Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with Twitter
I don't have a Facebook or a Twitter account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Free, legal research articles and data delivered instantly or automatically requested from authors. 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
Publicly funded research output should neither be hidden behind paywalls nor be a ‘pay-to-publish’ game. This is one of the core tenets of the Position Statement titled ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Implementing Plan S – The View of Young Academies’, which is the result of discussions among several European young academies and the Global Young
Bernard Rentier's insight:
An other word of caution concerning Plan_S.
Scoop.it!
Google is focusing on accessibility of Open Data - European Data Portal
Bernard Rentier's insight:
“Dataset Search” is Google’s new pilot to search for Open Data
Scoop.it!
A year ago, I concluded that we had failed in our quest to make scholarship open access (OA): the race had been won by pirates like SciHub (Green, 2017). Twelve months on, how do things look? Key points: We’re still failing to deliver open access (OA): around a fifth of new articles will be born free in 2018, roughly the same as in 2017. Librarians, funders and negotiators are getting tougher with publishers but offsetting, ‘Publish and Read’, deals based on APCs won’t deliver OA for all or solve the serials crisis. The authors of Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin OA declarations foresaw three changes with the coming of the internet. Flipping to a barrier to publish (APCs) from a barrier to read (subscriptions) wasn’t one of them. By itself, OA won’t reduce costs to solve the serials crisis: a digital transformation of scholarly communications based on internet-era principles is needed. Following the internet-era principle of ‘fail-fast’, what if papers are first posted as preprints and only if they succeed in gaining attention will editors invite submission to their journal In clinging onto traditional journals to advance the careers of the few (authors), OA is delayed for the many (readers): rebuilding the reputation economy to accept preprints could be the catalyst to deliver OA, solve the serials crisis and drive out predatory journals
Scoop.it!
« We object to barriers that hinder, delay or block the spread of scientific knowledge supported by federal tax dollars - including our own works. Thanks to the internet, we can transform the speed and ease with which the results of research can be shared and built upon. However, to our great frustration, the results of NIH-supported medical research continue to be largely inaccessible to taxpayers who have already paid for it ». (July 2007)
Scoop.it!
Scientists in emerging economies respond fastest to peer review invitations, but are invited least.
Bernard Rentier's insight:
Peter Suber’s comments: « Scholars spend 68,500,000 hours/year performing peer review. nature.com/articles/d4158… The US federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Scholars deserve more than that, but take it as a starting point. That's a gift to publishers of at least $496,625,000/year in free labor. »
Scoop.it!
Negotiations with Elsevier have stalled over open-access deals.
Bernard Rentier's insight:
As expected. However, it marks a major break in the process based on negotiations. I keep believing strongly that negotiating leads us nowhere as long as we will not bow to their requirements. The solution is elsewhere, with public publication platforms, no private sector involved between researchers. Period.
Scoop.it!
Back in April, we wrote about a curious decision to give the widely-hated publisher Elsevier the job of monitoring open science in the EU. That would include open access too, an area where the company has major investments.
Bernard Rentier's insight:
Such a shame !!
Scoop.it!
Elsevier - one of the largest and most notorious scholarly publishers - are monitoring Open Science in the EU on behalf of the European Commission. Jon Tennant argues that they cannot be trusted. Via Florence Piron
Bernard Rentier's insight:
The blatant conflict of interest I was denouncing a few weeks ago is becoming a reality. It ruins the credibility of Europe’s Open Science Monitor. The research community should react loudly to this. It is just like asking Coca Cola to monitor the progress of healthy drinks.
Scoop.it!
Bernard Rentier's insight:
One important leg of Open Science, Open Access and Open Publication Platforms is Open Peer Review which is supposed to be totally unrealistic, lacking seriousness and scientific rigor. Here is a clear and didactic demonstration of what we are talking about. And why it is the way to go.
Scoop.it!
