“The Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS) is a voluntary partnership of organizations created to archive, catalog and preserve data used for social science research. Examples of social science data include: opinion polls; voting records; surveys on family growth and income; social network data; government statistics and indices; and GIS data measuring human activity….”
“The journal Sociologie du travail has terminated the contract it has had with Elsevier since 1999 and is moving to a fully digital form of Open Access on Revues.org.
Issue 59, Volume 1 of Sociologie du travail, entitled ‘Les syndicats face aux transformations du secteur public’, has just been published on Revues.org. The journal has also been given a makeover. This is a twofold turning point for the journal, which is both breaking with restricted access distribution on Elsevier and switching from print to digital. For Didier Demanière, author of this issue’s editorial, the change ‘signals a rupture with an international publisher contested for its exorbitant fees and positions the journal in the movement for open access to scientific articles’.”
“We are really pleased to announce that in Summer 2017 the OLH will be publishing the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal (TRAJ). Formerly an annual conference proceedings volume published primarily by Oxbow Books (a leading publisher within the fields of archaeology and ancient history), the journal developed out of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC), which has been running annually since 1991. As part of this move, we will be making 22 years of the journal’s published catalogue openly available on the OLH platform.
TRAJ is an innovative journal that promotes the use of new theoretical approaches to the Roman past, facilitating fresh interpretations of datasets rather than solely the presentation of archaeological data (as commonly deployed in archaeology scholarship). The publication will build on this strong foundation to continue attracting submissions within the disciplines of Archaeology, Classics and Ancient History, as well as interdisciplinary work drawing on the Biological Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Having consistently published innovative and thought-provoking papers derived from annual conferences held across Europe and America since 1991, the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) has established a reputation as an unorthodox and radical event in the scholarly calendar, which has had a major impact on the theoretical landscape of Roman Archaeology.”
“The OPERAS consortium is launching today a survey on the usage of Open Access, in particular in the field of humanities and social sciences. The purpose is to identify current practices and services that should be developed or invented. It will serve as a basis for defining the future infrastructure.
The survey addresses five different audiences, all actors, in various capacities, of Open Access: publishers, researchers, librarians, funders and the general public. It will collect information and suggestions mainly about common standards, good practices, new features and new integrated services.
The survey will end on 31st May 2017. Since all the OPERAS European partners are involved in the dissemination, the survey is entirely written in English in order to facilitate the processing of the answers.
The link for the general public’s survey is: https://survey.openedition.org/index.php/214336“
“OPENing UP new methods, indicators and tools for peer review, dissemination of research results, and impact measurement….Open Access and Open Scholarship have revolutionized the way scholarly artefacts are evaluated and published, while the introduction of new technologies and media in scientific workflows has changed the “how and to whom” science is communicated, and how stakeholders interact with the scientific community. OpenUP addresses key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape and aspires to come up with a cohesive framework for the review-disseminate-assess phases of the research life cycle that is fit to support and promote Open Science….Through analysis, consultation, hands-on engagement with researchers, publishers, institutions and funders, industry and citizens, OpenUP will a) define a framework that defines roles and processes, benefits and opportunities, b) validate the proposed mechanisms through a series of pilots involving researchers from four scientific communities (Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities, Energy), and c) come up with practical policy recommendations and guidelines to be used by EU, national and institutional policymakers at different settings. OpenUP will engage with all stakeholders via a series of outreach and training events, and the creation of an Open Information Hub, a collaborative web based Knowledge Base that will host a catalogue of open tools/services, methodologies, best practices from various disciplines or settings, success stories, reports. This increased level of engagement and knowledge will feed into the development of research and innovation policies that aim to support and complement Open Science….”
“In the humanities, however, two challenges have hampered open access adoption.
- Most versions of ‘gold’ open access require researchers or their funding institutions to pay the costs of publication as an ‘article processing charge,’ or APC.
- And much of the research published in the humanities and social sciences takes the form of books, which naturally have higher processing charges than articles do.
Knowledge Unlatched attempts to solve this problem by importing into academic publishing a crowdfunding model not unlike that of Kickstarter.
Working with publishers to create a list of books to be “unlatched”–made freely available–it then assembles a consortium of libraries to pay the costs of publication. If enough libraries commit to funding a title, then the book is published. Each library that pledged receives a print copy, and ebook versions are made available for anyone to read as open access.
The model is finding support.
Since Frances Pinter launched Knowledge Unlatched in September 2012, the organization says it has facilitated the publication of more than 400 books in its first three collections. In February, it announced the success of its latest unlatching, its largest to date: 343 titles from more than 50 publishers.
A fourth collection now is being assembled, with the pledging process expected to start next month. This will be the first collection to include journals.”
“In short, when women political scientists make their work freely available online, their research is cited at similar rates to men’s work. This is a very positive finding given the current gender imbalance found in many aspects of the discipline. (Side note: many scholars, regardless of gender, fail to self-archive due to lack of know-how; Carling has written a very helpful primer on the subject. See also Atchison and Bull.)
A final caveat is necessary. These results should be interpreted with caution. First, the finding that OA can help to negate the gender citation advantage is surprising in light of previous research on gendered citation effects. This must be investigated further to determine whether it is an artefact of the data, whether the pattern holds when other data are used, and whether the pattern holds once self-archiving becomes more commonplace in political science. Second, as with any single-discipline study, the results may lack generalisability. There is considerable evidence that GCE varies by discipline, so it will be important to explore the GCE-OA interaction both within and across disciplines.”
“Psychological Science is now introducing some minor changes designed to increase the frequency and ease with which editors and reviewers of submissions can access data and materials as part of the peer-review process. I anticipate that, in addition to enhancing the review process, these changes will further increase the percentage of Psychological Science articles for which researchers can quickly and easily access data and materials postpublication. The changes we are introducing are tweaks and nudges, not radical shifts. In the following, I explain the changes and why they are worth undertaking.”
Abstract: Background: Suicidal patients often visit healthcare professionals in their last month before suicide, but medical practitioners are unlikely to raise the issue of suicide with patients because of time constraints and uncertainty regarding an appropriate approach. Introduction: A brief tool called the e-PASS Suicidal Ideation Detector (eSID) was developed for medical practitioners to help detect the presence of suicidal ideation (SI) in their clients. If SI is detected, the system alerts medical practitioners to address this issue with a client. The eSID tool was developed due to the absence of an easy-to-use, evidence-based SI detection tool for general practice. Material and Methods: The tool was developed using binary logistic regression analyses of data provided by clients accessing an online psychological assessment function. Ten primary healthcare professionals provided advice regarding the use of the tool. Results: The analysis identified eleven factors in addition to the Kessler-6 for inclusion in the model used to predict the probability of recent SI. The model performed well across gender and age groups 18–64 (AUR 0.834, 95% CI 0.828–0.841, N?=?16,703). Healthcare professionals were interviewed; they recommended that the tool be incorporated into existing medical software systems and that additional resources be supplied, tailored to the level of risk identified. Conclusion: The eSID is expected to trigger risk assessments by healthcare professionals when this is necessary. Initial reactions of healthcare professionals to the tool were favorable, but further testing and in situ development are required.