Group items tagged

Arabic initiatives in open knowledge

Comparto, la forma en que se percibe al Open Access, en diferentes áreas de conocimiento, y que considero, ya que no es un caso aislado para los que se han comprometido con la causa: "Access to this research is like a human right"

Browse through 12609638 journal and book articles on ScienceDirect.com

Life Science, Medical Science, Engineering and Pharma

Scientific publishing. Quality vs quantity?

I think the quality of a scientific publication brings more benefits than an amount of irrelevant matters.

I agree! Open publishing is highly important, but having tons of low quality material doesn't serve any good. There should be some guidelines or measures that would ensure accuracy.

Acesso Aberto Autor Bibliometric Bibliotecas Brasil Comunicação Científica Copyright Creative Commons Dados Científicos Direitos Autorais DSpace Europa Gold Green Impacto Iniciativa Livros Metadados OJS Open Access Open Access Week OpenDOAR Open Educational Resource Open Source Outras Instituições Periódicos Pesquisas Política Informacional Política Institucional Portugal Produção Científica Publicação Científica Publishers Recursos Educacionais Abertos Relatório Repositórios Repositórios Institucionais Repositórios Temáticos Revistas Science Communication Software Livre Unesco USP Vídeos Workshop

The issue of subjectivity in peer reviewing an open access journal article where the name of the author is disclosed.

What I appreciated most about Costa's account of her first time experiences with an open peer review where author/reviewer are known to one other is that the changes it invoked in her behavior ought to have been possible in under traditional peer review. There is another article in the Diigo, Is Social Media Saving Science?, where I discuss this a bit, but what Costa's comment highlight is that traditional peer review processes are partially problematic simply because we've become too comfortable with the process, enabling us to take shortcuts. That is, we know what our responsibilities and duties are to one another as peers, but we are not fulfilling them because there are not external pressures. I agree with Costa's insights. Simultaneously, I find it concerning that there is a need for "peer pressure," in a sense, for us to fulfill our responsibilities. It makes me question how we can change our practices in a way that make us actually want to do our best, regardless of external pressures. For me, this raises very big picture questions regarding how we can change the meaning of work so that it doesn't invoke us to cut corners because we are not wholly invested and/or enjoying how we are spending our time.

Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review.

This article is certainly controversial, and I believe in some way did a service to the Open Access community by highlighting the practice of predatory journals. However, the irony of Bohannon's article, being an example of the kind of "bad science" he describes in his own article is inescapable. First, there is no randomization of his "experimental group", and there is no control group; second, there was elimination of non-responders; third, there was no application of the intention to treat principle in the analysis; and finally there were no inferential statistics and no references! Using his own standard, there is nothing that can be concluded from his study. For the criticism regarding Bohannon's targeting of OA journals exclusively, it is important to note that this experiment has been done before with 'traditional' journals as well- and many of them failed the test of peer review. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

I think Bohannens "study" should be considered more "investigative journalism" than scientific study. While it may have some flaws if held against the standards of a scientific study, as a journalistic piece it goes a long way to justify its central accusation that there are predatory open access journals. He does not claim that there are no or evwen less predatory journals in the tradional sector (although it seems reasonable to believe that it might seem easier to predatory publishers to dupe unsuspecting scientists rather than subscription paying librarians). It demonstrates that open access is not a cure for all the problems besetting acacemic publishing. I think more deeply about it, it shows that author fees for publication may create a buisiness model just as open to abouse as the traditional subscription system. One answer might be to make the peer-review process more transparent, i.e. name the reviewers But that of course has other drawbacks.

Me ha parecido que este tema tiene mucha relación con el vídeo Native science and Western science: Possibilities for a powerful collaboration cuando habla de la teoría de la relatividad de Einstein y del concepto del tiempo como punto de referencia occidental.

New Visions in Citizen Science by Anne Bowser and Lea Shanley: * different models that support public contribution, potential challenges, and positive impacts that projects can have on scientific literacy, research, management, and public policy. * Illustrate how citizen science functions at its best demonstrating how open innovation can address agency-specific challenges in new and compelling ways.

"The science journal Nature will make its archive of papers, dating back to 1869, free by way of read-only links available to subscribers and major news outlets. Under the new system, planned as a one-year trial, subscribers such as universities and researchers will be able to share a link to a read-only version of a Nature paper with anyone."

This is a great idea - hope to see more follow this model. Ideally, it would be nice to see it open a bit further (to lay persons), but this is a positive move.

How the Internet has evolved to effect our society in terms of collaboration, government, participation, intellectual property, content, and information as a whole

Open Access book - Opening Science: the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing / edited by Sonke Bartling and Sascha Friesike. 2014

The rapid growth of scientific literature is often seen as evidence, if evidence were needed, that the pace of human discovery is accelerating. On the contrary, however, it is becoming a curse - one that requires us to radically rethink what it means to publish the results of research.

VERY good point. Relates to this article, "At sea in a deluge of data" : http://chronicle.com/article/At-Sea-in-a-Deluge-of-Data/147477/

Practical examples that point to the value of open reviews.

What a wealth of information for the people of the world. I searched for my favourite topic "Data mining" and viola!! I felt like Eureka!

Support for Open Archives Initiative activities has come from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Coalition for Networked Information, the Digital Library Federation, Microsoft Corporation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and from the National Science Foundation (IIS-9817416 and IIS-0430906).