DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of Open Science.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of Open Science.Pdf This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, unless specified. You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The cover was eloquently designed by Elena Frigerio, modified from a tattoo design for the author by Michael Eisen. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2012 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 The day I was allowed into Parliament. ............................................................................................ 10 Relocation, and a chance to try some open science-ing. ................................................................. 13 Why bother communicating? ........................................................................................................... 14 Virtual Palaeontology – taking science communication to the next level. ....................................... 16 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Why and how Master’s students should publish their research. ..................................................... 19 The values of social media and blogging for academics. .................................................................. 21 From impact factors to impact craters. ............................................................................................ 25 Peer Review Quality is Independent of Open Access, Science Communication Breakdown. .......... 28 2014 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 The future of scientific publishing. ................................................................................................... 31 It’s beyond time we ditched the impact factor. ............................................................................... 33 Every time you publish behind a paywall, a kitten dies. ................................................................... 34 Open Letter to The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Winnower. Co- written/signed by 100+ authors. ...................................................................................................... 35 Swing and a miss by the AAAS for open access. ............................................................................... 36 What causes high retraction rates in high-profile journals? ............................................................ 37 Top scientific publisher chooses not to advance open access, The Conversation. Co-written with Erin McKiernan. ................................................................................................................................. 38 “Open access wins all of the arguments all of the time.” ................................................................. 41 One small step for Nature. ................................................................................................................ 45 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 Open Sesame! The Risks and Rewards of Open Data for Researchers, Digital Science. .................. 47 A letter to the Editor of the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. ........................................... 50 The rise of open research data, Wiley. ............................................................................................. 52 My open science story, The Winnower. ........................................................................................... 53 A thought on impact factors. ............................................................................................................ 55 ‘Open’ is about equality. ................................................................................................................... 57 Down with the impact factor. ........................................................................................................... 61 Why Open Research? ........................................................................................................................ 62 OpenCon comes to Berlin! ................................................................................................................ 65 3 2016 ...................................................................................................................................................... 68 Breaking the traditional mould of peer review: Why we need a more transparent process of research evaluation, LSE Impact Blog. .............................................................................................. 68 Did we just write the most ‘open’ paper ever..? .............................................................................. 70 Why did I choose those journals to publish in? ................................................................................ 72 You should always follow your heart in research, Interview with Editage Insights. ........................ 76 Why you should publish the shit out of your PhD as early as possible. ........................................... 86 Why I will never publish with Wiley again. ....................................................................................... 87 A challenge to publishers to justify embargo periods. ..................................................................... 90 Shit I learned during my PhD. ........................................................................................................... 91 Shaping an Open World. ................................................................................................................... 96 Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority. Co-written with Martin Eve and Stuart Lawson, and published on the former’s personal website. ............................................ 97 OpenCon Berlin – Great success! .................................................................................................... 101 2017 .................................................................................................................................................... 