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….”

Newsletter – Leibniz Research Alliance Open Science (Nr. 6 / 2020)

Barcamp Open Science & Open Science Conference

The registration for our Barcamp Open Science and Open Science Conference is now open. Both events take place completely virtually.

Get tickets here: https://www.open-science-conference.eu

Barcamp Open Science // 16 February 2021 // #oscibar

The Barcamp Open Science as pre-event of the Open Science Conference is open to everybody interested in discussing, learning more about, and sharing experiences on practices in Open Science. We would like to invite researchers and practitioners from various backgrounds to contribute their experience and ideas to the discussion. The Barcamp will bring together both novices and experts and its open format supports lively discussions, interesting presentations, development of new ideas, and knowledge exchange. Though, previous knowledge on Open Science is not mandatory. The Barcamp is open to all topics around Open Science that the participants like to discuss. 

Open Science Conference // 17-19 February 2021 // #osc2021

The Open Science Conference 2021 is the 8th international conference of the Leibniz Research Alliance Open Science. The annual conference is dedicated to the Open Science movement and provides a unique forum for researchers, librarians, practitioners, infrastructure providers, policy makers, and other important stakeholders to discuss the latest and future developments in Open Science.

This year’s conference will especially focus on the effects and impact of (global) crises and associated societal challenges, such as the Corona pandemic or the climate change, to open research practices and science communication in the context of the digitisation of science. And vice versa, how open practices help to cope with crises. You can look forward to the following speakers:

  • Dr Danielle Cooper, Ithaka S+R (USA)
  • Hilary Hanahoe, Research Data Alliance (Italy/UK)
  • Dr Céline Heinl, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) (Germany)
  • Marte Sybil Kessler, Stifterverband (Germany)
  • Dr Alina Loth, Berlin School of Public Engagement and Open Science / Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany)
  • Vanessa Proudman, SPARC Europe (Netherlands)
  • Clifford Tatum, Leiden University (Netherlands)
  • Leonhard Volz, Journal of European Psychology Students / University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)
  • Dr Lilly Winfree, Open Knowledge Foundation (USA/UK)

The post Newsletter – Leibniz Research Alliance Open Science (Nr. 6 / 2020) first appeared on Leibniz Research Alliance Open Science.

Igniting Change: Our Next Steps Towards Open Data Metrics

Since 2014, the Make Data Count (MDC) initiative has focused on building the social and technical infrastructure for the development of research data metrics. With funding from the National Science Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the initiative has transformed from a research project with an aim to understand what researchers value about their data, to an infrastructure development project, and now into a full-fledged adoption initiative.  The team is proud to announce additional funding from the Sloan Foundation to focus on widespread adoption of standardized data usage and data citation practices, the building blocks for open research data metrics.

Expanded team & expanded scope

In broadening our scope and refining our adoption efforts, we are thrilled to announce new MDC team members. By including key community players in the adoption and research landscapes, we can look beyond infrastructure development and more effectively reach our publisher and repository stakeholders. 

  • Crossref: We welcome Crossref, who will help guide our data citation work at publishers in conjunction with existing data citation initiatives (e.g., Scholix). By having an increased presence at publisher meetings and building up support in the Crossref member community, we aim to see many more journals properly contributing to the data citation landscape. 
  • Bibliometricians: With an increased pressure by research stakeholders to have data metrics at the ready, we are pleased to be working with a group of expert bibliometricians who will begin studies into researcher behavior around data re-use. It is essential that our driving motives for the development of data metrics are evidence based and we welcome Dr. Stefanie Haustein (University of Ottawa, Co-Director ScholCommLab) and Dr. Isabella Peters (ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics) and their labs to our team. 

“I am excited to join and work closely together with the MDC team on the development of data metrics. Our team at the ScholCommLab in Canada and Isabella’s research group in Germany will use a mixed-methods approach and apply bibliometric as well as qualitative methods to analyze discipline-specific data citation and reuse patterns. We hope to provide much-needed evidence to develop meaningful data metrics that can help researchers showcase the importance of data sharing.”
– Dr. Stefanie Haustein

Our goals for the MDC initiative going forward are three-fold:

  1. Increased adoption of standardized data usage across repositories through enhanced processing and reporting services
  2. Increased implementations of proper data citation practices at publishers by working in conjunction with publisher advocacy groups and societies
  3. Promotion of bibliometrics qualitative and quantitative studies around data usage and citation behaviors

The responsible use and application of data metrics and data citation must become a community norm across all disciplines if data creation, curation, stewardship, reuse and discovery are to be properly valued. By partnering with key infrastructure providers and researchers, Make Data Count is ensuring that the adoption of data metrics and data citation are researcher led, discipline specific and evidence based. This is crucial if we are to avoid the perverse consequences created by the misuse of article citations and metrics, such as those based on journal rank and impact factor.”
Dr. Catriona MacCallum, Director of Open Science, Hindawi

