Symposium on open science, January 30-31 at Dublin City University. The symposium will explore issues surrounding open access to data and research, open source of design, open peer review and open data. The symposium opens with a public keynote lecture from Dr Alma Swan, director of Key Perspectives Ltd, and Director of Advocacy Programmes for SPARC Europe and Convenor for Enabling Open Scholarship, the organisation of universities promoting the principles of open scholarship in the academic community. Her work covers market research and business modelling, project management and evaluation, research communication practices and behaviours, and the study and promotion of new forms of scholarly communication in the age of the web. More here.
The MedOANet Guidelines for Implementing Open Access Policies available in 7 languages. The MedOANet project (Mediterranean Open Access Network – www.medoanet.eu) releases the Guidelines for implementing open access policies for research performing and research funding organizations in 7 languages (EN, GR, FR, ES, IT, PT, TR). Aim of the Guidelines is the coordination of policy-development in the six Mediterranean countries that participated in the project (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). The Guidelines provide concise and targeted guidance for a harmonized approach towards policy development. More here.
The 5th SPARC Japan Seminar 2013 “Wind of Open Access blowing through the Asia: the Past, Present, and Future”. This event will take place on Feb 7, 2014 13:00-1715 at the National Institute for Informatics. This seminar is intended to share information and explore the possibility of cooperation in future in two ways, namely, the Open Access Journal (OA publishing) and Institutional Repository (self-archiving) in Asia. By sharing information on current issues concerning OA in different levels and perspectives ranging from the researchers’ awareness on OA, various activities being initiated by the library communities, condition of OA publishing, and government policies in different countries and regions within Asia. More here.
openscience: Altmetrics – fancy feature or peer review’s successor? It is still quite a new phenomenon in scientific publishing, but the idea behind it is simple. When submitting your article online, you would like to know how many people have read it, how many people are talking about it, their opinions and whether your work is important to them. Altmetrics gives you the answer, as well as an opportunity to find out which articles are widely disputed in your field, and could therefore be of significance to you. Moreover, there are also some people who believe that altmetrics could replace the Impact Factor and even peer review. More here.
Science and the Web: Open and transparent altmetrics for discovery. Altmetrics are a hot topic in scientific community right now. Classic citation-based indicators such as the impact factor are amended by alternative metrics generated from online platforms. Usage statistics (downloads, readership) are often employed, but links, likes and shares on the web and in social media are considered as well. The altmetrics promise, as laid out in the excellent manifesto, is that they assess impact quicker and on a broader scale. The main focus of altmetrics at the moment is evaluation of scientific output. Examples are the article-level metrics in PLOS journals, and the Altmetric donut. ImpactStory has a slightly different focus, as it aims to evaluate the oeuvre of an author rather than an individual paper. More here.
The Ninth International Conference on Open Repositories, OR2014, will be held 9-13 June 2014 in Helsinki, Finland. Examining how repositories best integrate into the holistic research flow; exploring ties between domain-specific repositories and institutional repositories; and understanding durable content strategies outside of traditional repository environments are the central themes of the Open Repositories 2014 conference. We welcome proposals on these themes, but also on the theoretical, practical, organizational or administrative topics related to digital repositories. Deadline for submissions: 3 February 2014. More here.
ORCID welcomes new members M2community, eJournal Press, and Taylor and Francis.
Open Access policies in Horizon 2020. In December 2013, the European Commission launched Horizon 2020, the successor of the FP7 funding programme and itsbiggest ever research and innovation framework programme, with a seven year budget worth nearly €80 billion. As an extension of the successful Open Access Pilot in FP7, Open Access will now be mandatory for all research publications that result from H2020-funded projects. More here.
Taiga Forum: Is it time for a PLoLIS? What exactly is a PLoLIS? With apologies to PLoS, the Public Library of Science, it’s intended to represent the idea of a PL0S-like model for library and information science, ergo the Public Library of Library and Information Science. We are now well into the second decade of the open access era, and yet paywall journals are alive and well in our profession. It’s time to tackle that issue head on. Going back to PLoS as a model for moment, isn’t it noteworthy that such an ambitious project chose to embed the ideal of the public library in its name? As laudable as that is, isn’t it all the more glaring that the library profession itself has not chosen such a model for its own publishing practice? After all, librarians are nearly unanimous in their support and advocacy for open access. We wear the buttons, organize the events, and preach the gospel, but as with so many types of faith, apparently it is easier to urge others to heed the creed than to apply it to our own practice. More here.
