“With the largest number of OA journals in the world, the knowledge of Indonesian researchers should be able to freely reach the public.
The government has started to realize this.
This is evidenced by the recent Law on National Science and Technology System ( UU Sisnas Science and Technology ) which also began requiring the application of this open access system for research publications to ensure that research results can be enjoyed by the public.
Through this obligation, the government hopes to encourage not only the transparency of the research process, but also innovations and new findings that benefit society….
According to our records, the research publication system in Indonesia since the 1970s has implemented the non-profit principle. At that time research publications were sold for a subscription fee which was usually calculated from the cost of printing only. This system is different from that found in developed countries which are dominated by commercial publishing companies.
This is where Indonesia triumphs over any research ecosystem.
Some that can match it are the Scielo research ecosystem in Brazil, the African Journal Online (AJOL) scientific publishing ecosystem and the Africaxiv from the African continent…..”
“Today, we’re pleased to announce the launch of a project on the use of preprints in the media with support from the Open Society Foundations.
Premature media coverage was the top concern about preprints in our recent #biopreprints2020 survey, for both those who had published their research as preprints and for those who had not….
ASAPbio, with support from the Open Society Foundations, now aims to consolidate and expand on existing efforts to set best practice standards for preprints via the launch of our Preprints in the Public Eye project. We are calling for involvement from researchers, journalists, institutions, librarians, funding agencies, and more to work on the following three main aims or the project:
To improve the transparency and clarity of how preprints are labelled so that readers understand what checks have and have not been made on a preprint.
To agree a set of best practice guidelines for researchers and institutions on how to work with journalists on research reported as preprints.
To agree a set of best practice guidelines for journalists on how to assess and report on research posted as preprints….”
“The OpenDP project seeks to hire 1-2 scientists to work with faculty directors Gary King and Salil Vadhan and the OpenDP Community to formulate and advance the scientific goals of OpenDP and solve research problems that are needed for its success. Candidates should have a graduate-level degree (preferably a PhD), familiarity with differential privacy, and one or both of the following:
Experience with implementing software for data science, privacy, and/or security, and an interest in working with software engineers to develop the OpenDP codebase.
Experience with applied statistics, and an interest in working with domain scientists to apply OpenDP software to data-sharing problems in their field. In particular, we are looking for a researcher to engage on an immediate project on Covid-19 and mobility and epidemiology. See HDSI Fellow for more details….”
“n late July the OCLC Research Library Partnership convened a discussion that reflected on the current state of linked data. The discussion format was (for us) experimental — we invited participants to prepare by viewing a pre-recorded presentation, Re-envisioning the fabric of the bibliographic universe – From promise to reality* The presentation covers experiences of national and research libraries as well as OCLC’s own journey in linked data exploration. OCLC Researchers Annette Dortmund and Karen Smith-Yoshimura looked at relevant milestones in the journey from entity-based description research, prototypes, and on to actual practices, based on work that has been undertaken with library partners right up to the present day….”
Abstract: We comment on a recent article by Laakso et al. (arXiv:2008.11933 [cs.DL]), in which the disappearance of 176 open access journals from the Internet is noted. We argue that one reason these journals may have vanished is that they were predatory journals. The de-listing of predators from the Directory of Open Access Journals in 2014 and the abundance of predatory journals and awareness thereof in North America parsimoniously explain the temporal and geographic patterns Laakso et al. observed.
“The aim of this directory of institutional open access policies is to identify and analyze the existing policies that encourage, request or require open access to scholarly outputs that arise from projects, in whole or in part, supported by public funds….”
“Can you develop a novel analytic approach that uses the CMU/UMD COVID-19 Symptom Survey data to enable earlier detection and improved situational awareness of the outbreak by public health authorities and the general public? …
Semi-finalists and finalists are eligible for cash prizes, and finalists will join discussions with partners on how to improve and deploy their submissions….”
“The perennial make-PACER-free legislation has arrived. If you’re not familiar with PACER, count yourself among the lucky ones. PACER performs an essential task: it provides electronic access to federal court dockets and documents. That’s all it does and it barely does it.
PACER charges taxpayers (who’ve already paid taxes to fund the federal court system) $0.10/page for EVERYTHING. Dockets? $0.10/page. (And that “page” is very loosely defined.) Every document is $0.10/page, as though the court system was running a copier and chewing up expensive toner. So is every search result page, even those that fail to find any responsive results. The user interface would barely have been considered “friendly” 30 years ago, never mind in the year of our lord two thousand twenty. Paying $0.10/page for everything while attempting to navigate an counterintuitive interface draped over something that looks like it’s being hosted by Angelfire is no one’s idea of a nostalgic good time.
Legislation attempting to make PACER access free was initiated in 2018. And again in 2019. We’re still paying for access, thanks to the inability of legislators to get these passed. Maybe this is the year it happens, what with a bunch of courtroom precedent being built up suggesting some illegal use of PACER fees by the US Courts system. We’ll see. Here’s what’s on tap for this year’s legislative session: …”
“On this page you will find indicators on how the policies of journals and funding agencies favour open access, and the percentage of publications (gold, green, hybrid and bronze) actually available through open access.
The indicators cover bibliometric data on publications, as well as data on funders’ and journals’ policies. Indicators and case studies will be updated over time.
You can download the chart and its data through the dedicated menu within each chart (top right of the image). …”
“Being able to demonstrate the benefits of OA for books can be powerful in changing attitudes. For authors who are considering whether to publish their books OA, the possibility of reaching a broader and more diverse readership is often an important factor. For funders, too, who are considering whether to expand OA policies and funding to books, understanding the effect of OA can be critical. The challenge – there is limited research on this topic and as such, while anecdotally we often hear of OA books achieving a broad readership, the evidence base to demonstrate this is still somewhat limited.
Earlier this year, we commissioned Collaborative Open Access Research & Development (COARD) to explore the effects of OA on the geographic reach of scholarly books. Collectively, we were interested in understanding where OA books were being read, and how patterns of usage between OA and non-OA books differed between countries and regions. In particular, was OA publication leading to increased readership in countries that are traditionally underrepresented in the production and use of scholarly research?
The findings are compelling. COARD’s analysis shows that OA has a robust effect on the number of downloads, geographical diversity of downloads, and citations of books. The effect was seen for all disciplinary groupings, in HSS and STM, across all three years of publication in the dataset, for all types of book (monographs, contributed volumes, and mid-length books) and for every month after publication. OA is, in other words, making a substantial difference to the reach of books and their authors.
Downloads of OA books in the study were on average 10 times higher than those of non-OA books, and citations of OA books were 2.4 times higher on average – an even larger OA effect than we found in our previous research in this area. In our new analysis, downloads of OA books from the open web were generally around double those from institutional network points, suggesting that OA may also be helping books to reach a more diverse readership. …”