DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Metadata of Scholarly Publications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Open Metadata of Scholarly Publications Open Science Monitor Case Study Ludo Waltman EN July 2019 Open Metadata of Scholarly Publications European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate G — Research and Innovation Outreach Unit G.4 — Open Science E-mail [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Manuscript completed in July 2019. This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-12011-7 doi: 10.2777/132318 KI-01-19-807-EN-N © European Union, 2019. Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Open Metadata of Scholarly Publications Open Science Monitor Case Study 2019 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation EN Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 5 2 Drivers ............................................................................................ 6 3 Barriers ........................................................................................... 7 4 Impact ............................................................................................ 8 5 Lessons learnt .................................................................................. 9 6 Policy conclusions .............................................................................. 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this study report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this case study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. The case study part of Open Science Monitor led by the Lisbon Council together with CWTS, ESADE and Elsevier. Authors Ludo Waltman – Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) 4 STUDY ON OPEN SCIENCE: MONITORING TRENDS AND DRIVERS (Reference: PP-05622-2017) 1 Introduction The Open Science Monitor partly relies on proprietary data sources, in particular the Scopus database. Scopus is a data source that provides metadata of scholarly publications. It has been created by Elsevier, which contributes to the Open Science Monitor as a subcontractor. The use of Scopus data in the Open Science Monitor has been subject of debate. In a complaint to the European Commission, the use of Scopus data has been criticized. Among other things, the signatories of this complaint raised the following question: “Given the EU’s emphasis on Open Science, including Open Data, why is there (apparently) no requirement to insist that the Open Science Monitor must be based upon open data, open standards, and open source tools (with appropriate licenses for re-use accessibility) as a matter of principle?”1 The response of the Open Science Monitor consortium has been that it is not possible to create the Monitor based exclusively on open data sources. Given the currently available data sources, the only way to create the Open Science Monitor is to make use of proprietary data sources such as Scopus or Web of Science. The same response has also been given by the European Commission: “Overall, the Commission wishes to have an as comprehensive Monitor as possible. … as long as there is in the European Union no fully open and transparent data-infrastructure, we are dependent on a fragmented data infrastructure and data sources from private operators. This implies that the Monitor has to be constructed under non-optimal conditions.” The debate about the Open Science Monitor illustrates the importance of developments toward open metadata of scholarly publications (e.g., open metadata of articles in scholarly journals and in conference proceedings). For many publications, metadata such as titles, abstracts, author lists, and reference lists is available in proprietary data sources such as Scopus, produced by Elsevier, and Web of Science, produced by Clarivate Analytics. The use of metadata provided by these proprietary data sources usually involves considerable cost and is subject to significant restrictions. Open data sources make metadata of publications available under minimal restrictions. Open metadata has several benefits. Open availability of metadata enables more researchers to carry out bibliometric studies, which will help to get a better understanding of the science system. There will also be more possibilities for testing the reproducibility of bibliometric studies. In addition, open metadata can be used in applied bibliometric analyses that aim to support research evaluation and research management. These analyses can be made more transparent, which will contribute to more responsible ways of using bibliometrics. There will also be more freedom in designing applied bibliometric analyses. For instance, these analyses do not need to rely on decisions made by a central authority (e.g., the producer of Scopus or Web of Science) on which scientific literature can and cannot be included in an analysis. Finally, open metadata may make scientific literature easier to find. New search engines for scientific literature can be developed based on open metadata. Open metadata is closely related to open access publishing. An increasing proportion of all scholarly publications are openly accessible. If a publication is openly accessible, its metadata is openly accessible as well, although not necessarily in a machine-readable format or in association with similar metadata from other publications. Conversely, if a publication is not openly accessible, the metadata of the publication may or may not be openly accessible, depending on the policies of the publisher. This report first provides an overview of the drivers of and barriers to open metadata of scholarly publications. It then demonstrates the impact of open metadata. Finally, lessons learnt and policy conclusions are discussed. The focus of this report is on metadata of scholarly publications. Metadata of other types of scholarly outputs (e.g., data sets and software) is also of considerable importance, but falls outside the scope of this report. 1 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2554199 5 STUDY ON OPEN SCIENCE: MONITORING TRENDS AND DRIVERS (Reference: PP-05622-2017) 2 Drivers A prominent driver of open metadata of scholarly publications is the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health. The NLM maintains PubMed, an open data source of metadata of a large share of all scholarly publications in the biomedical domain. PubMed was launched more than two decades ago, in 1996. It is widely used by biomedical researchers. A limitation of PubMed is that it does not include the reference lists of publications. Citation links between publications are therefore not available in PubMed. Also, for many publications, PubMed does not provide complete data on author affiliations. In recent years, there have been a number of significant developments toward open metadata of scholarly publications. First of all, scholarly publishers have increasingly made metadata of their publications openly available in Crossref, a registration agency for Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Publishers that are members of Crossref are obliged to “deposit timely and accurate metadata for (their) content”.2 When a publisher registers a DOI for a publication, Crossref obtains basic metadata for this publication, such as the title, the names of the authors, and the name of the journal in which the publication has appeared. Crossref then makes this metadata openly available. The data “is not subject to copyright and available to use for whatever purpose you may have”.3 In many cases, publishers also deposit the references of publications in Crossref. However, references are made openly available by Crossref only if the publisher grants permission for this. To persuade publishers to make the references of publications openly available in Crossref, the Initiative for Open Citations (i4OC) was established in April 2017.4 I4OC is an advocacy group that started as a collaboration of six organizations: OpenCitations, Wikimedia Foundation, PLOS, eLife, DataCite, and the Centre for Culture and Technology at Curtin University. The initiative is supported by a large number of other organizations. I4OC has had a major effect on the openness of citation data. Before the launch of I4OC, for only 1% of the publications with references deposited in Crossref the references were open. Two years after the launch of I4OC, this has increased to 55%, resulting in about half a billion references being openly available in Crossref. Most large publishers, including for instance Springer Nature and Wiley, support I4OC and make the references
Recommended publications
  • Exploring New Frontiers of Electronic Publishing in Biomedical Science

