“We believe more discourse around research is a good thing. To that end, we have partnered with Hypothesis, a third-party platform, to allow for annotation and discussion on our preprints services. Annotation on preprints will increase transparency in scientific practices by enabling researchers to collaborate, discuss research with peers, and share additional information directly on preprints both before and after they are posted.”
“I’ve been in publishing since 2003 and although we have always seen some individual authors, reviewers and editors behaving badly, the scale and nature of the problem has changed. Some of this is down to technology and openness enabling detection of poor practices – such as better plagiarism detection and more content being online and thus easily searchable, particularly when it is not hiding behind a paywall – but we’re also seeing an industrialization of misconduct.”
“[Q] How will open science influence LIS education?
“I started life at Jisc as a programme manager, on a project that was jointly funded by the National Science Foundation in the US and Jisc. This was a fairly forward thinking project in digital libraries and from this, we began working on how to make sure researchers had maximum access to information and collections, and how we could do that collaboratively, building on expertise on both sides of the Atlantic.
At this, I managed the pilot site licence initiative, which in essence is what became Jisc Collections as it is today; it was about ensuring ongoing access as the world of journal archives became digital. The subsequent model licence, designed to provide a smooth transition from analogue, was, I think, a world first, and the clauses added are aligned to the aspirations of the open access movement – as the world became born digital, open access was a logical next step. There were some real thought leaders in the sector at that time who made it their mission to ensure as many people as possible could have access to that publicly funded research, as a point of principle….”
“The MyScienceWork scientific platform was launched in 2012 by Virginie Simon and Tristan Davaille with the aim of making scientific knowledge accessible to the largest possible public. A part of the open access movement, it now provides access to 70 million multidisciplinary scientific articles and 12 million patents. The main activity of this start-up, which has offices in Paris, Luxembourg and San Francisco, consists of the analysis of scientific data, which it undertakes both for educational and research institutions and for businesses….”
“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….”
Interview of an Open Access advocate from India, Sridhar Gutam by the IndiaBioscience team on the status of Open Access in India.