Wednesday, April 07, 2010
OA journals and TOC RSS feeds
Here's an interesting blog post from the other day, dealing with OA journals and table of contents feeds:
http://tinyurl.com/yahf7ra
http://tinyurl.com/yahf7ra
Friday, April 02, 2010
April 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Peter Suber just released the April 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Highlighted this month: a brief poetic thought for spring on the winter coat and OA; results of Peter's quest for a verb to describe making something OA; and the monthly roundup.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
In the interests of intellectual freedom
According to Stevan Harnad, his comments posted to Phil Davis' blog have not appeared. While blog owners have every right to moderate comments (or not allow comments, as is the policy at OA Librarian), in this case Harnad is an academic expert, a Canada Research Chair, attempting to quite appropriately respond to Phil Davis' critique of his work. If commenting is permitted, Harnad's comments should be commented IN, not out. The primary purpose of this post is to assist with intellectual freedom, a topic that Phil Davis should be familiar with as a librarian.
For the record, while my expertise is not at Harnad's level on this topic, I have read Davis' 2008 study and Alma Swan's synopsis, and I concur with Harnad. I also have posted comments to Phil Davis' blog, on topics on which I have considerable expertise, and they have not appeared.
Harnad's comments, from liblicense:
Phil,
Thanks for the helpful feedback.
I'm afraid you're mistaken about meta-analysis. It can be a
perfectly appropriate statistical technique for analyzing a large
number of studies, with positive and negative outcomes, varying
in methodological rigor, sample size and effect size. It is a way
of estimating whether or not there is a significant underlying
effect.
I think you may be inadvertently mixing up the criteria for (1)
eligibility and comparability for a meta-analysis with the
criteria for (2) a clinical drug trial (for which there rightly
tends to be an insistence on randomized control trials in
biomedical research).
Now I would again like to take the opportunity of receiving this
helpful feedback from you to remind you about some feedback I
have given you repeatedly http://bit.ly/dkieVi on your own 2008
study -- the randomized control trial that you suggest has been
the only methodologically sound test of the OA Advantage so far:
You forgot to do a self-selection control condition. That would
be rather like doing a randomized control trial on a drug - to
show that the nonrandom control trials that have reported a
positive benefit for that drug were really just self-selection
artifacts -- but neglecting to include a replication of the
self-selection artifact in your own sample, as a control.
For, you see, if your own sample was too small and/or too brief
(e.g., you didn't administer the drug for as long an interval, or
to as many patients, as the nonrandom studies reporting the
positive effects had done), then your own null effect with a
randomized trial would be just that: a null effect, not a
demonstration that randomizing eliminates the nonrandomized drug
effect. (This is the kind of methodological weakness, for
example, that multiple studies can be weighted for, in a
meta-analysis of positive, negative and null effects.)
[I am responding to your public feedback here, on the liblicense
and SERIALST lists, but not also on your SSP Blog, where you
likewise publicly posted this same feedback (along with other,
rather shriller remarks) http://j.mp/d91Jk2 because I am assuming
that you will again decline to post my response on your blog, as
you did the previous time that you publicly posted your feedback
on my work both there http://bit.ly/8LK57u and elsewhere -
refusing my response on your blog on the grounds that it had
already been publicly posted elsewhere!...]
- Stevan Harnad
PS The idea of doing a meta-analysis came from me, not from Dr.
Swan.
For the record, while my expertise is not at Harnad's level on this topic, I have read Davis' 2008 study and Alma Swan's synopsis, and I concur with Harnad. I also have posted comments to Phil Davis' blog, on topics on which I have considerable expertise, and they have not appeared.
Harnad's comments, from liblicense:
Phil,
Thanks for the helpful feedback.
I'm afraid you're mistaken about meta-analysis. It can be a
perfectly appropriate statistical technique for analyzing a large
number of studies, with positive and negative outcomes, varying
in methodological rigor, sample size and effect size. It is a way
of estimating whether or not there is a significant underlying
effect.
I think you may be inadvertently mixing up the criteria for (1)
eligibility and comparability for a meta-analysis with the
criteria for (2) a clinical drug trial (for which there rightly
tends to be an insistence on randomized control trials in
biomedical research).