LibTechNotes: Ebooks and university libraries: In search of good ideas. Academic libraries are seeing important increases year after year in the presence of ebooks in their collections. At the UOC Library, we won support from the Governing Council in 2011 to prioritize acquisition of documents in electronic format, and over the last three years we have seen how the number of ebook downloads has only gone up. We are now looking at how other libraries are organizing the ebook spaces on their sites and trying to find the best ideas for how to create our own ebook showcase. The University of New England (UNE), Australia, uses Summon (just like we do) and offers a specific Summon search box for ebooks as well as a list of specialized ebook collections. More here.
The Scholarly Kitchen: Publishing Viewed from Santa’s Crystal Ball, by Joseph Esposito. Every Christmas Santa never fails to slide down the chimney with a crystal ball. This year was no exception, and the nifty forecasting tool came with a wonderful stocking stuffer, a set of links from Gary Price of Infodocket. If you don’t know Gary, I recommend that you follow him on Twitter: @infodocket. It’s like having your own personal librarian. The links this year are to two announcements from Elsevier, one on a number of journals Elsevier is “flipping” to Open Access (OA)(including publications that are part of the SCOAP initiative). The other is for a new OA journal. So we have Elsevier, everybody’s Grinch, getting more deeply involved with OA publishing even as the company continues to lobby hard for its own interests andissues takedown notices to authors who have posted copies of their articles on the Web without Elsevier’s approval. What is going on here? More here.
Iva Cheung: Why open access proponents should care about plain language.
There’s no question that the idea of OA is democratic and altruistic. (Whether OA can flourish given its financial constraints is another discussion.) Making peer-reviewed scholarly work available for free helps researchers broaden their reach and makes it easier for them to collaborate and build on the work of others. For the general public, free access to the latest research means that
- people with health conditions can read up on the newest treatments
- professionals who have left academia but still work in a related field can keep up to date
- citizen scientists—such as hobbyist astronomers, bird watchers, mycologists, and the like—can learn from and contribute to our collective body of knowledge.
Making publications free, however, doesn’t go far enough. The way I see it, there are three levels of access, and if researchers fail to meet any one of them, they haven’t really met the overarching goal of OA, and we taxpayers are still getting shortchanged. More here.
Open Access Button: Remembering Aaron. One year ago, the world lost Aaron Swartz. Swartz was an Internet activist, computer programmer, and political organizer that had relentless optimism for a better and more open world. He helped author the RSS 1.0 web syndication specification at 14, was one of the earliest architects of Creative Commons, co-founded Reddit and supported the Internet Archive’s Open Library project through his software company Infogami. Swartz went on to co-found Demand Progress, a political advocacy organization that specializes in internet activism, in 2010, and was instrumental in stopping the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2012. More here.
Jannet Symmons: Four-Step Open Access Curation Plan. Much of what I’ve accomplished on social media sites has been by trial and error. Over the years I have attempted to create original material, but struggled to find my own voice, particularly on my blog. I have, however, had success with Twitter, which I use to find and share information about higher education and educational technology. This is of little surprise to me as I relish the hunt for information when writing and shaping a literature review. Similar to a lit review, I created parameters for my Twitter feed. As I morph my blog into an open access article repository, I feel it is necessary to share these steps in hope of others also creating open access curation sites. I have a four step process: List, discover, annotate, and share. I leave it to others to reframe the information I find because I want other to discover the article’s value without my interpretation. More here.
The CITE: Caltech Implements Open-Access Policy. Faculty at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) decided on a policy that requires them to grant open-access rights to their scholarly papers. The move will make their work more readily available and help simplify the copyright process, according to a report in Campus Technology. Copyright issues are a big reason for the new policy because it prevents publishers of the many journals in which Caltech research appears from suing authors who post their content to their own online sites or the institute’s online repository. It also complies with a directive from the United States Office of Science and Technology that requires federally funded research be made available for free within a year of publication. Caltech faculty will continue to publish in academic journals and can still grant exclusive rights to their work; they just need to request a waiver from the policy. More here.
The Economist: No peeking… A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals’ papers. ONCE upon a time, it was common for scientists to receive letters from researchers working in other institutions, asking for reprints of papers they had published. It was the usual practice in those days for journal publishers to furnish authors with a couple of dozen such reprints, precisely for this purpose—but, if these had run out, a quick visit to the photocopier kept the wheels of scientific discourse turning, and though it was technically a violation of copyright, no one much minded. Then, the world wide web was invented—initially, as it happens, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed. Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work. And, though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back. It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals. In doing so it has stirred a hornets’ nest. More here.