Bernard Rentier's insight:
Magnifique initiative ! Bravo ! On espérait tous qu’un jour, l’écœurement conduirait à la rupture et que les formidables économies qui en résulteraient pourraient alimenter un vrai renouveau ! C’est la bonne voie, la seule possible, à terme ! Finis les Big Deals et autres arnaques sans fin ! Ça suffit, les négociations perdues d’avance ! Maintenant, que tout le monde fasse de même, ce n’est qu’un court moment de courage académique, mais quelle ouverture, là derrière!!!
|
Scoop.it!
The new European directive on copyright in the digital single market adopted on 12 September by the European Parliament, which is undoubtedly beneficial for music or film broadcasting, is worrying the academic world of research. Why? Essentially because the publication - and therefore dissemination - of public research results is a fundamentally different process. Traditionally,…
Scoop.it!
On September 14, 2018 the Guardian’s columnist George Monbiot published a violent charge against the publishers of scholarly journals and this should please us who have been fighting for open access for a long time. However, is the target the right one? Imagine a very select and reputable travel agency that sells…
Scoop.it!
Techdirt has written many posts about open access -- the movement to make digital versions of academic research freely available to everyone. Open access is about how research is disseminated once it has been selected for publication. So far
Bernard Rentier's insight:
Open Peer Review is an essential pillar of Open Science, like Open Access, Open Data, Open Software and Open Evaluation. Open Science as an ultimate goal is unreachable without full transparency at all stages.
Scoop.it!
Six basic principles:1. Don’t trust email invites and ‘Call for Papers’ (unless you recognise the sender) 2. Be sceptical of ‘international’ or ‘global’ journals, and those with a wide scope 3. Double-check claims of prestigious indexing and impact factors 4. Read the ‘Aims and scope’ or ‘About’ page – check the journal understands your field 5. Check who is publishing the journal – are they a credible scholarly organisation? 6. Check your reference lists – familiarise yourself with good journals in your field
Scoop.it!
Publishers are taking advantage in dubious ways of the pressure on academics to publish papers in what has been described as "a disaster for scientific credibility."
Bernard Rentier's insight:
Scientific publication in parasitic pseudo-journals (aka predatory): a direct consequence of the « publish or perish » pressure in the « pay for Gold OA » era. Research assessment must now evolve towards less indirect, more relevant and more diversified criteria.
Scoop.it!
“The excessive demands put forward by Elsevier have left us with no choice but to suspend negotiations between the publisher and the DEAL project set up by the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany.” That was the verdict of the lead negotiator and spokesperson for the DEAL Project
Scoop.it!
Le Plan national pour la science ouverte annoncé par Frédérique Vidal, le 4 juillet 2018, rend obligatoire l’accès ouvert pour les publications et pour les données issues de recherches financées sur projets. Il met en place un Comité pour la science ouverte et soutient des initiatives majeures de structuration du paysage concernant les publications et les données. Enfin, il est doté d’un volet formation et d’un volet international qui sont essentiels à la mobilisation des communautés scientifiques et à l’influence de la France dans ce paysage en cours de constitution.
Scoop.it!
Sweden is latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions, while negotiators share tactics to broker new deals with publishers.
Bernard Rentier's insight:
These various breaks in negotiations are very instructive as to the discomfort experienced by the universities for decades, but the very fact that they are not definitive shows that the national academic consortia (German, Dutch, French, Swedish, .. .) expect only to strike a better deal with giant publishing houses but fail to envision the scholarly publication process without them and miss the opportunity to move ahead towards a different concept although it is now technically simple. The decision by the Université de Lorraine to allocate to open publication initiatives the money spared by the stand-off should be followed by all institutions. This would quickly solve an otherwise insoluble problem.
Scoop.it!
Gerard Meijer: “Our patience with the academic publishers has run out.” OA negotiators in European universities are getting organized and gather to consider alternatives to traditional publication, including taking back the editing/publishing business.
Bernard Rentier's insight:
There comes a time when, tired of being strangled, the golden egg hen rebels and beaks back.
|
