“I’ve decided to quit academia.edu and researchgate and put all of my pre-prints/manuscripts on PsyArXiv. I deleted any manuscript copies that I had uploaded to academia.edu and RG and removed my accounts from them. I’m writing you because you posted a copy of our collaborative work on researchgate. It is of course your prerogative as to how you share our work, but I thought I might ask you to consider taking that copy of our paper down. I’m trying to streamline access points for our work and also to redirect traffic away from these commercial sites. PsyArXiv is indexed by Google scholar, so the work remains freely accessible in a space backed by a non-profit entity (the Open Science Framework). Another benefit of OSF is that it is backed by a large preservation grant, so that the works on PsyArXiv will be supported in perpetuity even if OSF grows or changes.”
“Please find below the pledge for supporting Open Principles for Science and Education for building a better world for everyone .
‘I believe Science is a public good and quality education opportunities should be open and accessible for everyone.
I will work to eliminate the digital divide and contribute to building up Open Knowledge for the benefit of all humanity, with special effort to enlighten future generations.
I contribute my service for the betterment of all humanity using the guiding principles of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in building a better world for everyone.
I will work to advance and increase Open Knowledge for the benefit of all humanity with special consideration of those less fortunate.
I will be a voice for Open Principles in Science and Education and promote this pledge through my networks.’
Thank you for your support.”
“[M]uch digitisation of special and archival collections has been carried out by academic libraries and heritage organisations with the support of public funding, making content available for everybody to enjoy. However, sustainability of digitisation is still a big problem, especially in the context of providing open access….In creating sustainable digital content, there is a solution that can help bring specialist research to life, one collection at a time; and this is how Reveal Digital have approached the challenge. The support for digitisation of materials through an innovative library crowdfunding model is already underway on the other side of the pond, with collections such as Independent Voices achieving wide popularity and support….Hosted on the Reveal Digital platform, over 100 pledging libraries to date have controlled access until the collection moves to open access (in 2019) following a two-year embargo period, as per its cost recovery-open access model. The platform provides page image-based access with full-text searching, hit-term highlighting, searchable title and issue-level metadata and browsing by series, title and issue….”
Finnish site. Page in English.
“Large international scientific publishers are currently enjoying remarkable profit margins. Their business is heavily indebted to the voluntary work of the researchers. The scientific community produces research, usually publicly funded, edits the publications as unpaid volunteers, and then buys back the scientific publications. Publishers have increased the price of publications significantly year by year although in this digital era the trend should be the opposite. In 2015 Finnish research organisations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees and in the future the price looks to be higher still. The hikes in fees are especially problematic at a time when funding cuts are narrowing the scope of opportunity for science as it is. In currently ongoing contract negotiations Finnish scientific libraries are demanding that prices be made more reasonable and open access publishing more prevalent. We, the signatories, support these goals. We are prepared to abstain from refereeing and editorial duties for the journals of the publishers involved in these negotiations if the goals of the Finnish negotiators are not realised.”
From the January 2013 launch announcement: “The inaugural Patient Safety Science & Technology Summit made history when for the first time nine leading medical device companies publicly pledged to make their devices interoperable. The groundbreaking pledges will make patient data collected and displayed on their devices accessible for patients and clinicians – launching a movement designed to reverse the rising tide of preventable patient deaths at U.S. hospitals….”
“The Patient Safety Movement Foundation (PSMF) today announced that Medtronic, a leading global healthcare solutions company, has joined a growing list of healthcare technology companies that have signed the Patient Safety Movement’s public pledge to share their data to promote patient safety. In addition, Medtronic committed $5 Million to the PSMF over a five-year period, and Medtronic’s CEO, Omar Ishrak, will join Patient Safety Movement’s Board of Directors. By signing this Open Data Pledge, Medtronic pledges to allow access to all available acute clinical data generated by their products used in hospitals and in outpatient practice settings to interested parties that want to use them to help minimize preventable patient complications and death. When companies share the data of their products, it provides researchers and entrepreneurs with critical information to develop and accelerate solutions to improve patient care. This information includes predictive algorithms that can notify clinicians and patients of possible dangerous trends – allowing for intervention earlier….Patient Safety Movement is a commitment-based organization that asks hospitals to implement processes to avoid human errors becoming fatal and asks healthcare technology companies to share the data their products are purchased for, without disclosing their proprietary algorithms or protected data and subject to applicable patient privacy laws….”
” … While the theoretical case for open science is easy to make, practically getting scientists to make those changes is less trivial. Over the past few years, initiatives such as the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines, Open Science Foundation badges, and study preregistration have been developed to encourage scientists to adopt open practices. These drives have been very successful in driving top-down change, by encouraging journals to adopt new policies and practices. But what about bottom-up approaches to the problem of promoting open science? On Wednesday, a new paper published in Royal Society Open Science argued for a new, grassroots approach to this problem, by putting the power back into the hands of scientists at the coalface of research, by changing the way that we think about the peer review process (full disclosure: both myself and fellow Head Quarters blogger Chris Chambers are co-authors on the paper). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness (PRO) Initiative is, at its core, a simple pledge: scientists who sign up to the initiative agree that, from January 1 2017, will not offer to comprehensively review, or recommend the publication of, any scientific research papers for which the data, materials and analysis code are not publicly available, or for which there is no clear reason as to why these things are not available. To date, over 200 scientists have signed the pledge …”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”