Brenda Wingfield, University of Pretoria & Bob Millar, University of Pretoria, Quartz; The open access research model is hurting academics in poorer countries
"There is however, little focus on the costs of open access to
researchers in the developing world. Most people we have spoken to
inside academia are under the impression that these costs are waived.
But that’s only the case for some journals in 47 of the world’s “least developed” nations; researchers in the 58 other countries in the developing world must pay the full price...
The cost of a PlosOne article is 20% of the cost of a Masters student’s
scholarship. So the choice is “do I give a Masters student a
scholarship, or publish more in open access journals?” We are trying to
do both and we are sure that’s the approach many research programs are
trying to take. But as more journals take the open access route this is
going to be more difficult. In future, if we want to publish more
articles in open access journals, we will have to reduce the number of
Masters, Doctoral and post doctoral students in our programs."
Friday, April 12, 2019
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Nobel laureate takes stance against allowing research to be intellectual property; The Auburn Plainsman, April 11, 2019
Trice Brown, The Auburn Plainsman; Nobel laureate takes stance against allowing research to be intellectual property
"George Smith, recipient of a 2018 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, spoke to a crowd of students and faculty about the problems that arise from making publicly funded research intellectual property.
Smith said one of the greatest problems facing the scientific research community is the ability of universities to claim intellectual property rights on publicly funded research.
“I think that all research ought not to have intellectual — not to be intellectual property,” Smith said. “It’s the property of everyone.”"
"George Smith, recipient of a 2018 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, spoke to a crowd of students and faculty about the problems that arise from making publicly funded research intellectual property.
Smith said one of the greatest problems facing the scientific research community is the ability of universities to claim intellectual property rights on publicly funded research.
“I think that all research ought not to have intellectual — not to be intellectual property,” Smith said. “It’s the property of everyone.”"
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Pride and profit: Why Mayan weavers fight for intellectual property rights; The Christian Science Monitor, March 27, 2019
Whitney Eulich, The Christian Science Monitor;
"Dr. Little fears that looking at textile design through the lens of fashion essentially “freezes it in time as a kind of folk art or folk material and that doesn’t allow it to actually live.”
“I think of [weaving] like a language,” he adds. Among indigenous communities, “it’s more vibrant when everyone is using it, fooling around with it, taking from others, and making new combinations. Vibrancy in language indicates strength, and in textiles it’s the same way.”"
Pride and profit: Why Mayan weavers fight for intellectual property rights
Why We Wrote This
Who owns culture, if anyone? It’s a complicated question that can
seem almost theoretical. But its real-life consequences are keenly felt
by many traditional artisans.
"Dr. Little fears that looking at textile design through the lens of fashion essentially “freezes it in time as a kind of folk art or folk material and that doesn’t allow it to actually live.”
“I think of [weaving] like a language,” he adds. Among indigenous communities, “it’s more vibrant when everyone is using it, fooling around with it, taking from others, and making new combinations. Vibrancy in language indicates strength, and in textiles it’s the same way.”"
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Toyota is giving automakers free access to nearly 24,000 hybrid car-related patents; TechCrunch, April 3, 2019
Kirsten Korosec, TechCrunch; Toyota is giving automakers free access to nearly 24,000 hybrid car-related patents
"Toyota said Wednesday it will give royalty-free access to its nearly 24,000 patents related to electrification technology and systems through 2030 in a move that aims to encourage rival automakers to adopt the low-emissions and fuel-saving technology.
Collectively the patents represent core technologies that can be applied to the development of various types of electrified vehicles, including hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles, Toyota said. This follows Toyota’s decision back in 2015 to offer 5,680 patents related to its fuel cell electric vehicles."
"Toyota said Wednesday it will give royalty-free access to its nearly 24,000 patents related to electrification technology and systems through 2030 in a move that aims to encourage rival automakers to adopt the low-emissions and fuel-saving technology.
Collectively the patents represent core technologies that can be applied to the development of various types of electrified vehicles, including hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles, Toyota said. This follows Toyota’s decision back in 2015 to offer 5,680 patents related to its fuel cell electric vehicles."
Highly Profitable Medical Journal Says Open Access Publishing Has Failed. Right.; Forbes, April 1, 2019
Steven Salzberg, Forbes; Highly Profitable Medical Journal Says Open Access Publishing Has Failed. Right.