“MDC has put data metrics at the center of the debate on data sharing. Now, it is time to make data metrics a reality. The development of an ambitious infrastructure for data metrics, supported by the research of Stefanie Haustein, Isabella Peters and colleagues, creates the unique environment to turn data metrics into a tangible reality; expanding the analytical toolset for scientometric research and science policy making. Such transformation is meant to contribute not only to increase the importance of data sharing in scientific practice, but also to radically transform how science is being currently developed, measured and evaluated.”
Dr. Rodrigo Costas, Senior Researcher, CWTS, Leiden University

Driven by two separate grant funds, one focused on the deployment of data usage services, a bibliometrics dashboard, and publisher data citation campaigns (PI Lowenberg) and the other on understanding what is meaningful for data metrics (PI Haustein), the MDC team is moving full steam ahead on these adoption goals. The MDC initiative can only be effective with broad and diverse community participation. Follow along for announcements of webinars and events for community involvement and check out our announcement at the ScholCommLab blog for more details on the bibliometrics work ahead.

Open Data Metrics: Lighting the Fire

The Make Data Count team has been working on various infrastructure and outreach projects focused on how to measure the reach and impact of research data. While busy driving adoption of these frameworks and services, we have yet to discuss where we’re at in terms of high-level challenges and where we believe we need to go to.

To clarify to the community what our opinions and approaches are in terms of open data metrics, members from the Make Data Count team (Daniella Lowenberg, John Chodacki, Martin Fenner, Matt Jones) sat down and wrote a book that we hope will jump start a community conversation. We would love to hear your feedback and look forward to engaging with you on the topic.

MakeDataCount 8

http://opendatametrics.org 

Research data is at the center of science, and to date it has been difficult to understand its impact. To assess the reach of open data, and to advance data-driven discovery, the research and research supporting communities need open, trusted data metrics.

In Open Data Metrics: Lighting the Fire, the authors propose a path forward for the development of data metrics. They acknowledge historic players and milestones in the process and demonstrate the need for standardized, transparent, community-led approaches to establish open data metrics as the new normal.

Save The Date: MDC Spring Webinar

Following advice from our workshop attendees at RDA13, we invite you to join us for our spring webinar.

Join us on May 8th at 8am PST/3pm GMT as we demo our new aggregation services at DataCite and DataONE. This webinar is intended to spotlight the features and services we can build off of our central infrastructure such as aggregated usage and citations. This webinar will be recorded and posted on our website.

Webinar Registration: bit.ly/MDCSpringWebinar 

 

 

Repository Implementation Webinar: March 26, 2019

 

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 9.03.05 AM

 

Join us on March 26th at 8:00am PST/4:00pm GMT for a webinar on repository implementation of our COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data and Make Data Count recommendations. This webinar will feature a panel of developers from repositories that have implemented or about to release standardized data metrics: Dataverse, Dryad, and Zenodo. We will interview each repository on their implementation process. This recorded discussion between our technical team and repositories, providing various perspectives of implementation, should be a helpful guidance for any repository interested in implementing!

To register for our webinar, please fill out this form.

For those who cannot make it, a recording will be made available on our website. Please tweet to us any questions that you may want asked.

Save the Date: Make Data Count Pre-RDA13 Workshop

When: April 1st, 10:00am-12:00pm

Where: Loews Hotel, Philadelphia. Room: Congress C

Why: As we begin to wrap up our two-year grant, it is essential that we bring in the community to learn about our data metrics infrastructure and understand community feedback on adoption. In this workshop, we’ll be demonstrating how repositories and publishers can contribute data usage statistics and citations. Several repository implementers will be present to share their experiences and explain best practices. In addition, we will show how anyone interested can consume these open metrics. Adoption of comparable usage statistics and data citations is a critical first step towards usable research data metrics, so we urge all data providers and data stakeholders to come join our interactive session!

Questions? Tweet at @makedatacount or email us here

DataONE Implements New Usage and Citation Metrics to Make Your Data Count

Crossposted from DataONE blog: https://www.dataone.org/news/new-usage-metrics 

Publications have long maintained a citation standard for research papers, ensuring credit for cited work and ideas. Tracking use of data collections, however, has remained a challenge. DataONE is pleased to share our latest effort in overcoming this barrier and in demonstrating data reuse with new data usage and citation metrics.

The data usage and citation metrics available on our data search and discovery platform, https://search.dataone.org, include live counts of citations, downloads, and views for each dataset in our network of Earth and environmental repositories. These metrics are interactive and can be further explored to identify articles citing the data or, in the case of downloads and views, scaled over specific time-increments to dive into details of when the data was accessed. The implementation of these data usage and citation metrics results from our collaboration as part of the Make Data Count project and compliments metrics recently implemented in Dash. The metrics are also in compliance with the COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data.

The usage counts are acquired from views and downloads occurring directly through the DataONE interface, via activity at the individual repository or through clients, such as an R script. Additionally, researchers might cite a dataset having received it directly from a colleague. For these reasons, values for citations, downloads and views do not always covary.

