Group items tagged

Sad and interesting situation here, scientist publishes his research, and in the comments, his work is called into question and it costs him a job. Brings into question the integrity of pre-publication peer review, and casts a shadow on the future of comments. Frequently, the comments are made by anonymous users, which itself should be a problem, even if the comment brings to light errors in the research. Now it seems, entire websites have sprung up with the sole purpose of debunking the hard work of others, sometimes needlessly. It's a good read.

Thank you for sharing. The situation with PubPeer actually encounters problems which are common on internet. As long as one comments anonymously, there are many off-topic and offensive comments. As soon as only registered comments are welcome, there are very few of them or not at all. Besides, one can presume that some scientific communities, even world-wide, are quite small and because of different reasons people do not want to comment under their real names... Another interesting resource to explore.

The wonderful blog, Hack Library School, has recently posted a piece on open access publishing. This piece is a great overview, which covers many of the basic concepts covered in Module 6. The article discusses what open access is (and what it isn't) and some of the biggest discussion points on the issue today. It's a great overview and well worth the read if you want an overview or a refresher on the topic!

This blog covers a lot of relevant concepts related to OA, but a finer point need to be clarified. Regarding Google Scholar, not everything retrieved from GS is OA. GS is a web crowler, it crows wherever it is allowed, including references and citations to articles behind paywalls. On the other hand, many librarians are working to make their paid journals subscriptions available to their faculty and students via Google Scholar. So when faculty/students are on their universities' network, they can search GS, find articles from journals. If their library subscribes to that journal, there is a good chance a link to the full text will be available.

I agree with the point that "findability" for green OA articles is a current problem. We need a PubMed or Web of Science for green OA articles!

Peter Suber is Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication Office at Harvard, Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, a Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and Senior Researcher at SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). He is widely considered the de facto leader of the worldwide open access movement.

Algunos datos recientes sobre academia y acceso abierto/some recent figures about academy and open access (http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4370) "Today, there are more than 9,000 fully open access, scholarly peer-reviewed journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the DOAJ's net growth is a fairly consistent three-four titles per day. There are over 2,000 open access repositories listed in the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR). A cross-search of open access repositories using the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine encompasses over 40 million documents, a number that is growing by the millions every quarter (Morrison, 2005-). The producers of academic journal are the same that consume such journals: "Returning to the topic of academic library budgets as the primary support for scholarly journals, Michael Mabe (2011), CEO of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), recently affirmed that about 80-90 percent of the US$8 billion in revenue that goes to producers of the world's peer-reviewed scholarly journals comes from library subscriptions, as reported by Ware and Mabe [4]. Ware and Mabe's analysis is based in part on research by the Research Information Network (2008), which found that journals publishing revenues are generated primarily from academic library subscriptions (68-75 percent of the total revenue), followed by corporate subscriptions (15-17 percent), advertising (four percent), membership fees and personal subscriptions (three percent), and various author-side payments (three percent)."

Thank you very much for sharing.

An online review and ratings of the Terms of Service from different social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, and more. "Terms of service are often too long to read, but it's important to understand what's in them. Your rights online depend on them. We hope that our ratings can help you get informed about your rights. "

I think people really need this online review because most of people do not have patience to read the long list of Terms of service but it does not mean they do not care about their rights online. This tool is great, I would like to use it and share to all of my friends. Hope more people could know that such a great tool exists.

This snapshot of terms of service for the various social media sites is excellent. Bookmarked!

This article employs queer theory and challenges the notion of fitting emergent open access practices within current frameworks of academic success. While I was partially surprised by some of the assertions made early on in the article regarding open access journals being perceived as not as valuable as more traditional journal models, I think in part I may just hang out in academic circles that gravitate towards open access (hence... this course). But, I am very compelled by the conclusions made by Gurfinkel. That is, rather than trying to figure out how to systematize open access models to be respected within current academic standards, open access (as informed by queer theory, in this article) challenges us to investigate and question our standards in a more radical way. For example, in open access peer review models or post-publication review, the notion of a "peer" and thus who are considered credible and worthy sources of knowledge--and consequentially, what "knowledge" is-- are put into question. So, more than trying to figure out how to systematize and make more "legitimate" open access models, Gurfinkel wants us to ask what about the academy currently excludes open access models from being meaningful and legitimate practices in the first place.

DOAJ is an online directory that indexes and provides access to quality open access, peer-reviewed journals.

DOAJ is an online directory that indexes and provides access to quality open access, peer-reviewed journals.

I like the directory as it will allow access to the type of information that the world needs at no cost at all. Well done!

eLife is a unique collaboration between funders and practitioners of research to communicate influential discoveries in the life and biomedical sciences in the most effective way. eLife began following a workshop at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2010, where attending scientists concluded that there was a need for a model of academic publishing that better suited the needs of their community. In eLife a team of highly regarded, experienced and actively practicing scientists ensures fair, swift and transparent editorial decisions followed by rapid online publication. The editorial team are editorially independent of the funders. They rely on their scientific expertise and active research experience to identify the best papers, make scientifically based judgements and exercise leadership in steering these papers through peer review. The entire content of the journal is freely available for all to read and reproduce for unrestricted use.

Very interesting project. I spent some time exploring some of the papers. They do seem to be opening up the peer review process slightly be publishing a "decision letter" and "author response" with each paper. I also appreciate the seeming attempt to include data publication in the publication of the paper. Though it does seem to me that some of the papers don't have enough data accompanying them, so I wonder what their data publication policy is.

