I've been reading a lot about open access publishing and open research data recently. This has been easy to do because there is so much being said, probably due to the Berlin 9 Conference on Open Access Conference held earlier this month and the two White House Requests for Information (RFI) which many individuals and organizations are thinking about responding to asap. Many of your professional organizations, favorite publishers, and colleagues will be submitting responses before January 2nd! I encourage you to consider responding individually or letting your organizations know your ideas on these issues.
- One RFI is about recommendations on approaches for broad public access and long-term stewardship to peer-reviewed scholarly publications that result from federally funded scientific research. This Alliance for Taxpayer Access summary page is a good summary and links to the original RFI information.
- The other RFI offers the opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific research. This is the information from the Federal Register about the digital data RFI.
Here are a few other links which you may find interesting:
- The Unexpected Reader - blog post by Kevin Smith from Duke University gives another reason to consider open access publishing when you can
- I'm currently reading Reinventing discovery : the new era of networked science / Michael Nielsen. I'm finding this quite interesting. You may want to put it on your "to-read" list. Here is a book review from THE GUARDIAN, an interview with the author, Michael Nielsen and Michael Nielsen's blog.
- The first-ever peer-reviewed paper derived directly from a biodiversity metadata document has been published in the open-access ZooKeys journal. More info | the paper: Literature based species occurrence data of birds of northeast India.
- Another interesting ZooKeys article for all researchers trying to figure out how to manage their data: Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information. A blog post about this article by Peter Murray-Rust: Scientists should NEVER use CC-NC. This explains why
- Impact has a bad name among many researchers, but thinking of impact as re-use could be key to uniting both funders and researchers, blog post by biophysicist Cameron Neylon.
- One RFI is about recommendations on approaches for broad public access and long-term stewardship to peer-reviewed scholarly publications that result from federally funded scientific research. This Alliance for Taxpayer Access summary page is a good summary and links to the original RFI information.
- The other RFI offers the opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific research. This is the information from the Federal Register about the digital data RFI.
Here are a few other links which you may find interesting:
- The Unexpected Reader - blog post by Kevin Smith from Duke University gives another reason to consider open access publishing when you can
- I'm currently reading Reinventing discovery : the new era of networked science / Michael Nielsen. I'm finding this quite interesting. You may want to put it on your "to-read" list. Here is a book review from THE GUARDIAN, an interview with the author, Michael Nielsen and Michael Nielsen's blog.
- The first-ever peer-reviewed paper derived directly from a biodiversity metadata document has been published in the open-access ZooKeys journal. More info | the paper: Literature based species occurrence data of birds of northeast India.
- Another interesting ZooKeys article for all researchers trying to figure out how to manage their data: Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information. A blog post about this article by Peter Murray-Rust: Scientists should NEVER use CC-NC. This explains why
- Impact has a bad name among many researchers, but thinking of impact as re-use could be key to uniting both funders and researchers, blog post by biophysicist Cameron Neylon.
