2007/02/23
Novo título da BioMed Central "Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research"
A BioMed Central lançou um novo título "Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research" (ISSN 1750-1164) que tem como editores responsáveis Michel Gagner e James Becker.
Apresenta-se como um título que cobre todos os aspectos da investigação relacionada com a cirurgia:
"Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research promotes the exchange of ideas, concepts and findings in any area of surgery. The journal is interested in basic, translational, and clinical research and aims at opening up new avenues for the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of surgical problems. Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research will consider articles from any area of surgery-related research, including, but not limited to: surgical research, surgical technique, endoscopy, minimally invasive surgery, and all related fields such as obesity, oncology, solid organs, colon procedures, animal research, bioengineering, new products, new techniques, and teaching. As an open-access journal, Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research provides an unparalleled opportunity to present information to specialists and the public.
Manuscripts that are deemed suitable for peer review will be assigned to at least two expert reviewers. The reviewers will have up to three weeks to review the submitted article. Peer reviewers will have four possible options for each manuscript: accept without revision, accept after minor revisions, ask authors to make revisions and resubmit, or reject. Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research allows two revisions of an article. The current articles are in their provisional PDF format, but the full-text and final PDF versions will be available shortly" (Fonte: BioMed Central)
Apresenta-se como um título que cobre todos os aspectos da investigação relacionada com a cirurgia:
"Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research promotes the exchange of ideas, concepts and findings in any area of surgery. The journal is interested in basic, translational, and clinical research and aims at opening up new avenues for the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of surgical problems. Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research will consider articles from any area of surgery-related research, including, but not limited to: surgical research, surgical technique, endoscopy, minimally invasive surgery, and all related fields such as obesity, oncology, solid organs, colon procedures, animal research, bioengineering, new products, new techniques, and teaching. As an open-access journal, Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research provides an unparalleled opportunity to present information to specialists and the public.
Manuscripts that are deemed suitable for peer review will be assigned to at least two expert reviewers. The reviewers will have up to three weeks to review the submitted article. Peer reviewers will have four possible options for each manuscript: accept without revision, accept after minor revisions, ask authors to make revisions and resubmit, or reject. Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research allows two revisions of an article. The current articles are in their provisional PDF format, but the full-text and final PDF versions will be available shortly" (Fonte: BioMed Central)
2007/02/19
European Commission discusses future of scientific publishing: conference report
European Commission discusses future of scientific publishing: Conference report por Philip Pothen em 19 de Fevereiro de 2007:
"More than 500 delegates from nearly 50 countries> attended a major European Commission conference last week to discuss the future of scientific publishing in the European Research Area. Held in Brussels, the conference attracted researchers, publishers, policy makers, research funders, librarians and administrators drawn to debate the issues of open access of research outputs, dissemination of research and preservation in the digital age. Opening the two day conference, the EU Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik stressed the importance of raising the profile and standing of European research and of having a European science infrastructure to drive forward innovation and competitiveness.
Earlier the Commissioner had received a petition , sponsored by JISC and European partners, which was signed by more than 20,000 individuals and nearly 750 organisations, indicating the level of public support for the principle of open access (see last week's JISC news item).
Among the questions discussed over the two days were the policies of research funding bodies, including the European Commission, new opportunities for the research community in widening access to their research outputs, and a debate on the scientific publication market. Discussion highlighted the need to address the challenges of providing notjust open access to information but to provide integrated access to both full text of articles and primary research data and to deliver new and innovative means of exploiting the capabilities of data mining for further research. Other topics covered during the conference included business models for scientific publications, the required e-infrastructure, the need for long-term preservation, quality assurance, and copyright and digitalrights management. The need to be adaptable to change, for further research ondata repositories and the continued support of peer review were further points raised during discussion sessions.
The event was closed by Viviane Reading, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, who announced that scientific publishing will be one of the highlights of the upcoming Portuguese presidency of the European Commission. She also reported that the Commission would like a discussion with ministers and the European Parliament on these issues and to work towards a common European approach.
In principle, she said, access to research outputs should be accessible to> all through open repositories after an embargo period. The EC will experiment, she continued, with faster and wider access and will supportthe> cost of author payments in their research grants.
The Commissioner told delegates that the EC will fund infrastructure to store and share data through the FP7 (Seventh Framework Programme) Capacities Programme which has 50m Euros set aside to build the top level infrastructure. A further 25m Euros is earmarked for preservation in theICT programme in 2007-2008 with 10m Euros for greater accessibility and usability through the e-content programme. Through the Digital Library Forum, the Commission will bring the various stakeholders together and listen to all views in establishing a way forward, she concluded."
"More than 500 delegates from nearly 50 countries> attended a major European Commission conference last week to discuss the future of scientific publishing in the European Research Area. Held in Brussels, the conference attracted researchers, publishers, policy makers, research funders, librarians and administrators drawn to debate the issues of open access of research outputs, dissemination of research and preservation in the digital age. Opening the two day conference, the EU Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocnik stressed the importance of raising the profile and standing of European research and of having a European science infrastructure to drive forward innovation and competitiveness.
Earlier the Commissioner had received a petition , sponsored by JISC and European partners, which was signed by more than 20,000 individuals and nearly 750 organisations, indicating the level of public support for the principle of open access (see last week's JISC news item).
Among the questions discussed over the two days were the policies of research funding bodies, including the European Commission, new opportunities for the research community in widening access to their research outputs, and a debate on the scientific publication market. Discussion highlighted the need to address the challenges of providing notjust open access to information but to provide integrated access to both full text of articles and primary research data and to deliver new and innovative means of exploiting the capabilities of data mining for further research. Other topics covered during the conference included business models for scientific publications, the required e-infrastructure, the need for long-term preservation, quality assurance, and copyright and digitalrights management. The need to be adaptable to change, for further research ondata repositories and the continued support of peer review were further points raised during discussion sessions.
The event was closed by Viviane Reading, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, who announced that scientific publishing will be one of the highlights of the upcoming Portuguese presidency of the European Commission. She also reported that the Commission would like a discussion with ministers and the European Parliament on these issues and to work towards a common European approach.
In principle, she said, access to research outputs should be accessible to> all through open repositories after an embargo period. The EC will experiment, she continued, with faster and wider access and will supportthe> cost of author payments in their research grants.
The Commissioner told delegates that the EC will fund infrastructure to store and share data through the FP7 (Seventh Framework Programme) Capacities Programme which has 50m Euros set aside to build the top level infrastructure. A further 25m Euros is earmarked for preservation in theICT programme in 2007-2008 with 10m Euros for greater accessibility and usability through the e-content programme. Through the Digital Library Forum, the Commission will bring the various stakeholders together and listen to all views in establishing a way forward, she concluded."
2007/02/17
New Digital Project Gives Global access to Linnean Society Collections
A Linnean Society of London está a criar um arquivo digital de material único para disponibilizar o acesso integral às suas colecções.
2007/02/15
Brussels Declaration
Declaração conjunta de um grupo de editores tendo em conta a conferência da Comissão Europeia "Conference on Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area" a decorrer em Bruxelas nos dias 15 e 16 de Fevereiro de 2007.
Seguem-se comentários por Leslie Carr ao texto desta Declaração (os 10 pontos do texto da Declaração encontram-se a azul):
"The following points are lifted in their entirety from the declaration; I have tried to comment from the perspective of a researcher who publishes his research in papers and also engages in open access dissemination of those papers. The following comments therefore try to establish a clearer balance between the respective roles of publisher and researcher in Scholarly Communication - I would like to avoid the errors of two frequent doctrinal positions: (a) the Glories of Scholarly Publication are Achieved by Publishers Alone and (b) Researchers Do It All Themselves.
1. The mission of publishers is to maximise the dissemination of knowledge through economically self-sustaining business models. We are committed to change and innovation that will make science more effective. We support academic freedom: authors should be free to choose where they publish in a healthy, undistorted free market.
While we can all agree that scientific and scholarly dissemination is crucially important, the key role of publishing companies is NOT dissemination (see #2 and #3 below). For a decade, the simple "dissemination of knowledge" has ceased to be a difficult, high-cost, high-value activity in a research environment that is globally connected by the Internet. It is this ability to easily disseminate research without investment in a complex business infrastructure that the Budapest Open Access Initiative recognised in 2001 as an "unprecedented public good".
2. Publishers organise, manage and financially support the peer review processes of STM journals. The imprimatur that peer-reviewed journals give to accepted articles (registration, certification, dissemination and editorial improvement) is irreplaceable and fundamental to scholarship.
This is the heart of what publishers provide - they organise the peer review processes and business processes of journals. The imprimatur (mark of approval or distinction) is distinct from the publishers role - it comes from the editorial board and the peer reviews that the scientists and scholars themselves perform and that the publishers help to administer.
3. Publishers launch, sustain, promote and develop journals for the benefit of the scholarly community.
Publishers provide the investment to create and market new journals; the new journals are proposed, formed and run by researchers in their guises of editors, editorial boards, reviewers, authors, readers and subscribers.
Points #1, #2 and #3 from the declaration, when read in isolation, make researchers sound like passive recipients of scientific knowledge that comes through processes that are entirely the responsibility of publishers. Researchers compose the editorial boards and reviewing panels of the journal; they write the articles, review and make improvements to articles, they freely donate the finished articles and their copyright to the journal and then they buy copies back. We should agree that researchers and publishers are partners in scholarly communication; researchers provide the intellectual input and publishers provide administration, management and business services. What publishing companies lack is any scientific/scholarly content of their own or any mechanisms for judging the scientific quality of any material that is submitted to them; what researchers lack is organisation, administration and business sense (or at least the time to exhibit these qualities).
Please let us put a stop to the endlessly-implied-but-never-quite-stated claims (see #2 as an exemplar) that peer review would die a death without the current economic status quo being maintained; such a position over-emphasises the importance of publishers-as-support-industry and ignores the role of the researcher-as-quality-assurer.
4. Current publisher licensing models are delivering massive rises in scholarly access to research outputs. Publishers have invested heavily to meet the challenges of digitisation and the annual 3% volume growth of the international scholarly literature, yet less than 1% of total R&D is spent on journals.
This is an issue of publishing models and business costs on which I withhold comment in deference to Gold OA publishers and library economists.
5. Copyright protects the investment of both authors and publishers. Respect for copyright encourages the flow of information and rewards creators and entrepreneurs.
Exactly how is the acquisition of authors copyright encouraging information flow? How do subscription barriers encourage information flow? This is the core position of the Open Access argument - information flow is harmed by subscription barriers. Publishers who insist on acquiring authors' copyright DO NOT HELP AUTHORS in any significant way (apart from, allegedly, the easier prosecution of plagiarism).
6. Publishers support the creation of rights-protected archives that preserve scholarship in perpetuity.
Invisible archives that act as backups against future disaster are good news. One day we will be glad of them, but they aren't helping researchers today. (Except for preservation researchers, of which I am one!).
7. Raw research data should be made freely available to all researchers. Publishers encourage the public posting of the raw data outputs of research. Sets or sub-sets of data that are submitted with a paper to a journal should wherever possible be made freely accessible to other scholars.
It is good that publishers are happy for researchers to freely make arrangements for their own data, as some research colleagues have expressed worries that publishers are claiming rights over their data.
8. Publishing in all media has associated costs. Electronic publishing has costs not found in print publishing. The costs to deliver both are higher than print or electronic only. Publishing costs are the same whether funded by supply-side or demand-side models. If readers or their agents (libraries) don't fund publishing, then someone else (e.g. funding bodies, government) must.
This is an issue of publishing models and business costs on which I withhold comment in deference to Gold OA publishers and library economists.
9. Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilising subscription revenues and undermining peer review. Articles have economic value for a considerable time after publication which embargo periods must reflect. At 12 months, on average, electronic articles still have 40-50% of their lifetime downloads to come. Free availability of significant proportions of a journal's content may result in its cancellation and therefore destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend.
There are various factors that are recorded as actually causing subscription cancellations; self archiving has not been credited as one of those factors in its 15 year history. Notice how hypothetical journal cancellations that may occur as a result of self archiving will "destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend"; however actual journal cancellations that already occur (librarians can fill in their favorite issues here) are presumably just collateral damage.