    Exploring New Frontiers of Electronic Publishing in Biomedical Science

    Distinguished Editors Series Singapore Med J 2009; 50 (3) : 230 50 years of publication Exploring new frontiers of electronic publishing in biomedical science Ng K H ABSTRACT • Fully searchable, navigable, retrievable, impact- Publishing is a hallmark of good scientific rankable research papers. research. The aim of publishing is to disseminate • Access to research data. new research knowledge and findings as widely • For free, for all, forever. as possible in a timely and efficient manner. Scientific publishing has evolved over the years EVOLUTION OF ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING with the advent of new technologies and demands. The term, “Electronic Publishing”, is primarily used This paper presents a brief discussion on the today to refer to the current practice of online and web- evolution and status of electronic publishing. based publishing. However, it is also used to describe the The Open Access Initiative was created with the development of new forms of production, distribution, and aim of overcoming various limitations faced by user interaction with regard to computer-based production traditional publishing access models. Innovations of text and other interactive media. Electronic publishing have opened up possibilities for electronic also includes the publication of ebooks and electronic publishing to increase the accessibility, visibility, articles, as well as the development of digital libraries and interactivity and usability of research. A glimpse catalogues.(4,5) of the future publishing landscape has revealed Electronic publishing has become common in scholarly that scientific communication and research will publications where it has been argued that this mode of not remain the same. The internet and advances in publishing is in the process of replacing peer reviewed information technology will have an impact on the scientific journals.
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature

    Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature

    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
  • How Comprehensive Is the Pubmed Central Open Access Full-Text Database? ⋆

    How Comprehensive Is the Pubmed Central Open Access Full-Text Database? ⋆

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository How comprehensive is the PubMed Central Open Access full-text database? ⋆ Jiangen He1[0000−0002−3950−6098] and Kai Li1[0000−0002−7264−365X] Department of Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA, 19104, USA. [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. The comprehensiveness of database is a prerequisite for the quality of scientific works established on this increasingly significant infrastructure. This is especially so for large-scale text-mining analy- ses of scientific publications facilitated by open-access full-text scientific databases. Given the lack of research concerning the comprehensiveness of this type of academic resource, we conducted a project to analyze the coverage of materials in the PubMed Central Open Access Subset (PMCOAS), a popular source for open-access scientific publications, in terms of the PubMed database. The preliminary results show that the PMCOAS coverage is in a rapid increase in recent years, despite the vast difference by MeSH descriptor. Keywords: Database coverage · PubMed Central Open Access· PubMed. 1 Introduction Database has become a central piece of scientific infrastructure in our contem- porary data-driven mode of scientific practice. The increasing volumes of data stored in structured formats gradually became an indispensable source for scien- tific discoveries in nearly every knowledge domain. However, one question that often shrouds this source is how comprehensive the database is as compared to the reality the database is claimed to represent. A large number of studies in the field of quantitative studies of science have been devoted to this question since the end of the 20th century: they have compared various parameters, especially the number of documents, references, and journals covered, among databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar [2, 3, 5, 8, 6, 7].
  • The Opencitations Data Model

