The New England Journal of Medicine, open access, Plan S, and undeclared conflicts of interest

via The New England Journal of Medicine, open access, Plan S, and undeclared conflicts of interest  

Online il primo modulo dell’Open Science MOOC

The first module of the Open Science MOOC is live! Coverage in Spanish.

Bibliosan 2.0

E’ da poco online, sulla piattaforma open source Eliademy, il primo modulo dell’Open Science MOOC, corso online che riguarda tutti gli aspetti legati al tema della scienza aperta.

Il primo modulo ha come argomenti l’Open Research Software e l’Open Source. Il prossimo modulo, programmato per gli inizi del 2019, riguarderà i Principi base dell’Open Science (Open Principles).  

I corsi sono completamente gratuiti, possono essere seguiti con il proprio ritmo quindi possono essere completati nel tempo libero, tutti i contenuti sono liberamente disponibili e autorizzati per l’uso sia all’interno che al di fuori della piattaforma.

Chi è interessato può anche partecipare alla realizzazione di questi moduli registrandosi su Slacko su GitHub.

Bibliosan 2.0 riprenderà a gennaio. Buone feste!

View original post

Advertisement

Measuring openness: should we be careful what we wish for?

The Bibliomagician

Is the best way of incentivising open scholarship to measure it?  Lizzie Gadd is not so sure.

There is a lot of talk at the moment about measuring open scholarship as means of incentivising it.  For example, the European Commission’s recently updated recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information calls for member states to change the academic evaluation system by introducing “additional indicators and metrics that can inform assessment on openness”. The LERU Open Science roadmap is another, suggesting universities “embed Open Science principles in the institutional research assessment system, shifting away from an excessive reliance on publication-based journal impact factors and citation cultures and recognising Open Science approaches such as OA publishing, data/code/reagent sharing.” I have sympathy with these objectives.  We all want openness, and we all believe Campbell’s Law – i.e., the way you measure someone is the way they’ll behave. It’s just that the more…

View original post 1,597 more words

My Green OA experience

Great post from Liz Martin-Silverstone on Green Open Access, and her first time using paleorXiv! I hope other palaeontologists follow her lead now in using the service 🙂

Musings of a Clumsy Palaeontologist

As many of you may know from my random musings, you’ll know that I am a supporter of the idea of Open Access publishing. I strongly believe that research should be open to everyone, and think it’s unfair that universities have to shell out millions to get access to material, especially when it’s government funded. However, you may also know that I did my PhD self-funded (or at least not funded by the UK government), which can make OA difficult.

Since most journals charge some kind of Article Processing Charge (APC) in order to cover OA costs, that money needs to come from somewhere. In the UK, if you’re funded by a research council, the universities are given money to pay for those costs. If you’re not, you need to pay those fees on your own if you want to achieve the Gold OA standard, where the journal formatted final…

View original post 455 more words

Episode #43: Interview with Jon Tennant about Open Science

Podcast on open science with yours truly!