Now I would again like to take the opportunity of receiving this
helpful feedback from you to remind you about some feedback I
have given you repeatedly http://bit.ly/dkieVi on your own 2008
study -- the randomized control trial that you suggest has been
the only methodologically sound test of the OA Advantage so far:
You forgot to do a self-selection control condition. That would
be rather like doing a randomized control trial on a drug - to
show that the nonrandom control trials that have reported a
positive benefit for that drug were really just self-selection
artifacts -- but neglecting to include a replication of the
self-selection artifact in your own sample, as a control.
For, you see, if your own sample was too small and/or too brief
(e.g., you didn't administer the drug for as long an interval, or
to as many patients, as the nonrandom studies reporting the
positive effects had done), then your own null effect with a
randomized trial would be just that: a null effect, not a
demonstration that randomizing eliminates the nonrandomized drug
effect. (This is the kind of methodological weakness, for
example, that multiple studies can be weighted for, in a
meta-analysis of positive, negative and null effects.)
[I am responding to your public feedback here, on the liblicense
and SERIALST lists, but not also on your SSP Blog, where you
likewise publicly posted this same feedback (along with other,
rather shriller remarks) http://j.mp/d91Jk2 because I am assuming
that you will again decline to post my response on your blog, as
you did the previous time that you publicly posted your feedback
on my work both there http://bit.ly/8LK57u and elsewhere -
refusing my response on your blog on the grounds that it had
already been publicly posted elsewhere!...]
- Stevan Harnad
PS The idea of doing a meta-analysis came from me, not from Dr.
Swan.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
New SPARC release: Guide to exloring campus-based OA funds
SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) has released a website that is designed to act as a guide for those institutions who wish to explore campus-based OA funds. The site can be found at http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/funds/index.shtml and includes a guide to design and implementation of OA funds, a FAQ, implementation tools, case studies, and a "living" document that describes OA funds in action.
Disclosure: I manage one of the funds that is discussed in the guide (the Open Access Authors Fund at the Univeristy of Calgary) and my input was solicited for this project.
Disclosure: I manage one of the funds that is discussed in the guide (the Open Access Authors Fund at the Univeristy of Calgary) and my input was solicited for this project.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
March SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Peter Suber just released the March 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Featured this month: Open Access, Markets and Mission.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
OpenAIRE Press Release
European Countries join forces to realize the EC Open Access pilot: OpenAIRE
OpenAIRE (Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe), a three-years project funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, has now taken up its work to implement Open Access on a pan-European scale. This ambitious effort unites 38 partners from 27 European countries.
The main goal of OpenAIRE is to support the Open Access pilot, launched by the European Commission in August 2008. This Open Access pilot, which covers about 20% of the FP7 budget, commits researchers from 7 thematic areas (Health, Energy, Environment, Information & Communication Technology, Research Infrastructures, Socio-economic sciences & Humanities and Science in Society) to deposit their research publications in an institutional or disciplinary Open Access repository, to be made available worldwide in full text. OpenAIRE will establish underlying structures for researchers to support them in complying with the pilot through European Helpdesk System, build an OpenAIRE portal and e-Infrastructure for the repository networks and explore scientific data management services together with 5 disciplinary communities.
“The implementation of a Europe wide infrastructure for Open Access is a milestone for the success of Open Access,” says Dr. Norbert Lossau, Scientific Coordinator of OpenAIRE and Director of Göttingen State and University Library, Germany. “The project consortium will work closely together with the European Commission, the ERC and many other stakeholders (such as SPARC Europe, LIBER, EUA) to achieve the broadest possible impact.”
The project consortium incorporates the best available expertise for Open Access & repository infrastructures in Europe and will establish a distributed support structure based on a network of liaison offices covering all European Union member states plus Norway. Consortium partners have been identified in each country, or in the case of Luxembourg, have pledged their support for the development and implementation of strategies and services for Open Access, that have gained acceptance in the international community since 2003, the launch of the Berlin Declaration.
[thanks to Peter Suber at the Open Access Tracking Project]
OpenAIRE (Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe), a three-years project funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, has now taken up its work to implement Open Access on a pan-European scale. This ambitious effort unites 38 partners from 27 European countries.
The main goal of OpenAIRE is to support the Open Access pilot, launched by the European Commission in August 2008. This Open Access pilot, which covers about 20% of the FP7 budget, commits researchers from 7 thematic areas (Health, Energy, Environment, Information & Communication Technology, Research Infrastructures, Socio-economic sciences & Humanities and Science in Society) to deposit their research publications in an institutional or disciplinary Open Access repository, to be made available worldwide in full text. OpenAIRE will establish underlying structures for researchers to support them in complying with the pilot through European Helpdesk System, build an OpenAIRE portal and e-Infrastructure for the repository networks and explore scientific data management services together with 5 disciplinary communities.
