“HOAP launched in 2011 to foster OA within Harvard, foster OA beyond Harvard, undertake research and policy analysis on OA, and provide OA to timely and accurate information about OA itself….”
“We see two logical ways forward in developing a model for scholarly communication in a world that has a robust Internet technology infrastructure. One model builds virtual walls into that architecture to reflect the artificial borders of nation-states and, in a finer detail, societies and corporations contained within them. The other is an open, complex, networked, borderless model that facilitates unhindered scholarly communication planet-wide, bringing all relevant data and all possible informed minds to the scholarly conversation. The former is a model that recreates in virtual space the early nineteenth-century achievements in nation-building and class stratification. The latter represents a model reflecting twenty-first-century realities and needs. We are betting on the latter, and are working actively towards its efficient implementation.”
“[T]he academic paper has some inherent limitations—chief among them that it can provide only a summary of a given research project. Even an outstanding paper cannot provide direct access to all of the research data collected or to the record of discussions among scientists that is reflected in lab notes. These windows into the messy and halting process of science, which can be extremely valuable learning objects, are not yet part of the official record of a research study.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. If we take advantage of the unique capabilities of the web to tell the full story of a research project—rather than merely using it as a faster printing press as we do today—we can build greater transparency into our approach to reporting science. Besides improving information-sharing among scientists, a push toward transparency could improve public trust in science and scientists. Now, when the very concepts of fact and truth under assault and many scientists feel compelled to march in response, is the perfect time to rethink our approach to scientific communication altogether….”
“It is interesting to note that since the introduction of new criteria for DOAJ listing in March 2014, we have received the highest number of new applications from Open Access journal publishers in India, followed by those in Indonesia, USA, Brazil and Iran. From around 1600 new applications received from India since March 2014 only 4% were accepted, with 78% of the applications rejected for various reasons and approximately 18% still in process….”
“In this digital age, free online educational resources are getting an increasingly high profile. Here’s a guide on what they are, why they’re popular, and what educators need to be cautious about in using them.”
“As a political scientist who regularly encounters so-called “open data” in PDFs, this problem is particularly irritating. PDFs may have “portable” in their name, making them display consistently on various platforms, but that portability means any information contained in a PDF is irritatingly difficult to extract computationally.”
In 2014 over 400,000 articles were published in about 8000 journals that many regard as predatory. The term “predatory publishers” was first used by Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado, who until recently documented this phenomenon on his blog and in an annual list. Although this term, and variants such as “predatory journals”, are widely used, they have been criticised. One problem is that the term predator may cover a spectrum of organizations, business activities and publications ranging from the amateurish but genuine to the deliberately misleading.
“Daniela Thrän, the Editor-in-Chief of Energy, Sustainability and Society shares her thoughts on finding sustainable solutions for the next generations and how open access helps spread research on maintaining a sustainable society.”
Judy Luther offered an insightful birds-eye view of the burgeoning preprints landscape at Scholarly Kitchen yesterday. As she mentioned, the Center for Open Science is contributing to preprints with a free, open infrastructure to support preprint services across scholarly communities. Here’s a brief summary of where we are, where we are heading, and what it all means.
As part of PLOS ONE’s 10th anniversary celebrations, for our latest interview with Editorial Board Members who have joined the journal when it was first launched, we met with neurobiologist Björn Brembs. Björn Brembs is based
“On Tuesday, Mr. Ballmer plans to make public a database and a report that he and a small army of economists, professors and other professionals have been assembling as part of a stealth start-up over the last three years called USAFacts. The database is perhaps the first nonpartisan effort to create a fully integrated look at revenue and spending across federal, state and local governments….In an age of fake news and questions about how politicians and others manipulate data to fit their biases, Mr. Ballmer’s project may serve as a powerful antidote. Using his website, USAFacts.org, a person could look up just about anything: How much revenue do airports take in and spend? What percentage of overall tax revenue is paid by corporations? At the very least, it could settle a lot of bets made during public policy debates at the dinner table….With an unlimited budget, he went about hiring a team of researchers in Seattle and made a grant to the University of Pennsylvania to help his staff put the information together. Altogether, he has spent more than $10 million between direct funding and grants….Mr. Ballmer is hoping that the website is just the beginning. He hopes to open it up so that individuals and companies can build on top of it and pull out customized reports….”
“At a friendly yet spirited debate last month over the pros and cons of open educational resources, publishers and OER advocates agreed on at least one thing: The “old” textbook market is broken.”
“Psychological Science is now introducing some minor changes designed to increase the frequency and ease with which editors and reviewers of submissions can access data and materials as part of the peer-review process. I anticipate that, in addition to enhancing the review process, these changes will further increase the percentage of Psychological Science articles for which researchers can quickly and easily access data and materials postpublication. The changes we are introducing are tweaks and nudges, not radical shifts. In the following, I explain the changes and why they are worth undertaking.”
“Digital Share 2017 presentation about Linked Open Data at The Getty, starting from what LOD is, to why we’re interested in it, and some of the practical approaches we’re using to make it real.”
“According to the ERC Scientific Council’s Open Access Guidelines : ‘The mission of the European Research Council (ERC) is to support excellent research in all fields of science and scholarship. The main outputs of this research are new knowledge, ideas and understanding, which the ERC expects its researchers to publish in peer-reviewed articles and monographs. The ERC considers that providing free online access to these materials is the most effective way of ensuring that the fruits of the research it funds can be accessed, read, and used as the basis for further research. […] The ERC therefore supports the principle of open access to the published output of research as a fundamental part of its mission.”