"What Haug doesn't mention here is that there is one reason (and only one, I would argue) that NEJM makes all of its articles freely available after some time has passed: the NIH requires it. This dates back to 2009, when Congress passed a law, after intense pressure from citizens who were demanding access to the research results that they'd paid for, requiring all NIH-funded results to be deposited in a free, public repository (now called PubMed Central) within 12 months of publication.
Scientific publishers fought furiously against this policy. I know, because I was there, and I talked to many people involved in the fight at the time. The open-access advocates (mostly patient groups) wanted articles to be made freely available immediately, and they worked out a compromise where the journals could have 6 months of exclusivity. At the last minute, the NIH Director at the time, Elias Zerhouni, extended this to 12 months, for reasons that remain shrouded in secrecy, but thankfully, the public (and science) won the main battle. For NEJM to turn around now and boast that they are releasing articles after an embargo period, without mentioning this requirement, is hypocritical, to say the least. Believe me, if the NIH requirement disappeared (and publishers are still lobbying to get rid of it!), NEJM would happily go back to keeping all access restricted to subscribers.
The battle is far from over. Open access advocates still want to see research released immediately, not after a 6-month or 12-month embargo, and that's precisely what the European Plan S will do."
"What Haug doesn't mention here is that there is one reason (and only one, I would argue) that NEJM makes all of its articles freely available after some time has passed: the NIH requires it. This dates back to 2009, when Congress passed a law, after intense pressure from citizens who were demanding access to the research results that they'd paid for, requiring all NIH-funded results to be deposited in a free, public repository (now called PubMed Central) within 12 months of publication.
Scientific publishers fought furiously against this policy. I know, because I was there, and I talked to many people involved in the fight at the time. The open-access advocates (mostly patient groups) wanted articles to be made freely available immediately, and they worked out a compromise where the journals could have 6 months of exclusivity. At the last minute, the NIH Director at the time, Elias Zerhouni, extended this to 12 months, for reasons that remain shrouded in secrecy, but thankfully, the public (and science) won the main battle. For NEJM to turn around now and boast that they are releasing articles after an embargo period, without mentioning this requirement, is hypocritical, to say the least. Believe me, if the NIH requirement disappeared (and publishers are still lobbying to get rid of it!), NEJM would happily go back to keeping all access restricted to subscribers.
The battle is far from over. Open access advocates still want to see research released immediately, not after a 6-month or 12-month embargo, and that's precisely what the European Plan S will do."
Faculty Council discusses intellectual property rights; The Ithacan, April 3, 2019
Ashley Stalnecker, The Ithacan; Faculty Council discusses intellectual property rights
"Costa said the current policy on student work at the college differs from the typical policies of higher-education institutions. Currently, the college deems any work created by a student in a class under the jurisdiction of a professor to be the property of the faculty member or the college. Costa said this means that if the faculty memberearned any royalties, they would be required to share it with the college but not with the student who created it.
Costa said that normally among higher-education institutions, student-created work is the copyright of the student. In this case, the student would earn any royalties associated with the work. For commissioned work, the person who made the commission would own the copyright. Because the work was paid for, the person who paid for it owns the work."
"Costa said the current policy on student work at the college differs from the typical policies of higher-education institutions. Currently, the college deems any work created by a student in a class under the jurisdiction of a professor to be the property of the faculty member or the college. Costa said this means that if the faculty memberearned any royalties, they would be required to share it with the college but not with the student who created it.
Costa said that normally among higher-education institutions, student-created work is the copyright of the student. In this case, the student would earn any royalties associated with the work. For commissioned work, the person who made the commission would own the copyright. Because the work was paid for, the person who paid for it owns the work."
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
‘Blurred Lines’ on Their Minds, Songwriters Create Nervously; The New York Times, March 31, 2019
Ben Sisario, The New York Times; ‘Blurred Lines’ on Their Minds, Songwriters Create Nervously
"“There’s no question in my mind that
there has been a chilling effect,” Ms. Lepera said. “People have thrown a
lot of weight behind this — more weight than it deserves. Defendants
may be more inclined not to put up a fight.”
And for songwriters, the impact is still often felt when thoughts about the courtroom intrude in the studio.
“I’m
not going to stop writing songs,” said Busbee, who has written hits for
Keith Urban and Lady Antebellum. “But it puts a massive damper on the
process, if you’re concerned that you will be sued.”"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)