20090701 Textual Publications Embrace Open Access
From s5h.net
The Doctor Who Model of Open Source
How do we sustain Open Source in a distributed world? We are facing this challenge with several of our chemical software creations/packages. People move, institutions change. Open Source does not, of itself, grow and flourish – it needs nurturing. Many packages require a lot of work before they are in a state to be usefully enhanced by the community - “throw it over the wall and it will flourish” does not work. Many OS projects have clear governance and (at least implicitly) funded management. Examples are Apache, Eclipse, etc. Many others have the “BDFL” - Benevolent Dictator For Life with characters such as RBS, Linus, Guido Python, Larry Perl, etc. These command worldwide respect and they have income models which are similar to literary giants. These models don’t (yet?) work for chemistry.
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=2059 UNESCO releases new publication on open educational resources
UNESCO has released its first openly licensed publication. Open Educational Resources: Conversations in Cyberspace brings together the background papers and reports from the first three years of activities in the UNESCO OER Community. Access the online edition – or buy the book!
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=28899&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Why Scientific Publishing Will Never be the Same
For those of us tracking open access and its wider import, it's pretty clear that scientific publishing has changed for ever. But for some within the industry, there remains the desperate hope that all this new-fangled open, collaborative stuff will just blow over.
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-scientific-publishing-will-never-be.html It's Our Data: Time to Open Up
Last week I wrote about David Cameron's fine words about cancelling ID cards and generally opening up data. It was full of sound and fury, but I reserve judgement on just how much it really signified. But here's a hopeful sign that things really might change if the Tories win power at the next general election. It's a new report from the Centre for Policy Studies
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=14&entryid=2312
Recent
Open Access and the A-Bomb
Importantly, by putting their papers into arXiv physicists ensure that they are freely available to anyone who wishes to access them – assuming they have an Internet connection – regardless of whether they or their institution has a subscription to the journal in which the paper is published. Indeed, some papers in arXiv are never published in a journal at all.
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-access-and-a-bomb.html
Book Publisher Eksmo Acquires Online Ebook Store LitRes http://blog.quintura.com/2009/06/22/book-publisher-eksmo-acquires-online-ebook-store-litres/?owa_from=feed&owa_sid=
Article: It’s our data
The 700,000 pages of scanned images put online in pdf were described by Sir Stuart Bell as a ‘great achievement’ for Parliament. And I suppose it is if you’re used to inscribing your words on animal skins.
http://www.yrtk.org/2009/article-its-our-data/
Five minutes of your time to help us: take part in UK PubMed Central images survey
The British Library project team, which manages development activities for UKPMC, and is specifically tasked with identifying additional, hard to find content to add to UKPMC, is keen to understand what types of images researchers would find useful for potential inclusion in the repository.
http://ukpmc.blogspot.com/2009/06/five-minutes-of-your-time-to-help-us.html
Finding a fair price for free knowledge
TEN years ago, a piece of software called Napster taught us that scarcity is no longer a law of nature. The physics of our universe would allow everyone with access to a networked computer to enjoy, for free, every song, every film, every book, every piece of research, every computer program, every last thing that could be made out of digital ones and zeros. The question became not, will nature allow it, but will our legal and economic system ever allow it?
No Raw Data on Recovery.gov. Significant Failure
Speaking for the coalition, Gary Bass, OMB Watch’s director and CAR’s co-chair, applauded the significant transparency steps OMB has taken in certain key respects. However, much data from the recipients of Recovery Act funds will not be collected or disclosed according the the new guidelines.
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/25/no-raw-data-on-recoverygov-significant-failure/
ScenicOrNot raw data now available for re-use
It’s available under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial 3 Licence, and we greatly look forward to seeing what people do with it.
http://www.mysociety.org/2009/06/26/scenicornot-raw-data-now-available-for-re-use/
Elsevier Does a Microsoft with Open Access
I've seen these kind of stories so many times in the world of open source, with Microsoft as the main protagonist, that they warm the cockles of my heart when I see them popping up in other areas like open access. Why? Because if a multi-billion pound company like Elsevier is starting to stoop to this kind of tactic, it demonstrates just how profoundly worried it is - and how close open access is to widespread acceptance.
