University of Ottawa signs agreement with PeerJ for innovative new Institutional Author Membership model to fund Open Access

“We are delighted to announce that University of Ottawa have signed up to an innovative new approach to fund Open Access publishing. Funded by the University of Ottawa Library, authors affiliated with the University of Ottawa may publish in PeerJ journals using a new Three-Year Membership; the Membership allows authors to publish up to three articles at any time within a three-year period….”

University of Ottawa signs agreement with PeerJ for innovative new Institutional Author Membership model to fund Open Access

“We are delighted to announce that University of Ottawa have signed up to an innovative new approach to fund Open Access publishing. Funded by the University of Ottawa Library, authors affiliated with the University of Ottawa may publish in PeerJ journals using a new Three-Year Membership; the Membership allows authors to publish up to three articles at any time within a three-year period….”

Brexit (from EU) and Myexit (from OA)

Follow-up to:
Harnad, S (2016) Open Access Archivangelist: The Last Interview?
CEON Otwarta Nauka (Open Science)

Richard Poynder: It?s an interesting interview. I have a following-on question for you, Stevan, if you feel like answering it: Much has been made of the likely impact that Brexit will have on science/the UK and European research communities, but what if any impact do you think it could have on the crisis facing liberal democracy?

Hi Richard. This is going to sound apocalyptic (and I certainly hope I?m wrong):
I think the British exit from the EU, including all the circumstances and factors that led to it, is one of the most tragic symptoms of the crisis in liberal democracy. As such, it is both cause and effect.
The three worst features of the 20th century were war, racism and poverty. The remedy for poverty was meant to be socialism (communism in Russia and China and social democracy in the West). The remedy for racism was meant to be multiculturalism (immigration, integration, tolerance). And the remedy for war was meant to be increasing world federalism (the UN and the EU).
But the cold war and the nuclear threat kept nations in a state of tension and consumed vast resources. The eventual economic (and moral) collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have had an effect rather like removing a diseased prostate but thereby disrupting a pro-tem equilibrium and precipitating kidney failure.
I think the wrong ?objective? conclusion was drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union (?the socialist experiment has proved to be a failure?). As a result ?trickle-down? capitalism has been triumphantly lionized while liberalism and striving for social equity have been equally triumphantly stigmatized.
Meanwhile, two kinds of technology have developed at a stunning rate: destructive weapons and online media. One could not expect much good to come from the former, but great expectations were pinned on the latter (including open access). Yet one of the effects of both new technologies has been to ?empower? (literally) the worst sides of human nature: the divisive and destructive tendencies toward intolerance, bigotry, fanaticism, paranoia and aggression.
And these unleashed human tendencies have quickly found their way to the fatal weakness of democracy itself: The people decide what they want, but their wants are shaped by populism, and unreflective appeals to their basest inclinations. In this it is not surprising that the unreconstructed self-aggrandizing bigotry and xenophobia of petty, primitive countries (like my birthplace, Hungary) have ?flowered? with the introduction of democracy in eastern Europe and the middle east. It had been festering there, lying in wait, all along.
But one would have thought that the mature democracies would serve as a civilizing bulwark against that. Yet no, Brexit has shown that the same primitive, sinister, shameful inclinations are alive and well in the United Kingdom (and Trump is rallying them in the US too). 
No, freedom-of-information and open access did not serve as an antidote, as hoped. Disinformation profited more from the power of open media than the truth did. And the proliferation of destructive weapons is only beginning to be exploited by the genetic and cultural heirs of our most barbaric roots.
Perhaps both democracy and liberalism were always doomed; perhaps it was just a matter of time before the law of large numbers, the regression on the mean, would bring out the meanest in us.
All one can do is hope that there is an epidemiological ebb and flow also underlying all this, and that illiberalism will run its course, and kindness, decency, humaneness will again become ?popular.?
I (as you know) remain an unreconstructed social democrat. Ironically echoing the NRA motto in the US, I don?t believe that socialism failed; I think we failed ? to implement it properly. No one can hope for justice in an unjust society, where a few have vastly more than they need at the expense of the many who just scrape by. 
I don?t know how to fix that, but I suspect that the solution, if there is one, is still an informational one. (It used to be called ?education.?) Alongside the basest tendencies of the human genome there are, I believe, humane ones too, at least in the majority if not all people. The hope had been that liberal democracy would ensure that a decent majority prevails, one that enacts laws that protect everyone from the worse sides of our nature (greed, intolerance, aggression).
And (as you also know), I plan to focus my remaining years on what I hesitate to call a ?microcosm? of it all ? because in fact there is nothing ?micro” about it: If the Holocaust was humanity?s greatest crime against humanity, the Eternal Treblinka we inflict on victims unfortunate enough not to be our conspecifics are humanity?s greatest crime tout court.
So I am trying to mobilize the second technology ? open media ? to open people?s hearts. We have outlawed slavery, rape, violence and murder against human beings, but we all collaborate in them when practiced against species other than our own. Until the humane majority outlaws it all, our basest inclinations will keep being expressed and exercised against our own kind too.
You will of course see this as an obsessive focus on my own ?narrow? issue, far removed from Brexit and the crisis of liberal democracy. If so, I?d rather go down trying to liberate the most savagely exploited and long-suffering of our victims than reserve liberalism for the victors.

