons to be secretive, reasons that the age of networking will never negate..." |
| The OA interviews: Francis Jayakanth of India’s National Centre for Science Information Posted: 25 Jan 2012 12:54 PM PST Open and Shut?, (25 Jan 2012) "OA is generally associated with a small group of high-profile Western-based individuals and organisations that are extremely vocal in their support of OA, and who have shown themselves to be very successful at attracting attention. Since all movements have to promote themselves effectively this is clearly a good thing. However, it does mean that the contribution of the many “foot soldiers” of the movement can too easily be overlooked. These are people who do not shout about their activities, but simply go about the business of facilitating OA quietly and modestly. And it is the foot soldiers based in the developing world that tend to be least visible — people like Francis Jayakanth, a library-trained scientific assistant based at the National Centre for Science Information (NCSI), the information centre of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore....Keen to help Indian researchers achieve this wider visibility, Jayakanth became a dedicated and highly effective advocate for OA. More importantly, he determined to do whatever he could in a practical way to advance the cause of Open Access in his native country....At the beginning of this year, however, Jayakanth did finally receive recognition for his hard work and dedication, although ironically not from his native country, but from a London-based organisation called the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development (EPT). On January 1st, EPT announced that Jayakanth had been chosen as the inaugural recipient of a new award for individuals working in developing countries “who have made a significant personal contribution to advancing the cause of open access and the free exchange of research findings.” As the EPT press release put it, “Francis Jayakanth can indeed be considered an OA ‘renaissance man’, an advocate and technical expert in all aspects of Open Access development and an inspiration to all, both at the research and policy level.” ..." |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2012 12:42 PM PST Nature 481 (7382), 409 (26 Jan 2012) "The past week has seen several twists and turns along the road towards a truly open research literature. But the underlying questions have hardly been touched on: who needs whom to add what value to what literature, and who is willing to pay for it? Consider first a ridiculous distraction: the US Research Works Act....Why is this a ridiculous distraction? Because it tries to reverse a slow but strong political tide that is in favour of access, and because even its supporters believe that it has no chance of passing....[T]he vision of an open research literature has both scientific merit and strong international political support. But there are still substantive issues regarding the future of the primary research literature, which are unlikely to be resolved for years....But the literature itself is changing. It no longer consists of only static papers that document a research insight. In the future, online research literature will, in an ideal world at least, be a seamless amalgam of papers linked to relevant data, stand-alone data and software, 'grey literature' (policy or application reports outside scientific journals) and tools for visualization, analysis, sharing, annotation and providing credit....This literature will need to be readable and computable not only by people but also by machines, which will, in turn, require publishers to develop new standards. In short, the literature is becoming ever more multifaceted, and intermediaries will be needed to supply added value and usability. It is hard to imagine such a primary literature and all of those seeking to add genuine value to it thriving when its key results are behind subscription firewalls. But a vision for open access in which all results — text, data, grey literature and so on — are immediately available in their published versions requires the costs of that added value to be paid for. None of this will occur until the tide in its favour becomes unstoppable. The only way that can happen is for governments to recognize the complexities of this terrain, and the damage that can be done to the providers of added value and to research itself as a result of poorly considered prohibitions or compulsions. Above all, they need to find the money to make the vision viable. Only then will the open research literature truly come to fruition, and only then will those wishing to provide added value be able to invest confidently in doing so." |
| Information Research - ideas and debate: The word is "corruption" I think Posted: 25 Jan 2012 11:27 AM PST info-research.blogspot.com "[A] bill introduced by a Democrat congresswoman who just happens to get her campaign money from Elsevier: so, naturally, when the boys come along and say, "Let's have a bill to kill off the means whereby US citizens can access scientific medical knowledge", she's only too happy to oblige. In any truly civilized country such activity would be deemed criminal but, sadly, this is just one example of how politicians in the US (and increasingly in the UK) can be bought by business interests. I'm not a US voter, but I'd urge any reader who is to do their best to see that this bill is killed off and, if you happen to live and vote in the congresswoman's district, well, you know who not to vote for next time around!" |
| Collaborative yet independent: Information practices in the physical sciences Posted: 25 Jan 2012 09:27 AM PST Research Information Network and IOP Publishing, (Dec 2011) From the Executive summary: The study used seven cases to understand the range of information practices across the physical sciences. In each case, data was gathered by interviewing scientists who were at various stages of their careers, and following these interviews up with focus groups to explore common themes emerging from the interviews. A total of 78 participants were involved, including 51 interviewees and 35 focus group participants (with 8 participants doing both). The report concludes with a number of recommendations, including the following. Funders should prioritise increased efforts to share and link data. New publication models need to be developed that expand access to published results and data, but which also support quality and long-term maintenance of resources. Publishers need to move beyond understanding their customers from a top-level disciplinary perspective, and begin to understand their audiences with more granularity and build tools and offerings that fit into the information practices of fields and sub-disciplines. |