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/06/elsevier-does-microsoft-with-open.html
Elsevier Reveals More Details About Its Fake Journal Division
Remember how Elsevier and Merck were caught putting out a fake journal that had articles favoring Merck drugs, implying peer reviewed articles that weren't? Soon afterwards, it came out that Elsevier had a whole division for such things. However, following an internal investigation, it looks like Elsevier is backtracking a bit and saying that, while the group's practices were problematic, most weren't as egregious as the "Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine (AJBJM)" that was created by Merck and Elsevier.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090606/0632555149.shtml
Elsevier Had A Whole Division Publishing Fake Medical Journals
Remember a week ago when we wrote about pharma giant Merck and publishing giant Elsevier working together to publish a fake journal that talked up various Merck drugs and was used by doctors to show that the drugs were safe and useful?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2157144822.shtml
No bottom to worse at Elsevier?
The latest development, though, strikes me as something that should be shouted from every available rooftop: Elsevier simply must answer the questions raised. Via Dorothea: Jonathan Rochkind has done a little "forensic librarianship" and raised astonishing questions about the entire imprint, Excerpta Medica, which published the fake journal that started all of this. Go read Jonathan, but the bottom line is this: Excerpta Medica does not provide a straightforward list of its own publications or make clear which are, ahem, "industry-sponsored".
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/05/no_bottom_to_worse_at_elsevier.php
Another Reason We Need Open Access
One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-reason-we-need-open-access.html
Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal
It is this attitude within companies like Merck and among doctors that allows scandals precisely like this to happen. While the scandals with Merck and Vioxx are particularly egregious, we know they are not isolated incidents. This one is just particularly so. If physicians would not lend their names or pens to these efforts, and publishers would not offer their presses, these publications could not exist. What doctors would have as available data would be peer-reviewed research and what pharmaceutical companies produce from their marketing departments--actual advertisements.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/
Merck And Elsevier Exposed For Creating Fake Peer Review Journal
Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that you can do when everything is locked up and proprietary, rather than open. There's almost no way to confirm or check the data or information to make sure it's legit, so people tend to assume it is. In that regard, perhaps it's no surprise that the two companies eventually went down this road, but it does highlight one of the problems with the way the system works today. As Shirky later points out this is hardly unique for a firm like Elsevier, which has faced some serious ethical questions regarding its publications in the past as well.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090503/1255574725.shtml
Related: The serials crisis has a name, and it's Reed Elsevier.
Mind you, I don't mean to imply that we should launch another boycott; reigning in Elsevier's profit margins and/or market share would do little to offset the serials crisis. The only answer to that, in the long term, is Open Access, because it scales where Toll access doesn't. No, this entry is not really about OA at all, it's just a little kick in the shins for my favorite Greedy Bastard Publishers.
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2008/12/the_serials_crisis_has_a_name.php
Elsevier steals, then copyrights other people's free stuff
Reed Elsevier caught copying my content without my permission: I was not asked for, and did not give, permission for my work to appear on that page, much less in that format. Needless to say, I felt a little slighted. The website in question appears to be a custom version of the LexisNexis search engine. This particular version appears to be Elsevier's own custom version, intended for internal use. I don't have conclusive proof of that, but the title bar at the top of the page reads, "Elsevier Corporate", and the person who accessed my blog from that page had an IP address that's registered to MD Consult, which is an Elsevier subsidiary. My guess is that Elsevier's keeping track of news articles and blog posts that mention them, along with the context in which they're mentioned. [...] Reed Elsevier Is Stealing My Words: I received an email from ScienceBlogling Mike Dunford that Reed Elsevier had excerpted one of my posts. No problem there--I like it when people read my stuff....except for one thing: The fuckers copyrighted my words. Copyright violation?: Apparently, publishing companies don't always get permission for the materials they use, either. Mike Dunford caught Reed Elsevier copying his content without permission (from Stephen Downes).
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/elsevier_steals_then_copyright.php
Novell Identity Management