Orbán?s Depredations

Unlike Professor Éva Balogh, who has been monitoring, analyzing and reporting on Orban?s depredations for nearly 20 years now, I only got my first clue in 2011, with the Philosopher Affair.

But what I find remarkable is how just about every element of what was eventually going to become patently obvious to me ? and to everyone else who pays attention ? was already there, in its full, flagrant, foul odors and colors, in that formative and shocking affair, scarcely believable at the time, or even now.

For me, as an academic, it has since become a life-long wake-up call ? and (academic) call-to-arms.

The escalating and unending revelations since then are hardly surprises any more, though they still take one?s breath away.

Stevan Harnad
External Member, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

New journal – “Animal Sentience” – on the other-minds problem

The only feelings we can feel are our own. When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior ? unless they tell us. This is the ?other-minds problem.?

Within our own species, thanks to language, the other-minds problem arises only for states in which people cannot speak (infancy, aphasia, sleep, anaesthesia, coma). Our species also has a uniquely powerful empathic or ?mind-reading? capacity: We can (sometimes) perceive from the behavior of others when they are in states like our own. Our inferences have also been systematized and operationalized in biobehavioral science and supplemented by cognitive neuroimagery. Together, these make the other-minds problem within our own species a relatively minor one.

But we cohabit the planet with other species, most of them very different from our own, and none of them able to talk. Inferring whether and what they feel is important not only for scientific but also for ethical reasons, because where feelings are felt, they can also be hurt.

Animal Sentience [ASent] is a new international, interdisciplinary journal devoted to the other-minds problem across species. As animals are at long last beginning to be accorded legal status and protection as sentient beings, ASent will explore in depth what, how and why organisms feel. Individual ?target articles? (and sometimes précis of books) addressing different species? sentient and cognitive capacities will each be accorded ?open peer commentary,? consisting of multiple shorter articles, both invited and freely submitted ones, by specialists from many disciplines, each elaborating, applying, supplementing or criticizing the content of the target article, along with responses from the target author(s).

The members of the nonhuman species under discussion will not be able to join in the conversation, but their spokesmen and advocates, the specialists who know them best, will. The inaugural issue launches with the all-important question (for fish) of whether fish can feel pain.

ASent is a publication of the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy (HSISP). Based in Washington DC, HSISP?s mandate is to advance the application of scientific and technical analysis and expertise to animal welfare issues and policy questions worldwide. The HSISP is an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States, the world?s largest animal protection organization.

ASent is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. Thanks to HSISP sponsorship, ASent need not charge either publication fees to authors or subscription fees to readers.

Authors’ opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher or editors.

