Supporting Open Access; Library Journal, February 20, 2017

John Parsons, Library Journal; 

Supporting Open Access

"AN OPEN CONVERSATION

Both Taylor and Schiff agreed that scholars and researchers need to be a significant part of the Open Access discussion. “Librarians like myself are very much Open Access advocates,” Taylor observed, “but it’s important for us to keep an open mind. We need to listen to what our researchers, scholars, students, and administrators want.” She cautioned against giving only the positive benefits of Open Access for institutions, without understanding the concerns and reservations of those doing the research.

“It’s important to get correct information out there,” Schiff added, “but it’s important to get scholars to jump into the conversation. For example, it would be great if scholars were more involved in discussing the economic challenges in the scholarly communication world. Librarians are naturally involved because our budgets are a huge part of that mix. But we’re paying for the work of scholars. They not only need to be more informed about how their work is part of this economic ecosystem, they also need to advocate for how they think that ecosystem should be sustained—and how resources should be allocated.”"

Open Science: Beyond Open Access webinar; Library Journal, February 21, 2017

Library Journal; Open Science: Beyond Open Access webinar

"Open Science: Beyond Open Access

Presented by: Dove Press & Library Journal

Event Date & Time: Tuesday, February 21st, 2017, 3:00 PM – 4:00 PM ET / 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM PT

Collaboration can be a major driver for success. When data is shared among researchers, analysts and stakeholders, the opportunities for innovation and development increase exponentially, particularly in the medical and science fields. To be most effective, the Open Science framework demands more than simply sharing data–it requires dedication, transparency and responsible publishing.

Join this webcast to learn from our panel of experts as they discuss the challenges and benefits of Open Science in the context of global health and medical concerns. They will explain how the disruptive concept of Open Data can reshape and improve the nature of research and results.

Panelists

• Dr. Eric Little, VP of Data Science, OSTHUS
• Dr. Robin Bloor, Chief Analyst, The Bloor Group
• Andrew Johnson, Research Data Librarian/Assistant Professor, University of Colorado Boulder

Moderator

• Rebecca Jozwiak, Editorial & Research Director, The Bloor Group"

U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement Announced; Press Release, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 12/12/16

Press Release, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement Announced

[Kip Currier: The following sections of this joint strategic plan caught my attention and should be of particular interest to researchers and universities:

p. 140: "BROADER RECOGNITION OF THE ESSENTIAL ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN INNOVATION

In addition to their essential role as centers of knowledge, learning, and scholarship, universities around the world are engines for innovation. Universities are often the first step in the innovation lifecycle, but too often the big idea does not make it to the marketplace. The promise of innovation that is first conceived by professors, researchers, and students in university laboratories frequently goes unrealized." 

The University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute has several initiatives to help university-based innovators get their ideas and inventions off the ground: 

• Startup Blitz

• Blast Furnace

• Randall Family Big Idea Competition

p. 143: "CALLS FOR RESEARCH.

Public policy is at its best when well-grounded in sound research and data. Given the profound technological and legal changes that have taken place over the past several years, it is critical that academics, researchers, the private sector, and others continue to rigorously study the IPR ecosystem to identify areas of concern, emerging trends, and opportunities for enhanced enforcement mechanisms."

From pages 143-147 the plan presents examples of research topics and questions, e.g. 

"Research into Commercial-Scale Piracy is Needed…

• To assess the economic scope and magnitude of digital piracy. Beyond any top-line numbers, what is the magnitude of the harm suffered by the copyright owner? What is the impact on employment in the creative sectors? Who are the entities that profit from, or may be unjustly enriched by, the unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted materials? 

[And]

•  To examine the range of attendant harms and risks to the public. What is the relationship between pirated content and incidents of malware, phishing, or other threats to the public?"]

[Press Release] "Today, the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) released the 2017-2019 U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, which offers a blueprint for coordinating resources and priorities to sustain a robust IP enforcement environment.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office partnered with the IPEC and agencies throughout the federal government in crafting a plan that both highlights the cultural and economic importance of intellectual property incentives, and also ensures certainty in the marketplace through enforcement mechanisms to encourage creative growth and minimize misappropriation of innovation. USPTO is proud to play a role in promoting clear, consistent, high quality and enforceable IP rights to enable market growth. The office also provides critical international leadership in protecting IP overseas and navigating international IP laws. From copyrights and trade secrets protection, to the examination and registration of patents and trademarks, the USPTO will continue to foster a balanced IP playing field for U.S. businesses to compete in foreign markets and export abroad.  

The report recognizes how IP-intensive industries continue to be an integral part of a growing economy, and identifies critical and strategic actions to safeguard that innovation and combat illicit infringement activities.

To read the plan, please visit:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/spotlight/eop_ip... "

Open Access Rewards Passionate Curiosity: 2016 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/24/16

Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

Open Access Rewards Passionate Curiosity: 2016 in Review:

"In February 2016, a team of scientists published one of the most important pieces of scientific research so far this century. For the first time, researchers had directly observed gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of spacetime whose discovery Albert Einstein first predicted a century ago. The team effectively placed the last piece in the puzzle confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity—in doing so, they took a giant leap forward in humans’ understanding of how the universe works.

