“The term ‘article processing charge’, or APC, is ubiquitous in discussions about Open Access. It refers to the author-facing charge levied by many publishers in order to make an article freely available on their website. Now, putting aside the fact that this system actively discriminates against less-wealthy authors and institutes, I think that the term APC itself is incredibly misleading. Furthermore, I believe that this misdirection occurs in favour of publishers, to the detriment of all other parties. Hopefully in this post, I can explain why, and offer a potential solution to it.”
“A new study conducted by researchers at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia, Canada examines the performance of students using open education resources (OER) in both print and digital formats compared to a traditional textbook from a commercial publisher. The study found that students using OER spent less time overall studying for the class while scoring comparably with those who used a commercially published textbook.”
“Wevolver is a file sharing and revision management solution, empowering both private teams and open communities….
- Wevolver offers a secure, central location for your project files and documentation.
- Past revisions are stored out of sight in a version control system.
- No more ‘final-final-final’ in your file names.
- Everyone knows the concurrent revision. Never work on the wrong version of a file….”
Abstract: A fundamental principle of public policymaking should be that public policy must be made with publicly available data. This article develops this position and applies it to an assessment of the current state of communications policymaking, a policy area in which controversies surrounding the transparency of policy research and the accessibility of policy-relevant data have been both common and extremely contentious in recent years. This article provides a detailed assessment of the challenges confronting greater transparency and accessibility of communications policy-relevant data, as well as a detailed set of proposals for improving the current situation, in an effort to build towards an environment in which public policy is made with publicly available data.
Scott Pruitt’s open-data proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency is less neutral and more political than it looks.
“If you are a copyright holder or a representative of a copyright holder of a work in HathiTrust and would like to authorize the work to be opened for full view, the following form enables you to select a Creative Commons license and authorize HathiTrust to release the work….”
“This policy also establishes a pilot program that requires agencies, when commissioning new custom software, to release at least 20 percent of new custom-developed code as Open Source Software (OSS) for three years, and collect additional data concerning new custom software to inform metrics to gauge the performance of this pilot….”
“Please bear in mind the purpose of this document: to identify how we can all work together as a global community to advance Open Scholarship.
This document can be freely edited by anyone, and we encourage as broad a participation as possible. Please share with any colleagues who might be interested.”
“Metaliterate individuals gain insights about open environments and how to share their knowledge in these spaces. For instance, they are well aware of the importance of Creative Commons licenses for determining what information can be reused freely, and for making such content openly available for others’ purposes, or for producing their own content.
They also understand the importance of peer review and peer communities for generating and editing content for such sites as Wikipedia, or open textbooks, and other forms of Open Educational Resources (OERs)….”
“Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules….EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public.”
“An open access website to provide information for those around the world who are affected by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).”
Open Access is the principle of free access to scientific literature. Both the Swiss National Science Foundation and Swissuniversities are increasingly promoting Open Access. With this, the question arises, as to whether university employees may be obliged to publish Open Access. The authors describe in a first step, how this issue has been addressed in other countries, and then consider a possible implementation in Switzerland.
“Digital Commonwealth is a non-profit collaborative organization that provides resources and services to support the creation, management, and dissemination of cultural heritage materials held by Massachusetts libraries, museums, historical societies, and archives. Digital Commonwealth currently has over 130 member institutions from across the state.
This site provides access to thousands of images, documents, and sound recordings that have been digitized by member institutions so that they may be available to researchers, students, and the general public.
Massachusetts cultural institutions may sign up for free digitization services from the Boston Public Library as part of the Library for the Commonwealth program….”
“The journal impact factor has numerous flaws, which makes it highly irresponsible for the UGC [University Grants Commission] to rely on it to evaluate a teacher’s research performance and decide whether she gets a job or not….”
Abstract: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem: transforming the publishing industry, shaping hiring practices and the allocation of resources, and, as a result, reorienting the research activities and dissemination practices of scholars. Given both the ubiquity and impact of the indicator, the JIF has been widely dissected and debated by scholars of every disciplinary orientation. Drawing on the existing literature as well as on original research, this chapter provides a brief history of the indicator and highlights well-known limitations-such as the asymmetry between the numerator and the denominator, differences across disciplines, the insufficient citation window, and the skewness of the underlying citation distributions. The inflation of the JIF and the weakening predictive power is discussed, as well as the adverse effects on the behaviors of individual actors and the research enterprise. Alternative journal-based indicators are described and the chapter concludes with a call for responsible application and a commentary on future developments in journal indicators.