The table of contents of the inaugural issue of ASent follow below. Commentaries by scientists, scholars, practitioners, jurists and policy-makers are invited on any of the target articles (in bold); continuing commentary is also invited on the commentaries and responses. And of course the journal now calls for the submission of target articles. All target articles are peer-reviewed and all commentaries are editorially reviewed. Open peer commentary is intended particularly for new target articles written specifically for ASent, but updated versions of articles that have appeared elsewhere may also be eligible for publication and open peer commentary.

(Open peer commentary is modelled on the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), of which the editor-in-chief of ASent was also the founder and editor-in-chief for 20 years.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Inaugural Issue (2016)

Harnad, Stevan (2016) Inaugural Editorial – Animal sentience: The other-minds problem Animal Sentience 2016.001

Safina, Carl (2016) Animals think and feel: Précis of Beyond words: What animals think and feel (Safina 2015) Animal Sentience 2016.002

Key, Brian (2016) Why fish do not feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.003

Balcombe, Jonathan (2016) Cognitive evidence of fish sentience Animal Sentience 2016.008

Braithwaite, Victoria A. and Droege, Paula (2016) Why human pain can?t tell us whether fish feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.009

Broom, Donald M. (2016) Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain Animal Sentience 2016.010

Brown, Culum (2016) Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes Animal Sentience 2016.011

Chella, Antonio (2016) Robot fish do not need sentience Animal Sentience 2016.012

Dinets, Vladimir (2016) No cortex, no cry Animal Sentience 2016.013

Haikonen, Pentti O. (2016) On the sentience of fish Animal Sentience 2016.014

Hart, Paul J.B. (2016) Fighting forms of expression Animal Sentience 2016.015

Jones, Robert C. (2016) Fish sentience and the precautionary principle Animal Sentience 2016.016

Manzotti, Riccardo (2016) No evidence that pain is painful neural process Animal Sentience 2016.017

Mather, Jennifer A. (2016) An invertebrate perspective on pain Animal Sentience 2016.018

Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) Could fish feel pain? A wider perspective Animal Sentience 2016.019

Seth, Anil K. (2016) Why fish pain cannot and should not be ruled out Animal Sentience 2016.020

Striedter, Georg (2016) Lack of neocortex does not imply fish cannot feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.021

Key, Brian (2016) (Response I) Going beyond just-so stories Animal Sentience 2016.022

Balu?ka, Franti?ek (2016) Should fish feel pain? A plant perspective Animal Sentience 2016.023

Burghardt, Gordon (2015) Mediating claims through critical anthropomorphism Animal Sentience 2016.024

Derbyshire, Stuart W.G. (2016) Fish lack the brains and the psychology for pain Animal Sentience 2016.025

Elwood, Robert W. (2016) A single strand of argument with unfounded conclusion Animal Sentience 2016.026

Gagliano, Monica (2016) What would the Babel fish say? Animal Sentience 2016.027

Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2016) Pain in parallel Animal Sentience 2016.028

Gonçalves-de-Freitas, Eliane (2016) Pain and fish welfare Animal Sentience 2016.029

Merker, Bjorn (2016) Drawing the line on pain Animal Sentience 2016.030

Panksepp, Jaak (2016) Brain processes for ?good? and ?bad? feelings: How far back in evolution? Animal Sentience 2016.031

Rose, James D. (2016) Pain in fish: Weighing the evidence Animal Sentience 2016.032

Segner, Helmut (2016) Why babies do not feel pain, or: How structure-derived functional interpretations can go wrong Animal Sentience 2016.033

Shriver, Adam J. (2016) Cortex necessary for pain ? but not in sense that matters Animal Sentience 2016.034

Sneddon, Lynne U. and Leach, Matthew C. (2016) Anthropomorphic denial of fish pain Animal Sentience 2016.035

Stevens, E. Don (2016) Why is fish ?feeling? pain controversial? Animal Sentience 2016.036

Van Rysewyk, Simon (2016) Nonverbal indicators of pain Animal Sentience 2016.037

Wadiwel, Dinesh Joseph (2016) Fish and pain: The politics of doubt Animal Sentience 2016.038/

Key, Brian (2016) (Response II) Falsifying the null hypothesis that ?fish do not feel pain” Animal Sentience 2016.039