10. "One size fits all" solutions will not work. Download profiles of individual journals vary significantly across subject areas, and from journal to journal.
Researchers and their institutions develop the dissemination practices that are appropriate for them; Green Open Access methodologies take place in parallel with the publishing industry's
products and services to increase the effectiveness of the whole research system".
Seguem-se comentários por Leslie Carr ao texto desta Declaração (os 10 pontos do texto da Declaração encontram-se a azul):
"The following points are lifted in their entirety from the declaration; I have tried to comment from the perspective of a researcher who publishes his research in papers and also engages in open access dissemination of those papers. The following comments therefore try to establish a clearer balance between the respective roles of publisher and researcher in Scholarly Communication - I would like to avoid the errors of two frequent doctrinal positions: (a) the Glories of Scholarly Publication are Achieved by Publishers Alone and (b) Researchers Do It All Themselves.
1. The mission of publishers is to maximise the dissemination of knowledge through economically self-sustaining business models. We are committed to change and innovation that will make science more effective. We support academic freedom: authors should be free to choose where they publish in a healthy, undistorted free market.
While we can all agree that scientific and scholarly dissemination is crucially important, the key role of publishing companies is NOT dissemination (see #2 and #3 below). For a decade, the simple "dissemination of knowledge" has ceased to be a difficult, high-cost, high-value activity in a research environment that is globally connected by the Internet. It is this ability to easily disseminate research without investment in a complex business infrastructure that the Budapest Open Access Initiative recognised in 2001 as an "unprecedented public good".
2. Publishers organise, manage and financially support the peer review processes of STM journals. The imprimatur that peer-reviewed journals give to accepted articles (registration, certification, dissemination and editorial improvement) is irreplaceable and fundamental to scholarship.
This is the heart of what publishers provide - they organise the peer review processes and business processes of journals. The imprimatur (mark of approval or distinction) is distinct from the publishers role - it comes from the editorial board and the peer reviews that the scientists and scholars themselves perform and that the publishers help to administer.
3. Publishers launch, sustain, promote and develop journals for the benefit of the scholarly community.
Publishers provide the investment to create and market new journals; the new journals are proposed, formed and run by researchers in their guises of editors, editorial boards, reviewers, authors, readers and subscribers.
Points #1, #2 and #3 from the declaration, when read in isolation, make researchers sound like passive recipients of scientific knowledge that comes through processes that are entirely the responsibility of publishers. Researchers compose the editorial boards and reviewing panels of the journal; they write the articles, review and make improvements to articles, they freely donate the finished articles and their copyright to the journal and then they buy copies back. We should agree that researchers and publishers are partners in scholarly communication; researchers provide the intellectual input and publishers provide administration, management and business services. What publishing companies lack is any scientific/scholarly content of their own or any mechanisms for judging the scientific quality of any material that is submitted to them; what researchers lack is organisation, administration and business sense (or at least the time to exhibit these qualities).
Please let us put a stop to the endlessly-implied-but-never-quite-stated claims (see #2 as an exemplar) that peer review would die a death without the current economic status quo being maintained; such a position over-emphasises the importance of publishers-as-support-industry and ignores the role of the researcher-as-quality-assurer.
4. Current publisher licensing models are delivering massive rises in scholarly access to research outputs. Publishers have invested heavily to meet the challenges of digitisation and the annual 3% volume growth of the international scholarly literature, yet less than 1% of total R&D is spent on journals.
This is an issue of publishing models and business costs on which I withhold comment in deference to Gold OA publishers and library economists.
5. Copyright protects the investment of both authors and publishers. Respect for copyright encourages the flow of information and rewards creators and entrepreneurs.
Exactly how is the acquisition of authors copyright encouraging information flow? How do subscription barriers encourage information flow? This is the core position of the Open Access argument - information flow is harmed by subscription barriers. Publishers who insist on acquiring authors' copyright DO NOT HELP AUTHORS in any significant way (apart from, allegedly, the easier prosecution of plagiarism).