What makes MathVids Different? Although there are other online sites that have a similar vision and mission to MathVids, our approach is unique. While other sites rely on their community to flag content as inappropriate, every bit of content on MathVids.com is moderated and approved by a certified math teacher, including lessons, web resources, document resources, comments, and reviews.

"Instead of calling for more money to prop up a traditional model that was never particularly viable in the first place, we need to embrace a variety of alternatives. Academic librarians are well positioned to lead the way here, both because of their long history of managing change and because they often hold the purse strings."

Peer review citation ring exposed in major scholarly publisher SAGE.

I was reading one of the week 12 additional resources, PKP School: Becoming a Reviewer http://pkpschool.sfu.ca/becoming-a-reviewer/ and came across the term Predatory Open Access Publishing. I guess no matter what, someone is going to try to make a buck. There is also a site that others have posted here, http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ that is where Beall's list is housed. Beall's list is a list of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers - a good place to check if you are thinking of writing or reviewing for a journal, if it's on the list do more digging and research on the journal itself before committing to anything. The journal names all sound pretty impressive so you can't tell by name alone.

A hundred years ago, higher education seemed on the verge of a technological revolution. The spread of a powerful new communication network-the modern postal system-had made it possible for universities to distribute their lessons beyond the bounds of their campuses. Anyone with a mailbox could enroll in a class.

This article provides a clear overview of the evolution of higher education along with the rapid development of technology during the past 100 year, and raises the issue whether today's networked education model has posted threat to higher education. Today's the rapid development of Internet and social networks have changed the way we learn, access information and connect with others. The emergence and popularity of MOOCs and various social media have brought a new learning model, connected learning, which is largely used in university and college courses. It expands learners' opportunities of learning, and brings them huge convenience to access information, share thoughts, and communicated with learners from world wide on the same topic. Learning in the current information age subverted the way we learn in traditional learning models, and sometimes caused problems. But I think it's normal for a new thing to cause problems, but as long as we figure out ways to overcome the problems and best utilize the new learning model and resource, it will bring us huge opportunities.

Case study of a copyright take down notice and discussion of copyright and public domain issues.

This is a really excellent article! Access to the public domain and to the things that are in it (or should be, but never are) is at the root of my interest in copyright. I do wish there was more information about how we can fight back, if that's even possible. (I also appreciate the link to the Public Domain review in the article, and that the Public Domain review has a Tumblr. Something to investigate for my final project!)

Curioso caso. También hay otros casos sobre los problemas que hay, por ejemplo, en los personajes animados de Dominio Público como Peter Pan, Bambi, etc., donde empresas como Disney reclaman que sean de Dominio Público para poder lucrar con ellos, pero se niegan a que otros personajes en específico Mickey Mouse lo sean. Una doble moral. http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2008/08/22/actualidad/1219356003_850215.html http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/business/fi-mickey22

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology (DJLIT), is an international, peer-reviewed, open access jounal that endeavours to bring recent developments in information technology, as applicable to library and information science. It is meant for librarians, documentation and information professionals, researchers students and others interested in the field. It is published bimonthly. It was formerly known as 'DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology (DBIT)'.

Useful resources for Citizen Scientists who wish to publish, so sharing valuable data which otherwise may have been lost. Of course, caution should be taken to ensure that all data recorded is done scientifically and is reliable.

Very useful; thank you very much. You can find useful the list made by Prof. Andy Miah on academia and social networks: http://www.andymiah.net/2012/12/30/the-a-to-z-of-social-media-for-academics/

Thanks for sharing both lists of resources. Very useful!

The concept of student peer review has gained increased attention in higher education in recent years, in line with the growing focus on peer and collaborative learning (Falchikov, 2005; Van den Berg et al.; 2006). Peer review is a form of peer assessment that has been used for over three decades in a wide range of disciplines from Architecture to Computer Science to Music, just to name a few.

Practical examples that point to the value of open reviews.

Compares the cost of articles from society and non-profit publishers to those of the major commercial publishers.

Its crazy. The numbers (of profit and control) for the publishing companies is astronomical!

Universities have received a poor deal from the system of private, subscription-based access to knowledge production since the port WW2 commercialization of the scientific publishing industry. It is absurd that the university or research funder supplies the content (the research), pays for the authoring (the time of the researcher writing the article), and provides and pays for the time of peer reviewers and academic editors. In addition, it often pays page charges or formatting charges to publishers. It then cedes copyright and finally buys back its own research at prices that have escalated at four times the rate of inflation in the past decade and a half! Considering most of this research is conducted using public funds, it becomes a moral argument when public resources are used once again to purchase access to the outputs of this research. The commercial model of disseminating research does not obey the rules of supply and demand. A relatively small number of 'core' journals occupy monopoly positions, in that university libraries have to subscribe to access their content, whatever the cost, because these journals have been established as 'must-have' resources. While the practice of 'bundling' offers the advantage of bulk pricing, it reduces room for choice, as bundles consume large chunks of library budgets, making it difficult to subscribe to smaller, individual titles. In addition, the inflexibility of indexing systems makes it difficult for new journals to establish themselves; thus compromising the potential for smaller niche subjects and newer interdisciplinary areas. Thankfully the global inequalities engendered by the commercialization of scholarly publishing are being challenged by open access.