103 Reproducible science is better science. .......................................................................................... 103 How to efficiently stay on top of published research. .................................................................... 104 When publishing is like shopping for cookies. ................................................................................ 105 Did Elsevier breach my copyright during peer review? .................................................................. 106 So, you want to do a peer review.. ................................................................................................. 107 Science, echo chambers, and why facts are never enough. ........................................................... 109 Who isn’t profiting off the backs of researchers?, Discover Magazine. ......................................... 114 Imperial College disavows the beloved Impact Factor. Boohoo. ................................................... 117 Open Access should never be the end game. ................................................................................. 119 Is PLOS ONE losing favour with palaeontologists? ......................................................................... 123 The future of scholarly publishing. ................................................................................................. 126 And the rich get richer.. .................................................................................................................. 130 Illegal file hosting site, ResearchGate, acquires massive financial investment. ............................. 131 What are the barriers to post-publication peer review?, LSE Impact Blog. ................................... 134 Should biologists cite preprints?, The Biologist. ............................................................................. 142 How ‘broken’ is academia, and how can we fix it? ......................................................................... 144 How to make your research 100% Open Access for free (and legally). .......................................... 146 Why Unpaywall will be a game-changer. ........................................................................................ 148 paleorXiv: Now open for submissions! ........................................................................................... 150 4 Why we don’t need journal blacklists. ............................................................................................ 153 Should we cite preprints? ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook
    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Manuscript Preparation Requirements
    Final Manuscript Preparation Requirements These instructions lay the groundwork for us to meet our mutual goal of providing high-quality books to readers. Adherence to the following requirements will facilitate your manuscript’s smooth progress to the next stage: copyediting. Copyediting is meant to assist the author with a final polish of the manuscript and is focused on ensuring consistency and correcting mechanics and style. We expect that substantive and developmental changes in the accuracy and organization of the manuscript have been handled before copyediting, based on the advice of the acquisitions editor and the expert readers. Copyediting does not include fact-checking or substantially revising your work. All manuscripts submitted to the University Press of Florida and the University of Florida Press must be in their final form. Please make sure everything you plan to have published in the final book—manu- script text, illustrations, tables, captions, credit lines—is included, clearly labeled, and formatted accord- ing to these instructions. All permission documentation and the rights log should be submitted with the manuscript. Once the project starts the editorial process, no new material may be added. BASIC REQUIREMENTS The following tasks are mandatory. Your manuscript will not be accepted if they are not completed. Naming Files 1. Name each file clearly and sequentially; do not use chapter titles or descriptions of illustrations in file names. 2. Label chapter files as Chap01, Chap02, and so on. 3. Label illustrations and tables numerically: • For single-author books with 20 or fewer illustrations, single-digit numbering is preferred (fig. 1, 2, 3, etc.; map 1, 2).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Search for Academic Journal Articles Online
    How to search for Academic Journal Articles Online While you CAN get to the online resources from the library page, I find that getting onto MyUT and clicking the LIBRARY TAB is much easier and much more familiar. I will start from there: Within the Library tab, there is a box called “Electronic Resources” and within that box is a hyperlink that will take you to “Research Databases by Name.” Click that link as shown below: The page it will take you looks like the picture below. Click “Listed by Name.” This will take you to a list starting with A, and the top selection is the one you want, it is called “Academic Search Complete.” Click it as pictured below: THIS SECTION IS ONLY IF YOU ARE ON AN OFF-CAMPUS COMPUTER: You will be required to log-in if you are off campus. The First page looks like this: Use the pull-down menu to find “University of Toledo” The Branch should default to “Main Campus,” which is what you want. Then click “Submit.” Next it will ask for you First and Last Name and your Rocket ID. If you want to use your social security number, that is also acceptable (but a little scary.). If you use your rocket ID, be sure to include the R at the beginning of the number. Then click Submit again and you are IN. The opening page has the searchbox right in the middle. When searching, start narrow and then get broader if you do not find enough results. For Example, when researching Ceremony by Leslie Silko, you may want your first search to be “Silko, Ceremony.” If you don’t find enough articles, you may then want to just search “Silko.” Finally, you may have to search for “Native American Literature.” And so on and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Excellence: Has the Signal Overtaken the Substance? an Analysis of Journal Articles Submitted to RAE2008
