Archives

A Vision For Global Research Data Infrastructures

Karagiannis et al. on Global Research Data Infrastructurs for the year 2020.
A general-purpose Global Research Data Infrastructure (GRDI) for all sciences and research purposes is not conceivable for the next decade as there are too many discipline-specific modalities that currently prevail for such generalisation efforts to be effective. On the other hand, a more pragmatic approach is to start from what currently exists, identify best practices and key issues, and promote effective inter-domain collaboration among different components forming an ecosystem. This will promote interoperability, data exchange, data preservation, and distributed access (among others).

UK’s open access policies have global consequences

A report released recently has highlighted how out of step the UK has become with the rest of the world on open access policies. The UK has sought to be a leader in making publicly-funded research openly available but has taken a very different approach to Australia and even the European Commission. The problem is, scientific publishing is a global business, so the consequences of the UK’s decisions are felt far beyond its borders.

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!

When a theory is shown to be incorrect or a publication in error, it is all too easy to think that the scientist who came up with this theory is a liar or a dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain. Or as Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, puts it: Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.


The Guardian, Occam's Corner.

How open should your data be?

Robin Rice on the Edinburgh Research Data Blog:
The RECODE project is looking at open data policy for EU-funded research. I attended a workshop in Sheffield yesterday for a diverse stakeholder group of researchers, funders and data providers. Along with a nice lunch, they delivered their first draft report, in which they synthesised current literature on open research data and presented five case studies of research practice in different disciplines. The format was very interactive with several break-out groups and discussions.

We need MOOTs, not MOOCs!

Just read this and I think it is a highly interesting texts. MOOCs are currently a big topic at many universities, yet dropout rates are as high as 97%. Here is a text by Harvard's Ned Hall that takes the entire concept into question and provides a couple of good points on why he does so.
MOOCs and MOOTs are different things, and we should be working a lot more on the latter than the former. A MOOT is a Massive Open Online Text, a flexible on-line teaching tool that combines searchable, comment-on-able text, multimedia, tools for peer-to-peer collaboration and feedback, and who knows what other goodies we haven't thought of yet.
 

Where to find funds for publishing in Gold Open Access?

Numerous research institutions and universities worldwide offer special funds for publishing in OA, and governments and international organizations follow the suit, by introducing mandatory policies for publishing in this model. To cut a long story short: money has finally  appeared in the system. The funds are scarce but they are there. It is worth to look for funds. Just where to find them?

Springer charge academics for using CC-NC “Open Access” in lectures

Springer (commendably) publishes most of its APC-paid Open Access under CC-BY licences and allows free re-use for any purpose. However some “Open Access” (e.g. Drugs in R&D) is licensed under CC-BY-NC (non-commercial). This excludes, for example, re-use as teaching materials. Anyone wishing to re-use material in lectures will have to pay Springer, even though the author probably wanted it to be freely used. Here is the evidence; I strongly urge Springer to drop all NC licences, as otherwise it harms academics and many other sectors.


petermr's blog.

Librarians and curators are key partners in enabling innovative approaches to digital scholarship.

From the LSE "Impact of Social Sciences" blog:
Below is the text from a short talk given by James Baker, Digital Curator at the British Library about helping librarians and curators at the British Library acclimatise to the idea that the Library is becoming a place full of data as much as it is a place full of physical stuff, and that there is a growing community of users who see it that way. It is, in short, about helping those who are not digital scholars engage with digital scholarship.

Frontiers launches a new open-access journal in Energy Research

One of the largest and fastest-growing open-access scholarly publishers, now part of the Nature Publishing Group family, launched its Frontiers in Energy Research journal yesterday.
Frontiers in Energy Research will provide an open-science and interactive web platform for the research community to publish high-quality and rigorously peer-reviewed articles. Frontiers' real-time and interactive peer review enables fast, transparent and constructive review of a range of article types.

A coordinated approach is key for open access

Even the most optimistic advocates of open access to academic publications must admit that we are years — and perhaps decades — away from full conversion to such a system. It is easy to call for open access, but more difficult to make it happen. More science funders must put their money where their mouths are, and back their positive words with action. It will not be cheap, but the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.


Nature News.