    The Opencitations Data Model

    The OpenCitations Data Model Marilena Daquino1;2[0000−0002−1113−7550], Silvio Peroni1;2[0000−0003−0530−4305], David Shotton2;3[0000−0001−5506−523X], Giovanni Colavizza4[0000−0002−9806−084X], Behnam Ghavimi5[0000−0002−4627−5371], Anne Lauscher6[0000−0001−8590−9827], Philipp Mayr5[0000−0002−6656−1658], Matteo Romanello7[0000−0002−7406−6286], and Philipp Zumstein8[0000−0002−6485−9434]? 1 Digital Humanities Advanced research Centre (/DH.arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna fmarilena.daquino2,[email protected] 2 Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna 3 Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford [email protected] 4 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam [email protected] 5 Department of Knowledge Technologies for the Social Sciences, GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences [email protected], [email protected] 6 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim [email protected] 7 cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne [email protected] 8 Mannheim University Library, University of Mannheim [email protected] Abstract. A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with differ- ent nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data sup- plier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies.
  • Getting Your ORCID Profile SPI-Hub™ Ready

    Getting Your ORCID Profile SPI-Hub™ Ready

    Center for Knowledge Management Starting Your ORCID Profile • Creating an ID • Entering Basic Profile Information • Adding Publications 1 What is an ORCID iD? Introduction Importance for grant seekers What does this tutorial cover? Getting Started Step 1: Register for a free ORCID iD Creating Your ORCID iD Table of Contents Step 2: Verify your email address Populating Your ORCID Step 3: Employment history Step 4: Education/qualifications Record Step 5: Works Conclusion 2 Developed by the Center for Knowledge Management at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the goal of SPI-Hub™ is to be the go-to place for researchers’ and clinicians’ citation and bibliographic needs. As part of this mission, SPI-Hub™ provides indicators of journal scholarship expressed through metadata in 25 fields (e.g., indexing status in biomedical databases, stated adherence to publishing policies/best practices, reporting of open access policies such fees and licensing options). https://spi-hub.app.vumc.org 3 This video guide will aid you in creating your ORCID profile and leverage SPI- Hub™’s “My Citations” feature. The “My Citations” feature allows you to retrieve and review SPI-Hub™ established journal scholarly criteria for the journals in which you have published. One of the options for “My Citations” includes use of an ORCID iD https://spi-hub.app.vumc.org/cv-analysis 4 What is an ORCID iD? The ORCID iD is an open-source and non-proprietary persistent digital identifier that once obtained, disambiguates and uniquely identifies you from any other researcher. • An individual researcher’s ORCID iD is formatted as https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097 How will an ORCID profile help me? • Allows researchers to have an accurate, comprehensive, https://orcid.org openly available record of all their publications, grant awards, and professional service.
  • Abstract and Index and Web Discovery Services IEEE Partners

    Abstract and Index and Web Discovery Services IEEE Partners

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract and Index and Web Discovery Services IEEE Partners Introduction This document is intended to provide a general overview of the abstract and indexing services and web discovery services that take in IEEE content. While this report is intended to provide readers with information on IEEE content indexed and in what service, there are several things to keep in mind: Services identified in this report do not cover everything in IEEE’s Xplore Digital Library either because IEEE does not provide all content to these services, or because only certain content was selected by a partner. Some services add and delete titles regularly, or include only select articles, in order to maintain a database that is relevant to their audience. While IEEE may provide a data feed for a particular subscription package (noted in the tables below), partners are not required to index all content. Most partners update their products at varying intervals and many Abstract and Indexing Services do not include corrected or updated article information. As a result, and given that these services and our agreements with these partners can and do change, readers of this report are encouraged to contact Krista Thom, Publishing Relations Program Specialist at [email protected] with specific questions. Abstract & Indexing Services Abstract and indexing services maintain databases, often subject-specific, which users can search to find relevant content. The data included in these services may be peer-reviewed journals, books, reports, and other types of content. Unlike web scale discovery services, these services collect metadata (including abstracts) from publishers and other organizations into large repositories or indexes.
  • ORCID: Connecting the Research Community April 30, 2020 Introductions

