(& where they end up, and why).The blog Free U.S. ETD’s is a blog created and managed by Gail Clement, Librarian and Associate Professor in Digital Services & Scholarly Communications at the Texas A&M University Libraries.
Good science should have no boundaries. That was the strong message from Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the European commissioner for research, last month at the Berlin 10 Open Access Conference at Stellenbosch University.Business Daily.
requirement for stating as many details of the hardware and software as possible (…) to build a central repository of code that contains a variety of different protocols along with their attendant parameters (…) (and) a uniform standard for the analysis and presentation of data.
Ireland already has considerable expertise in developing Open Access to publicly funded research, aligned with international thinking and initiatives, and is now seeking to strengthen its approach to support international developments on Open Access led by the European Commission, Science Europe and other international agencies.
John Dupuis, Acting Associate University Librarian, Information
Services at York University, Toronto, Canada, talks about one year of open access advocacy.
Blog post on ScienceBlogs.
PLOS and PeerJ, two very different beasts.
A description on ways of open access publishing prossibilities and science 2.0.
GitHub has big dreams for open source software and more.
Quentin Hardy for the New York Times.
OPUS 4 ist eine Open Source-Software unter der GNU General Public License für den Betrieb von institutionellen und fachlichen Repositorien.
Try out the open access repository demo software here. It shall help to access, publish, administration, research and distribution of documents with or without full text.
See reference here.
Kerstin Probiesch, open access advocate and Invited Expert for WCAG Working Group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), on the achievements of the open access politics in Germany.
In German.
An emerging preference for Gold Open Access publishing has been stirring emotions. Mike Taylor highlights where the Finch Report goes wrong on cost and argues that academics should redirect their anger at publishers taking $1973 from academia in return for each paper they receive.
Institutions need to take the opportunity to negotiate more imaginative and favourable arrangements with subscription publishers, to constrain transitional costs.
says Cameron Neylon in an article in Nature.
Taking into account the extensive submissions from all stakeholders, they (the guidlines) contain in particular a reinforcement of open access obligations and improved transparency rules.
Peter Suber on Jeffrey Beall who identifies and publishes lists of predatory open access publishers.
Blog entry on how the Directory of Open Access Journals works.
Mike Taylor, Computer programmer with Index Data, palaeontologist with the University of Bristol, and advocate for open access, open data and open source on the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and its possible influence on scientific publishing towards open access:
So journals and publishers are already set up to deal with public domain works that have no copyright. And that made me wonder why this option should be restricted to U.S. Federal employees.
Someone once said to me that the best way to get researchers to be serious about the issue of modernising scholarly communications was to let the scholarly monograph business go to the wall as an object lesson to everyone else. After the last couple of weeks I’m beginning to think the same might be said of the UK Humanities and Social Sciences literature. I get that people are worried, even scared. I can also see some are stirring up mud behind the scenes to get academics and editors angry. But the problem is that people are focussing on the wrong problems and missing the significant opportunities to rejuvenate H&SS in the UK.
The online home of Cameron Neylon.
Steve Miron, senior vice president of Wiley’s Scientific, Technical, Medical and Scholarly business, in an interview on the potential of open access.
Interview by Siân Harris, Research Information.
Public Library of Science (PLOS) CEO Peter Jerram discusses the role that PLOS and Creative Commons play in the open access movement (published due to the Creative Common’s 10th birthday).
The traditional model for scientific publishing includes anonymous peer review. Your colleagues read and evaluate your work. They catch the problems. If you can respond to their objections in a way that satisfies them and the editor, your paper may get published. But we know there are problems with this system. One way to measure those is with retraction rates. An article that gets published might have to be retracted if a reader or editor or even the scientist herself discovers that there was a problem.
There are various models of open access available, but the underlying principle is that authors pay for their article to be published in a journal. The cost will generally be around £900 to £2000, which will theoretically be built into future proposals for research funding. While there is widespread support for tearing down the paywalls around research findings, changing publishing’s funding model raises some significant issues, not least for the social sciences where monographs (books) and other non-journal outputs play a more significant role than in the natural sciences (although this may be on the decline).
Blog entry on The University of Nottingham, UK.
See also this article on the discussion about the future of open access publishing.