    Digital Research Reports Evidence for excellence: has the signal overtaken the substance? An analysis of journal articles submitted to RAE2008 Jonathan Adams & Karen A Gurney JUNE 2014 About the Authors Jonathan Adams joined Digital Science as Chief Scientist in October 2013. Previously he was the lead founder of Evidence Ltd (2000-2009) and Director of Re- search Evaluation for Thomson Reuters (2009-2013). Jonathan led the 2008 review of research evaluation in New Zealand and was a member of the Australian Research Council (ARC) indicators development group for its research excellence assessment (ERA). In 2004 he chaired the EC Evaluation Monitoring Committee for Framework Programme 6. In 2006 he chaired the Monitoring Group of the European Research Fund for Coal & Steel. In 2010 he was an Expert Advisor to the interim evaluation of the EU's 7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7). Karen Gurney was a co-founder of Evidence Ltd (2000-2009) and led the UK-based research evaluation arm of Thomson Reuters (2009-2013). She is now at Sheffield Hallam University. Karen has managed research evaluation projects for companies and research-funding agencies in Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. She is an Associ- ate of the Royal College of Science and has a specialist background in biomedical sci- ences, having worked with Leukaemia Research Fund and the Paediatric Epidemiology Group at the University of Leeds. Karen has published extensively in science journals as well as research policy. About Digital Science Digital Science is a technology company serving the needs of scientific research. We offer a range of scientific technology and content solutions that help make sci- entific research more efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021 Guide to Manuscript Publishers
    Publish Authors Emily Harstone Authors Publish The 2021 Guide to Manuscript Publishers 230 Traditional Publishers No Agent Required Emily Harstone This book is copyright 2021 Authors Publish Magazine. Do not distribute. Corrections, complaints, compliments, criticisms? Contact [email protected] More Books from Emily Harstone The Authors Publish Guide to Manuscript Submission Submit, Publish, Repeat: How to Publish Your Creative Writing in Literary Journals The Authors Publish Guide to Memoir Writing and Publishing The Authors Publish Guide to Children’s and Young Adult Publishing Courses & Workshops from Authors Publish Workshop: Manuscript Publishing for Novelists Workshop: Submit, Publish, Repeat The Novel Writing Workshop With Emily Harstone The Flash Fiction Workshop With Ella Peary Free Lectures from The Writers Workshop at Authors Publish The First Twenty Pages: How to Win Over Agents, Editors, and Readers in 20 Pages Taming the Wild Beast: Making Inspiration Work For You Writing from Dreams: Finding the Flashpoint for Compelling Poems and Stories Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 13 Nonfiction Publishers.................................................................................................. 19 Arcade Publishing ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry
    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry What is an Academic Journal? • A serial publication containing recent academic papers in a certain field. • The main method for communicating the results of recent research in the academic community. Why is Market Power important to think about? • Commercial academic journal publishers use market power to artificially inflate subscription prices. • This practice drains the resources of libraries, to the detriment of the public. How Does Academic Publishing Work? • Author writes paper and submits to journal. • Paper is evaluated by peer reviewers (other researchers in the field). • If accepted, the paper is published. • Libraries pay for subscriptions to the journal. The market does not serve the interests of the public • Universities are forced to “double-pay”. 1. The university funds research 2. The results of the research are given away for free to journal publishers 3. The university library must pay to get the research back in the form of journals Subscription Prices are Outrageous • The highest-priced journals are those in the fields of science, technology, and medicine (or STM fields). • Since 1985, the average price of a journal has risen more than 215 percent—four times the average rate of inflation. • This rise in prices, combined with the CA budget crisis, has caused UC Berkeley’s library to cancel many subscriptions, threatening the library’s reputation. A Comparison Why are prices so high? Commercial publishers use market power to charge inflated prices. Why do commercial publishers have market power? • They control the most prestigious, high- quality journals in many fields. • Demand is highly inelastic for high-quality journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Joe Mcarthur - @Mcarthur Joe Assistant Director, Right to Research Coalition Co-Founder and Co-Lead of the Open Access Button
    Barriers and Impact Joe McArthur - @Mcarthur_Joe Assistant Director, Right to Research Coalition Co-founder and Co-Lead of the Open Access Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button These slides, videos and more: bit.ly/OI9OAB openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Launched in Summer 2009. Built around the Student Statement on the Right to Research: access to research is a student right International alliance of 77 graduate & undergraduate student organizations, representing nearly 7 million students We Educate + Advocate for Open Access openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Todays talk Barriers and impact for: •the Open Access Button; •Open Access. openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button How the Button Works openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Desktop App Mobile App openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Login openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Follow the instructions openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Menu openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Do some research .. browser openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile Hit paywall openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Mobile FAQ bit openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Hit paywall openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button The Firefox Web App openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Same image, circled button image openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Click wishlist. openaccessbutton.org @OA_Button Web Story