    ORCID: Connecting the Research Community April 30, 2020 Introductions

    ORCID: Connecting the Research Community April 30, 2020 Introductions Shawna Sadler Sheila Rabun Lori Ann M. Schultz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6103-5034 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1196-6279 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1597-8189 Engagement Manager ORCID US Community Sr. Director of Research, Americas, Specialist, Innovation & Impact, ORCID LYRASIS University of Arizona Agenda 1. What is ORCID? 2. ORCID US Community Consortium 3. Research Impact & Global Connections 4. ORCID for Research Administrators 5. Questions What is ORCID? ORCID’S VISION IS A WORLD WHERE ALL WHO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND INNOVATION ARE UNIQUELY IDENTIFIED AND CONNECTED TO THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND AFFILIATIONS ACROSS TIME, DISCIPLINES, AND BORDERS. History ● ORCID was first announced in 2009 ● A collaborative effort by the research community "to resolve the author name ambiguity problem in scholarly communication" ● Independent nonprofit organization ● Offering services in 2012 ORCID An non-profit organization that provides: 1. ORCID iDs to people 2. ORCID records for people 3. Infrastructure to share research data between organizations ORCID for Researchers Free Unique Identifier Sofia Maria Hernandez Garcia ORCID iD https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5727-2427 ORCID Record: ORCID Record: ORCID Record: What is ORCID? https://vimeo.com/97150912 ORCID for Research Organizations Researcher ORCID Your Organization 1) Researcher creates ORCID iD All records are saved in the API Transfer Member data 2) Populates record ORCID Registry to your CRIS System Current
  • Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

    Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

    publications Article Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures B. Preedip Balaji 1,* and M. Dhanamjaya 2 1 Indian Institute for Human Settlements Library and School of Library and Information Science, REVA University, Bengaluru 560064, India 2 School of Library and Information Science, REVA University, Yelahanka, Bengaluru 560064, India; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +91-080-6760-6661 Received: 2 September 2018; Accepted: 8 January 2019; Published: 14 January 2019 Abstract: Digital scholarship and electronic publishing within scholarly communities change when metrics and open infrastructures take center stage for measuring research impact. In scholarly communication, the growth of preprint repositories as a new model of scholarly publishing over the last three decades has been one of the major developments. As it unfolds, the landscape of scholarly communication is transitioning—with much being privatized as it is made open—and turning towards alternative metrics, such as social media attention, author-level, and article-level metrics. Moreover, the granularity of evaluating research impact through new metrics and social media changes the objective standards of evaluating research performance. Using preprint repositories as a case study, this article situates them in a scholarly web, examining their salient features, benefits, and futures. Moves towards scholarly web development and publishing on the semantic and social web with open infrastructures, citations, and alternative metrics—how preprints advance building the web as data—is discussed. We determine that this will viably demonstrate new metrics and, by enhancing research publishing tools in the scholarly commons, facilitate various communities of practice. However, for preprint repositories to be sustainable, scholarly communities and funding agencies should support continued investment in open knowledge, alternative metrics development, and open infrastructures in scholarly publishing.
  • Open Science, Public Accountability: NLM Helps Nurse Scholars Shape Public Discourse

    Open Science, Public Accountability: NLM Helps Nurse Scholars Shape Public Discourse

