“Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules….EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public.”
“Special issue of Applications in Plant Sciences explores new developments and applications of digital plant data
Even as botany has moved firmly into the era of “big data,” some of the most valuable botanical information remains inaccessible for computational analysis, locked in physical form in the orderly stacks of herbaria and museums. Herbarium specimens are plant samples collected from the field that are dried and stored with labels describing species, date and location of collection, along with various other information including habitat descriptions. The detailed historical record these specimens keep of species occurrence, morphology, and even DNA provides an unparalleled data source to address a variety of morphological, ecological, phenological, and taxonomic questions. Now efforts are underway to digitize these data, and make them easily accessible for analysis. Two symposia were convened to discuss the possibilities and promise of digitizing these data–at the Botanical Society of America’s 2017 annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, and again at the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, China. The proceedings of those symposia have been published as a special issue of Applications in Plant Sciences; the articles discuss a range of methods and remaining challenges for extracting data from botanical collections, as well as applications for collections data once digitized. Many of the authors contributing to the issue are involved in iDigBio (Integrated Digitized Biocollections), a new “national coordinating center for the facilitation and mobilization of biodiversity specimen data,” as described by Dr. Gil Nelson, a botanist at Florida State University and coeditor of this issue….”
“Anonymised raw survey data collected by Springer Nature in 2017. This raw data supports the report titled ‘Open access: the future of academic publishing- A survey of librarians explores opinions on the transition to open access’….”
“The Open Data report is a result of a year-long, co-conducted study between Elsevier and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), part of Leiden University, the Netherlands. The study is based on a complementary methods approach consisting of a quantitative analysis of bibliometric and publication data, a global survey of 1,200 researchers and three case studies including in-depth interviews with key individuals involved in data collection, analysis and deposition in the fields of soil science, human genetics and digital humanities….”
“Combining results from bibliometric analyses, a global sample of researcher opinions and case-study interviews, a new report reveals that although the benefits of open research data are well known, in practice, confusion remains within the researcher community around when and how to share research data….”
“The Cultural Observatory at Harvard is working to enable the quantitative study of human culture across societies and across centuries. We do this in three ways:
- Creating massive datasets relevant to human culture
- Using these datasets to power wholly new types of analysis
- Developing tools that enable researchers and the general public to query the data …”
Purpose: The present study explored tendencies of the world’s countries—at individual and scientific development levels—toward publishing in APC-funded open access journals. Design/Methodology/Approach: Using a bibliometric method, it studied OA and NOA articles issued in Springer and Elsevier’s APC journals? during 2007–2011. The data were gathered using a wide number of sources including Sherpa/Romeo, Springer Author-mapper, Science Direct, Google, and journals’ websites. Findings: The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland ranked highest in terms of their OA shares. This can be attributed to the financial resources allocated to publication in general, and publishing in OA journals in particular, by the countries. All developed countries and a large number of scientifically lagging and developing nations were found to publish OA articles in the APC journals. The OA papers have been exponentially growing across all the countries’ scientific groups annually. Although the advanced nations published the lion’s share of the OA-APC papers and exhibited the highest growth, the underdeveloped groups have been displaying high OA growth rates. Practical Implications: Given the reliance of the APC model on authors’ affluence and motivation, its affordability and sustainability have been challenged. This communication helps understand how countries at different scientific development and thus wealth levels contribute to the model. Originality/Value: This is the first study conducted at macro level clarifying countries’ contribution to the APC model—at individual and scientific-development levels—as the ultimate result of the interaction between authors’ willingness, the model affordability, and publishers and funding agencies’ support.”
“e-Infrastructures address the needs of European researchers for digital services in terms of networking, computing and data management by fostering the emergence of Open Science. In the context of the European open science agenda there is a need to capitalise on past e-infrastructure investments and develop an e-infrastructure commons. To be able to achieve this there are a number of obstacles that need to address the issue of:
- service accessibility, interoperability and fragmentation, comprehensibility and clarity + inconsistent use of key performance indicators (KPIs) for assessing added value.
The actions taken by the eInfraCentral project to address these obstacles are by:
- Structure an open and guided discussion between e-infrastructures to consensually define a common catalogue for their services.
- Develop a single entry point (one-stop shop) – the eInfraCentral portal – for end users to browse the service catalogue, and enhance the monitoring of key performance indicators (KPIs) that focus on availability and quality of services and user satisfaction.
- Draw policy and sustainability lessons for the future development of a European e-infrastructure ‘market place’ as an extension of the common service catalogue and portal so that it includes a much broader range of e-infrastructures and services. …”
“e-Infrastructures foster the emergence of Open Science, i.e. new working methods based on the shared use of ICT tools and resources across different disciplines and technology domains as well as sharing of results and an open way of working together. Furthermore, e-Infrastructures enable and support the circulation of knowledge in Europe online and therefore constitute an essential building block for the European Research Area (ERA).
The European Commission launched the “European Cloud Initiative – Building a competitive data and knowledge economy in Europe” to capitalise on the data revolution. Under this initiative, a European Data infrastructure will combine world-class supercomputing capability with high-speed connectivity and leading-edge data and sofware services for science, industry and the public sector. This will stimulate Open science and innovation by enabling researchers to access and re-use the huge amounts of scientific data.
The European Cloud initiative will fully unlock the value of big data and foster scientific and technological innovation while helping achieve the objectives of the Digital Single Market Strategy.
More information is available on the European Open Science Cloud webpage….”