Something else was confirmed that day, too: open access publishing is no inferior sibling to closed publishing. The paper—Observational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger (PDF)—was published in an open access journal under a Creative Commons license that ensures anyone can copy, adapt, and reuse it as long as they give the authors credit.

Put simply, open access is the practice of making research and other materials freely available online, ideally under licenses that allow anyone to share and adapt them. For years, open access publishing has been at the center of a struggle over the future of research: will cutting-edge scholarship be published in the open for anyone to see, use, and build upon? Or will it stay trapped in a labyrinth of closed publications only to be read by those who can afford expensive journal subscriptions and academic databases?

In many ways, 2015 was academic publishing’s Napster moment. As publishing giant Elsevier fought to keep Sci-Hub off the Internet, it accomplished just the opposite. While the legal battle between Elsevier and Sci-Hub has trudged through 2016, more people than ever have begun using the unauthorized academic research repository.

Maybe 2016 was the year publishers realized they had to change course. Elsevier agreed to compromise with the Dutch academic community, allowing researchers covered by the publisher’s blanket agreement with Dutch universities to publish their research openly. That’s a small step, but an indicator that Elsevier recognizes the significance of the demand for open access."

Summer Project Turns Into Leukemia Testing Breakthrough; New York Times, 11/28/16

Donald G. McNeil Jr., New York Times; Summer Project Turns Into Leukemia Testing Breakthrough:

'Gleevec, which made almost $5 billion for Novartis last year, has been at the center of a long battle between pharmaceutical companies and activists fighting price increases. The drug cost about $26,000 per year in 2001, and Novartis repeatedly raised the price even as competitors emerged; early this year, it was more than $120,000.

Those who support broader access to medicines argue that poor countries should reject patents and make generic versions of leukemia drugs. In 2013, India’s highest court struck down Novartis’s patent application for Gleevec, opening the way for generics. They now cost about $400 a year in India and about $9,000 in Canada."

FAQ: What you need to know, but were afraid to ask, about the EU Open Science Cloud; Science Business, 11/24/16

Science Business Staff, Science Business; FAQ: What you need to know, but were afraid to ask, about the EU Open Science Cloud:

"Will the data in the EU science cloud be available for free?

Some of it, yes; some of it, no. The EU says that not all data ‘will necessarily be free’, due to the legitimate rights of IP holders, so there will be an opportunity for some organisations to sell access to some of their data through the cloud. Private publishers, such as Elsevier and Springer, are also keen to be able to maintain charges for access to some of their services – but have also been unexpectedly enthusiastic about exploring the possible new business models that a very large, very active cloud could permit. On the other hand, some universities and research councils – among the most active proponents of free open access for research reports and text and data mining – are pushing to make the new cloud a tariff-free zone. It’s difficult to predict yet how this issue will be resolved...

What about privacy or ethical concerns?

Differing privacy and ethical policies and regulations in Europe, the US, and elsewhere could become sticking points which would prevent the cloud becoming fully global. There are legal restraints on where research data can be stored – essentially it has to be located in countries, and under the control of organisations, that are subject to EU data protection legislation, and that should make US-based commercial providers a little wary. Rules will need to be established to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the funding agencies, the data custodians, the cloud service providers and the researchers who use cloud-based data. The Commission has said these legal issues will be resolved as part of its broader rule-making efforts under its Digital Single Market – for privacy, copyright, and security of data. But it may not be so simple. The last time science and data rules collided was in 2014/15, when the EU was rewriting its data-privacy regulation; the original, EU-wide proposal would have had an unintended impact on medical research – leading medical universities across the EU to scream loudly that the EU was about to kill drug research. A muddled compromise resulted. Expect similar surprises in cloud regulation."

[Open Access Week Event at University of Pittsburgh] Open in Action: The Government, the University, and You: Presenter: Congressman Mike Doyle, Thursday, 10/27/16 4 PM - 6 PM

[Open Access Week Event at University of Pittsburgh] Open in Action: The Government, the University, and You; Presenter: Congressman Mike Doyle:

"Thursday, October 27, 2016 -

4:00pm to 6:00pm

Stream: http://pi.tt/openinaction

Event Description:

4:00 pm – Reception

4:30 pm – Keynote speech

5:15 pm – Panel conversation followed by Questions and Answers from the audience

Learn about the latest actions around the Open Access Movement in the United States, and how you can get involved. Congressman Mike Doyle will join us to discuss FASTR, the Free Access to Science and Technology Research bill that he co-sponsored, which will require Open Access to all research articles funded by major US Government departments and agencies. He will discuss the history and origin of the bill as well as its current state in Congress, including what this bill would mean for researchers at our universities, across the country, and around the world.

Following Congressman Doyle’s speech, join us for a conversation with a panel of experts on advocacy and involvement in Open Access. James Maher, Provost Emeritus and Distinguished Service Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, will join special guests including Heather Joseph (Executive Director, SPARC) and Keith Webster (Dean of Libraries, Carnegie Mellon University) to discuss the role of the University and the individual researcher in moving the Open movement forward and what the impact of open access to research will be locally and globally."

