Group items tagged

A successful author on YouTube, Matt Santoro, uses YouTube as a teaching tool, publishing a new video on some aspect of knowledge every Saturday.

A successful author on YouTube, Matt Santoro, uses YouTube as a teaching tool, publishing a new video on some aspect of knowledge every Saturday.

A fascinating and meta conversation about the notion of reality, truthiness, and attribution. David Shields remixes works from hundreds of other authors (without attribution) to interrogate these topics and more. From Wikipedia: Reality Hunger consists of 618 numbered passages divided into twenty-six chapters. Approximately half of the book's words come from sources other than the author. Because of Random House lawyers, attribution for the quotes is given in a fine print appendix at the end of the book, but with Shields's encouragement to cut those pages from the book so as to preserve the book's intended disorienting effect

After reading a brief history of copyright law after the advent of the printing press, it is easy to see that copyright has always been an evolving concept. With the internet we again find ourselves needing to redefine what copyright means and who its serving. The Stationers' Company era of copyright offered no protections to the author of the work, and now we offer a lot of protections to the author of the work - and the technologies we use to access works of knowledge and art are unable to do so with the current laws. I appreciate the videos in the current module that detailed the advances some countries are making in evolving copyright law to be more flexible and keep the user in mind.

"Where once self publishing was viewed as the option of last resort - the option for failed writers and an option marked by stigma and shame - self publishing is increasingly viewed as the option of first choice for many writers. Over the next couple years I think we'll reach a point where more first-time writers aspire to indie-publish than traditionally publish. "

The Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, published in Italy, has been called a scam but it appears on the CVs of several professors at Unisa as the publisher of papers authored by them. This journal, owned by the Mediterranean Centre of Social and Educational Research, will publish an article only on payment by the author of a fee of $200 (about R2200).

Arguments for the right of property ownership are manifold, authors invoke to support private property rights.

Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.Methods.

Thank you for sharing the resource on library statistics. The site attracted my attention first of all because it is a Scandinavian resource. The material contains lots of useful theoretical and practical material. In the introduction the author states "It contains a number of research papers, but the framework is different. This is collection of texts, tables, graphics and links that are aimed at the people who actually run libraries." Statistics is a useful tool if used correctly and wisely. It may inspire changes and innovations and also measure the importance of changes. Besides, collection and interpretation of statistical data also changes with the course of time. The author has very clearly explained library statistics with good examples. .

This blog post gives a short but important overview about what is a MOOC. The author also gives an insight into the MOOC design model showing what to consider when planning a MOOC. What is even more interesting is the fact, that this post is just a chapter of an open textbook "Teaching in in Digital Age".

"The results show that at present, the responsibility for funding article processing charges (APCs) is more likely to fall on the author or granting organization than the library or institution. However, 23% of r"

This article responds to reality. Librarians are at the crossroad.

Online discussions and post-publication analyses are catching mistakes that sneak past editorial review. This article describes the pitfalls with editorial review and pre-publication peer review, and advocates for post-publication crowd-sourced reviewing through social media platforms.

I think having a comments section is a great way to provide feedback on the information provided. Often when I read articles the comments section allows me to understand different perspectives and interpretations of the information.

This article, while not necessarily explicitly, managed to hint at what I find to be a source of problematic practices/outcomes in the academy, publishing, etc. That is, it is not necessarily that traditional peer review processes are ineffective at finding errors or misconduct, but rather it is when our processes and practices become so systematized that we can mindlessly or effortlessly engage in and reproduce them without our full, critical attention that they can produce problems. While I think there are good reasons to critique the notion of peer and "expert" culture within traditional peer review processes, an additional and separate critique is the problems that arise with systematization. The article implicitly addressed this when the author commented that current post-publication environments "provide a public space that is not under the control of journal editors and conference organizers." Yet, as White indicates, there exists skepticism of the value of post-publication reviews along with a simultaneous effort to build post-publication systems that have standards that put those questioning it at ease. The National Institutes of Health establishing requirements that potential post-publication reviewers must meet demonstrated this. That is, they are trying to figure out how to systematize post-publication. For me, what this article indicates is that we ought to figure out how to keep our academic and publishing processes "fresh," so to speak. This way we don't become so comfortable with our methods and practices that they allow us to simply go through the motions without fostering innovative and critical inquiry.

"This raises the interesting and important question of whether publication in an OA journal represents the end of a process or the beginning of a different one. The difference is marketing, a term that is often misunderstood in scholarly circles. Marketing means creating demand for something. Traditional publishers do this with their brands and (for books) their authors. For OA publishers the challenge is to continue to keep pushing a particular paper after it has appeared online. There are many ways to do this, of which simply making the content openly available is one (allowing an article to get indexed by search engines and pointed to by bloggers and others). But to continue to keep the article in the eyes of its prospective readers, new means of attracting attention have to be developed. "

"Scholarly communication outreach and education activities are proliferating in academic libraries. Simultaneously, digital humanists-a group that includes librarians and non-librarians based in libraries, as well as scholars and practitioners without library affiliation-have developed forms of scholarship that demand and introduce complementary innovations focused on infrastructure, modes of dissemination and evaluation, openness, and other areas with implications for scholarly communication. Digital humanities experiments in post-publication filtering, open peer review, middle-state publishing, decentering authority, and multimodal and nonlinear publication platforms are discussed in the context of broader library scholarly communication efforts."

Proposes an alternative future where author self-publish their work for peer review outside of traditional journals.

Si, porque también se menciona, como dice en su proposición, Harvie et al. (2014) hacen un magnífico trabajo que describe los hechos exasperantes de la actual académico panorama editorial. Todos sabemos cómo funciona el sistema y cómo se juega el juego. Lo que se quiere dar a conocer una realidad alternativa facilitada por la plataforma de revisión por pares abierto gratuito, libre y sugerir acciones concretas que ayuden al movimiento científico comunidad hacia un sistema de evaluación de conocimientos y el intercambio más abierto y eficiente que se divorcia de revisión por pares desde la publicación de revistas.

The proposed alternative future is achievable, but not without resistance of traditional publishing, I think.

On data sharing in computational drug discovery and the need for data notes [v1; ref status: not peer reviewed, http://f1000r.es/4qi] Author affiliations Department of Life Science Informatics, B-IT, LIMES Program Unit Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Dahlmannstr, Bonn, D-53113, Germany Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.