VizioMetrics

“Scientific results are communicated visually in the literature through diagrams, visualizations, and photographs. These information-dense objects have been largely ignored in bibliometrics and scientometrics studies when compared to citations and text. In this project, we use techniques from computer vision and machine learning to classify more than 8 million figures from PubMed into 5 figure types and study the resulting patterns of visual information as they relate to impact. We find that the distribution of figures and figure types in the literature has remained relatively constant over time, but can vary widely across field and topic. We find a significant correlation between scientific impact and the use of visual information, where higher impact papers tend to include more diagrams, and to a lesser extent more plots and photographs. To explore these results and other ways of extracting this visual information, we have built a visual browser to illustrate the concept and explore design alternatives for supporting viziometric analysis and organizing visual information. We use these results to articulate a new research agenda – viziometrics – to study the organization and presentation of visual information in the scientific literature….”

Open Academic Search

“Open Academic Search (OAS) is a working group aiming to advance scientific research and discovery, promote technology that assists the scientific and academic communities, and make research available worldwide for the good of all humanity….Our core principles: [1] Collaboration drives innovation in academic search. [2] AI plays a unique role in surfacing and analyzing information in millions of research papers and academic journals. [3] Our core mission is advancing the pace of research and aiding breakthroughs in critical research areas….”

Fulcrum

“Fulcrum is a publishing platform currently under development that helps publishers present the full richness of their authors’ research outputs in a durable, discoverable, and flexible form….By adopting an agile development approach and working in partnership with the Hydra open source community, Fulcrum is responsive to the changing needs of digital scholars….Built on research university library infrastructure specifically designed to curate digital objects, Fulcrum is a trusted steward committed to preservation and stability….Interoperable with other publishing tools and integrated into the information supply chain, Fulcrum ensures that content is discovered by readers and impact is tracked….”

Publishers and Open-Resource Advocates Square Off on the Future of Course Content – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“At a friendly yet spirited debate last month over the pros and cons of open educational resources, publishers and OER advocates agreed on at least one thing: The “old” textbook market is broken.”

Green Is Not the New Gold: Beware of False Models for Open Access – ASCB

“Green OA would be an easy solution because it sounds like OA and seems to interfere minimally with current publishing mechanisms, but I will argue that it is an expensive halfway house with limited benefit to the scientific community or indeed the public. If we want OA to work in a sustainable manner for papers in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, it has to be gold and not green. And even if we don’t care about peer review or quality control by journals, there is a better solution than institutional green OA for disseminating articles: the posting of preprints….”

Open Access: Advocacy

“Widespread acceptance of open access has progressed more slowly than many advocates had hoped. One such advocate, Dr. Peter Suber, explains the barriers and misconceptions, and offers some strategic and practical advice….”

Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Review of an Open Access Journal: Landscape and Urban Planning – Landscape, Architecture, Design, & Learning

“The purpose of this review is to provide information about a highly respected peer-reviewed journal in my field, Landscape and Urban Planning. To understand Landscape and Urban Planning, I will address a few general questions to provide a background and profile of the publication.

[…]

 

A good place to start with understanding what a journal is about is to discover its Editor(s) in Chief and it’s history. There are more questions needed to talk about the journal’s purpose, goals, and scope, however, so we keep digging.

 

[…]

 

The last part of the profile is to ask how the journal addresses and explain open access? We also want to know how the journal is positioned in the open access movement?

We see from the Aims & Scope that Landscape and Urban Planning wants to facilitate open access. It does this through the visible production and sharing of knowledge internationally. The goal of the journal is to appeal to a readership and aid in the research of interdisciplinary scientists and practitioners who are all seeking to improve the quality of the knowledge. The descriptions of the journal do not elaborate or address Open Access specifically, but it is clear that they are supportive of the movement as they are open access and their parent company, Elsevier, is currently supporting, publishing, and producing 16% of the world’s literature and research.

Landscape and Urban Planning gets a positive review for their visibility, accessibility, and appeal to a diverse international readership.”