“The implementation of a Europe wide infrastructure for Open Access is a milestone for the success of Open Access,” says Dr. Norbert Lossau, Scientific Coordinator of OpenAIRE and Director of Göttingen State and University Library, Germany. “The project consortium will work closely together with the European Commission, the ERC and many other stakeholders (such as SPARC Europe, LIBER, EUA) to achieve the broadest possible impact.”
The project consortium incorporates the best available expertise for Open Access & repository infrastructures in Europe and will establish a distributed support structure based on a network of liaison offices covering all European Union member states plus Norway. Consortium partners have been identified in each country, or in the case of Luxembourg, have pledged their support for the development and implementation of strategies and services for Open Access, that have gained acceptance in the international community since 2003, the launch of the Berlin Declaration.
[thanks to Peter Suber at the Open Access Tracking Project]
Saturday, February 13, 2010
New Open Access Fund at SFU Library
Excerpt:
At its January 2010 meeting, the Senate Library Committee adopted sweeping recommendations that will make SFU one of only three Canadian universities to embrace Open Access (OA) publishing. “We’re going to put our money where our mouth is,” says Bird. OA Journals are scholarly peer-reviewed journals freely available on the web without subscription fees, but they are often supported through Article Processing Charges (APCs) levied to authors. Fees range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per accepted paper. Prominent examples are BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, and Hindawi.
(Thanks to Gwen Bird).
Note also that there is a link to the full SFU OA Strategy document at the bottom of this page.
Kudos to Gwen Bird & SFU Library!
At its January 2010 meeting, the Senate Library Committee adopted sweeping recommendations that will make SFU one of only three Canadian universities to embrace Open Access (OA) publishing. “We’re going to put our money where our mouth is,” says Bird. OA Journals are scholarly peer-reviewed journals freely available on the web without subscription fees, but they are often supported through Article Processing Charges (APCs) levied to authors. Fees range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per accepted paper. Prominent examples are BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, and Hindawi.
(Thanks to Gwen Bird).
Note also that there is a link to the full SFU OA Strategy document at the bottom of this page.
Kudos to Gwen Bird & SFU Library!
Global Knowledge Exchange Network launched
The Global Knowledge Exchange Network has just launched - here is a description, from the About page:
The Global Knowledge Exchange Network (GKEN) is a community for scholars and practitioners to share and explore new ideas and emerging trends related to scholarly research or everyday practice. More specifically, the community is devoted to understanding the changing role of information –its creation, management, dissemination and use– in scholarly research, higher education and business practice.
The project is sponsored jointly by the Harvard Business School Knowledge and Library Services and the Copenhagen Business School Library. The GKEN Founding Team includes Mary Lee Kennedy and Gosia Stergios (Harvard Business School), and René Steffensen and Leif Hansen (Copenhagen Business School).
The Global Knowledge Exchange Network (GKEN) is a community for scholars and practitioners to share and explore new ideas and emerging trends related to scholarly research or everyday practice. More specifically, the community is devoted to understanding the changing role of information –its creation, management, dissemination and use– in scholarly research, higher education and business practice.
The project is sponsored jointly by the Harvard Business School Knowledge and Library Services and the Copenhagen Business School Library. The GKEN Founding Team includes Mary Lee Kennedy and Gosia Stergios (Harvard Business School), and René Steffensen and Leif Hansen (Copenhagen Business School).
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
SPARC webcast: Library-press partnerships
Library-press partnerships in action: The new University of California Publishing Services
A SPARC Webcast
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
1:00 – 2:00PM EST
Free, but registration required.
A SPARC Webcast
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
1:00 – 2:00PM EST
Free, but registration required.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
ARL ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute Webinar Series
Registration is now open for Strengthening Programs through Collaboration, the ARL ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute Webinar Series.
[Disclosure: Julie Garrison & I are co-coordinators of this series, and fellow OA Librarian Andrew Waller is among the confirmed speakers].
[Disclosure: Julie Garrison & I are co-coordinators of this series, and fellow OA Librarian Andrew Waller is among the confirmed speakers].
February 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Peter Suber has just released the February 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Featured this month: analogies between the politics of open access and the politics of clean energy.