    Open Science, Public Accountability: NLM helps Nurse Scholars shape Public Discourse The Jennifer K. Hayden Keynote Address NCSBN Scientific Symposium March 22, 2021 Patricia Flatley Brennan, RN, PhD Director, National Library of Medicine Objectives • Recognize the role of the National Library of Medicine in supporting the scientific response to health challenges. • Critically appraise the contribution of the NLM’s offerings of bibliographic and full text literature databases, biomedical databanks and repositories such as clinicaltrials.gov in support nursing science • Devise pathways for public discourse that enhance the impact of one’s science What does the NLM Do? • Facilitate Open access to the literature and data o PubMed Central – full text literature repository o CORD-19 – over 121,000 COVID-related articles available for machine processing o PubMed – bibliographic citation database, over 31M citations • Conduct and support research o Computational biology and computational health sciences • Establish and implement training o Pre- & post-doctoral programs, clinicians, librarian and the general public • Inform Policy o Open data, research integrity, information access, research accountability & reporting Facilitate open access to literature and data The 21st Century Collection NLM Preserve Connect Discover 011010101011010 101010101010001 Literature 110110011001100 Data 101010101110010 101010101010001 PubMed is search engine that accesses the MEDLINE database of references, citations related to articles in PubMed Central , and some
  • For 481 Biomedical Open Access Journals, Articles Are Not Searchable

    For 481 Biomedical Open Access Journals, Articles Are Not Searchable

    For 481 biomedical open access journals, articles are not searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals nor in conventional biomedical databases Mads Svane Liljekvist, KristoVer Andresen, Hans-Christian Pommergaard and Jacob Rosenberg Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark ABSTRACT Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MED- LINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases’ criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ’s coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomed- Submitted 18 December 2014 ical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Accepted 3 May 2015 Published 19 May 2015 Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE.
  • Scaling Scientometrics: Dimensions on Google Bigquery As an Infrastructure for Large-Scale Analysis

    Scaling Scientometrics: Dimensions on Google Bigquery As an Infrastructure for Large-Scale Analysis

    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 14 April 2021 doi: 10.3389/frma.2021.656233 Scaling Scientometrics: Dimensions on Google BigQuery as an Infrastructure for Large-Scale Analysis Daniel W. Hook 1,2,3* and Simon J. Porter 1 1Digital Science, London, United Kingdom, 2Department of Physics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, United States, 3Centre for Complexity Science, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Cloud computing has the capacity to transform many parts of the research ecosystem, from particular research areas to overall strategic decision making and policy. Scientometrics sits at the boundary between research and the decision-making, policy-making, and evaluation processes that underpin research. One of the biggest challenges in research policy and strategy is having access to data in a way that allows for analysis that can respond in an iterative way to inform decisions. Many decisions are based on “global” measures such as benchmark metrics that are hard to source and hence are Edited by: often nonspecific or outdated. The use of cloud technologies may be promising in Yi Zhang, University of Technology Sydney, addressing this area of providing data for research strategy and policy decisions. A Australia novel visualisation technique is introduced and used as a means to explore the potential for Reviewed by: scaling scientometrics by democratising both access to data and compute capacity using Dilek Cetindamar Kozanoglu, the cloud. University of Technology Sydney, Australia Keywords: research cartography, cloud technology, Dimensions, Google BigQuery, data democratisation, centre of Xiaojing Cai, mass, unique identifiers, research policy Zhejiang University, China *Correspondence: Daniel W. Hook 1 INTRODUCTION [email protected] In recent years cloud technologies have become used more extensively in research.
  • Pubmed Central Deposit and Author Rights

    Pubmed Central Deposit and Author Rights

    PubMed Central Deposit and Author Rights Agreements between 12 Publishers and the Authors Subject to the NIH Public Access Policy Ben Grillot August 2008 Association of Research Libraries Published by the Association of Research Libraries 21 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036-1118 P (202) 296-2296 F (202) 872-0884 http://www.arl.org/ Ben Grillot © 2008 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. PubMed Central Deposit and Author Rights Agreements between 12 Publishers and the Authors Subject to the NIH Public Access Policy Ben Grillot1 Authors and publishers have long negotiated the ownership of copyright in scholarly works. However, with the rise of electronic publishing and a growing trend towards open and public access models, traditional author- publisher agreements are changing. One of many forces bringing about this change is the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) recently revised Public Access Policy, requiring authors of NIH-funded articles to submit their works to PubMed Central. As a result of this policy, authors of funded works are looking closely at their publication agreements and scientific, technical, and medical journal publishers are re-examining their author agreements to accommodate the author’s needs. This paper, in an effort to help authors make informed choices about their rights, compares and contrasts how the agreements of 12 publishers permit authors to meet the requirements of the NIH Public Access Policy and share their works while they are under embargo.