“SR [Sandhya Ramesh]: What do you think about open science and open data?
SB [Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay]: That’s where the world is heading. All research done with taxpayer funds are open, and this is essentially how biology works already. A lot of biological data is available online free of cost, which helps researchers from countries like ours who cannot buy data. Same with software, too. The open source movement is prevalent, important and will continue. Healthcare especially can’t grow unless it’s global and open. But I’m curious to see how businesses will work around this….”
“The three great potentials of open access are a) the de-monopolisation of publishing, b) the de-commodification of academia so that knowledge and not profit are the primary aspect of academic publishing, and c) overcoming the knowledge divide that excludes poor regions and universities from access. But for achieving these aims, we need the right kind of open access models that I call diamond open access. It cannot be denied that there is a significant amount of fake open access that puts profit over knowledge. Publishing is one of the most highly concentrated and monopolised capitalist industries. Elsevier, Springer & Co. are destroying independent academic publishers just like Amazon is destroying your local bookshop. Academia and knowledge ought to be a public service and common good. We do not need green and gold open access, but something much better and precious, namely diamond open access….”
“Scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs)/social sharing networks (SSNs) have been part of the scholarly communications landscape for several years now. While these networks are increasingly popular among the research community, as shown in this 2014 Nature survey, publishers – unsurprisingly – have some reservations, primarily around the sharing of research articles on these sites. But there’s no doubt that SCNs are here to stay; so, in hopes of finding a collaborative solution to the challenges and opportunities they present, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) has recently issued a set of voluntary principles that aim to facilitate article sharing on SCNs. They’ve also launched a consultation about the draft principles – possibly the first time a publishing organization has done so. To find out more, I spoke to Fred Dylla, Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics and the project lead of the STM working group for this initiative….”
“Now celebrating its 15th anniversary, at the turn of the millennium the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) put forward a seminal statement defining ‘open access’ as the free online availability of peer reviewed research. Despite little support for the BOAI initially, open access publishing is now commonplace and an estimated 28% of scientific literature is now predicted to be published in this way. In our interview with Melissa Hagemann, Senior Program Manager of the Open Society Foundations, and co-organiser of the meeting in Budapest, we talk about the history of the movement and the challenges it still faces today….”
“One of the most exciting data projects we [Elsevier] are working on at the moment is with a UK based charity, Findacure. We are helping the charity to find alternative treatment options for rare diseases such as Congenital Hyperinsulinism by offering our informatics expertise, and giving them access to published literature and curated data through our online tools, at no charge.
We are also supporting The Pistoia Alliance, a not-for-profit group that aims to lower barriers to collaboration within the pharmaceutical and life science industry. We have been working with its members to collaborate and develop approaches that can bring benefits to the entire industry. We recently donated our Unified Data Model to the Alliance; with the aim of publishing an open and freely available format for the storage and exchange of drug discovery data. I am still proud of the work I did with them back in 2009 on the SESL project (Semantic Enrichment of Scientific Literature), and my involvement continues as part of the special interest group in AI….”
Quoting Chris Bourg: “I think the fundamental role of research libraries will always be to provide enduring, abundant, equitable, and meaningful access to knowledge. Certainly, the tools and platforms for doing that will continue to evolve, as the forms by which scholars express, consume, and analyze knowledge move from static, physical forms to dynamic, interactive, networked digital forms.
In today’s environment, for example, providing access to knowledge includes having a licensed drone pilot on the MIT Libraries staff, who accompanies an EAPS [Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences] class on a research trip to Death Valley to obtain 3-D images of terrain the students could not access on foot. Another change is that modern research libraries must ensure that our collections are accessible not just to human readers, but also to text- and data-mining applications, algorithms, and machine-learning tools. And at the MIT Libraries, we are responsive to our community’s desire to interact with our content in more active, innovative, and participatory ways—through annotation, mashups, and other creative uses and reuses. This is what we mean in the Future of Libraries report when we call on MIT and the world to “hack the library.” …”
“Why is so much research being published in this format? What exactly is Open Access research and why is it important to research institutions and researchers? How have traditional journal publishers responded to Open Access? What are universities and other research institutions doing to curate and collect Open Access research? Can we rely on for-profit Open Access publishers to preserve research when their profit motives change? Peter Suber sits down with Digi*Pub host Jack Cashman of the Harvard Alumni Association to talk through these questions in light of the Harvard Open Access Project’s goal to encourage the growth of open access to research at Harvard and beyond….”