    [Show full text]
  • Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Published Neurology Research
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/763730; this version posted September 26, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 TITLE: Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Published Neurology Research 2 Authors: Shelby Rauh, MS1, Trevor Torgerson, BS1, Austin L. Johnson, BS1, Jonathan Pollard, BS2, 3 Daniel Tritz, BS1, Matt Vassar, PhD1. 4 Affiliation: 5 1. Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 6 2. Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, Kansas City, Missouri. 7 Corresponding Author: Shelby Rauh 1111 W 17th St. Tulsa, OK 74137. 8 Email: [email protected] 9 Phone: (918) 582-1972 10 Data Availability Statement: All protocols, materials, and raw data are available online via bioRxiv 11 (BIOARKIV/2019/763730). 12 Funding and Conflict of Interest: This study was funded through the 2019 Presidential Research 13 Fellowship Mentor – Mentee Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We 14 declare no conflicts of interest. 15 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/763730; this version posted September 26, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 16 Abstract 17 Background 18 The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research 19 practices in neurology research. 20 Methods 21 The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these 22 journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientometrics1
    Scientometrics1 Loet Leydesdorff a and Staša Milojević b a Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected] b School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405-1901, United States; [email protected]. Abstract The paper provides an overview of the field of scientometrics, that is: the study of science, technology, and innovation from a quantitative perspective. We cover major historical milestones in the development of this specialism from the 1960s to today and discuss its relationship with the sociology of scientific knowledge, the library and information sciences, and science policy issues such as indicator development. The disciplinary organization of scientometrics is analyzed both conceptually and empirically. A state-of-the-art review of five major research threads is provided. Keywords: scientometrics, bibliometrics, citation, indicator, impact, library, science policy, research management, sociology of science, science studies, mapping, visualization Cross References: Communication: Electronic Networks and Publications; History of Science; Libraries; Networks, Social; Merton, Robert K.; Peer Review and Quality Control; Science and Technology, Social Study of: Computers and Information Technology; Science and Technology Studies: Experts and Expertise; Social network algorithms and software; Statistical Models for Social Networks, Overview; 1 Forthcoming in: Micheal Lynch (Editor), International
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing
    THE OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communi- cation Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summa- rizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conver- sation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversa- tion, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. CC-BY 2015 National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) www.nationalscience.org [email protected] nSCI is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization First edition, January 2015 Final version, April 2015 Recommended citation: Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly
    [Show full text]
  • The Eigenfactor Metricstm: a Network Approach to Assessing Scholarly Journals
    The Eigenfactor MetricsTM: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals Jevin D. West1 Theodore C. Bergstrom2 Carl T. Bergstrom1 July 16, 2009 1Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 2Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA *The authors are the founders of the Eigenfactor Project. All of the rank- ings, algorithms, visual tools and maps of science described here are freely available at http://www.eigenfactor.org/. Correspondence can be sent to Jevin D. West at [email protected]. Keywords: EigenfactorTM Score, Article InfluenceTM Score, Impact Factor, Bibliometrics, Citation Networks 1 Abstract Limited time and budgets have created a legitimate need for quan- titative measures of scholarly work. The well-known journal impact factor is the leading measure of this sort; here we describe an alter- native approach based on the full structure of the scholarly citation network. The Eigenfactor Metrics | Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score | use an iterative ranking scheme similar to Google's PageRank algorithm. By this approach, citations from top journals are weighted more heavily than citations from lower-tier publications. Here we describe these metrics and the rankings that they provide. 2 1 The Need for Alternative Metrics There is only one adequate approach to evaluating the quality of an individ- ual paper: read it carefully, or talk to others who have done so. The same is largely true when it comes to evaluating any small collection of papers, such as the publications of an individual scholar. But as one moves toward assessment challenges that involve larger bodies of work across broader seg- ments of scholarship, reading individual papers becomes infeasible and a legitimate need arises for quantitative metrics for research evaluation.
    [Show full text]