“Someday, I hope that all journal articles in my field are available to researchers around the world and the public at large, and not hidden behind pay-walls. After all, scientific research is heavily supported by tax-payers, so members of the public should be able to see, enjoy and learn what is being accomplished in the ever-expanding, and exciting field of human evolutionary studies.”
“I am a text mining specialist in the Literature Services team of EMBL-EBI. My team runs and maintains the Europe PMC database, an archive of life-science literature. Our job is to make it easy for researchers to find articles and information they need.
I contribute to the development of the text mining infrastructure of the database. My colleagues and I develop methods to annotate articles and design searches by indexing articles based on specific search fields. We are a service-oriented team and work closely with the users to make researchers’ lives easier….”
From Google Translate: “[Question] Which will publish its results on ScienceMatters? What is your target group?
[Answer] For now we focus on the 10 million scientists and researchers on our planet. Only 1% of all these people publish more than one article per year. If they wish to publish something in an Open-Access Journal it costs about 1,500 to 2,000 USD. We want to change that. Everyone should have the opportunity to publish its results, regardless of its financial resources. This is why we ask only 150 USD….”
“More broadly, I advocate for publishing research in ways that make it more accessible to the public regardless of whether it is via gold, green, as a pre-print, in an institutional repository, or even shared through social media or peer-to-peer networks. But there are other aspects of “open” in research that impact on research integrity, and this journal is likely to deal with them as it grows.”
“As Open Access becomes more widespread, quantifying the range of OA options has become complex. In this PLOScast, Elizabeth Seiver speaks with Greg Tananbaum, the owner of ScholarNext, about the spectrum of Open Access, the tool available to help academics gauge the openness of an article, OA policies and emerging developments in scholarly communication. Together they discuss how machine readability is playing a role in OA publishing, issues surrounding OA funding, and how Open Access journals can work together. Greg focuses on the intersection of technology, content and academia. He’s been working with SPARC since 2007 on issues relating to Open Access and open data. If you are interested in learning more, please check out the following links …”
“Researchers want reform of European copyright law to allow the use of data mining to harvest facts and data from research papers, a practice which to date has been tightly controlled by journal publishers in Europe. If passed it could lead scientists to unearthing hidden data connections, perhaps helping to crack intractable research problems, but also dent the core business of publishing companies, which are campaigning for the right to self-regulate how they manage their content. Publishers automatically block data mining software programmes, which can download and copy vast amounts of papers, whilst distributing special licences to academics and university libraries to use data mining. If copyright law were to include an exemption for researchers, publishers claim intellectual property could be re-sold by unscrupulous researchers and publisher computer systems could be immobilised by the volume of traffic from text miners. Julia Reda, German Pirate Party member of the European Parliament (MEP), produced an ‘own initiative report’ on copyright reform in June. In an interview with Science|Business, Reda said the European Commission should not shy away from a clash with publishers, as it edges closer to updating copyright to better suit the digital age …”
“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 …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”