Brown, Culum (2016) Fish pain: An inconvenient truth Animal Sentience 2016.058

Damasio, Antonio and Damasio, Hanna (2016) Pain and other feelings in humans and animals Animal Sentience 2016.059

Devor, Marshall (2016) Where is pain in the brain? Animal Sentience 2016.060

Diggles, B. K. (2016) Fish pain: Would it change current best practice in the real world? Animal Sentience 2016.061

Edelman, David B. (2016) Leaving the door open for fish pain: Evolutionary convergence and the utility of ?just-so stories? Animal Sentience 2016.062

Walters, Edgar T. (2016) Pain-capable neural substrates may be widely available in the animal kingdom Animal Sentience 2016.063

King, Barbara J. (2016) Animal mourning: Précis of How animals grieve (King 2013) Animal Sentience 2016.004

Botero, Maria (2016) Death in the family Animal Sentience 2016.040

Fox Hall, Tara (2016) Anticipatory grief Animal Sentience 2016.041

Gardiner, Martin (2016) Modulation of behavior in communicating emotion Animal Sentience 2016.042

Glymour, Clark (2016) The object of grief Animal Sentience 2016.043

Probyn-Rapsey, Fiona (2016) Love?s claim on grief Animal Sentience 2016.044

Proctor, Helen (2016) Monkey say, monkey do, monkey grieve? Animal Sentience 2016.045

Ristau, Carolyn (2016) Evidence for animal grief? Animal Sentience 2016.046

King, Barbara J. King (2016) (Response) Understanding emotional suffering Animal Sentience 2016.047

Broom, Donald M. (2016) Considering animals? feelings: Précis of Sentience and animal welfare Animal Sentience 2016.005

Chandrasekera, Charukeshi (2016) From sentience to science: Limits of anthropocentric cognition Animal Sentience 2016.048

Clarke, Nancy (2016) Sentience and animal welfare: Affirming the science and addressing the skepticism Animal Sentience 2016.049

Copeland, Marion W. (2016) Life in translation Animal Sentience 2016.050

Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will (2016) Linking animal ethics and animal welfare science Animal Sentience 2016.051

Duncan, Ian J.H. (2016) Is sentience only a nonessential component of animal welfare? Animal Sentience 2016.052

Durham, Debra (2016) The science of sentience is reshaping how we think about animals Animal Sentience 2016.053

Rolle, M.E. (2016) Animal welfare and animal rights Animal Sentience 2016.054

Rowlands, Mark (2016) Mentality and animal welfare Animal Sentience 2016.055

Sammarco, Andrea L. (2016) Is humanitarianism recent? Animal Sentience 2016.056

Broom, Donald M. (2016) (Response) Sentience and animal welfare: New thoughts and controversies Animal Sentience 2016.057

Lachance, Martine (2016) Breaking the silence: The veterinarian?s duty to report Animal Sentience 2016.006

Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) How welfare biology and commonsense may help to reduce animal suffering Animal Sentience 2016.007

NWO past publicatievoorwaarden aan

NWO heeft de voorwaarden voor haar Stimuleringsfonds Open Access Publicaties aangepast. Hoofdaanvragers van door NWO gefinancierd onderzoek kunnen hieruit een bijdrage aanvragen voor het open access publiceren van hun onderzoeksresultaten. Per onderzoeksproject is een budget beschikbaar van maximaal 6.000 euro.
NWO vergoedt voortaan alleen de kosten wanneer gepubliceerd wordt in een volledig open access tijdschrift. De kosten voor het publiceren in zogenaamde hybride tijdschriften, waarin slechts een deel van de artikelen in open access beschikbaar is, worden niet langer uit het Stimuleringsfonds vergoed.
Meer informatie over de voorwaarden en de aanvraagprocedure vindt u op de site van NWO.

