Category Archives: Open Science

Science Videos

JoVE, SciVee, LabAction and DnaTube are mentioned in this nice article, also found in a number of other newspapers, e.g., USA Today and Seattle Times.

PRISM is a Lemon

Peter Suber reports that the Charleston Advisor gave its 2007 Lemon Award to PRISM. I first learned about this from an e-mail:

“The Charleston Advisor (TCA) announced its seventh annual Reader’s Choice Awards for products and services in academic libraries, although “winning” one of these awards isn’t always a good thing. For example, the 2007 Lemon Award went to the Association of American Publishers for PRISM (The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine), the controversial web initiative created to oppose efforts to make publicly-funded research free on the web. “These publishers should not bite the hand that feeds them,” warned the Lemon Award’s tart announcement.”

SAGE ventures into Open Access

Peter Suber reports the announcement of a new initiative by SAGE and Hindawi, starting a number of new Open Access journals. The platform will be unveiled in early December. They have decided not to switch their older, more established journals to OA yet.
This is really good news as SAGE is one of the largest scientific publishers, and certainly the largest so far to go from no-OA (not a single journal) to many-OA in one fell swoop. It is quite understandable that they decided to do it this way. From their business perspective, OA is still seen as risky. If brand new journals flop, it is not such a big deal. If old established journals go belly up in this experiment, that would be quite a disaster.
I expect that within 6-12 months they will see for themselves that OA does not hurt much (Hindawi makes profit, after all) and will likely choose to switch all of their established journals to Open Access. We’ll wait and see. But anyway, this is very encouraging.
Apart from my position as an OA evangelist, I have another motivation for this as well. Journal of Biological Rhythms is published by SAGE and is Closed Access for now. It is the journal of the Society for Research in Biological Rhythms of which I am a member and it is the best journal in the field. I have published two papers in it (the first I explained here and the second I explained twice, from two different perspectives, here and here) and I want to see it succeed. I can read the papers in it because I have the password and I also get the hardcopy in the mail. But lately I have been reluctant to write blog posts about the papers published in JBR because you, the reader, cannot check for yourself if I interpreted the study correctly. Sure, other chronobiologists read this blog and are likely to correct me if I get something wrong (for which I am grateful), but what if I disagree with them? Who are you going to believe, the chronobiologist A or chronobiologist B? And you cannot check for yourself without paying.
My reluctance to post about JBR papers also bothers me for a different reason – am I punishing my friends and colleagues for publishing in a closed access journal? I feel really conflicted about it because I want people to publish their best stuff in JBR (instead of in Science, Nature, Cell and Neuron, though I appreciate it if you choose one of PLoS journals instead) and I want their stuff to get attention via popularization so they get read more and thus cited more in the future. For this, JBR needs to go OA.
So, this move by SAGE gives me hope that my dilemma will be resolved pretty soon….

Open Science Proposal

Cameron Neylon is putting together a proposal for a UK research council to fund a network with the general theme of ‘e-science enabling open science’. The network would fund meetings and travel with the specific aim of driving the open (notebook) science agenda forward. Cameron explains this in a couple of blog posts that I urge you to read:
E-science for open science – an EPSRC research network proposal, Follow on to network proposal and The research network proposal – update II.

The proposal would be to support 2-3 meetings over three years, including travel costs, and provide funds for exchange visits. What I would like from the community is an expression of interest, specifically the committment to write a letter of support saying you would like to be involved. It would be great to get these from tenured academics, early career academics, graduate students and PDRAs, publishers (NPG? PLoS?), library and repository people (UKOLN, Simile, others?) and anyone else who is relevant.

The current proposal is online as a Google Doc here.
His deadline is tomorrow early morning (UK time), so send a letter today!

Boston – Part 2: Publishing in the New Millennium

It’s been a while since I came back from Boston, but the big dinosaur story kept me busy all last week so I never managed to find time and energy to write my own recap of the Harvard Conference.
Anna Kushnir, Corie Lok, Evie Brown, Kaitlin Thaney (Part 2 and Part 3) and
Alex Palazzo have written about it much better than I could recall from my own “hot seat”. Elizabeth Cooney of Boston Globe has a write-up as well. Read them all.
So, here is my story, in brief….and pictorial, just like the first part (under the fold).

Continue reading

Open Grant Review?

If scientific papers can be publicly reviewed either pre-publication or post-publication, and if one day soon the public can have a voice on the patents, then why not also grant proposals? Now, Michael does not go that far – he only proposes a more direct communication between the researcher and the reviewer – but, why not? Some people write good proposals. Others can sell them better in a different way: by talking about them. I would certainly like to be able to try to sell my grant proposal by shooting a video and posting it on a site like Scivee.com, where both the reviewers and the public can add their commentary.

Scientific publishing in need of a fix soon

From California Tech:

Although some radical solutions might lead to growing pains, the present state of the industry is rather like the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” animation in Fantasia: the tools designed to support science have developed a life of their own, and are now draining the system that they were created to support by becoming a self-perpetuating industry that is moving closer to a collapse and further from enabling scientific progress.
Mark Montague B.S. ’93 is volunteer staff in computer science.
The next panel discussion in the series “What’s Wrong with Scientific Publishing, and How do We Fix It?” will be November 28th at Caltech.  Jasna Markovac, former Senior Vice President at Elsevier, will be providing an insider’s view of scientific publishing.  
For more about the legislation and scientific publishing, please visit http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~monty/scientific_publishing.html

Sparky Awards

Perhaps you can win one of the Sparky Awards:
SPARC Discovery Awards
SPARC Announces Mind Mashup – A Video Contest to Showcase Student Views on Information Sharing:

SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) today announced the first SPARC Discovery Awards, a contest that will recognize the best new short videos illustrating the importance of sharing information and ideas.
The contest, details for which are online at http://www.sparkyawards.org, encourages new voices to join the public discussion of information policy in the age of the Internet. Contestants are asked to submit videos of two minutes or less that imaginatively show the benefits of bringing down barriers to the free exchange of information. While designed for adoption as a college or high school class assignment, the SPARC Discovery Awards are open to anyone over the age of 13. Submissions will be accepted beginning in mid-July and must be received by December 2, 2007. Winners will be announced in January 2008.
The Winner will receive a cash prize of $1,000 along with a “Sparky Award.” Two Runners Up will each receive $500 plus a personalized award certificate. At the discretion of the judges, additional Special Merit Awards may be designated. All the award-winning videos will be publicly screened during the January 2008 American Library Association Midwinter Conference in Philadelphia.
“The YouTube generation has a critical stake in how information can be used and shared on the Internet,” said SPARC Executive Director Heather Joseph. “The SPARC Discovery Awards provide an outlet for their views and an opportunity for the rest of us to understand their perspectives. We hope these videos will help spark an expanded, informed, and energetic discussion.”
SPARC expects to sponsor the Discovery Awards annually, as a means of supporting public discussion of critical information issues. The 2007 contest theme is “MindMashup.” Mashup is an expression referring to a song, video, Web site or software application that combines content from more than one source.
The contest takes as its inspiration a quote from George Bernard Shaw: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

Boston trip – Part 1

OK, back home and rested – it’s time for a pictorial report, in two parts. This one is social, the other part will be about the conference itself. All of it under the fold…

Continue reading

Meet me at Harvard on Friday

Back at Scifoo I met Anna Kushnir. And then we met again. And then, inspired by the conversations at Scifoo, Anna decided to organize a day-long, student-hosted conference about the future of scientific publishing – Publishing in the New Millennium: A Forum on Publishing in the Biosciences. And she decided to invite me to appear on one of the panels.
So, later this week, I will be in Boston, more precisely Cambridge MA, discussing Open Access and Science 2.0. I am arriving on Thursday in the early afternoon and leaving on Saturday in the early afternoon, so there is plenty of opportunity to meet me, even if you cannot make it to Harvard on Friday afternoon (and I hope you can – it promises to be quite exciting!). Just let Anna know about. Apart from Anna, I also hope to meet some other old friends, like Corie Lok, Alex Palazzo, Evie Brown, Moshe Pritsker, Kaitlin Thaney and YOU! So, check out the conference schedule and try to be there if you can.

I Wish I Could Be There

The fifth Science Festival is going on right now in Genoa, Italy. It is a longish affair, from 25th October till 6th November, so if you just happen to be in the area you can still make it. They have hundredr of events, e.g., exhibitions, workshops, performances and shows, all related to science in some way and targeted at a broad audience, from children to senior scientists.
I wish I could attend the session on Rhythms of Life as well as the one on Where is Science Dissemination Going?:

Nowadays, almost 2/3 of press agency releases on scientific topics are based on news given by press offices. The development of public relations activities and the search for media visibility by research institutions are only two of the most important factors that have led to a change in the panorama of scientific public communication, thus influencing its field of research as well.
In the US, the number of people working in public relations is now far greater than the number of journalists; the Internet has now revolutionised both the chronological sequence and the solidity of those “filters” that formerly marked the milestones in the dissemination of results from the researcher to the wider public.
We need to look at these profound changes and at their mutual interactions in order to understand the role played by communication in modern science.

Perhaps there will be some kind of recording of the session, or I may be able to get a summary from someone. I’d like to know how many science bloggers are there in Italy. I know one of my posts was translated into Italian and posted on one of their blogs. So was one of Mo’s posts. How organized are they? Do they meet up in Real Life sometimes? Anyone liveblogging the Science Festival?

Announcing the new PLoS Journal: Neglected Tropical Diseases!

NTDs%20image.jpgThese last couple of days were very exciting here at PLoS. After months of preparation and hard work, PLoS presents the latest addition to its collection of top-notch scientific journals. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases went live yesterday at 6:42pm EDT. This journal will be

…the first open-access journal devoted to the world’s most neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), such as elephantiasis, river blindness, leprosy, hookworm, schistosomiasis, and African sleeping sickness. The journal publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research on all scientific, medical, and public-health aspects of these forgotten diseases affecting the world’s forgotten people.

As Daniel Sarna notes, the Journal is truly international in nature – about half of the authors in the first issue are researchers living and working on the ground in developing countries, and the first papers have been authored by scientists from such countries as:

Mexico, Ghana, Cameroon, Thailand, Spain, the Netherlands, Bolivia, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Mali, the United States, the Philippines, Tanzania, Egypt, Burkina Faso, the Dominican Republic, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Kenya, and China.

The potential for Open Access to make science more global and to help scientists all over the world communicate with each other on equal footing is something that is, both to me personally and to PLoS as an organization, one of the key motivators for doing our work every day. This sentiment is echoed by the inspiring Guest Commentary by WHO Director-General Margaret Chan:

Equity is a fundamental principle of health development. Access to life-saving and health-promoting interventions should not be denied for unjust reasons, including an inability to pay. The free availability of leading research articles will benefit decision-makers and diseases control managers worldwide. It will also motivate scientists, both in developing and developed countries.

PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases will be very broad in scope, both in terms of diseases and their causes, and in terms of disciplinary approaches:

Although these diseases have been overshadowed by better-known conditions, especially the “big three”–HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis–evidence collected in the past few years has revealed some astonishing facts about the NTDs. They are among the most common infections of the poor–an estimated 1.1 billion of the world’s 2.7 billion people living on less than US$2 per day are infected with one or more NTDs. When we combine the global disease burden of the most prevalent NTDs, the disability they cause rivals that of any of the big three. Moreover, the NTDs exert an equally important adverse impact on child development and education, worker productivity, and ultimately economic development. Chronic hookworm infection in childhood dramatically reduces future wage-earning capacity, and lymphatic filariasis erodes a significant component of India’s gross national product. The NTDs may also exacerbate and promote susceptibility to HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Bacterial, viral and fungal diseases will be highlighted, of course, but many of the most devastating and yet least understood tropical diseases are parasitic, caused by Protists or Invertebrate animals. Those organisms often have amazingly complex (and to a person with scientific curiousity absolutely fascinating) life cycles. They may have to go through several life-stages in several different hosts/vectors. The hosts and vectors themselves may have quite unusual natural histories as well. Regular readers of my blog know that I am fascinated by the way such diseases have to be addressed in a fully interdisciplinary manner: epidemiology, ecology, animal behavior, systematics, neuroscience, human and animal physiology, genetic/genomics, pharmacology and clinical trials. Only putting together all the pieces will let us understand some of these complex diseases and how to conquer them. And this new Journal will allow scientists from all these disciplines from around the world to place all of that research in one place for everyone – and I mean EVERYONE – to see for free.
Furthermore, the new journal is run on the TOPAZ software which allows the readers to use all the nifty tools of post-publication peer-review and discussion. All the articles in PLoS NTDs will allow you to post comments and annotations. You can give ratings. If you write a blog post about an article, you can send trackbacks (just like you can do on PLoS ONE and PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials).
Congratulations to all the members of the PLoS team who put in many months of hard work in putting this exciting new journal in place. So, go and take a look at the inaugural issue, subscribe to e-mail alerts and/or RSS feed and blog about the articles you find interesting in the future.

