Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag oa.new (50 items) |
- Science of the Invisible: More reflections on open peer review
- PLoS ONE is in the lead - but could a well thought out noncommercial clause give a competitor an edge?
- The Golden Rule: “If you want open access to the research in your field, as a reader, then make your own research open access, as an author.”
- Open Access: Rauferei am Nebenschauplatz - Spektrum.de
- How Not to Reform Humanities Scholarship - Run Your Campus - The Chronicle of Higher Education
| Science of the Invisible: More reflections on open peer review Posted: 13 Feb 2012 05:04 AM PST scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.com “Earlier this week I published the first product of my open peer review experiment, Student feedback using Google+. So far (after 3 days) the manuscript has been downloaded 74 times (latest figures here)... in addition to posting the manuscript here for review, I also emailed a number of people I considered qualified to review it and pointed out that the process was under way. Those invitations gave rise to some discussions about "inviting friends to review your work" and consideration of whether this was valid peer review or not... The big question for me is, is this model scalable? ...” |
| Posted: 12 Feb 2012 09:06 PM PST PLoS ONE is in the leadbut could a well thought out noncommercial approach give a competitor an edge The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, (13 Feb 2012) Explores whether PLoS ONE's competitors could gain an edge by offering a well thought out noncommercial option (copyright remains with the author). |
| Posted: 12 Feb 2012 02:40 PM PST Omega Alpha | Open Access, (12 Feb 2012) |
| Open Access: Rauferei am Nebenschauplatz - Spektrum.de Posted: 12 Feb 2012 11:42 AM PST www.spektrum.de From Google's English: "The new bill makes it difficult not only researchers, research results freely exchanged - even the data on which the publications are based, therefore, in future only with the approval of a publisher may be shared between researchers. In particular, scientists are outraged because the proposal is nothing more than an attack on freedom of research itself He is above all a red herring with the aim of protecting the existing business model of academic publishers as long as possible before serious competition. Not even the supporters of the project sincerely believe that such a brazen attempt to private companies to fill their pockets at public expense, can be successful. The point is rather different: The future of scientific publication system chooses not just in laws and regulations, but with structures and models that allow scientists and the public can freely exchange research results. The argument about whether open access is legal, obscures the more important question, by what means it implements...." |
| How Not to Reform Humanities Scholarship - Run Your Campus - The Chronicle of Higher Education Posted: 12 Feb 2012 11:08 AM PST chronicle.com "Among other things, the [proposed] reforms [for reconceiving scholarship in the humanities] call for replacing the traditional monograph-style dissertation with alternative types of final projects; reconceiving professional scholarship to be less dependent on traditional forms and standard scholarly venues; and moving more toward open-access dissemination of scholarship. The proposals are similar to measures being considered by other disciplines in the humanities....Considered from intellectual, political, and administrative perspectives, the proposals are wrongheaded and ill-timed....The proposals to reconceive scholarship to be less dependent on traditional forms and venues and to move more toward open-access dissemination of scholarship also present problems....I certainly understand how the new digital forms of presenting scholarship may be more attractive to some scholars than the traditional formats. The immediacy of the Internet provides instant gratification to those who wish to see their work publicized. However, offsetting the positive aspects are several disadvantages....Scholarship is not simply about "sharing"—about disseminating research results. It's about publishing work that has been appropriately vetted by responsible experts in the area of study....Can you imagine if the Journal of the American Medical Association (the paragon of peer review) were to decide that rigorous review of medical research was no longer necessary and that all researchers need do is make their latest work available online?..." |
| 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