This is the third part of a series on the Moral Dimensions of Open, in preparation for the forthcoming OSI2016 meeting, where I’ll be in the Moral Dimensions group. [Part 0 laid the foundation by asking why this matters; and part 1 discussed the argument that price should be zero when marginal cost is zero.] As usual, I will be concentrating on open access.
As I mentioned last time, I will be participating in the “Moral Dimensions of Open” working group at the forthcoming OSI2016 conference.
What would the world look like if, as proposed by the Max Planck Institute, the scholarly world flipped from being dominated by subscriptions to Gold open access? I think there are three things to say. First, incentives. A concern is sometimes expressed that when publishers are paid per paper published, they will have an incentive to want more papers to be published.
From 19th-22nd April this year, it will be my privilege to participate in OSI2016, the first annual meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative.
Unter Federführung der Max Planck Digital Library ist kürzlich eine internationale Initiative Open Access 2020 (OA2020) entstanden, die in einer Expression of Interest eine schnellere Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens hin zu Open Access fordert. Unter den aktuell 37 Unterzeichnern sind viele namhafte Wissenschaftseinrichtungen, aus Deutschland bspw.
Unter Federführung der Max Planck Digital Library ist kürzlich eine internationale Initiative Open Access 2020 (OA2020) entstanden, die in einer Expression of Interest eine schnellere Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens hin zu Open Access fordert. Unter den aktuell 37 Unterzeichnern sind viele namhafte Wissenschaftseinrichtungen, aus Deutschland bspw.
Führende Wissenschaftsorganisationen haben heute die Initiative “Open Access 2020” gestartet. Im Fokus steht die großflächige Umstellung der wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vom Subskriptionssystem hin zu Open Access. Ziel ist es, ein Großteil der wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften in den kommenden Jahren auf Open Access umzustellen.
The European Commission is putting together a Commission Expert Group to provide advice about the development and implementation of open science policy in Europe. It will be known as the Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP). This is potentially excellent news. The OSPP’s primary goal is to “advise the Commission on how to further develop and practically implement open science policy”. But there’s potentially a downside here.
This post shouldn’t need to be written, but apparently it does. In recent discussions of Sci-Hub, I still keep seeing people trot out idiot analogies where copying scientific papers is portrayed as the equivalent of stealing physical goods. A couple of examples: Or: It pains me to read the words of experienced and presumably knowledgeable people when they trot out such absolute nonsense.
Yesterday we asked what will happen if Sci-Hub succeeds (by which I meant that it survives whatever legal challenges come its way, and continues to distribute copyrighted scholarly publications to anyone in the world at zero cost, ignoring the claims of that copyright). Now let’s think about what happens if it fails — that is, if it’s taken down by legal action within Russia, or it’s successfully DDoSed (don’t laugh, I’ve seen it