LCVP, The Leipzig catalogue of vascular plants, a new taxonomic reference list for all known vascular plants | Scientific Data

Abstract:  The lack of comprehensive and standardized taxonomic reference information is an impediment for robust plant research, e.g. in systematics, biogeography or macroecology. Here we provide an updated and much improved reference list of 1,315,562 scientific names for all described vascular plant species globally. The Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants (LCVP; version 1.0.3) contains 351,180 accepted species names (plus 6,160 natural hybrids), within 13,460 genera, 564 families and 84 orders. The LCVP a) contains more information on the taxonomic status of global plant names than any other similar resource, and b) significantly improves the reliability of our knowledge by e.g. resolving the taxonomic status of ~181,000 names compared to The Plant List, the up to date most commonly used plant name resource. We used ~4,500 publications, existing relevant databases and available studies on molecular phylogenetics to construct a robust reference backbone. For easy access and integration into automated data processing pipelines, we provide an ‘R’-package (lcvplants) with the LCVP.

 

David Worlock | Developing digital strategies for the information marketplace | Supporting the migration of information providers and content players into the networked services world of the future.

“PLoS is a not for profit, and one of the first Open Access publishers. It is run by Alison Mudditt, a distinguished scholarly publisher with a proven track record of success in commercial academic publishing. In the last two years she has brought PLoS out of serious losses and back into balance again. She has created a strong management team and they have produced a new way of engaging with research institutions that moves beyond the bundling and discounting of “transformative agreements” and into an era of much longer term partnership agreements, where margins are predictable, where issues of volume and cost can be transparent and where institutional buyers can be certain that if they overspend in one year they will be compensated in another. This calls for levels of transparency in partnership that would make many commercial players expire in anguish. 

This is new. It is not complex. It is innovative in its rebalancing of the institution-publisher relationship. It is highly relevant to an industry largely created out of public money. It speaks of the sort of social capitalism that is reflected in Europe by developments like Plan S. Surely our first reactions should be to praise its authors, recognise their intelligent innovation and celebrate their attempt to provide a better solution? Criticism can then follow, and undoubtedly the scheme will change as it rolls out. Meanwhile, congratulations PLoS, welcome back to financial health and thanks for showing us that there is always something new we can do with business models. …”

A detailed open access model of the PubMed literature | Scientific Data

Abstract:  Portfolio analysis is a fundamental practice of organizational leadership and is a necessary precursor of strategic planning. Successful application requires a highly detailed model of research options. We have constructed a model, the first of its kind, that accurately characterizes these options for the biomedical literature. The model comprises over 18 million PubMed documents from 1996–2019. Document relatedness was measured using a hybrid citation analysis?+?text similarity approach. The resulting 606.6 million document-to-document links were used to create 28,743 document clusters and an associated visual map. Clusters are characterized using metadata (e.g., phrases, MeSH) and over 20 indicators (e.g., funding, patent activity). The map and cluster-level data are embedded in Tableau to provide an interactive model enabling in-depth exploration of a research portfolio. Two example usage cases are provided, one to identify specific research opportunities related to coronavirus, and the second to identify research strengths of a large cohort of African American and Native American researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School.

 

Launch of Digital Life Sciences Open Call – EOSC Life

“EOSC-Life has launched its first Digital Life Sciences Open Call: A European Open Science Cloud (EOSC-Life) call for projects sharing data, tools and workflows in the cloud. This call offers financial support for projects, to enable life science researchers to connect their research to the cloud, alongside training, advice and assistance from data experts, tool developers and cloud specialists. Proposals should align with the goals of EOSC (European Open Science Cloud) – ie. enabling data sharing for the purpose of furthering scientific research. The project’s overarching aim is to make life science research data publicly available in a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) way in the EOSC….”

Editorial: About the possibility of Applied Vegetation Science going Gold Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“Some time ago, IAVS was put in front of quite an important decision. Two of our journals, the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science, are currently distributed under the hybrid open-access model, when readers pay, and authors publish for free (while allowing publishing also open access articles for an extra cost). However, Wiley, our publisher, asked us to transfer AVS into the Gold Open Access model (Gold OA) when readers read for free, but authors pay. Wiley argues that the transition into OA is a current trend in publishing and meets the demands of readers and funders. However, the unsaid truth also is that the publishing landscape is changing. Researchers started to use alternative (and often illegal) ways of getting paywalled papers, and the high cost of journal subscriptions lead many libraries and institutions to cancel it. This motivates publishers to transit more and more journals into the Gold OA model, which should secure their profit and in turn also the income of associations, dependent on money from journal publishing. The downside of the Gold OA model, which may not be so apparent to readers, but becomes painfully apparent to the authors, is the costly Article Processing Charge or Article Publication Charge (APC) needed to be paid upon acceptance of the paper for the publication (for AVS currently proposed at £1900 per article)….”

Editorial: About the possibility of Applied Vegetation Science going Gold Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“Some time ago, IAVS was put in front of quite an important decision. Two of our journals, the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science, are currently distributed under the hybrid open-access model, when readers pay, and authors publish for free (while allowing publishing also open access articles for an extra cost). However, Wiley, our publisher, asked us to transfer AVS into the Gold Open Access model (Gold OA) when readers read for free, but authors pay. Wiley argues that the transition into OA is a current trend in publishing and meets the demands of readers and funders. However, the unsaid truth also is that the publishing landscape is changing. Researchers started to use alternative (and often illegal) ways of getting paywalled papers, and the high cost of journal subscriptions lead many libraries and institutions to cancel it. This motivates publishers to transit more and more journals into the Gold OA model, which should secure their profit and in turn also the income of associations, dependent on money from journal publishing. The downside of the Gold OA model, which may not be so apparent to readers, but becomes painfully apparent to the authors, is the costly Article Processing Charge or Article Publication Charge (APC) needed to be paid upon acceptance of the paper for the publication (for AVS currently proposed at £1900 per article)….”

JVS/AVS Chief Editors’ opinion on Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“This Commentary is a part of the series asking the question: should Applied Vegetation Science, the journal owned by IAVS [International Association of Vegetation Science] and published by Wiley, become Gold Open Access? For the context and link to other Commentaries, please visit Editorial….

The mission of IAVS and its journals is to serve all the vegetation scientists globally. From this perspective, changing the journals to Open Access publication model presents a risk of exclusion of many colleagues who cannot afford to pay APCs. Therefore, we prefer to wait until the systems that would guarantee equal access to publication funds are implemented in most of the countries from which we regularly receive submissions. For the moment, we propose that both journals continue to be published under the current hybrid model, in which single articles can be published Open Access if the authors can and wish to pay….”

 

 

JVS/AVS Chief Editors’ opinion on Open Access – vegsciblog.org

“This Commentary is a part of the series asking the question: should Applied Vegetation Science, the journal owned by IAVS [International Association of Vegetation Science] and published by Wiley, become Gold Open Access? For the context and link to other Commentaries, please visit Editorial….

The mission of IAVS and its journals is to serve all the vegetation scientists globally. From this perspective, changing the journals to Open Access publication model presents a risk of exclusion of many colleagues who cannot afford to pay APCs. Therefore, we prefer to wait until the systems that would guarantee equal access to publication funds are implemented in most of the countries from which we regularly receive submissions. For the moment, we propose that both journals continue to be published under the current hybrid model, in which single articles can be published Open Access if the authors can and wish to pay….”