Group items tagged

Se presenta una introducción de carácter descriptivo sobre la situación actual de los blogs científicos, académicos o science blogs. Para ello se valoran diversos aspectos sobre los posibles cambios que pueden introducir en el ámbito de la comunicación científica. En primer lugar se delimitan las fronteras y las características básicas de este tipo de bitácoras, una vez establecidas pasamos a exponer sus utilidades en el mundo de la ciencia. Uno de los usos señalados es su empleo como medio de publicación por lo que también se discute la toma de postura de las revistas científicas ante esta nueva situación. Para cerrar el trabajo se presentan como y cuales son las comunidades que emplean los bloguers para comunicarse y nos aproximamos a este tipo de blogs para el caso concreto de la Biblioteconomía y Documentación.

On data sharing in computational drug discovery and the need for data notes [v1; ref status: not peer reviewed, http://f1000r.es/4qi] Author affiliations Department of Life Science Informatics, B-IT, LIMES Program Unit Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry,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.

Introduction Sophisticated knowledge of the natural world is not confined to science. Human societies all across the globe have developed rich sets of experiences and explanations relating to the environments they live in. These 'other knowledge systems' are today often referred to as traditional ecological knowledge or indigenous or local knowledge.

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.

A plan to convert traditional subscription publication formats, including society-published journals and books or monographs, to OA, based on an annual or multi-year payment made by every institution of higher education, no matter what its size or classification, and by any institution that benefits from the research that is generated by those within the academy.

HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme provides free or very low cost online access to the major journals in biomedical and related social sciences to local, not-for-profit institutions in developing countries.

In this TED talk, John Wilbanks advances the idea that opening up medical data could leave to a new wave of innovation. With a corpus of open data, semantic search technologies can be employed to determine patterns in data that would take years for scientists to make. Another argument in support of open dada and its potential to accelerate and advance science and innovation

This is a thesis from a professor who occasionally teaches a Scholarly Communication course at UBC iSchool. It deals with complicated questions of economics of scholarly publishing. If you are looking for sources for research, there is a lot in here for you. Worth skimming through and reading any chapters of interest. "Freedom for Scholarship in the Internet Age examines distortion in the current scholarly communication system and alternatives, focusing on the potential of open access. High profits for a select few scholarly journal publishers in the area of science, technology, and medicine contrast with other portions of the scholarly publishing system such as university presses that are struggling to survive."

Smithsonian museums transcription center--volunteer on projects to create information about newly digitized collections, lots of fascinating stuff to see. "Join us as we create digital records for the United States National Entomological Collection! Bumblebees (the Bombus genus) are social insects that feed on nectar and collect pollen to feed their young, making them very important pollinators!

This seems like a good way to get kids involved in open activities. These all look like very interesting projects, even if transcription isn't all that entertaining, and it results in an actual real world accomplishment which can be a good way to motivate students who don't see the point of school work because it's "just" for school.

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.

Open information allows better informed decisions.

For those who haven't participated yet, please keep track on the on line courses offer at Stanford, and when you have the opportunity, you must take the Writing in Science course. Really, really, really great adventure - after completing you'll just not be able to wait to write your next paper.

Breaking new ground for the open-access movement, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of global health research, plans to require that the researchers it funds publish only in immediate open-access journals. The policy doesn't kick in until January 2017; until then, grantees can publish in subscription-based journals as long as their paper is freely available within 12 months.

This serves as a significant catalyst to change the mentality of both the researcher and the funder. The Gates Foundation is a leading organization in resolving world health issues. This action demonstrates their drive and desire toward their cause; and will hopefully it will start a trend amongst authors and other research funding NGOS.

As mentioned in class discussions, this is the only reasonable response. Bill and Melinda have put their time forth into creating charities, and attempting to control content which was given from charitable grants is lunacy. It is comforting to see the Gates foundation scrapping the 6-12 month window of restriction. WIth this said that said, this draws interesting parallels with journals that receive government grants due to the fact that the privately sold resource is already being funded by the tax payers.

Writing my post about AI and summoning the demon led me to re-read a number of articles on Cathy O'Neil's excellent mathbabe blog. I highlighted a point Cathy has made consistently: if you're not careful, modelling has a nasty way of enshrining prejudice with a veneer of "science" and "math."

"4. Give it away now. Information and knowledge should be shared openly, freely."

rule 4 of hacking mindset: Give it away now. Information and knowledge should be shared openly, freely.

The American Library Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Education & Behavioral Sciences Section (EBSS) Communication Studies Committee developed information literacy competency standards for Journalism undergraduate students, graduate students, and professionals. The Communication Studies Committee (Missy Murphey, Kate E. Adams, Natasha Cooper, Amanda Hornby, Cathy Michael, Heidi Senior and Monique Threatt) developed the standards collaboratively over a two-year period.