| Ein Bärendienst an der Forschung (Hintergrund, Wissenschaft, NZZ Online) Posted: 25 Jan 2012 09:06 AM PST From Google's English: "In the U.S., is the free access to research results, at least in the reality of biomedical literature. Since 2008 requires the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that all scientific work, which was promoted by this institution, no later than after half a year over the house archive "PubMed Central" freely accessible. This achievement will on 16 December 2011 entered the U.S. Congress bill, "Research Works Act" undo. She wants to prohibit the granting of public funds is subject to the condition that research results are published in open access platforms. The bill was supported by Congressman Darrell Issa and Carolyn Maloney filed on the grounds that the condition NIH scientific publishers are no longer viable. As now known, was the election of Maloney through donations from the scientific publisher Elsevier has been supported. Almost at the same time, on 19 December 2011, the Elsevier Science Publishers, Thieme and Springer filed a complaint with the Zurich Commercial Court, with which the ETH library shall be prohibited to carry on their document delivery service in its current form. Using this service, customers can request the ETH-Bibliothek the electronic submission of articles from scientific journals. The copies shall be used only for internal use and will not be passed. In addition, paid the ETH-Bibliothek of the collecting society ProLitteris an annual fee. The plaintiff publishers want to ban this service on the grounds that they offer this online article itself, but usually for about 30 € per article, a multiple of what does the reference by the ETH-Bibliothek. By its action to the scientific publishing under a scheme run by the Swiss Copyright Act, which allows copying excerpts from journals explicitly. This regulation is compared about the situation in Germany, where such copies are prohibited, a clear advantage for the research in Switzerland...." |
| The OA interviews: Francis Jayakanth of India’s National Centre for Science Information Posted: 25 Jan 2012 08:50 AM PST Open and Shut?, (25 Jan 2012) In 2002, Jayakanth was instrumental in the creation of India’s first institutional repository ePrints@IISc. Today this repository contains over 32,000 publications — around 80% of all the publications produced by researchers at IISc. Strikingly, this has been achieved despite the absence of an open-access mandate at IISc requiring researchers to deposit their papers. On January 1st (2012), Electronic Publishing Trust for Development (EPT) announced that Jayakanth had been chosen as the inaugural recipient of a new award for individuals working in developing countries “who have made a significant personal contribution to advancing the cause of open access and the free exchange of research findings.” As the EPT press release put it, “Francis Jayakanth can indeed be considered an OA ‘renaissance man’, an advocate and technical expert in all aspects of Open Access development and an inspiration to all, both at the research and policy level.” |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2012 08:43 AM PST Health Information and Libraries Journal, (18 Jan 2012) (Article not OA) From the Abstract: Objectives: An OA ‘consolidation’ initiative in public health is presented to show how the involvement of people and institutions is fundamental to create awareness on OA and promote a cultural change. This initiative is developed within the project NEtwork of COllaboration Between Europe and Latin American Caribbean countries (NECOBELAC), financed by the European Commission. Methods: Three actions are envisaged: Capacity building through a flexible and sustainable training programme on scientific writing and OA publishing; creation of training tools based on semantic web technologies; development of a network of supporting institutions. Results: In 2010–2011, 23 training initiatives were performed involving 856 participants from 15 countries; topic maps on scientific publication and OA were produced; 195 institutions are included in the network. Conclusions: Cultural change in scientific dissemination practices is a long process requiring a flexible approach and strong commitment by all stakeholders. |
| Accessibility and decay of web citations in five open access ISI journals Posted: 25 Jan 2012 08:37 AM PST Internet Research 22 (2), (2012) (Article not OA) From the Abstract: The aim of this paper is to scrutiny the accessibility and decay of Web references (URLs) cited in the five open access journals indexed by ISI in the social sciences field. After acquiring all the papers published by these journals during the 2002-2007, their web citations are extracted and analyzed from the accessibility point of view. Moreover, for initially missed citations complementary pathways such as using internet explorer and Google search engine are employed. The study revealed that at first check 73% of URLs are accessible, while 27% were disappeared. It is notable that the rate of accessibility increased to 89% and rate of decay decreased to 11% after using complementary pathways. The ".net" domain with the availability of 96% (decay= 4%) has the most stability and persistency among all domains while the most stable file format is PDF with the availability of 93% (decay=7%). |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2012 08:24 AM PST European Commission, 7th Framework Programme, (2012) The European Commission launched in August 2008 the open access pilot in FP7. It concerns all new projects from that date in seven FP7 research areas. Grant beneficiaries are expected to deposit peer-reviewed research articles or final manuscripts resulting from their projects into an online repository and make their best efforts to ensure open access to those articles within a set period of time after publication. In addition to the pilot, FP7 rules of participation also allow all projects to have open access fees eligible for reimbursement during the time of the grant agreement. The EU-funded portal OpenAIRE (‘Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe’) has supported the pilot since 2009, with mechanisms for the identification, deposit, access to and monitoring of FP7-funded articles. Almost 70 % of respondents with an opinion think that it is better to use self-archiving rather than open access publishing to satisfy the open access requirement in FP7. Three quarters of those respondents with an opinion would agree or strongly agree with an open access mandate for data in their research area, providing that all relevant aspects (e.g. ethics, confidentiality, intellectual property) have been considered and addressed. |
| Posted: 25 Jan 2012 07:28 AM PST Social Media Lab Report, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, (11 Nov 2011) Numerous studies have been conducted on how the general public is using Online Social Media (OSM). However, very little work has been done on how scholars are using and adapting to these new tools in their professional life. In an attempt to fill this significant gap in the research literature, we recently conducted a comprehensive online survey to discover if, how and why scholars are using these new media for communication and knowledge dissemination. In particular, we focussed on how academics in the social sciences use social media tools for professional purposes, and the implications that this might have on the future of scholarly communication and publishing practices in the age of online social media. Below are some highlights of the survey results. |
| 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 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment