Christina's LIS Rant
Monday, January 21, 2008
Google and open data
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/dataset/index.html
(via Carol on SLA PAM Division listserv)
hm.
(via Carol on SLA PAM Division listserv)
hm.
Labels: open access, open data, open science
¶ 2:12 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
CIL: Open Access and the Federal Gov’t
R. James King
Ruth Hooker Library, Naval Research Lab
Background – more and more competition for scarce R&D dollars, research labs like his measure productivity not by widgets built, but by publications.
Open Access Movement-
“movement” because almost religious fever
Goal: free access to all scholarly lit to enhance research
Gold vs. Green
He’s proposing a “blue” model
- funding focus – “capturing all published literature created by a funding agency”
- (this would affect my place of work*)
- less problem with copyright bcs maintain traditional publishing routes, but use this for capturing final product not pre-print(?)
- using agency repositories
- available to the gov’t but only partially available to the public where possible – ok this causes a big problem with all of the non-governmental research organizations (universities, non-profits, for-profits) who will have an unfair disadvantage when competing with the gov’t research labs who will have free access to all gov’t funded lit (proposing – just suggesting – should be that if you’re funded to do gov’t work, that you have the same access to these resources)
Gov’t and copyright
See overview at cendi.dtic.mil/publications/04-8copyright.html
Their library –
Give the customer the illusion that they have everything they need on their lab bench laptop
They locally load content. 7.6M+ articles
- light archive undergoing testing and migration, not a dark archive
Capturing corporate knowledge
NRL Publications/Products Database
- from print bibliographies
- now use affiliation/address search in WoS
- 1920s-1980s bound reprints (we used to have these, too, but no more) – final version so unlike with pre-prints, you don’t need version control. Also can go back in time
- no author participation required – don’t have to force them to give you a pre-print before they get the kudos from the publishing (requires a lot of trust)
- expertise locator
- “km is an IT person’s attempt at being a librarian” (funny, a lot of KM people *are* librarians!)
CENDI effort to better mark Gov’t employee work that can’t be copyrighted
UPDATE: * inserted above -- my place of work means MY place of work (as in Christina's), not NRL but somewhere else that you might be able to figure out if you're a human and looking at my blog (or perhaps our slides from our session :) ) --- in general I set off my commentary with () or [] -- I guess when I do stream of consciousness, I should better separate what's coming from my mind from what's coming from the speaker... sorry!
Ruth Hooker Library, Naval Research Lab
Background – more and more competition for scarce R&D dollars, research labs like his measure productivity not by widgets built, but by publications.
Open Access Movement-
“movement” because almost religious fever
Goal: free access to all scholarly lit to enhance research
Gold vs. Green
He’s proposing a “blue” model
- funding focus – “capturing all published literature created by a funding agency”
- (this would affect my place of work*)
- less problem with copyright bcs maintain traditional publishing routes, but use this for capturing final product not pre-print(?)
- using agency repositories
- available to the gov’t but only partially available to the public where possible – ok this causes a big problem with all of the non-governmental research organizations (universities, non-profits, for-profits) who will have an unfair disadvantage when competing with the gov’t research labs who will have free access to all gov’t funded lit (proposing – just suggesting – should be that if you’re funded to do gov’t work, that you have the same access to these resources)
Gov’t and copyright
See overview at cendi.dtic.mil/publications/04-8copyright.html
Their library –
Give the customer the illusion that they have everything they need on their lab bench laptop
They locally load content. 7.6M+ articles
- light archive undergoing testing and migration, not a dark archive
Capturing corporate knowledge
NRL Publications/Products Database
- from print bibliographies
- now use affiliation/address search in WoS
- 1920s-1980s bound reprints (we used to have these, too, but no more) – final version so unlike with pre-prints, you don’t need version control. Also can go back in time
- no author participation required – don’t have to force them to give you a pre-print before they get the kudos from the publishing (requires a lot of trust)
- expertise locator
- “km is an IT person’s attempt at being a librarian” (funny, a lot of KM people *are* librarians!)
CENDI effort to better mark Gov’t employee work that can’t be copyrighted
UPDATE: * inserted above -- my place of work means MY place of work (as in Christina's), not NRL but somewhere else that you might be able to figure out if you're a human and looking at my blog (or perhaps our slides from our session :) ) --- in general I set off my commentary with () or [] -- I guess when I do stream of consciousness, I should better separate what's coming from my mind from what's coming from the speaker... sorry!
Labels: cil2007, open access
¶ 12:13 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
AAP hires a PR firm to fight back against open access
Jim Giles (25 January 2007). PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 445, 347 doi:10.1038/445347a; Published online 24 January 2007
Article pointed out by Dana Roth on Chem-Inf.
The Association of American Publishers feels that they are under siege and have hired a pit bull to fight back, apparently. So this isn't really surprising or alarming, but this quote is:
So this plays on a couple of irrational fears 1) articles published open access will not get respect (and therefore tenure, promotion, etc) 2) articles published open access aren't any good and can't make it elsewhere -- we so know this isn't true as many high impact, high quality journals have open access articles. The government censorship bit is absurd. I guess we'll see what effect this has.
{all opinions my own, no one else's}
Update 1/29: ACS posted a reply on CHM-Inf. I don't really intend to discuss that much here as it actually seems to dig them into a deeper hole and confirm they're not behaving themselves as a non-profit society publishing to promote science. They do actually point to a very interesting article from the Washington Post by Rick Weiss. Well worth a read (will probably require free registration and will only be available for 14 days from publication, after that you'll have to get it from your library!)
Article pointed out by Dana Roth on Chem-Inf.
The Association of American Publishers feels that they are under siege and have hired a pit bull to fight back, apparently. So this isn't really surprising or alarming, but this quote is:
The consultant advised them to focus on simple messages, such as "Public access equals government censorship". He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and "paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles". [emphasis mine]He's also suggesting partnerships with groups who have angered scientists... I'm not sure how that will help.
So this plays on a couple of irrational fears 1) articles published open access will not get respect (and therefore tenure, promotion, etc) 2) articles published open access aren't any good and can't make it elsewhere -- we so know this isn't true as many high impact, high quality journals have open access articles. The government censorship bit is absurd. I guess we'll see what effect this has.
{all opinions my own, no one else's}
Update 1/29: ACS posted a reply on CHM-Inf. I don't really intend to discuss that much here as it actually seems to dig them into a deeper hole and confirm they're not behaving themselves as a non-profit society publishing to promote science. They do actually point to a very interesting article from the Washington Post by Rick Weiss. Well worth a read (will probably require free registration and will only be available for 14 days from publication, after that you'll have to get it from your library!)
Labels: open access
¶ 4:07 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