Monday, January 25, 2010
University of Calgary Students' Union passes resolution to support OA
On November 23, 2009, the Students' Academic Assembly (SAA) at the University of Calgary passed a resolution supporting Open Access. Here is the text of the resolution:
WHEREAS Open Access is defined as free, unrestricted access to high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship over the Internet[1],
WHEREAS the SU recognizes that the development of scholarly research is funded by the public through government grants and student tuition,
WHEREAS the SU believes that Open Access improves the educational experience for students,
WHEREAS the SU believes that all students should have access to full scholarly records as they are pursuing their education regardless of an institution’s ability to afford scholarly research subscriptions,
WHEREAS the SU believes open access allows for researchers to maximize the impact of their research through increased visibility in a timely manner,
WHEREAS the SU supports and is encouraged by the initiatives and funding the University of Calgary Library and Cultural Resources have dedicated to Open Access[2],
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the SU calls upon each University of Calgary faculty and researcher to support Open Access initiatives, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the SU continue to advocate for Open Access in all of its advocacy initiatives[3]
Moved: M. Martin
Seconded: D. Pagan
[1] “Student Statement on the Right to Research,” Available: www.righttoresearch.org
Accessed: November 18, 2009.
[2] Initiatives as of October 2009 have included the $100,000 Open Access Authors Fund, being an active partner in the national Synergies project that stores and provides open access to research in Canada, the organization of Open Access Week and expanding the University of Calgary Press to include open access publishing, e-books and print on demand.
[3] Examples would include advocacy at the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), Council of Alberta University Students (CAUS), Canadian Roundtable of Academic Materials (CRAM) and SPARC.
This resolution came in part out of the OA Week activities at the University of Calgary, in which the University of Calgary Students' Union (SU) was very active. This policy is now an official lobbying priority for the SU.
The SAA also endorsed SPARC's Student Statement on the Right to Research.
Thanks to Meg Martin for all the information.
Disclosure: I work in Libraries and Cultural Resources at the University of Calgary.
WHEREAS Open Access is defined as free, unrestricted access to high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship over the Internet[1],
WHEREAS the SU recognizes that the development of scholarly research is funded by the public through government grants and student tuition,
WHEREAS the SU believes that Open Access improves the educational experience for students,
WHEREAS the SU believes that all students should have access to full scholarly records as they are pursuing their education regardless of an institution’s ability to afford scholarly research subscriptions,
WHEREAS the SU believes open access allows for researchers to maximize the impact of their research through increased visibility in a timely manner,
WHEREAS the SU supports and is encouraged by the initiatives and funding the University of Calgary Library and Cultural Resources have dedicated to Open Access[2],
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the SU calls upon each University of Calgary faculty and researcher to support Open Access initiatives, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the SU continue to advocate for Open Access in all of its advocacy initiatives[3]
Moved: M. Martin
Seconded: D. Pagan
[1] “Student Statement on the Right to Research,” Available: www.righttoresearch.org
Accessed: November 18, 2009.
[2] Initiatives as of October 2009 have included the $100,000 Open Access Authors Fund, being an active partner in the national Synergies project that stores and provides open access to research in Canada, the organization of Open Access Week and expanding the University of Calgary Press to include open access publishing, e-books and print on demand.
[3] Examples would include advocacy at the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), Council of Alberta University Students (CAUS), Canadian Roundtable of Academic Materials (CRAM) and SPARC.
This resolution came in part out of the OA Week activities at the University of Calgary, in which the University of Calgary Students' Union (SU) was very active. This policy is now an official lobbying priority for the SU.
The SAA also endorsed SPARC's Student Statement on the Right to Research.
Thanks to Meg Martin for all the information.
Disclosure: I work in Libraries and Cultural Resources at the University of Calgary.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Public comments on OSTP consultation due Jan. 21
From Open Access News last Friday:
The public comment period on the Obama administration's consultation on OA for federally-funded research expires this Wednesday. The original deadline was January 7, but was extended until January 21.
If you haven't already submitted a comment, use your weekend to write one and send it off no later than Wednesday. You can submit your comment by email or through the OSTP blog.
All signs suggest that the Obama administration is willing to generalize the NIH policy in some form and extend it across the federal government. Show your support for this move! You know that opponents are showing their opposition.
And please spread the word to others who might write comments.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
January 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter, or 2009 - Open Access Year Worldwide?
Peter Suber just released the January 2010 SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Featured this month: Open Access in 2009: "2009 was Open Access Year in the Netherlands, but it might have been Open Access Year worldwide..."
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
