Brisk debate last week, prompted by these SciLogs posts from Akshat Rathi and Jalees Rehman and this reply from SciCurious. Writes the latter: “It’s true that science writing isn’t the most lucrative way to pay the bills. But getting a PhD to go INTO science writing is hardly better … You’d be better off building your portfolio as a full time science writer, supplementing with other types of writing or other work.”
Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard University,Faculty Co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Director of Harvard’s Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC), and chief architect of the Harvard Open Access (OA) Policy — a 2008 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement.
This article is about enabling knowledge creation in data-driven science.
The Global Young Academy, that sees itself to help empowering and mobilizing young scientists to address issues of particular importance to early career scientists, published a statement on Open Science on the Open Knowledge Foundation website.
Especially, the statement wants to address still existing obstacles that stand in the way of releasing Open Science, such as financial stability, scientific sustainability and data sustainability.
Marcus D. Hanwell, open science activist and Technical Lead in the scientific computing group of a private company, calls for open access to research publications.
We need to work harder to engage people in the work we are doing, especially those of us who are funded by the various research agencies and trusts from around the world. We need to take a stand against publishers demanding too many rights over our work, which we give to them freely thanks to the funding we receive.
Ralph Schroeder, is currently working on shared virtual environments and on the social implications of e-science at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, on digital transformations of research. (In German).
See also the videos here. (In English).
A well researched article on the development in open access book publishing.
There are several models: from free to read (all rights reserved); to free to use and reuse (CC-BY); to non commercial and/or no derivatives. In terms of formats, it’s a case of online versus downloads. From online reading only (HTML, e-reader formats) to PDF (personal copy) or both. OA book publishing motives range from front list publishing to a back list long tail approach. Some have a dedicated OA programme or service traditional monographs.
The Royal Statistical Society, London, discusses the adaptability of the Finch Report. November 29th & November 30th 2012.
A two-day Conference organised by the Academy of Social Sciences and kindly sponsored by the THE, Routledge, Wiley Blackwell and SAGE to look at the implementation of the recommendations of the Finch Review for Open Access publishing in the UK.
See also the discussion by the British Academy for the humanties and social sciences “Understanding the implication of open access publication in humanities and social sciences disciplines”.
3sat, a TV channel of the three German speaking countries Austria, Germany and Switzerland, produced a documentary on scientific publishing. In German.
3sat nano-Mittschnitt vom 12.11.2012 zum Thema “Wissenschaftliche Publikationen” und wer verdient daran? — Oder wie “wissenschaftliche” Verlage Universitäten ausbluten. Und dies nicht im Dienste der Wissenschaft. — Auch hier zählen Renditen, die der Anleger, nicht die derer, die Forschung ermöglichen. Zum Beispiel die Öffentliche Hand.
Some concerning thoughts on the open access publishing method GOLDEN ACCESS by John Charmley, director of employability and professor of History at the University of East Anglia, UK:
By April 2013 all UK academic journals have been told they must sign up to the Gold Standard of Open Access – that is they will have to make their content freely available on-line; so the next time David Willetts writes a book, he can access the articles for free. The problem is there is no such thing as ‘free’. Academic journals have content-management systems and other costs which need paying for. Finch knows that and is suggesting that academics should pay up front for these services when submitting their articles. Here’s the first difficulty. Quite apart from the contested question of ‘how much?’ there are five related ones. How are Universities going to cover this cost? What about those not in tenured University posts? What about those outside the UK? What about the problem of “vanity publishing”– the fact that paying to publish an article undermines the entire notion that publication is a filter for quality? And most important: why does the Finch report recommend that universities continue to pay taxpayers’ money to for-profit academic publishers, at the expense of already-strapped university budgets?
Feel free to participate!
See also this article on how open access would boost Africa’s development.
The Sanford C. Berstein Research, widely recognized as Wall Street’s premier sell-side research firm in releasing independent surveys of major institutional clients, has published data on Elsevier’s possible cost savings due to the probable introduction of open access:
We estimate that a full transition to OA could lead to savings in the region of 10-12% of the cost base of a subscription publisher.
This is attempted to be announced as “Victory for the >Academic Spring<”.
Read the Sample of new Rules of Participation in Horizon 2020.
See also the discussion on the conservative shift - to compensate scientific publishers in case of economic loss - of the Horizon 2020. In German & English.
One thousand years ago, science was experimental in nature, a few hundred years ago it became theoretical, a few decades ago it moved to a computational discipline, and today it’s data driven. Researchers are reliant on e-science tools to enable collaboration, federation, analysis, and exploration to address this data deluge, equal to about 1.2 zettabytes each year. If 11 ounces of coffee equaled one gigabyte, a zettabyte would be thesame volume as the Great Wall of China.
isgtw.
In academia more data that was previously locked away to the public in data centres and repositories is being made open. Last week it was great to see that the UK Data Service co-signed the Denton Declaration on open data, but the main area that academia can learn from the open data movement is to make the data properly open!
British Library Blog.
In my many travels as a science blogger, I have run across many young scientists who are in the position I was in when I started my blog: unsure, wanting to get writing experience and try something new, but not having any idea how to begin.
Well, you can start by practicing!
Scientific American Blogs.
Wissenschaft im Dialog aims at supporting small research projects as well as science communication.
How about using horse dung in biogas plants?
Or how about a German language version of mapping the (illegal) growth of cannabis in various countries across the world?
Or would you rather have a deeper insight into Africa’s (oral) literature?
Have a look at the first projects and see also the résumé being the first week online.
Crowdsourcing Discovery:
“It is time to experiment with the way we experiment. Using the Internet, we will enable the public to fund and participate in an open model of basic scientific research.”
See also the post from Oct., 15th 2012 referting to the Ethan O. Perlstein Lab.
But the duty of implementation falls not only to librarians. Researchers are just as responsible for making OA work but, unfortunately, many have yet to pick up this issue with serious intent. They are too busy and too inured to traditional modes of operation (and impact factors). But we need to talk to more of them so that this issue can break out of library committees and out of the blogosphere. Ideas for how to do that are most welcome.
Stephen Curry.
Rob Dunn, biologist and writer in the Department of Biology at North Carolina State University on popular science writing:
My writing opens up new perspectives I had been missing. It changes how I think about what matters. I feel an obligation to the public to help people understand the ecology and evolution of the world around us, and I think that this sense of obligation is an opportunity. On a more ordinary level, my writing allows me to engage more and different audiences.
SciLogs.
A review of more than 230 “citizen science” projects says the involvement of volunteers offers “high value to research, policy and practice”.
The review reached a number of conclusions about the value of data collected by volunteers:
- The development of technologies was “revolutionising citizen science”, for example through online recording and smartphone apps;
- Data quality could be excellent, but was not fully recognised by all researchers or policymakers;
- It is a cost-effective way of collecting environmental data
- There was potential to make considerably more use of citizen science that currently was the case.
BBC News.
Short video statement on open science by Pawel Szczesny.
See also his short presentation on open science.
The Global Young Academy issued a position statement that identifies obstacles that currently stand in the way of giving free access to scientific results and data, and advocates ways forward that will transform scientific research into a truly global endeavour. The GYA calls for scientific results to be made freely available for scientists around the world and for future generations.
Alexander Brown stands up for publishers, justifying their costs and explaining how they help move science forward
The Guardian.