How to build a better peer-review system

Mark Patterson writes in Bringing Peer Review Out of the Shadows:

———————–
Hauser and Fehr propose a system for holding late reviewers to account by penalizing them when it’s their turn to be an author. A slow reviewer’s paper would be “held in editorial limbo” for a length of time that reflects their own tardiness as a reviewer. The short article was intended to provoke a discussion about how to improve peer review – an opening card as Hauser and Fehr put it.
So far, 16 responses have been added from readers, and the general view seems to be that incentives would be more effective than the punishment that Hauser and Fehr propose. As for an incentive, quite a number of respondents favour a system whereby reviewers are paid for their efforts – although not to a level that would fully reimburse the time spent.
——————–snip——————-
As an editor, I’ve been privileged to be party to some incredibly thoughtful and constructive discussions between authors and reviewers. It’s not always that way of course, but when it works, it’s fantastic. I’ve often felt that it’s a pity that these exchanges haven’t been shared more broadly, and as pointed out by others in the discussion, there are many who feel that greater transparency in peer review is the way to go – pre- and post-publication.
———————-snip——————
The formula for more transparent peer review might not be perfect yet, but there is great potential and further experimentation is a must. Ultimately, improving the peer review process will take the same kind of thoughtful and constructive discussions that help researchers identify the extra step that will maximize the significance of their results. We invite you to join in that discussion.

Please go there and add your thoughts!

Open Access Taking Over The World!

Liz Allen posted this on the Wall of the PLoS Facebook group yesterday:

Here’s a fun Friday activity for all of you who like to track the stats of the inevitable rise and world domination of OA!
Heather from SPARC turned me onto this. it’s almost as much fun as watching the number of members to this group grow, we are now at 700!.
Did you know that there are currently 2893 OA journals in the directory of open access journals (http://www.DOAJ.org) and that 63 new ones came on board in the last 30 days, that’s about 2 per day. Wow.
Another cool mash up site (great logo, takes a minute or so to load) is http://maps.repository66.org/ there you can see the number of OA repositories mapped across the globe, there were 808 as of earlier today.
Gotta love that.

Wow! Just a few days ago I checked DOAJ and there were half that many OA journals listed! Very happy!

Senate votes for the Public Access to NIH-Funded Research

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted to pass the FY2008 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill (S.1710), including a provision that directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to strengthen its Public Access Policy by requiring rather than requesting participation by researchers.
The vote was a veto-proof 75-19. However, the House version of the bill passed with a smaller majority, so the Presidential veto is still possible (perhaps likely). Still, this a big step in the right direction, and important battle won. Moreover, the real battle over this bill resides in some other parts of it, i.e., the language on the NIH-mandated freeing of research remained intact throughout the process, making it more likely to survive into the future. Read the full press release.
The two drastic amendments by Sen. Inhofe were withdrawn at the last moment. Anyone who has read ‘Republican War On Science’ knows that Senator Inhofe is the leading Global Warming denialist in the Senate and thus, as Andrew Leonard notes, he has two reasons to oppose this bill. How? First, he wants to keep the science away from the public’s eye. This made him a perfect target for lobbying by the dinosaur publishers who have the same goal. Their large contributions to Inhofe are now giving him a second incentive to fight against Open Access.
While the complexity of Washington politics will make the final victory long in waiting (reconciling the House and Senate bills, Bush veto, trying to override it, potential court cases, etc.), the resounding victory in the Senate is a writing on the wall. Open Access is the future. And, as Stevan Harnad notes, and Peter Suber agrees, this is a perfect opportunity for institutions, particularly Universities, to start making all of their research available starting immediatelly. Every University, as part of its publicity pitch, mentions something about being modern and forward-looking. This is the time to show they really mean it.

Next: Harvard

This is where I will be next:

“Publishing in the New Millennium: A Forum on Publishing in the Biosciences”
Friday, November 9, 1:00 – 6:00 pm
TMEC Walter Amphitheater, Harvard Medical School
260 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115
www.harvardpublishingforum.com
This is a student-organized conference that will convene experts from across the world to discuss the state of publishing in the biological sciences.

If you are coming, let us know through Facebook. Or e-mail me and let’s get together on that day, or the previous afternoon, or the following morning.

ACS vs. OA

No time to dig into this deeper myself, so check out what others are saying about the shennanigans at the American Chemical Society:
Alex Palazzo has two posts.
Revere also has two posts.
And then there is PZ Myers and his commenters.
Follow their links for more….

