The move to open: medical library leadership in scholarly communication | Shaffer | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and “walking the walk.” In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision “that quality information is essential for improved health.”

 

The move to open: medical library leadership in scholarly communication | Shaffer | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and “walking the walk.” In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision “that quality information is essential for improved health.”

 

Politics and Open Science: How the European Open Science Cloud Became Reality (the Untold Story) | Data Intelligence | MIT Press Journals

“It is fair to say note the word FAIR here that realizing se European Open Science Cloud (EOSO IS now part and parcel of the European data science policy In particular since EOSC will be from 2021 in the hands of the independent FOSC association and thus potentially way out of the so-called Brussels Bubble”.

This article will document the whole day of how EOSC emerged in this bubbler as one of the policy intentions to foster Open Science un Europe In addition, it will describe some of the typical non rational Toadblocks on the way to implement EOSC The article will also argue that the only way Europe can take care of its research data in a way that fits the European specificities fully, is by supporting EOSC….”

Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world – Wikimedia Foundation

“Wikipedia, the world’s largest free online encyclopedia, turns 20 years old on 15 January. This birthday commemorates two decades of global efforts to support free knowledge, open collaboration, and trust on the internet. In a time when disinformation and polarization challenge our trust in information and institutions, Wikipedia is more relevant than ever. Wikipedia celebrates its past and looks ahead to how it will meet the challenges of tomorrow to grow into a more resilient, equitable knowledge resource….”

Full article: To share or not to share – 10 years of European Journal of Psychotraumatology

Abstract:  The European Journal of Psychotraumatology, owned by the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS), launched as one of the first full Open Access ‘specialist’ journals in its field. Has this Open Access model worked in how the Journal has performed? With the European Journal of Psychotraumatology celebrating its ten-year anniversary we look back at the past decade of sharing our research with the world and with how the journal sits with the broader movement beyond Open Access to Open Research and we present new policies we have adopted to move the field of psychotraumatology to the next level of Open Research. While we as researchers now make our publications more often freely available to all, how often do we share our protocols, our statistical analysis plans, or our data? We all gain from more transparency and reproducibility, and big steps are being made in this direction. The journal’s decennial performance as well as the exciting new Open Research developments are presented in this editorial. The journal is no longer in its infancy and eager to step into the next decade of Open Research.

A Review of the History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans | International Journal of Digital Curation

Abstract:  Data management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.

In this article, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies. Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs. Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’. We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.

We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project. Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.

10 Years of Open Access Society Publishing – Novara – – ChemistryOpen – Wiley Online Library

“Let’s take a step back. Why was ChemistryOpen launched in the first place? In the first decade of the new century, some of the European governments part of ChemPubSoc Europe (now Chemistry Europe Chemistry Europe) have started to recommend that all the research conducted with their funding be freely accessible for all readers, irrespective of socioeconomic or geographical considerations. As a response, and with the endorsement of the owner societies, ChemPubSoc Europe has launched ChemistryOpen. Back then, there was quite some skepticism regarding the open access publishing model. However, the involvement of the societies has been crucial in promoting the journal and its high ethical and quality standards among the chemistry community in Europe and worldwide. And 10 years later ChemistryOpen is one of the leading open access chemistry journals! …

Once again this year, ChemistryOpen has receive the highest number yearly submissions to date, and has achieved a record?breaking number of downloads. A big thanks to all of our authors for sending us your fascinating research from all over the world, and enabling the journal to reach a strong positioning in the everchanging and expanding publishing landscape. …”

You’ll Be Able To Download A Lot More Stuff For Free—Legally—Jan. 1

“That chill set in because a 1998 law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, gave another 20 years of protection for works created before 1978 as part of an extension of copyright terms to the life of a work’s author plus 70 years, or 95 years after publication for corporate-owned works.  

That itself followed a 1976 statute that also retroactively extended copyright protection for existing works while granting longer terms to new ones. By then, we had already traveled a great distance from copyright as first defined in U.S. law.

“The Founders’ copyright was 14 years, renewable once,” noted Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle in an email. He compared that to a different form of intellectual property, the patents that temporarily protect inventions: “If a patent lasts 17 years and is enough to recover hundreds of millions of dollar investments in a drug, why does copyright now last 95 years?” …

The answer to how we got there rests at the intersection of Hollywood and Washington. …”

Iterative books: Posthumous publishing in eighteenth-century botany – Bettina Dietz, 2020

Abstract:  The growing number of known plants, and the need repeatedly to correct their names and their taxonomic attributions, demanded strategies for combining the static nature of a printed book with the fluctuating nature of the information it contained. From the second half of the seventeenth century botanists increasingly relied on publishing multiple updated editions of a book instead of attempting to correct, polish, and thus delay the appearance of a manuscript until, in the author’s opinion, it was finished. Provisional by nature, iterative books offered a solution. They were transient, open-ended and open to intervention, whether by one or multiple authors. Taking as an example the posthumous publication of orphaned material and manuscripts, a widespread phenomenon in eighteenth-century botany, this essay will focus on the sequence of iterative books that were published during the first half of the eighteenth century, based on the herbaria and papers left behind by the German botanist Paul Hermann (1646–95).