[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
In the Open Knowledge Foundation we have a mailing list for exactly that purpose and everyone will be very welcome there: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access We take the view that open access as defined in BBB - declarations is the appropriate use of the term: BOAI 2002: By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself This definition is clear and consistent with many other Open definitions such as OSI (software) and the Open Knowledge Definition ( http://opendefinition.org/ ) “A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.” Many of us feel that the lax use of Open in scholarly publishing causes great confusion, substandard products, widely differing practices and even deception and it greatly impoverishes society. Please join us - you will be welcome to express a wide range of views without being preached at to change them. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frwrote: Jeroen, Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite interested, and probably not the only one. Cheers Serge *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la part de* Bosman, J.M. *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50 *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used
[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Institutional deposits and retracted papers
Dear Florence, perhaps this might be of interest: Davis, P. M. (2012). The persistence of error : a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 100(July). doi:10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411255/ kind regards Ulrich Herb Am 11.12.2013 00:35, schrieb Florence Piron: Hi, The forced retraction of the Séralini paper from an Elsevier journal (an attack in itself on the integrity of the scientific publication process and a clear sign that the Pre publication review process is really agonizing) makes me wonder what happens to a paper that has been retracted from a journal, but that had been deposited in a repository. Should it be also retracted from the repository? By whom? On whose authority? Did it happen already? Florence Piron, Québec http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access -- scinoptica science consulting publishing consulting POB 10 13 13 D-66013 Saarbrücken Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
Hi Serge The open science list at the Open Knowledge Foundation is always happy to host discussions on innovation in scholarly publishing https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science (600+ members) Post-publication peer review and open peer review are well within our interests. The Force11 community also has a discussion forum for the future of research communication (120+ members) http://www.force11.org/discussions Jenny Jenny Molloy Coordinator, Open Science Working Group Open Knowledge Foundation On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frwrote: Jeroen, Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m quite interested, and probably not the only one. Cheers Serge *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la part de* Bosman, J.M. *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50 *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform Stevan, I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list. Best, Jeroen Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote: Same inkling as Jan Laurent. The way fwd for OAP would be some form of accreditation by repository publisher. One would need to show what review quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers... Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? http://j.mp/OAnotPReform The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer review). Haven't we already waited long enough? Stevan Harnad Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Laurent Romary Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00) An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List) Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk. Let us burn together, Jan. Laurent Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com a écrit : Sally, May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more examples. My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal. Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell of a lot of money. The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath. Jan Velterop On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. I would put them under two general headings: 1)
[GOAL] Interview with Dr. Alejandro Ceccatto (MINCyT)
Members of this list may be interested in reading a new interview published by COAR. The interview is with the Dr. Alejandor Ceccatto, Secretary of Scientific and Technological Articulation from the Argentinian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Dr Ceccatto was responsible for spearheading the new Open Access law in Argentina and this interview offers greater insight into the legislation and the network of repositories that has been established to support the law. On November 13th, 2013, The Argentinian Senate unanimously passed legislation requiring Open Access to publicly funded research outputs. A few days later, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MINCyT) officially launched their national repository network, using the D-NET platform developed by the European DRIVER Project... With these developments, Argentina has become a world leader in Open Access and serves as an outstanding example for other countries, both in Latin America and the rest of the world. The full interview is available here: https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-media/argentinian-senate-passes-law-requiring-open-access/ Kathleen Shearer Executive Director, COAR kathleen.shea...@coar-repositories.org www.coar-repositories.org Skype: kathleen.shearer2 +1 514 847 9068___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Message from the moderator
I wanted to say publicly that I posted the last message from Jeffrey Beall with regret. Ad hominem remarks are not helpful. Moreover, on mailing lists they often end up alienating not just the person attacked, but other members of the list too. Please Jeffrey, no more such messages. I would also request that others do not respond to Jeffrey's message in a way that might inflame passions. Let's play the ball, not the man (or woman). While I am at it I would like to take the opportunity of asking that when someone feels an off-topic message has been posted they respond as courteously as they can. Finally, it may be worth pointing out that, while it is true that the description of the GOAL mailing list (http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goald) does not directly mention peer review (other than saying that OA is concerned with peer-reviewed journals), and so the subject could, strictly speaking, be said to be off-topic, Jeroen is right to point out that it is something that will inevitably come up from time to time when OA is discussed. As he says, we cannot stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication. In fact, given that many OA publishers are now experimenting with (or thinking of experimenting with) alternative forms of peer review one could argue that the subject should no longer be considered off topic. Richard Poynder GOAL Moderator ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] The unstoppable growth of high quality open access resources
The December 2013 early year-end edition of The Dramatic Growth of Open Access focuses on a few of the indicators that this dramatic growth features many high quality open access resources. For example, the number of PubMed searches that link to free full-text within 3 years of publication is now over 800,000 items, or 28% of the works indexed. PubMed is an index developed by the National Institutes of Health with a long-term and well-deserved reputation for quality - the NIH does not index junk! The number of journals actively participating in PubMedCentral increased by 215 this year, about one title per working day; there are now more than 1,000 journals participating in PubMed with all articles open access. Congratulations are due to Public Library of Science on their 100,000th article, and to DOAJ for more than 10,000 journals - that's net, after a major weeding exercise this year. The Internet Archive continues to amaze, having added more than 1.8 million texts for over 5 million freely available texts. A Happy and well-deserved holiday and New Year to everyone in the open access movement! We already know that 2014 will be off to a strong start with the first discipline-wide full transition to open access, in particle physics publishing (SCOAP3) set to start on January 1st. A special thanks to César Villamizar, research assistant and student at the University of Ottawa's School of Information Studies, for assistance with data capture and the chart for this issue of Dramatic Growth. Blogpost: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-unstoppable-growth-of-high-quality.html best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