Links and files from ConvergeSouth and ASIS&T

My brain is fried. My flight home was horrifying – the pilot warned us before we even left the gate that the weather is nasty and that he ordered the stewardess to remain seated at least the first 30 minutes of the flight. Did the warning make the experience more or less frightening? I think it made it more so. Yes, the wind played with our airplane as if it was a toy, but knowing that the pilot thought it was nasty made it less comforting that he is confident himself in his abilities to keep us afloat. The scariest was the landing – we were kicked around throughout the descent until the moment of touch-down. The pilot had to fight it by going on with more power than he would normally use, so the touch-down was followed by very sharp breaking. Yuck. I was hoping to take a nap on the flight – yeah, right!
Anyway, while I am recovering (and trying to catch up with work), here are some files and links from the two conferences I presented at over the last week:
Let me just put everything in one place:
ConvergeSouth
The audio is here (missing the interesting Q&A unfortunately (you may have to crank up the volume on your computer to the max to hear it).
I used these links as a basis for the talk, though focusing primarily on PLoS, SciVee.com and Open Access.
CIT blog summary: Scientific publications, now with interactivity
And here is my summary.
ASIS&T:
You can watch a streaming Flash of the session (sans the last part of the Q&A) here.
My PPT can be downloaded here. Note in the recording how quickly I went through the slideshow about blogs and left the PLoS ONE slide up forever talking about the way OA publications will get integrated into other ways of doing, teaching and communicating science (including blogs) online – I certainly earned my pay for PLoS on Tuesday 😉
The Rashomon of blog summaries:
me
me
Janet
Jean-Claude
Christina Pikas
Ken Varnum
Stephanie Willen Brown

ASIS&T update

A quick update on the Milwaukee events….
The first time I went to Mocha’s (much better wifi than the hotel and it is free) I saw a familiar face walk in – from Scifoo! World is small. She promised to come to the Science Blogging Conference (I am leaving the name out so not to play Gotcha later if she manages not to come in January). Jean-Claude, Janet, Christina Pikas and I went to dinner at Water Street Brewery last night – all four of us will meet again in January at the Science Blogging Conference. Janet, Jean-Claude and I had lunch at 105-year old German Mader’s Restaurant. Back at Mocha’s waiting for some time to pass until I go to the airport to go back home….
There is a lot of people from UNC here, including Jeffrey Pomerantz, Tessa Sullivan and Fred Stutzman. Nice to see some familiar faces here. As Janet noted, this is not our tribe. They all know each other and there is a lot of social stuff going on that we are looking at from outside in.
Christina is liveblogging all the sessions she attended, including our session this morning so you can get some more details from someone who was not on the panel itself.
We went to an interesting session this morning, where Phillip Edwards presented his research proposal (pdf) on the decision-making process as to where to publish one’s work (especially the choice between Closed and Open Access journals). Christina liveblogged this as well.
I finally got to meet danah boyd whose blog I’ve been reading for many years now. It is actually one of the first blogs I ever discovered. She was on two panels yesterday afternoon and I went to both of them. Jeffrey blogged about one of them on research methodologies in the study of online social networks. How similar, yet how different from the way the same topic was covered by non-academics at ConvergeSouth the other day.
The best session was the one before it, about online behavior, i.e., types and personas (eg.., trolls, flame warriors, questioners, answerers, connectors, diplomats, etc…). That was actually quite useful for my job as it looks at motivations people have when they post comments and get engaged in online communities.

Opening Science to All at ASIS&T

Back at delightful Mocha’s cafe on the corner…
We just finished our session at the ASIS&T conference: Opening Science to All: Implications of Blogs and Wikis for Social and Scholarly Scientific Communication, organized by K.T. Vaughan, moderated by Phillip Edwards. Janet Stemwedel, Jean-Claude Bradley and I were the panelists. There were about 50-60 people in the audience who asked some excellent questions afterwards.
I started off with defining science blogs and various uses they can be put to, in particular how they interact with other ways of scientific communication such as Open Access publications. Jean-Claude then focused on Open Notebook science and his experience in using blogs, wikis and other online tools in his own research and building research collaborations. Janet finished the session with a look at the way science blogging is changing the structure and culture of the world of science (or not – she is sitting next to me typing her own version of this so see what she say about it).
The entire session was recorded in a couple of different media and I will tell you once it appears online somewhere. I am aware of only two pictures taken, though, right after the session – Janet is showing us another one of the many sides of her multi-faceted nature as she responds to a question by an NIH guy…
ASIS%26T%20001.jpg
ASIS%26T%20002.jpg
The links from my presentation are under the fold:

Continue reading

New in….Open Access

Heather Morrison:
Opposition to open access continues, while anti-OA coalition attempt implodes
Would a bold politician speak up for an unprecedented public good?
Full OA is a reasonable position, plus, compromise takes two!
Peter Murray-Rast:
Reconciling points of View
Deepak Singh:
Steve Brenner’s Genome Commons
Glyn Moody:
Should We Tolerate Tolerated Use?
Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
ALA Says Contact Senate Before Noon Tomorrow to Support NIH Open Access Mandate
Richard Poynder:
The Basement Interviews: Peter Suber
Jonathan Eisen:
Whose genome should Roche/454 sequence to make up for selecting Watson’s?
Mike at Bioinformatics Zen:
Three stories about science and the web
Charlotte Webber:
Open access and the developing world – read the latest
Stevan Harnad:
Video to Promote Open Access Mandates and Metrics

URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Tell your Senator to OPPOSE amendments that strike or change the NIH public access provision in the FY08 Labor/HHS appropriations bill

E-mail I got yesterday – please spread this around ASAP:
——————————–
The Senate is currently considering the FY08 Labor-HHS Bill, which includes a provision (already approved by the House of Representatives and the full Senate Appropriations Committee), that directs the NIH to change its Public Access Policy so that participation is required (rather than requested) for researchers, and ensures free, timely public access to articles resulting from NIH-funded research. On Friday, Senator Inhofe (R-OK), filed two amendments (#3416 and #3417), which call for the language to either be stricken from the bill, or modified in a way that would gravely limit the policy’s effectiveness.
Amendment #3416 would eliminate the provision altogether. Amendment #3417 is likely to be presented to your Senator as a compromise that “balances” the needs of the public and of publishers. In reality, the current language in the NIH public access provision accomplishes that goal. Passage of either amendment would seriously undermine access to this important public resource, and damage the community’s ability to advance scientific research and discovery.
Please contact your Senators TODAY and urge them to vote “NO” on amendments #3416 and #3417. (Contact must be made before close of business on Monday, October 22). A sample email is provided for your use below. Feel free to personalize it, explaining why public access is important to you and your institution. Contact information and a tool to email your Senator are online at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/nih/2007senatecalltoaction.html. No time to write? Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Senate office.
If you have written in support before, or when you do so today, please inform the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. Contact Jennifer McLennan through jennifer@arl.org or by fax at (202) 872-0884.
Thanks for your continued efforts to support public access at the National Institutes of Health.
——————————–
SAMPLE EMAIL
Dear Senator:
On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to OPPOSE proposed Amendments #3416 and #3417 to the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill (S.1710). These amendments would seriously impede public access to taxpayer-funded biomedical research, stifling critical advancements in lifesaving research and scientific discovery. The current bill language was carefully crafted to balance the needs of ALL stakeholders, and to ensure that the American public is able to fully realize our collective investment in science.
To ensure public access to medical research findings, language was included in the in the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill directing the NIH to make a much-needed improvement to its Public Access Policy — requiring that NIH-funded researchers deposit their manuscripts in the National Library of Medicine’s online database to be made publicly available within one year of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This change is supported by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, and a broad coalition of educational institutions, scientific researchers, healthcare practitioners, publishers, patient groups, libraries, and student groups — representing millions of taxpayers seeking to advance medical research.
Amendment #3416 would eliminate this important provision, leaving only a severely weakened, voluntary NIH policy in place. Under the voluntary policy (in place for more than two years) less than 5% of individual researchers have participated — rendering the policy ineffective. The language in Amendment #3417 would place even further restrictions on the policy, ensuring that taxpayers – including doctors and scientists – are unable to take full advantage of this important public resource.
Supporting the current language in the FY08 LHHS Appropriations Bill is the best way to ensure that taxpayers’ investment in NIH-funded research is used as effectively as possible. Taxpayer-funded NIH research belongs to the American public. They have paid for it, and it is for their benefit.
I urge you to join the millions of scientists, researchers, libraries, universities, and patient and consumer advocacy groups in supporting the current language in the FY08 LHHS Appropriations bill and require NIH grantees to deposit in PubMed Central final peer-reviewed manuscripts no later than 12 months following publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Vote NO on Amendments #3416 and #3417.

ConvergeSouth 2007

I am at ConvergeSouth right now. I did my session on Science 2.0 yesterday – it went smoothly. The meeting is fun as always. I am taking pictures and talking to all sorts of interesting people. I will have a more detailed report when I come back home late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Parts, Wholes, and Context in Reading – add your thoughts!

As last week’s Journal Club on PLoS ONE has been a success (and no, that does not mean it’s over – feel free to add your commentary there), we are introducing a new one this week!
Members of the Potsdam Eye-Movement Group have now posted their comments and annotations on the article Parts, Wholes, and Context in Reading: A Triple Dissociation.
You know your duty: go there, read the paper, read what the group has already posted in their commentary, register, and add your own comments and questions. Rate the article. If you blog about it, send your readers to do the same. If your blogging platform allows it, send trackbacks.
The Postdam group has already done one Journal Club earlier – feel free to add more commentary on their first one as well.
If you are a member of a research group, or a graduate seminar, or an honors section of a college class, or you teach an AP Biology high-school class, and would like to do a Journal Club on one of the PLoS ONE papers, please sign up.
And if you want to know why you should do it, read this first.

Open Access for the Classroom

When I went to the Lawrence Hall of Science with Janet, I wore a PLoS T-shirt, of course. The volunteer at the museum, a high school student (you can see her here attaching a harness on Janet), saw my shirt and said “PLoS! Awesome!”
I asked her how she knew about it and why she seemed to like it so much and she told me that they use it in school all the time because it is full of cool information, it is free to read and free to use in presentations and such. Obviously, for her and similar students, the material in scientific papers does not go over their heads, no matter how dry the Scientese language used to write them. And a high school is certainly not going to be able to afford subscriptions to a variety of science journals and magazines. So Open Access is the ideal solution to bring the science to the next generation.
As Paul Chinnock says:

No copyright problems stand in the way of a lecturer basing a lecture or a workshop around a discussion of a published paper.

So, if you are a high-school biology teacher (or student), don’t be afraid to use Open Access papers in the classroom, in journal clubs, to send feedback to authors and editors and, in cases of more interactive journals like PLoS ONE, to post commentary on the articles themselves. There are no stupid questions…
And of course, the same goes for college classes as well.

Five-times-five – celebrate the 5th birthday of Creative Commons

Alma Swan and Lawrence Lessig remind us that Creative Commons is celebrating its 5th birthday this December.
Alma writes:

Creative Commons (CC) is celebrating its 5th birthday. Lawrence Lessig has written to all supporters describing its ‘dramatic’ growth during the last quinquennium and yet acknowledging that as CC works to strengthen the underpinnings of participatory culture ‘others are working equally hard to make sure culture remains proprietary’. Although this way of putting it is rather starkly black and white, and there remains a need for proper protection of creative rights in a number of circumstances, there is no doubt that CC has tapped into the new world view of many people, including creators of works of all kinds, that there is great worth (and satisfaction) in opening up and sharing what they produce, at a personal level as well as for humanity as a whole.
Lawrence asks that people help CC celebrate the past 5 years, and plant the seeds for the next five, by helping to grow the commons in 5 ways:
– use 5 CC-licensed works
– license 5 new works
– spread the word and send CC your story of why you support it
– introduce 5 new people to Creative Commons
– increase your previous gift to CC by 50% to help sustain its operations for 2008
The Calendar-for-Open-Access that I have just produced carries a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA licence (attribution-noncommercial-sharealike). I want as many people as possible to print it out and enjoy it next year. You can find it by following the link on our website.
There has been some demand for professionally printed copies, so I am about to place an order with the printer but I need to know the final numbers. If you would like one, I will mail it to you in a card envelope by airmail. Please let me know by email (aswan AT keyperspectives.co.uk) and I will tell you the final price. The cost will be about US$15, €11 or £7, and it could be less if the print run is big enough. These prices are selling at cost – I’ve built no profit into them – but I’ve rounded up to the nearest dollar/euro/pound for simplicity. The extra cents and pennies will be sent to Creative Commons along with my donation for 2008.

So, five times five! Let’s do it!
Support CC - 2007

How much does pharmaceutical industry control what appears in medical literature?

Ghosts, drugs, and blogs:

By its hidden nature, it is obviously a challenge to determine the exact prevalence of “ghost management,” defined by Sismondo as the phenomenon in which “pharmaceutical companies and their agents control or shape multiple steps in the research, analysis, writing, and publication of articles.”

Of course they fight against Open Access Publishing – too much sunshine scares them and would make them scurry away in panic…

Journal Clubs – think of the future!

The recent return of Journal Clubs on PLoS ONE has been quite a success so far. People are watching from outside and they like what they see.
The first Journal Club article, on microbial metagenomics, has already, in just one week, gathered 3 ratings, each accompanied with a short comment, one trackback (this will be the second) and 7 annotations and 4 discussions eliciting further 14 responses in the comment threads. The 12-comment-and-growing thread on the usefulness of the term ‘Prokaryote’ is quite exciting, showing that it is not so hard to comment on PLoS ONE after all, once you get over the initial reluctance. You should join in the conversation there right now!
If you encounter a technical problem, please contact the Webmaster so the glitch can be fixed promptly. For a brand-new software built in-house, TOPAZ is performing remarkably well, but glitches do sometimes happen. It is essential to report those to the Webmaster so the IT/Web team can fix them quickly and make the site better and better for all users as time goes on. Just like anything else in development, it needs feedback in order to improve over time. For the time being, I guess, compose in Notepad, WordPad or something similar before copying and pasting there. And thank you for your participation.
One thing to keep in mind is that a PLoS ONE article is not a blog post – the discussion is not over once the post goes off the front page. There is no such thing as going off the front page! The article is always there and the discussion can go on and on for years, reflecting the changes in understanding of the topic over longer periods of time.
Imagine if half a century ago there was Internet and there were Open Access journals with commenting capability like PLoS ONE. Now imagine if Watson and Crick published their paper on the DNA structure in such a journal. Now imagine logging in today and reading five decades of comments, ratings and annotations accumulated on the paper!!!! What a treasure-trove of information! You hire a new graduate student in molecular biology – or in history of science! – and the first assignment is to read all the commentary to that paper. There it is: all laid out – the complete history of molecular biology all in one spot, all the big names voicing their opinions, changing opinions over time, new papers getting published trackbacking back to the Watson-Crick paper and adding new information, debates flaring up and getting resolved, gossip now lost forever to history due to it being spoken at meetings, behind closed door or in hallways preserved forever for future students, historians and sociologists of science. What a fantastic resource to have!
Now imagine that every paper in history was like that (the first Darwin and Wallace letters to the Royal Society?!). Now realize that this is what you are doing by annotating PLoS ONE papers. It is not the matter so much of here-and-now as it is a contribution to a long-term assessment of the article, providing information to the future readers that you so wished someone left for you when you were reading other people’s papers in grad school and beyond. Which paper is good and which erroneous (and thus not to be, embarrassingly, cited approvingly) will not be a secret lab lore any more transmitted from advisor to student in the privacy of the office or lab, but out there for everyone to know. Every time you check out a paper that is new to you, you also get all the information on what others think about it. Isn’t that helpful, especially for students?
So, go forth and comment on papers in areas you are interested in. And if you are a member of a lab group, a graduate seminar, an honors class, or an AP Biology class, let me know if you would be interested in doing a Journal Club on one of the PLoS ONE papers in the future – a great exercise for you, nice exposure to your group, and a service to the scientific community of today and tomorrow.

Web

Some good, thought-provoking reads about the Web, social networking, publishing and blogging:
Aggregating scientific activity
Social Networks at Work Promise Bottom-Line Results
Would limiting career publication number revamp scientific publishing?
The Public Library of Science group
The Seven Principles of Community Building

Science 2.0 at SILS

Jeffrey Pomerantz invited me to give a brownbag lunch presentation on Science 2.0 yesterday at noon at the School of Information and Library Science at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It was fun for me and I hope it was fun for the others in the room, about 20 or so of faculty and students in the School.
This was my first attempt at putting together such a presentation, something I will be called on to do several times over the next couple of months and more. I was happy I made it within one hour, excellent questions included, though I probably talked too long about blogs and too little on science video (and barely mentioned Second Life). I’ll be working on it in the future. Here are the links I used during the presentation (they will probably give you a pretty good idea what I was talking about):
My old posts about science blogging and Science 2.0:
Science Blogging – what it can be?
PLoS 500
Science 2.0
Nature Precedings
Where and how to find science blogs:
some science blogs and carnivals
An example of a carnival homepage
Last year’s Conference blog/media coverage
Blog collectives;
Scienceblogs.com
Nature Blog Network
Example of a successful/popular science blog:
Pharyngula
Examples of classroom science blogs:
Developmental Biology at UMM
BIO101 at NCWC
An example of Open Notebook Science:
Useful Chemistry Blog
Useful Chemistry Wiki
A Masters Thesis on a wiki
‘Nature’ experiments in Science 2.0:
Postgenomic
Connotea
Scintilla
Pre-peer-review pre-publishing:
Nature Precedings
Science on Facebook:
a post with a good collection of examples
PLoS group
Science on Second Life:
Drexel Island
Scifoo Lives On
Second Life Molecules
Science Social Networks:
Knowble
JeffsBench
Erudix
MyExperiment
Science video sites:
SciVee
JoVE
SciTalks
LabAction
Bioscreencast
DNATube
ScienceHack
FreeScienceLectures
Open Access Publishing:
Directory of Open Access Journals
Definition of Open Access
Open Access Resources
Public Library of Science

Could TRIPS save lives in Third World Countries by opening research articles?

That is one very interesting idea! This provision is usually used for getting medicines to 3rd world countries in times of emergency. So, why not research papers if the emergency warrants it? Gavin writes:

Imagine a scenario in which a developing country is facing a national health emergency, and there’s a research article that contains information that is highly relevant to addressing that emergency. Let’s say the emergency is an alarmingly high rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and a new study shows a major breakthrough in preventing such transmission. And let’s say that unfortunately the article copyright is owned by the publisher (not the author), and the article is locked away behind a typical subscription barrier (usually around $30 per person to view it).
Could the government, asked Shahram, invoke TRIPs [The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] to simply bypass the copyright holder and disseminate the article across the nation?

Tell Gavin what you think.

New in Science Publishing, etc.

From Pierre, we hear about a new system for calculating individuals’ research impact – Publish Or Perish, based on Google Scholar.
Deepak, Pedro, Mark and Deepak again take a first look at Clinical Trials Hub and like what they see.
Jeff published a paper, but his Mom was more worried (in the comments) about the way he looks, with Congrats relegated to the afterthought.
SXSW Podcast on Open Knowledge vs. Controlled Knowledge has now been posted online. Worth a listen.
There is an article in Wired on science video sites, including JoVE, LabAction and SciVee and Attila provides deeper commentary.
Is “prokaryotic” an outdated term? Join the discussion (on this paper).
I love this quote: One Plos One Equals Three… in the sense that Open Access publishing is synergetically better.
Yes, I’ll be there.
A new Open Access physics journal.

World Health Organization breaks embargo and messes up.

Before two papers passed the peer-review and got published, WHO (which was given the data) made its own interpretation of the findings and included it in its press kit, including the errors they made in that interpretation. A complex story – what’s your take on it?

Participate in Journal Clubs on PLoS ONE!

Journal Clubs are a popular feature on PLoS ONE papers. There were several of them in the spring. Now, after a brief summer break, the Journal Clubs are going live again and they will happen on a regular basis, perhaps as frequently as one per week.
What does it mean – a Journal Club? In short, a lab group volunteers to discuss one of the more recent (or even upcoming, not yet published) PLoS ONE papers and to post their discussion as a series of comments, annotations and ratings on the paper itself, triggering a discussion within a broader scientific community.
The first group that will start our Fall series is the Bacterial Metagenomics group led by Dr.Jonathan Eisen at UC-Davis. They chose to discuss last week’s ONE article Metagenomics of the Deep Mediterranean, a Warm Bathypelagic Habitat. It is a good and interesting paper and they have posted their discussion on it already.
If the name Jonathan Eisen rings a bell, it is probably because you are reading his blog. Perhaps you will recognize that one of his students participating in the Journal Club is also familiar to you through her blog as well.
So, what would l really like you to do is to go and read the paper and what the Eisen group wrote about it, then join in the conversation – add your own commentary, including annotations and ratings to the article. If you decide to blog about it at your own site, try to trigger a trackback.
And if you and your group would like to do a Journal Club in the future, let us know – e-mail me at: Bora@plos.org
[cross-posted]

Science 2.0 at SILS

Yes, I’ll be there this Friday. Come by and say Hello if you are in the building or close at lunchtime.

Help make NIH-funded research findings freely available to everyone!

Back in July, the House of Representatives passed a bill that requires all the NIH-funded research to be made freely available to the public within at most 12 months subsequent to publication.
The equivalent bill has passed the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this summer and will be up for vote in the Senate very soon! In advance of this important vote, The Alliance for Taxpayer Access has issued a Call for action:

As the Senate considers Appropriations measures for the 2008 fiscal year this fall, please take a moment to remind your Senators of your strong support for public access to publicly funded research and – specifically – ensuring the success of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy by making deposit mandatory for researchers.
Earlier this summer, the House of Representatives passed legislation with language that directs the NIH to make this change (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/media/release07-0720.html). The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar measure (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/media/release07-0628.html). Now, as the Appropriations process moves forward, it is critically important that our Senators are reminded of the breadth and depth of support for enhanced public access to the results of NIH-funded research. Please take a moment to weigh in with your Senator now.

Read the rest for talking points and the contact information of your Senators, then do your part and contact them! And spread the word – by e-mail, posting on your blog or website, on forums and mailing lists. Let’s get this bill passed this month and thus ensure that taxpayer-funded research is freely available to its funders – the taxpayers.
This needs to be done no later than Friday, September 28, 2007, when the bill is slated to appear in the Senate.

Eric Dezenhall PR memo to publishers leaked

Jim Giles, New Scientist contributor, got the memo and wrote a blog post and an article about it. You can read the actual memo here (pdf) to see what Dezenhall advised the dinosaur publishers to do to stave off the inevitable move to Open Access. So now you can see where PRISM comes from.

Open Education: HippoCampus.org

In the news today, I received a link to this press release:
Open education resource site HippoCampus launches:

The Monterey Institute for Technology and Education has launched an interactive homework help Web site funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The Monterey-based institution said late Thursday that open education resource site HippoCampus provides comprehensive high school, advanced placement, and college general education course content.

You can now go to the HippoCampus site and test it out and start using it.

Word of the Day

Copyfraud

Open Access news

Two excellent articles about Open Access and the future of scientific publishing appeared today: The irony of a web without science by James Boyle in Financial Times, and Next-Generation Implications of Open Access by Paul Ginsparg in CTWatch. Obligatory Readings of the Day.

Open Views

Sundar Raman at the Internet radio station KRUU.100.1FM has uploaded a series of interviews (from 3rd October 2006 till 21st August 2007), all on the topic of openness and transparency – from Open Source, through Open Book and Open Access, to Open Society. This series of interviews is entitled ‘Open Views’ and a total of 37 can be downloaded here. Well worth your time!

SciVee update

As you may have heard, the public rollout of SciVee was inadvertent and premature – seen by everyone at the time there were only one or two movies up and not all the capabilities in place yet. It is nice to hear that more functionalities are about to go up later today:

In response to all your great feedback and requests, we are rolling out several new features starting this afternoon. We apologize because our site will be temporarily down for about a day. We appreciate your patience and hope you enjoy the new features on your next visit. The new features that you can expect to see include: virtual communities for social networking, the ability to upload science videos unrelated to peer-reviewed papers as well as videos related to closed access papers, the ability to embed videos, and improved video management.

