Science Magazine reports on a study sponsored by the EU that found that 89% of the 50,000 researchers surveyed think open access is good for their field. On the other hand, the reporter, Gretchen Vogel, points out that while 53% said they had published at least one open access article, only 10% of papers are published in open access journals. What’s holding them back from doing more open access publishing? About 40% said it was because there wasn’t enough funding to cover the publication fees, and 30% said there weren’t high-quality open access journals in their field.
The data and analysis is supposed to become available this week at The SOAP Project. Unfortunately, the Science Magazine article covering the report is only available to members of the AAAS or to those willing to pay $15 for 24 hours of access.
I’ve been thinking about an idea that doesn’t seem to be working yet. But gonna throw it out here anyway.
It’s this idea of an information journey. Adding a narrative arc/time dimension to information discovery.
My personal trajectory into learning about art and artists, from about 1998 – 2003. It’s basically a revisionist-history of my on-ramp into an aspect of the topic (conceptual art). Is there something more communicated when one shares their steps along the way? They path that get them to their present interest? Embedded is just a preview, click the “finding art” to try it:
The library in Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes, England, urged its patrons to check out every book on the shelves as a way of proving to the local council that its collection and facilities provide a vital service to the community. Stony Stratford is one of many towns across the UK that are facing severe library closures as the Tory-LibDem coalition government recklessly slashes its transfer payments to local governments (while breaking their promise to rein in enormous bonuses at the banks, even the ones that are owned by the taxpayer).
Let’s just hope the local government doesn’t look around the emptied library and think, “Yeah, great, I can really see how the new town road repair tool shed could fit in that corner labeled ‘Classics,’ and we could put the new town golf course’s pro shop over there by where the empty ‘Science’ shelves are…”
The four principles expounded in the statement are:
1. When publishing data make an explicit and robust license statement.
2. Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for data.
3. If you want your data to be effectively used and added to by others it should be open as defined by the Open Definition (http://opendefinition.org/) – in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.
4. We strongly recommend explicitly placing bibliographic data in the Public Domain via PDDL or CC0.
Some of our own projects have to wrestle with licensing issues, so it will be helpful to have these principles out and officially published. (Hat tip to Peter Suber)
Friend of the Library Peter Suber has posted his year-end round up of what’s happened with Open Access. It’s a massive record — Peter acknowledges at the outset that there’s too much happening for a full acounting — but in section 10 there’s some highlights and lowlights.
Our friend and older (and wiser) sibling, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, has announced it’s going to host an initiative to explore creating a national digital public library. Given the high caliber and big-time Getting It of the awesome steering committee, this could be very, very interesting. (Funding is coming from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.)