Your guide to Open Access publishing and Open Science

Open and Shut: #OpenAccess #OpenData #OpenScience Around the web

Author: No Comments Share:

Video of the Day

I personally find the current use of copyright to be abhorrent. Having studied cultural evolution for the past five or so years, some of our greatest cultural endeavours and products stem from, to use Matt Ridley’s apt phrasing, ideas having sex. This culture of remixing has its roots in the very early stages of humanity and it essentially fuelled our rise to global dominance (whether you consider that a good or a bad thing is another question). So, on that note, I urge to watch Kirby Ferguson’s video on Embrace the Remix. In short: nothing is original and even our most celebrated creators borrow, steal and transform. Everything is a remix.

Some Links

  • Dienekes highlights “Four steps to open science“: the replacement of the “article unit model” with an “open-source” science model in which knowledge is assembled from bits and pieces from thousands of sources, constantly updated, constantly reviewed, constantly tested against new evidence.
  • Science Intelligence and Info Pros discuss “STM journals: the end of Big Deal is approaching!“: Budget cuts have become inevitable, forcing publishers to restrategize and libraries to make even tougher purchasing decisions.
  • Creative Commons asks if library catalog metadata should be “Open Licensing or Public Domain?“: […] we see that a truly normative approach for the library community would be a public domain dedication such as CC0, coupled with requests to provide attribution to the source (e.g. OCLC) to the extent possible. Such an approach would maximize experimentation and innovation with the cataloging data, in keeping with the mission and values of the library community, while respecting the investment of OCLC and the library community in this valuable resource.
  • Open Knowledge Foundation Blog explains “CC license version 4.0: Helping meet the needs of open data publishers and users“: The goals of version 4.0 are wide-ranging, but the overall objective is clear: update the licenses so they are considerably more robust, yet easy to understand and use, for both existing communities and new types of users.
  • Zen Faulkes claims that “Self archiving science is not the solution“: While I personally plan to live forever, in the remote chance that some accident occurs where I don’t, how can I make sure my scientific contributions are available to researchers one hundred years from now? Two hundred? Three? Sticking my own PDFs on my own university server is not going to cut it. I can’t control what happens to my papers after my death. Maintaining the scientific record needs to be done by communities and institutions, not individuals.
  • The American Library Association offers the following report “EBook Business Models for Public Libraries“: During the past months, the Working Group has developed considerable knowledge about the ebook market, publishers, and the new challenges posed by library ebook lending to inform its discussions with publishers and distributors. However, the Working Group is well aware that information about this topic is highly sought in the library community generally, and so this report was prepared to share some of what we have learned.

Tweet of the Day

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/PsychScientists/status/237991648502624256″]

Previous Article

Mendeley Press Release: Passing 100 million API calls per month

Next Article

Independent Confirmation of Results and Academic Publishers: A Potential Opportunity?

You may also like

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.