We encourage you to explore these new metrics on https://search.dataone.org. Click on each metric and pull up the interactive figures to visualize downloads and views across time for each dataset, or the full lists of citation information for research papers citing each dataset. You can also check out the DataONE documentation for further details on the metrics implementation.

Make Data Count & Scholix Join FORCE(2018)s

With Make Data Count now in its second year, the focus is shifting from building infrastructure to driving adoption of our open data-level metrics infrastructure. As described in previous blog posts, we built and released infrastructure for data-level metrics (views, downloads, citations). While we developed a new COUNTER endorsed Code of Practice for Research Data and new processing pipelines for data usage metrics, we are using the outputs of the Scholix working group to count data citations. The most important next step? Get people, repositories, and publishers to use it. We teamed up with Scholix at FORCE2018 to explain to publishers and data repositories how they can implement and support research data metrics.

Scholix: it’s not a thing 

Adrian Burton (ARDC), co-chair of the Scholix working group, started the session with a very important message: Scholix is not a thing, nobody is building it, and it’s not a piece of infrastructure. Scholix is an information model that was developed to allow organizations to exchange information. In practice, this now means that, through Crossref, DataCite, and OpenAire, you can exchange information about article-data links. These links form the basis for data citations that can be obtained by querying the APIs made available by these organizations. However, think not what Scholix can do for you, but what you can do for Scholix. The system is only useful if organizations also contribute information about article-data links.

Send citations today! 

Following Adrian’s talk, Patricia Feeney (Crossref) and Helena Cousijn (DataCite) discussed with publishers and data repositories how they can add information about citations to their metadata and thereby make these openly available to others. The discussion revealed that several data repositories already do a lot of work to make this happen. They hire curators for manual curation and text-mine articles to ensure all links to datasets are discovered and made available. When they deposit their metadata with DataCite, they add information about the related identifier, the type of related identifier, and indicate what the relationship is between the dataset and article. This ensures publishers also have access to this information and can display links between articles and datasets.

The publishers often depend on authors to add information about underlying datasets to the manuscript or in the submission system. When authors don’t do this, they’re not aware of any links. Most of the publishers indicated they started working on data citation but are still optimizing their workflows. Better tagging of data citations, both in their own XML and in the XML that’s sent to Crossref, is part of that. Patricia explained that Crossref accepts data citations that are submitted as relations and also DataCite DOIs in the reference lists. This gives publishers two ways to make their data citations available.

The most important message? You can use your current (metadata) workflows to contribute article-data links. Both Crossref and DataCite are very happy to work with any organization that needs assistance in implementation or optimization of data citation workflows.

Make Data (Usage Metrics) Count

Following the discussion on why data citations are essential, and how publishers can contribute data citations to our infrastructure, we moved on to data usage metrics. Daniella Lowenberg (CDL), project lead for Make Data Count, explained how repositories can standardize their usage metrics (views, downloads) against the COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data, contribute these usage logs to an open DataCite hub, and start displaying standardized usage metrics at the repository level. Repositories, check out our documentation here, and get in touch with Daniella if you would like to begin talking about implementation!

Event Data: for all your reuse questions

Closing out the workshop, Martin Fenner (DataCite) finished the session with an explanation of how you can consume data metrics. The links that are contributed following the Scholix framework are openly available and can therefore be used by all interested organizations. You can get these through Event Data, a service developed by Crossref and DataCite to capture references, mentions, and other events around DOIs that are not provided via DOI metadata.The Crossref and DataCite APIs support queries by DOI, DOI prefix, date range, relation type, and source. If you want to extract both usage statistics and data citations, you can obtain these through the DataCite API.  For more information, take a look at the documentation!

What does it all look like?

DataONE: Example from a Dryad dataset, all data citations displayed

Dash: Example view of standardized usage metrics & citations

COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data Usage Metrics Release 1

Crossposted from COUNTER on September 13, 2018

There is a need for the consistent and credible reporting of research data usage. Such usage metrics are required as an important component in understanding how publicly available research data are being reused.

To address this need, COUNTER and members of the Make Data Count team (California Digital LibraryDataCite, and DataONE) collaborated in drafting the Code of Practice for Research Data Usage Metrics release 1.

The Code of Practice for Research Data Usage Metrics release 1 is aligned as much as possible with the COUNTER Code of Practice Release 5 which standardizes usage metrics for many scholarly resources, including journals and books. Many definitions, processing rules and reporting recommendations apply to research data in the same way as they apply to the other resources to which the COUNTER Code of Practice applies. Some aspects of the processing and reporting of usage data are unique to research data, and the Code of Practice for Research Data Usage Metrics thus deviates from the Code of Practice Release 5 and specifically address them.

The Code of Practice for Research Data Usage Metrics release 1 provides a framework for comparable data by standardizing the generation and distribution of usage metrics for research data. Data repositories and platform providers can now report usage metrics following common best practices and using a standard report format.

COUNTER welcomes feedback from the data repositories that implement this first release of the Code of Practice. Their experiences will help to refine and improve it and inform a second release.

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.