Should you cite preprints in your papers and should journals allow this? This is a topic that gets debated periodically. The most recent round of Twitter debate started last week when Martin Hunt pointed out that the journal Nucleic Acids Research wouldn’t allow him to cite them. A couple of days later I suggested that journals that don’t allow citing preprints are putting their authors’ at risk by forcing them not to cite relevant work.
This morning, I was invited to review a paper — one very relevant to my interests — for a non-open-access journal owned by one of the large commercial barrier-based publishers. This has happened to me several times now; and I declined, as I have done ever since 2011. I know this path is not for everyone.
This is a quick post to announce what I’ll be doing next after my postdoc at the Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge. From June 2017 onwards, I’m delighted to say I’ll be the new Open Access Grants Manager for Arcadia Fund. About Arcadia Fund If you haven’t heard of it before here’s what you need to know: Arcadia is a charitable fund, set up by Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing in 2002.
Back in 2012, in response to the Cost Of Knowledge declaration, Elsevier made all articles in “primary math journals” free to read, distribute and adapt after a four-year rolling window. Today, as David Roberts points out, it seems they have silently withdrawn some of those rights.
Authors can now submit their bioRxiv preprints directly to GigaScience via the biorXiv platform, at the push of a button. This handy technical integration is another hallmark of biology preprints becoming a normal, accepted, and speedy way of communicating research results. Pre-prints, versions of a scholarly paper that precede formal publication in a peer-reviewed journal are becoming increasingly mainstream.
Der “Open Science Monitor” der EU-Kommission ist online. Auszug aus der Beschreibung des Tools zum Monitoring von Open Science in Europa: Für den Bereich “Open Research Data” werden Daten von re3data verwendet: {.alignnone .size-full .wp-image-15964 attachment-id=“15964” permalink=“http://wisspub.net/2017/03/20/open-science-monitor-der-eu-kommisson-online/open-science-monitor/”
Back in February last year, I had the privilege of giving one of the talks in the University of Manchester’s PGCert course “Open Knowledge in Higher Education”. I took the subject “Should science always be open?” My plan was to give an extended version of a talk I’d given previously at ESOF 2014.
Eine Studie von Swissuniviersities und des Schweizer Nationalfonds (SNF) hat erstmals die aktuellen Kosten von Schweizer Hochschulen im Zusammenhang mit dem wissenschaftlichen Publizieren untersucht und Modelle zur Transformation zu Open Access aufgearbeitet. Die Studie wurde durch die Beratungsfirma CEPA in Zusammenarbeit mit John Houghton durchgeführt.
With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher.
Die Académie des sciences, die Leopoldina und die Royal Society haben gemeinsame Leitsätze (deutsch/englisch) für eine gute wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis veröffentlicht. Eine Pressemitteilung der Leopoldina fasst diese zusammen: U. a. sprechen sich die drei Akademien für die Nutzung von Preprint-Servern aus.