UKB tekent The Hague Declaration over open science

UKB, het samenwerkingsverband van dertien universiteitsbibliotheken en de Koninklijke Bibliotheek, heeft de doelen van The Hague Declaration onderschreven door de declaratie gezamenlijk te ondertekenen. Alle ondertekenaars verklaren dat er geen auteursrechtelijke beperkingen mogen zijn op wetenschappelijke resultaten en onderzoeksdata. Iedereen moet feiten en data vrij kunnen analyseren. Licenties en copyrightregels mogen daarvoor geen drempels opwerpen. De kenniseconomie heeft belang bij wereldwijde open toegang, ofwel open science.

Volgens de verklaring moet in de Europese copyrightregels vastliggen dat auteurs het recht op (her)gebruik van data en teksten niet verliezen door een contract met een uitgever te tekenen.


Auteurswet aangepast

Na de Tweede Kamer heeft nu ook de Eerste Kamer het amendement van het lid Taverne aangenomen. Op basis hiervan geeft de Auteurswet nu wettelijk invulling aan de behoefte van wetenschappelijke auteurs om de resultaten van hun onderzoek in open access wereldwijd beschikbaar te stellen. Het wetsvoorstel is per 1 juli 2015 in werking getreden.

De wetswijziging is van belang voor alle wetenschappelijke auteurs in dienst van Nederlandse universiteiten. De essentie is dat wetenschappelijke artikelen, waarvoor het onderzoek geheel of gedeeltelijk op kosten van de overheid heeft plaatsgevonden, na verloop van een redelijke termijn door de auteur in open access geplaatst mogen worden. Van dit recht kan door de auteur geen afstand meer worden gedaan. Universitaire medewerkers hoeven dit recht dus niet meer te bedingen of voor te behouden in overeenkomsten met uitgevers, waarop de Nederlandse wetgeving van toepassing is. Na de wetswijziging hebben en houden ze het automatisch. Met de uitgever hoeven ze alleen nog overeenstemming te bereiken over wat een ‘redelijke termijn’ is.  

Eerste stap boycot Elsevier

De Nederlandse universiteiten hebben hun plan in werking gesteld om ’s werelds grootste wetenschappelijke uitgever Elsevier te boycotten. De eerste stap hebben ze nu gezet: wetenschappers die (hoofd)redacteur zijn bij een van de 2.200 Elseviertijdschriften zijn de afgelopen weken benaderd met de vraag of ze willen overwegen hun functie neer te leggen. Het gaat om 46 hoofdredacteuren en 835 redacteuren.

Aanleiding is de aanhoudende onenigheid over een nieuw te sluiten tijdschriftencontract. Het huidige contract loopt eind dit jaar af. Beide partijen staan nog steeds “mijlenver” uit elkaar. Het twistpunt is de mogelijkheid om artikelen al dan niet volgens de principes van open access aan te bieden.

Zie het artikel in NRC (betaalmuur).

Akkoord met SAGE

Uitgeverij SAGE en de Nederlandse universiteiten hebben een tweejarig akkoord over de transitie naar open access. Deze overeenkomst stelt onderzoekers in staat om open access te publiceren in wetenschappelijke tijdschriften van SAGE. Voor een deel hebben universiteiten open access publiceren afgekocht, waardoor wetenschappers hun artikelen vrij toegankelijk kunnen maken voor een breed publiek zonder er zelf extra voor te hoeven betalen. Bovendien geldt een kortingstarief als Nederlandse onderzoekers buiten de afkoop om nog meer artikelen open access publiceren. In het akkoord is ook afgesproken dat de toegang voor wetenschappers tot SAGE-journals met 122 titels wordt verruimd naar 730 titels.

De uitbreiding van de toegang in combinatie met het afkopen van een groot deel van de open access publicaties is goed nieuws voor de Nederlandse wetenschappers. Zij zien hun eigen artikelen wereldwijd vrij toegankelijk worden en krijgen daar bovenop toegang tot meer traditionele tijdschriften om artikelen te lezen die nog niet open access zijn. ‘Dit akkoord is een belangrijke stap voor de Nederlandse wetenschap richting open access. Het is budgetneutraal, terwijl het aantal afgekochte open access publicaties toeneemt,’ aldus Koen Becking, voorzitter van de Tilburg University en onderhandelaar namens de VSNU.

Bron: VSNU