If Voltaire had used Wikipedia… | Voltaire Foundation

“Sharing open knowledge about Voltaire’s histories

To raise awareness of Voltaire as a historian, we used three tools:

  1. Histropedia: a free tool for creating engaging, interactive visualisations
  2. Wikidata: a free database and sister site of Wikipedia that drives Histropedia and other visualisations
  3. Wikipedia: the free multilingual encyclopedia.

As well as holding data about people, publications, and events, Wikidata acts as a cross-reference between the different language versions of Wikipedia, showing which concepts are represented in which languages. By querying Wikidata, we could count how many language versions of Wikipedia had an article on each work by Voltaire. This showed, as expected, a large imbalance: forty languages for Candide versus three for the Essai sur les mœurs, for example. The current number of articles for each work is shown by the size of the bubbles below.”

Open Documentary Lab at MIT

“In the spirit of MIT’s open courseware and open source software movements, the Open Documentary Lab is inclusive, collaborative and committed to sharing knowledge, networks, and tools. ‘Open’ in its understanding of documentary’s forms and potentials, the Lab is catalyst, partner and guide to the future of reality-based storytelling….”

How to solve the crisis of science | News | Expatica Switzerland

“Being able to reproduce scientific results was a key issue at the congress, and often relates back to the problem of time pressure, as scientists have an incentive to publish results that appear most interesting as soon as possible.

But attendees agreed that, while there often seem to be too many papers published in journals, there are still important phenomena – even negative results or failed experiments – that should be shared instead of thrown in the trash.

Better infrastructure for sharing such results, as well as open access data and publications, was also called for. According to [Marcel] Tanner, SCNAT [Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences] is already working with the Swiss Science and Innovation Council and the Swiss National Science Foundation to manage open access in Switzerland, where about 40% of publications produced with public funding are freely available….”

Scoring the players in European copyright reform.

“At Politico, Chris Spillane and Ryan Heath have estimated who has the most and least power over the direction of European copyright law.

Much the news is bad for readers, users, consumers, and open access. For example:

The quietest and weakest players on the board — bar none — are university academics.

Nearly as quiet and weak are the academic libraries represented by LIBER (Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche, or Association of European Research Libraries).

Elsevier is much louder and more effective than academics or libraries. …”

Obama’s top science adviser’s guide to navigating the Trump era – Vox

“If there’s a subtext to this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest gathering of scientists of the year, it’s anxiety for the future. John Holdren, the top science adviser to President Barack Obama who spoke Friday at the conference, summed it up like this: “I’m worried — based on early indications — that we can be in for a major shift in the culture around science and technology and its eminence in government. We appear to have a president now that resists facts that do not comport to his preferences. And that bodes ill on the Obama Administration’s emphases on scientific integrity, transparency, and public access.” …”

Workshop: IPR, Open Science and Technology Transfer | Agricultural Information Management Standards (AIMS)

“The delicate interplay between ensuring protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and fostering knowledge circulation will be at the core of the workshop ‘IPR, Technology Transfer & Open Science – Challenges and opportunities’, which will take place on March 9th in Brussels. Starting from the idea that Open Science does not mean ‘free science’, the participants will discuss the approaches to striking a good balance between protected data and open access to information.

The present Workshop, jointly organised by JRC and DG Research and Innovation, gathers experts in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Technology Transfer, Open Science and cloud computing, with a view to analysing the interaction between these elements and, in particular, to understanding to what extent the current European copyright framework is fit for an Open Science setting.

The Workshop is expected to result in a set of policy recommendations to be included in a policy brief following discussions.

Since seats are limited, you are kindly invited to register early in order to secure your place.”

Scholarly journal publishing in transition– from restricted to open access

Abstract: While the business models used in most segments of the media industry have been profoundly changed by the Internet surprisingly little has changed in the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals. Electronic delivery has become the norm, but the same publishers as before are still dominating the market, selling content to subscribers. This article asks the question why Open Access (OA) to the output of mainly publicly funded research hasn’t yet become the mainstream business model. OA implies a reversal of revenue logic from readers paying for content to authors paying for dissemination via universal free access. The current situation is analyzed using Porter’s five forces model. The analysis demonstrates a lack of competitive pressure in this industry, leading to so high profit levels of the leading publishers that they have not yet felt a strong need to change the way they operate. OA funded by article publishing charges (APCs) might nevertheless start rapidly becoming more common. The driving force currently consists of the public research funders and administrations in Europe, which are pushing for OA by starting dedicated funds for paying the APCs of authors from the respective countries. This has in turn lead to a situation in which publishers have introduced “big deals” involving the bundling of (a) subscription to all their journals, (b) APCs for their hybrid journals and (c) in the future also APCs to their full OA journals. This appears to be a relatively risk free strategy for the publishers in question to retain their dominance of the market and high profit levels also in the future.

Not-for-Profit Publishers Call New NIH Rule a Missed Opportunity

“The final National Institutes of Health (NIH) rule on Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information is wasteful of federal research dollars and a missed opportunity to take advantage of available technology and existing efforts, according to a group of the nation’s leading not-for-profit medical and scientific publishers. The final rule ignores significant free access policies already existing in the not-for-profit publishing community that offer more cost-effective public access to the science in their journals.


NIH’s new rule requests but does not require authors to deposit into PubMedCentral (PMC) manuscripts of articles reporting NIH-funded research that have been peer reviewed and accepted by journals for publication.  NIH would release these manuscripts to the public within 12 months or less after publication in the journal.  The timing of the release would be determined by the authors, who “should ensure that their PMC submissions are consistent with any other agreements, including copyright assignments,” according to the NIH statement.


These publishers believe that NIH should take advantage of the fact that most not-for-profit publishers currently make all their content—not just NIH supported articles—available for free to the public within 12 months.  Not-for-profit publishers believe that the public would be better served if NIH created an enhanced search engine that works like Google to crawl the journals’ full text articles and link to the final published articles residing on the journal websites. This would offer significantly more assistance to those seeking medical research results than a database of NIH-funded manuscripts can provide. This public-private partnership would be much less costly to NIH and would avoid the confusion that would result from publishing two different versions of the same article—an unedited version on PubMed Central and the final version in the journal….”

Welcome to Ambra

“Ambra is an innovative Open Source platform for publishing Open Access research articles. It provides features for post-publication discussion and versioned articles that allows for a “living” document around which further scientific discoveries can be made. The platform is in active development by PLOS (Public Library of Science) and is licensed under the MIT License….”