I’ve just given an email interview for Abby Clobridge, for a forthcoming short column in Online Searcher. I give many of these interviews and often very little material from it gets used, so I asked Abby if it was okay if I reposted what I wrote. Her response: “go for it” – thanks Abby! So here’s my thoughts on Generation Open, for a readership of librarians and information professionals:
It’s been a week since Nature announced what they are now calling “read-only sharing by subscribers” — a much more accurate title than the one they originally used on that piece, “Nature makes all articles free to view” [old link, which now redirects]. I didn’t want to leap straight in with a comment at the time, because this is a complex issue and I felt it better to give my thoughts time to percolate.
Der Verlag des renommierten Nature-Journals, die Nature Publishing Group (NPG), feiert sich selbst.
Nach 7 Jahren mit 31 Ausgaben schliesst das kanadische Journal Open Medicine. Das Journal entstand 2007 nach Streitigkeiten des Editorial Boards zur inhaltlichen Unabhängigkeit des Journal of the Canadian Medical Association , CMAJ. Im Editorial der letzten Ausgabe erwähnen die Herausgeberinnen die fehlende finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit als Hauptgrund.
Guest post from Lisa O’Sullivan, Director, Center for the History of Medicine and Public Health By now it’s axiomatic that the digital world poses new opportunities and challenges for researchers, libraries, educational institutions, and publishers, which must be engaged with digital formats in a sustained and thoughtful way. The realities of this landscape encompass challenges to traditional models of publication and new
Nature has announced a press release about a new scheme they’ve come up with to legalise begging to view research. Pic lovemeow All Rights Reserved, copyright not mine.
Despite the flagrant trolling of its title, Nature ‘s recent opinion-piece Open access is tiring out peer reviewers is mostly pretty good. But the implication that the rise of open-access journals has increased the aggregate burden of peer-review is flatly wrong, so I felt obliged to leave a comment explaining why. Here is that comment, promoted to a post of its own (with minor edits for clarity):
Just a quick post to congratulate the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their fabulous new research policy covering both open access & open data. One of the key things they’ve implemented for 2017 is ZERO TOLERANCE for post-publication embargoes of research. Work MUST be made openly available IMMEDIATELY upon publication to be compliant. No ifs, no buts. Let’s just remind ourselves why other major research funders like RCUK &
Matt’s post yesterday was one of several posts on this blog that have alluded to Clay Shirky’s now-classic article How We Will Read [archived copy]. Here is the key passage that we keep coming back to: … and of course as SV-POW! itself demonstrates, it doesn’t even need a WordPress install — you can just use the free online service. This passage has made a lot of people very excited;
Die deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen haben heute einen “Appell zur Nutzung offener Lizenzen in der Wissenschaft” veröffentlicht. In diesem heißt es: In dem Appell wird darüber hinaus auch die Empfehlung zur Nutzung von Creative-Commons-Lizenzen gegeben. Dabei werden für unterschiedliche Publikationstypen (z. B. Textpublikationen, wissenschaftlicher Software, Metadaten) relevante Lizenzen erwähnt.