“SciENcv is a tool managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that allows researchers to create a biographical sketch (biosketch) to submit with their grant proposals for funding from NIH, and it can now also be used when seeking funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
As of October 5, 2020 the National Science Foundation (NSF) will require researchers to submit a biosketch that meets specific format requirements as part of their grant proposal. Researchers are encouraged to use SciENcv to create biosketches, as SciENcv offers a NSF-approved tool that is integrated with ORCID. Researchers can connect their ORCID iD with their SciENcv profile in order to transfer data from their ORCID record into SciENcv by clicking a button, rather than having to manually retype all of their information….”
Abstract: Seen from Francophone Sub-Saharian Africa, the struggle for open access takes on a meaning different from that which prevails in the countries of the global North. The detour proposed in this article aims at uncovering issues that are often invisible in the debates around open access, in particular the mechanisms of exclusion set up by the world-system of scientific publication, dominated by the Anglo-Saxon mercantile model. We will show that a concept of open access, which is limited to the legal and technical questions of the accessibility of science without considering the relations between the center and the periphery, can become a source of epistemic alienation and neo-colonialism in the global South. On the other hand, if we integrate the concern for the development of the knowledge produced in the periphery and the awareness of all that hinders the creation of this knowledge, open access can become a tool of cognitive justice in service to the construction of an inclusive universalism associated to fair open science.
“In summary, the deal boils down to Elsevier offering Dutch (corresponding) authors open access publishing options in nearly all of its scientific journals. However, a number of journals from the Cell and Lancet families have been excluded from the deal, for now. Additionally, both sides agreed to work towards the creation of infrastructure for research data and information, and to enter into ‘open science’ projects. All of this comes at a price of € 16.4 million per year.
Going by headlines in the national newspapers, one would get the impression that the Dutch are making a giant step forward on the path to open access and open science. But is this really the case? ScienceGuide asked experts and (co)negotiators and scrutinized the fine print of the contract. As it turns out, parties have agreed on very specific definitions of open access and open science, with vague articles in the agreement to underpin them. Agreements that are at odds with earlier statements on open science and on rewards and recognition….
However, due to the ‘unique’ nature of the contract, no true comparison can be made with other agreements. Not only because various Elsevier tools and platforms are also included in the contract, but especially because of the arrangements around what has become known as ‘Professional Services’. The market value of the ‘open science’ component is, after all, unknown….”
“How does the current reward system reflect how we value research? Is a reform of this system necessary to encourage researchers to engage in open science activities? How do current and proposed reward systems support early career researchers?
Questions on how academics’ careers and contributions are assessed and valued are under discussion. This webinar brings together a panel of experts on open science and career assessment to focus on the current reward system and the potential for its reform. This promises to be a lively exchange of ideas between representatives of Eurodoc, Young Academy of Europe, Marie Curie Alumni Association, and Elsevier. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of possible changes to how we consider academic value, retain mobility internationally and beyond academia, and create incentives for open science activities….”
“The Public Knowledge Project’s (PKP) 2020 Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held Friday, July 24, 2020 from 12:00PM-1:00PM PDT. This is a free, online event open to everyone.
What does it mean to be open? Open infrastructure? Open source? Join the PKP team as we unpack what it means to us to be truly open. We’ll reflect back on the year gone by and share some exciting new plans for 2020-2021….”
“Preprint servers play an increasingly important role in the scholarly publishing landscape. They are a popular platform for researchers to get early feedback on their research. They are also a space where researchers can publish research products and data sets not typically published in traditional journals. The process is fast — publication of open-access research that anyone can read is immediate.
The downside of this open publication system is that sometimes controversial or poor-quality research can garner a lot of attention on social media or in news articles, said Stefano Bertozzi, professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health. In the clamor for information about COVID-19, it is easy for misinformation to spread online, he said.
To combat this, MIT Press and the Berkeley School of Public Health are launching a new COVID-19 journal, one that will peer review preprint articles getting a lot of attention — elevating the good research and debunking the bad.
The Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 journal will be led by Bertozzi, who will serve as the first editor in chief. Unlike a traditional journal, authors will not submit their work for review. Instead, the Rapid Reviews team will select and review already-published preprint articles — a publishing model known as an overlay journal. …”
“The MIT Press announced today the launch of Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19), an open access, rapid-review overlay journal that will accelerate peer review of COVID-19-related research and deliver real-time, verified scientific information that policymakers and health leaders can use….
