Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Well, that had to happen some day. And yesterday apparently was that day.Do scholarly publishers really need to be reminded that “publish” means “make public”?
Do scholarly publishers really need to be reminded that “publish” means “make public”?
Here are some in depth answers from two people working on open access: Peter Suber, Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the Harvard Open Access Project, and Elizabeth Silva, associate editor at the Public Library of Science (PLOS).
Open Science Collaboration Blog.
"Kraus was the first great instance of a writer fully experiencing how modernity, whose essence is the accelerating rate of change, in itself creates the conditions for personal apocalypse."And somewhere on page 273 of the book a passage in the footnotes struck me as a noteworthy counterargument to the current altmetrics craze:
The work of yakkers and tweeters and braggers, and of people with the money to pay somebody to churn out hundreds of five-star reviews for them, will flourish in that world. (Kraus's dictate "Sing, bird, or die" could now read "Tweet, bird, or die.") But what happens to the people who want to communicate in depth, individual to individual, in the quiet and permanence of the printed word, and who were shaped by their love of writers who wrote when publication still assured some kind of quality control and literary reputations were more than a matter self-promotional decibel levels?A video on the book project can be found here. SF
Scientists desperate to have an "impact" in their field are cherry-picking and misrepresenting their results. It's the natural result of a desperate scramble to publish.
Adequate funding has been allotted for universities to meet the cost of open access, the government has maintained.Times Higher Education.
A large international group set up to test the reliability of psychology experiments has successfully reproduced the results of 10 out of 13 past experiments. The consortium also found that two effects could not be reproduced.
Nature News.
Open science and open publishing is the future. The old model, where publishers end up owning the work they publish, is closely connected to having papers printed on paper. When papers now no longer are distributed in print, but only exist as abstract bits on hard disks, it is becoming hard to justify this model.
Oppose Section 302 of the proposed FIRST Act
A discussion draft of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act of 2013 (FIRST) currently being circulated would impose significant barriers to the public’s ability to access to taxpayer funded research by restricting federal science agencies’ ability to provide timely, equitable, online access to articles and data reporting on the results of research that they support. The proposed FIRST Act is not in the best interests of the taxpayers who fund the research, the scientists who make use of it by accelerating scientific progress, the teachers and students who rely on its availability for a high-quality education, and the thousands of U.S. businesses, both small and large, which depend on public access to stay competitive in the global marketplace. One provision of the bill – Section 302 – would undercut federal agencies’ ability to effectively implement the widely-supported White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Directive on Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research, undermine the public access program pioneered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and put the U.S. at a severe disadvantage among our global competitors.SPARC.
Two medical students are helping to turn the dream of making scientific research papers freely accessible into a reality, using the internet of course Some say the meek will inherit the earth but in fact it will be the young. More especially, those young people who know their way around computer technology and who have sparks of imagination and creativity. The Guardian, Occams's Corner.The Open Access Button.
If you have an Open Access Resource or Organization you'd like to have included on the map, please use the Add Item feature to share your contribution with the project.
There are a lot of extremely good arguments to defend the fact that Science (as a whole) should be more open. To summarize them very roughly: it's the ethical thing to do as it allows everyone to access information, it's easier for scientists to access information, it's faster than the traditional peer-review system when you need to get your work noticed, and it's much less expensive than closed-source science.Blog.
Almost one in three (29%) large clinical trials in the United States remain unpublished five years after they are finished, according to scientists writing in the British Medical Journal. Of those, 78% have no results at all in the public domain.
The Guardian.
Today’s young researchers are frequently dismayed to find their pain-staking work producing quality reviews overlooked or discouraged by journalistic editorial practices. In response, the research community has risen to the challenge of reform, giving birth to an ever expanding multitude of publishing tools: statistical methods to detect p-hacking, numerous open-source publication models, and innovative platforms for data and knowledge sharing.
Third, and finally, we need to un-install Excel and similar software. What we need instead, is aGood luck with that.pandocfor data.pandocis a tool to convert text formats into other text formats. It's awesome. And with strict data specifications, we should be able to write one for ecology. This will allow use to store data in their correct format (i.e., conforming to the data specification), but use them in another format when we need them in another format.
Open data can help unlock $3 trillion to $5 trillion in economic value annually across seven sectors.
This guest post comes from Angelica Tavella, a senior at UC Berkeley.PLOS The Student's Blog.