[TagTeam is the software running the Open Access Tracking Project.]
“We’re happy to announce a major upgrade to TagTeam, the open-source tagging platform developed by the Harvard Open Access Project. TagTeam allows users to manage open, tag-based research projects on any topic, provide real-time alerts of new developments, and organize knowledge for easy searching and sharing. Unlike other tagging platforms, it lets project owners guide the evolution of their tag vocabulary in a process it calls folksonomy in, ontology out.
The upgrade has more than 20 major new features….
These new developments will support projects already running on TagTeam, including the Open Access Tracking Project from Harvard Open Access Project….”
“The mission of OurEnergyPolicy.org is to facilitate substantive, responsible dialogue on energy policy issues, and provide this dialogue as a resource for the American people, policymakers, and the media. By bringing together energy experts in productive national discourse, OurEnergyPolicy.org enhances the potential of identifying, adopting, and implementing effective energy policy. OurEnergyPolicy.org also serves as a one-stop resource hub for all things energy policy, and includes a free Resource Library, aggregated Energy Headlines, national Energy Events Calendar and more….”
“It’s not uncommon for us to hear a society or association voice strong reservations about starting an open access (OA) journal based on a fundamental belief that open access is synonymous with low quality. “A fully open access journal will dilute our brand” is one refrain; “We don’t want to start a ‘journal of rejects’” is another.
This month we decided to dig into the data to see if this belief is well founded: On average, are fully OA journals lower, equal, or superior quality to their subscription siblings? …
While the proportion of fully OA journals is growing over time, the proportion of higher-performing fully OA journals [by citations] is growing faster than the average performers….The data show that an increasing number of fully OA publications are attaining higher impact factors at faster rates than their subscription and hybrid counterparts….There is nothing preventing an OA journal from being ‘high quality’, and based on this data, a fully OA journal’s Impact Factor now appears more likely to be above average for its field.”
“A set of new federal rules aims to simplify a process that has long frustrated scholars: getting approval for research that involves human subjects. But the changes could result in universities’ doing inadvertent harm to the careers of young scientists, and could reduce the amount of research that is conducted in the first place.
That’s because the rules could lead universities to charge fees for the use of their institutional review boards, or IRBs, the administrative panels that act as checks on human research. Some scientists worry that any additional expenses will threaten work that does not receive significant financial backing.
The concern isn’t just theoretical. In March, Washington University in St. Louis posted a fee schedule that, for the first time, would have charged some researchers supported by funds from nonprofit sources. The fee was set at $2,500 to have their proposals reviewed, plus more for annual continuing reviews or reviews of proposed revisions….”
“Established in 2009, the Knowledgebase of Interatomic Models (KIM) project is a cyberinfrastructure projectfunded by the NSFaimed at improving the reliability of molecular simulations. It has the following main objectives:
Development of an online open resource for standardized testing and long-term warehousing of interatomic models (potentials and force fields) and data.
Development of an application programming interface (API) standard for moleculer simulations, which will allow any interatomic model to work seamlessly with any molecular simulation code.
Development of a quantitative theory of transferability of interatomic models to provide guidance for selecting application-appropriate models based on rigorous criteria, and error bounds on results.
Planning for the permanence of the KIM project, including development of a sustainability plan, and establishment of a long-term home for storing and maintaining its contents….”
“There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each moves scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources. The complete guidelines are available in the TOP information commons at http://cos.io/top, along with a list of signatories that numbered 86 journals and 26 organizations as of 15 June 2015. …
The journal article is central to the research communication process. Guidelines for authors define what aspects of the research process should be made available to the community to evaluate, critique, reuse, and extend. Scientists recognize the value of transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Improvement of journal policies can help those values become more evident in daily practice and ultimately improve the public trust in science, and science itself.”
Minutes from May 2, 2018, University of San Francisco Faculty Association:
“Move that the Policy Board pass an “Open Access Policy” so that faculty can deposit their work in the institutional repository hosted by the USF Gleeson Library | Geschke Center in order to make our work available to the campus and the world
Nosek asked if we can override what librarians can presently do. Brown asked if faculty can opt out. Neaman stated that we need to look at Article 23 (on intellectual property) to assess the situation.
“ORION is a new collaborative EU project to explore ways in which research and funding organisations in life sciences and biomedicine can open up the way they fund, organise and do research. VA (Public & Science) is one of the nine partners in the project. The project started in May 2017 and will run for four years….
ORION (Open Responsible research and Innovation to further Outstanding kNowledge) will engage many different types of stakeholders in the project including research and funding organisations, citizens, policy makers, and industry…..
All materials and resources produced by ORION will be widely disseminated and freely available…..”
“The project, run by scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, and funded in part by the Environmental Protection Agency, is still going all these years later. Known as Chamacos, Spanish for “children,” it has linked pesticides sprayed on fruit and vegetable crops with respiratory complications, developmental disorders and lower I.Q.s among children of farm workers. State and federal regulators have cited its findings to help justify proposed restrictions on everything from insecticides to flame-retardant chemicals.
But the Trump administration wants to restrict how human studies like Chamacos are used in rule-making. A government proposal this year, called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, could stop them from being used to justify regulating pesticides, lead and pollutants like soot, and undermine foundational research behind national air-quality rules. The E.P.A., which has funded these kinds of studies, is now labeling many of them “secret science.” …”