Using artificial intelligence tools, a global team will identify promising scholarship in preprint repositories, commission expert peer reviews, and publish the results on an open access platform in a completely transparent process. The journal will strive for disciplinary and geographic breadth, sourcing manuscripts from all regions and across a wide variety of fields, including medicine; public health; the physical, biological, and chemical sciences; the social sciences; and the humanities. RR:C19 will also provide a new publishing option for revised papers that are positively reviewed….”
“AAV are versatile tools used by neuroscientists for expression and manipulation of neurons. Many scientists have benefited from the high-quality, ready-to-use AAV prep service from Addgene, a nonprofit plasmid repository. However, it can be challenging to determine which AAV tool and techniques are best to use for an experiment. Scientists also may have questions about how much virus to inject or which serotype or promoter should be used to target the desired neuron or brain region. To help scientists answer these questions, Addgene launched an open platform called the AAV Data Hub (https://datahub.addgene.org/aav/) which allows researchers to easily share practical experimental details with the scientific community (AAV used, in vivo model used, injection site, injection volumes, etc.). The goal of this platform is to help scientists find the best AAV tool for their experiments by reviewing combined data from a broad range of research labs. The AAV Data Hub launched in late 2019 and over 100 experiments have since been contributed to this project. The dataset includes details and images from experiments conducted in six different species and several different expression sites….”
“The 2020 Law via the Internet Organizing Committee is pleased to present our Call for Program Proposals for this year’s virtual LVI conference. The theme of this year’s conference is “Free Access to Law in a Changing Landscape” and it will take place, virtually, on September 22 and 23, 2020….”
“This webinar, co-hosted by SOAS and the University of Cape Town, focuses on access to African law and legal scholarship. It brings together a panel of law, law and society, and open access academics and practitioners, who will share their experiences on law as lived in Africa.
The session will provide an opportunity for engaging with the challenge of open access legal scholarship in Africa, especially from the perspective of accessibility of this information. The panellists will share details of their own current or planned activities to expand open access law on the continent, shared in concrete personal and organisational contexts. The panel will then proceed to discuss and chart a possible way forward for a continental effort to mobilize African scholars for better open access to legal scholarship.
Many Africanists and African legal scholars agree that increasing access to African law and African legal scholarship will not only have distinct knowledge creation benefits but would also counter the narrative that there is limited legal scholarship within Africa. African legal knowledge, created, nurtured and built upon on the continent, by African scholars, will reflect their context, thoughts and aspirations. More and quality access to primary and scholarly legal information for teachers, researchers and librarians in law, will assist African legal academia to implement and teach a most relevant legal curriculum in law faculties across the continent and abroad.
In that sense, the primary purpose of the webinar is to promote ideas on accessibility of African law, written by Africans. The second purpose, a very practical one, is to establish a forum and continued conversations that will ensure projects, currently operating in silos, can begin to exchange ideas, actions and resources, so that wider, more impactful programmes are generated in the process….”
The success of the CHORUS and DOE relationship is the result of nearly two decades of interactions between the DOE and a group of scientific publishers.
The relationship between CHORUS and the US federal agencies required understanding of different motivations, operations, and philosophies.
Although achieving public access was simple in principle, it required considerable effort to develop systems that satisfied all parties.
Publishers had been working with federal agencies to achieve open access before the 2013 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, but this helped to create a path for a more fruitful relationship….”
Peer review remains problematic, but only partial resolutions to the problems have been identified.
The article processing charge financial model looks like a farmer who works hard to produce food but then must pay to sell his final products to consumers.
Article categories are largely meaningless – ‘original articles’ are not the only original content, and how rapid are rapid communications?
Word limits belong to the print environment and are overly proscriptive in the digital environment.
Why is only one author identified as the corresponding author when all authors should take responsibility for their articles?…”
“EIFL has pledged its support for the Open COVID Pledge that seeks to remove barriers to the use of intellectual property (IP) to help end and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Pledge was developed by the Open COVID Coalition, an international coalition of legal experts, engineers and scientists who are calling on companies, universities and other organizations to make their patents and copyrights temporarily available free of charge to accelerate the rapid development and deployment of diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, medical equipment and software solutions in this urgent public health crisis….”