[UPDATE: 2015-01-07 It appears the full text of this article is now freely available from the publishers website. A moving wall system? This still doesn’t change the fact that this article was not publically available for 12 months. The maximum embargo allowed by MRC funding is just 6 months from publication.] I note with interest that article publication charge data from the University of Edinburgh has been released on Figshare today.

Dear  AAAS, This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, Science Advances. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of Science Advances: its broad STEM scope, its interest in cross-disciplinary research, and the offering of fee waivers.

I am just about out of patience with academic departments putting up endless idiot arguments about open access. Bottom line: we pay you good money out of the public purse to do a highly desirable job where you get to work on what you love — jobs that have tens or dozens of candidates for every post. That job is: make new knowledge for the world. Not just for you and a few of your mates: for the world.

Das Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst des Landes Baden-Württemberg hat gestern ein 120-seitiges “Fachkonzept zur Weiterentwicklung der wissenschaftlichen Infrastruktur” (PDF) vorgestellt. Zur Umsetzung des Konzeptes werden Mittel in Höhe von 3,7 Mio. Euro breitgestellt.

As recently noted, it was my pleasure and privilege on 25 June to give a talk at the ESOF2014 conference in Copenhagen (the EuroScience Open Forum). My talk was one of four, followed by a panel discussion, in a session on the subject “Should science always be open?“. I had just ten minutes to lay out the background and the problem, so it was perhaps a bit rushed. But you can judge for yourself, because the whole session was recorded on video.

Guest post from Alex Green, Transformation Project Co-ordinator, Wellcome Trust Last month saw the publication of the 2014 Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey. Combining responses from just over 7,900 authors who published with Taylor & Francis in 2012 (9% of the total), this represents the opinions of authors from across the world in roughly the proportions they have published with Taylor &

Today, available for the first time, you can read my 2004 paper A survey of dinosaur diversity by clade, age, place of discovery and year of description . It’s freely available (CC By 4.0) as a PeerJ Preprint. It’s one of those papers that does exactly what it says on the tin — you should be able to find some interesting patterns in the diversity of your own favourite dinosaur group.

Preprints are rapidly becoming popular in biology as a way to speed up the process of science, get feedback on manuscripts prior to publication, and establish precedence (Desjardins-Proulx et al. 2013). Since biologists are still learning about preprints I regularly get asked which of the available preprint servers to use. Here’s the long-form version of my response. The good news is that you can’t go wrong right now.

New copyright exceptions to text and data mining for non-commercial research have recently come into effect and this is welcome news for UK researchers and research, argues Ross Mounce . Here he provides a brief overview of the past issues discouraging text and data mining and what the future holds now that these exceptions have been introduced.

Der ganze Dokumentarfilm The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz ist bei archive.org unter einer CC- BY-NC-SA herunterladbar. Aaron Swartz, der sich 2013 viel zu jung das Leben nahm, drohten 35 Jahre Gefängnis, nachdem er 2011 am MIT systematisch Artikel von JSTOR runtergeladen hatte.