6. Publishers support the creation of rights-protected archives that preserve scholarship in perpetuity.
Invisible archives that act as backups against future disaster are good news. One day we will be glad of them, but they aren't helping researchers today. (Except for preservation researchers, of which I am one!).
7. Raw research data should be made freely available to all researchers. Publishers encourage the public posting of the raw data outputs of research. Sets or sub-sets of data that are submitted with a paper to a journal should wherever possible be made freely accessible to other scholars.
It is good that publishers are happy for researchers to freely make arrangements for their own data, as some research colleagues have expressed worries that publishers are claiming rights over their data.
8. Publishing in all media has associated costs. Electronic publishing has costs not found in print publishing. The costs to deliver both are higher than print or electronic only. Publishing costs are the same whether funded by supply-side or demand-side models. If readers or their agents (libraries) don't fund publishing, then someone else (e.g. funding bodies, government) must.
This is an issue of publishing models and business costs on which I withhold comment in deference to Gold OA publishers and library economists.
9. Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilising subscription revenues and undermining peer review. Articles have economic value for a considerable time after publication which embargo periods must reflect. At 12 months, on average, electronic articles still have 40-50% of their lifetime downloads to come. Free availability of significant proportions of a journal's content may result in its cancellation and therefore destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend.
There are various factors that are recorded as actually causing subscription cancellations; self archiving has not been credited as one of those factors in its 15 year history. Notice how hypothetical journal cancellations that may occur as a result of self archiving will "destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend"; however actual journal cancellations that already occur (librarians can fill in their favorite issues here) are presumably just collateral damage.
10. "One size fits all" solutions will not work. Download profiles of individual journals vary significantly across subject areas, and from journal to journal.
Researchers and their institutions develop the dissemination practices that are appropriate for them; Green Open Access methodologies take place in parallel with the publishing industry's
products and services to increase the effectiveness of the whole research system".
2007/02/13
Portal da Língua Portuguesa
Como é referido no próprio portal, pretende ser "pretende ser uma ferramenta de livre acesso, direccionada para alunos e professores, profissionais diversificados e, ainda, para todos os que têm curiosidades acerca da língua portuguesa, estabelecendo a ponte entre a comunidade científica e o público em geral".
Centre Alexandre Koyré / Centre de Recherche en Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques
A colecção HAL do Centre Alexandre Koyré/Centre de Recherche en Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques (CAK/CRHST) inclui as publicações dos investigadores do centro (artigos, preprints, apresentações, etc.).
2007/02/07
The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) e o OA
A ASCB, uma sociedade científica com mais de 11.000 membros, que publica a revista Molecular Biology of the Cell, anunciou a sua posição sobre o acesso à literatura científica, apelando para que este fosse possível até seis meses depois da publicação. Note-se que a ASCB permite o livre acesso, com um embargo de dois meses, às suas publicações desde 2001.
Presidente do CRUP assina Declaração de Berlim
O Presidente do CRUP assinou, no dia 4 de Janeiro de 2007, a Declaração de Berlim manifestando, assim, a adesão das universidades portuguesas aos princípios aí consignados.
Hindawi lança dez novos títulos em OA
Com mais dez novos títulos em OA, a Hindawi oferece agora uma colecção de 62 títulos que cobre as área de engenharia e biomedicina. Os artigos destas revistas são disponibilizados imediatamente sob uma licença Creative Commmons que permite o uso de todo o material publicado, exigindo, como contrapartida, a citação da fonte.
Títulos lançados:
* Advances in Acoustics and Vibration
* Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
* Advances in Pharmacological Sciences
* Advances in Urology
* Dermatology Research and Practice
* Distributed Information Systems
* Gastroenterology Research and Practice
* International Journal of Plasma Science and Engineering
* International Journal of Reacting Systems
* Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications
Títulos lançados:
* Advances in Acoustics and Vibration
* Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
* Advances in Pharmacological Sciences
* Advances in Urology
* Dermatology Research and Practice
* Distributed Information Systems
* Gastroenterology Research and Practice
* International Journal of Plasma Science and Engineering
* International Journal of Reacting Systems
* Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
Mensagens