Library offers workshop ‘Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students’; University of Delaware, 9/28/16

UDaily Staff, University of Delaware; Library offers workshop ‘Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students’ :

"The University of Delaware Library is offering a Nov. 17 workshop on “Copyright and Fair Use for Graduate Students,” which will deal with the practical application of copyright law and its fair use provisions.

Considering copyright at the beginning of the research process will simplify the completion of the degree requirements for graduate students. Attendees will learn why and when copyright is important to scholars – researchers, writers and teachers – and these important skills:

• How to determine when permission is needed to use an excerpt or image;

• How to obtain permission; what to do when permission to use an image or excerpt cannot be obtained; and

• How to evaluate if fair use may be an appropriate defense for your use of material protected by copyright...

The workshop is available at no charge is open to University of Delaware faculty, staff and students."

Zika Data From the Lab, and Right to the Web; New York Times, 7/18/16

Donald G. McNeil Jr., New York Times; Zika Data From the Lab, and Right to the Web:

"Dr. O’Connor’s decision was the most radical manifestation of a trend already underway. In early February, more than 30 of the most prominent academic journals, research institutions and research funders signed a “Statement on Data Sharing in Public Health Emergencies” in which the journals agreed to make all articles about the Zika virus available free instead of charging their subscription fees, which can be hundreds of dollars.

The journals also agreed to consider articles that had first been posted for comment on public forums like bioRxiv, which is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island. The funders agreed to make everyone receiving their money share data as widely as possible...

“I never planned to be an evangelist,” he said. “I was happy toiling in anonymity, so this is a surreal experience. We all grew up in the same system: You do a study, you submit it to a journal, and your place in the hierarchy depends on the quality of the journal it appears in.”

“If it’s all you’ve known, you assume it’s the right way. But if you’ve got data that can contribute to the public health response during an epidemic — is it really yours to hang onto?”"

Making the Most of Clinical Trial Data; New York Times, 4/12/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Making the Most of Clinical Trial Data:

"Some researchers may oppose sharing data they have worked hard to gather, or worry that others will analyze it incorrectly. Creating opportunities for collaboration on subsequent analysis may help alleviate these concerns.

Of course, any data sharing must take patients’ privacy into account; patients must be informed before joining a clinical trial that their data may be shared and researchers must ensure that the data cannot be used to identify individuals.

By making data available and supporting analysis, foundations, research institutions and drug companies can increase the benefit of clinical trials and pave the way for new findings that could help patients."

How Open Access Scholarship Saves Lives; American Libraries, October 22, 2013

Nella Letizia, American Libraries; How Open Access Scholarship Saves Lives: "According to Jason Priem, ImpactStory cofounder and doctoral student in information science at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, important parts of the scientific process, once hidden, are gradually being exposed online. As the workflows of scholars are moving online, the stuff of day-to-day science— conversations, arguments, recommendations, reads, bookmarks—leave traces on websites such as Mendeley, Twitter, blogs, and Faculty of 1000. Mining these traces, in addition to utilizing traditional metrics such as citation counts and journal impact factors, can give researchers and publishers faster, more diverse, and more accurate data of scholarly impact. Cancer detection breakthrough thanks to open access Open access caught international attention recently in part because of high-school student Jack Andraka of Crownsville, Maryland, who, in 2012 at the age of 15, developed a revolutionary cancer detection test. Designed to detect the presence of a protein for pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer at the early stages, the test costs 3 cents, takes five minutes to run, and is more than 90% accurate, according to the Right to Research Coalition. The test is also 26,667 times cheaper, 168 times faster, and 400 times more sensitive than the current pancreatic cancer test. To research his cancer detection method, Andraka read free online articles he found at scientific journal websites and the PubMed Central. But, he noted, paid subscription requirements from other journals were an impediment."

Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars; Chronicle of Higher Education, 8/31/09

Geoffrey Nunberg via Chronicle of Higher Education; Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars:

"I'm actually more optimistic than some of my colleagues who have criticized the settlement. Not that I'm counting on selfless public-spiritedness to motivate Google to invest the time and resources in getting this right. But I have the sense that a lot of the initial problems are due to Google's slightly clueless fumbling as it tried master a domain that turned out to be a lot more complex than the company first realized. It's clear that Google designed the system without giving much thought to the need for reliable metadata. In fact, Google's great achievement as a Web search engine was to demonstrate how easy it could be to locate useful information without attending to metadata or resorting to Yahoo-like schemes of classification. But books aren't simply vehicles for communicating information, and managing a vast library collection requires different skills, approaches, and data than those that enabled Google to dominate Web searching.

That makes for a steep learning curve, all the more so because of Google's haste to complete the project so that potential competitors would be confronted with a fait accompli. But whether or not the needs of scholars are a priority, the company doesn't want Google's book search to become a running scholarly joke. And it may be responsive to pressure from its university library partners—who weren't particularly attentive to questions of quality when they signed on with Google—particularly if they are urged (or if necessary, prodded) to make noise about shoddy metadata by the scholars whose interests they represent. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that Google is a very quick study."

http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/