Introducing the PID Services Registry

“We are pleased to announce the launch of the new persistent identifier (PID) services registry available at https://pidservices.org, a new service to find services built upon different PIDs from core technology providers and those who integrate from across a variety of disciplinary areas. This is a combined effort across multiple organizations as part of the EC-funded FREYA project grant (777523) with the aim of furthering discoverability of PIDs and the services that are built upon them….”

Biologer: an open platform for collecting biodiversity data

Abstract:  Background

We have developed a new platform named “Biologer” intended for recording species observations in the field (but also from literature resources and collections). The platform is created as user-friendly, open source, multilingual software that is compatible with Darwin Core standard and accompanied by a simple Android application. It is made from the user’s perspective, allowing everyone to choose how they share the data. Project team members are delegated by involved organisations. The team is responsible for development of the platform, while local Biologer communities are engaged in data collection and verification.

New information

Biologer has been online and available for use in Serbia since 2018 and was soon adopted in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In total, we have assembled 536 users, who have collected 163,843 species observation records data from the field and digitalised 33,458 literature records. The number of active users and their records is growing daily. Out of the total number of gathered data, 89% has been made open access by the users, 10% is accessible on the scale of 10×10 km and only 1% is closed. In the future, we plan to provide a taxonomic data portal that could be used by local and national initiatives in Eastern Europe, aggregate all data into a single web location, create detailed data overview and enable fluent communication between users.

Biologer: an open platform for collecting biodiversity data

Abstract:  Background

We have developed a new platform named “Biologer” intended for recording species observations in the field (but also from literature resources and collections). The platform is created as user-friendly, open source, multilingual software that is compatible with Darwin Core standard and accompanied by a simple Android application. It is made from the user’s perspective, allowing everyone to choose how they share the data. Project team members are delegated by involved organisations. The team is responsible for development of the platform, while local Biologer communities are engaged in data collection and verification.

New information

Biologer has been online and available for use in Serbia since 2018 and was soon adopted in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In total, we have assembled 536 users, who have collected 163,843 species observation records data from the field and digitalised 33,458 literature records. The number of active users and their records is growing daily. Out of the total number of gathered data, 89% has been made open access by the users, 10% is accessible on the scale of 10×10 km and only 1% is closed. In the future, we plan to provide a taxonomic data portal that could be used by local and national initiatives in Eastern Europe, aggregate all data into a single web location, create detailed data overview and enable fluent communication between users.

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19 | BMC Medicine | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern.

Main text

Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19.

Conclusions

In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19 | BMC Medicine | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern.

Main text

Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19.

Conclusions

In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.

Publication models in scientific publishing: to open or not? | Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

“The process of scientific publication entails significant input, not only from the authors but also from the editors, reviewers and publishers. Journals may be published by commercial publishers or by scientific societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE), which publishes this journal. Such published information may be available only to subscribers of the journal (subscription-based model) or freely available to be accessed by anyone i.e. open access (OA) model.1 In this article, we provide an overview of various models of publication and also briefly analyse some recent developments….”

Publication models in scientific publishing: to open or not? | Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

“The process of scientific publication entails significant input, not only from the authors but also from the editors, reviewers and publishers. Journals may be published by commercial publishers or by scientific societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE), which publishes this journal. Such published information may be available only to subscribers of the journal (subscription-based model) or freely available to be accessed by anyone i.e. open access (OA) model.1 In this article, we provide an overview of various models of publication and also briefly analyse some recent developments….”

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

Universal Funders’ Policy on Open Deposition of Publication-Associated Records

“A condition of being awarded funding by [FUNDER] is that researchers commit to making all source evidence such as data and computer code supporting published research — hence referred to in this policy as the records — publicly available as Open Access outputs, to the maximum extent permitted by relevant legal and ethical requirements. Where the materials can be legally and ethically published and made available, they must be released in synchrony with peer-reviewed outputs rather than at the end of the project. “Data will be available upon (reasonable) request from the corresponding author(s)” will no longer be acceptable in publications featuring work funded by [FUNDER]. …”

SURVEY OF ACADEMIC LIBRARY USE OF COST PER DOWNLOAD DATA

“Welcome to Primary Research Group’s survey of how academic librarians identify and monitor the cost per download for journal articles used by their library patrons, and how librarians then use this data. The survey should take less than 10 minutes and all participants receive a free PDF copy of the survey results….”