This PRISM does not turn white light into the beautiful colors of the rainbow

When technological or social changes start altering the business landscape in a particular industry, people involved in that business tend to respond in three general ways.
The visionaries immediately see where their world is going, jump to the front edge of it and make sure that the change is as swift and painless as possible, resulting in as good new business environment as possible. They immediately sell their horses and invest in the development of the internal combustion engine, gear-boxes, brakes and start building car factories.
The followers are much more timid, but they are astute enough to know that they can choose to either adapt of die. So they watch for a while and, once they are ready, they sell their livery horses, turn their stables into garages and start driving schools, taxi-cab services, limo rentals, rent-a-car chains, road-paving companies, etc.
The fools feel threatened and, in a knee-jerk response, start buying more livery horses, expanding their stables and, to show off their foolishness, they get on their high horses and start yelling how cars are the tools of the Devil and, like, totally un-American.
The Web is changing the business world of the science publishing industry. You can guess where this post is going now, can’t you….
There are now 2811 journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals, the seven PLoS journals just being the most well-known of them, with many smaller journals being published by BioMedCentral and Hindawi. Those are the visionaries, the organizations that are making sure that the new business world of Open Access, now quite inevitable, is reached in a way that is the best for everyone: researchers, readers/taxpayers, universities, publishers, libraries, students, medical practitioners, the governments of the world, etc. The old business model is quickly giving way to the new model and the early adopters are experimenting with it and showing that it can be done without too much pain and with universal benefit.
There are others, watching and getting ready to jump as soon as they feel comfortable doing so. I can bet money that Nature will go Open Access as soon as the forward-looking editors manage to persuade their backward-looking corporate overlords that the data and statistics show that this is the sound business way to go. Science is making some small noises as well, but they have to deal with the Victorian mindset of their AAAS bosses. They’ll get there, but it may take them a few years. And once Nature and Science go Open Access, everyone else will have to follow suit.
Except the screamers. Those who are buying livery horses right now. One such livery horse is Eric Dezenhall, the PR guy from the Frank Luntz school of obfuscation, recently hired by outfits like Reed Elsevier and American Chemical Society to get on a high horse and scream how Open Access is the tool of the Devil and, like, so un-American. Oh, btw, he suggested to the Association of American Publishers to join forces with American Enterprise Institute and National Consumers League, those paragons of honesty, freedom, democracy and openness, to launch a campaign of lies and defamations against the Open Access movement. Just sayin’….
These folks have now come up with another Luntz-grade moniker: PRISM, which stands for, believe it or not, “Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine”!
Their main points, from the front page of the website (and if you dig around the site, there is some even more incredible stuff there):

What’s at risk
Policies are being proposed that threaten to introduce undue government intervention in science and scholarly publishing, putting at risk the integrity of scientific research by:
* undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it;
* opening the door to scientific censorship in the form of selective additions to or omissions from the scientific record;
* subjecting the scientific record to the uncertainty that comes with changing federal budget priorities and bureaucratic meddling with definitive versions; and
* introducing duplication and inefficiencies that will divert resources that would otherwise be dedicated to research.

Oh, up is down. Black is White. War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength. Stalin is the coryphaeus of science. Socialized medicine is inefficient. Bush would be pleasant to have beer with. We are winning in Iraq (but first we have to find the WMDs which are like so there). Clean Air Act actually cleans air. Evolution is ‘just a theory’. Global warming is a hoax. When you stop laughing (the kind of laugh one usually tries to suppress at a funeral), read some of the first responses on blogs:

Continue reading

SciVee has really made it.

Yup, a mention in The Inquirer! (see Wikipedia definition if unclear).

“Free Will” on display on SciVee

Do you remember all the buzz about the paper on the not random but not deterministic either behavior in fruitflies? By our blogfriend Bjoern Brembs?
Well, you can now watch the behavior of the insect in the movie associated with the paper. The video is up on SciVee of course – see it here.
And if there is a text box on top of it that bothers you, you can easily toggle it off – see the menu on the left, find Selection and click on the selection you are watching – textbox is gone. Click again, box is back. Also there on the left are Options, one of which includes “disable selection box”, so you should be OK.

To read or not to read…

I have discovered that I sometimes suffer from paralysis by analysis on the blog. I write the best stuff when I concoct a post in my head during a dog walk and then immediately pour it into the computer while it is still hot. Whenever I set out to do some real lit research on the topic I realize that other, smarter people have already written all that, and did a better job than I could ever dream of doing, so I abandon the post.
So, I am getting really nervous now, as I am thinking of writing a post about the history of the scientific paper and how the Web and the Open Access will change it in the future. Then, I see that several smart people wrote about the topic already. To read them all or not? I am curious and I want to know, but I am afraid I’ll never write my post if I read these papers now. Advice?

SciVee.com

Video is taking over science communication. And why not? Now that paper is outdated, the limitations of that ancient technology should not apply to scientific publishing any more. Just because paper cannot support movies does not mean that modern scientific papers should shy away from using them.
Last week saw the launch of SciVee, essentially an aggregator of science movies. Now, you may ask – why do we need yet another one of those sites? There are several out there already. Journal of Visualized Experiments is a real journal – the videos are submitted and reviewed first and, if accepted, the authors are supposed to pay a fee to have the video published. All the videos accepted are grouped into Issues, they get DOI numbers and there is a way to refer to them as citations in future papers (or videos!). Lab Action is similar in style, but more like YouTube, i.e., people freely upload the videos which are subsequently rated and commented on by users. SciTalks is also YouTube-ish, but instead of experiments, it has lectures by scientists and science writers/journalists. So does VideoLectures. On the other hand, ScienceHack is a serach engine for science-related videos. Nature Preceedings allows the upload of a few different types of files, and will likely include videos in the future, I guess.
So, how is SciVee.com different?
First, SciVee was built in partnership with The Public Library of Science (PLoS), The National Science Foundation (NSF) and The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), so it has broad institutional support right from the start.
Second, SciVee allows only the upload of movies associated with papers published in Open Access Journals. Richard Cave explains. The format of the video will vary. The first one up is essentially the author’s summary narrated into the camera. The others will demonstrate experimental technique, or display animal behavior relevant to the paper, etc. So, if you publish a paper in an Open Access journal, you can upload it to SciVee and the two spaces where the video appears will automatically link to each other. If you find a video by searching SciVee, you will be able to click on a link and read the paper. If you read the paper which contains a video, a single click will get you to SciVee where you can find related videos, videos by the same authors, etc. This cute flow-chart explains the potential of this system far better than I can put into words.
Deepak Singh, Kambiz Kamrani and Attila Csordasz have already posted their first impressions. You can also see the first reviews on Slashdot, If:Book, Mashable, InformationWeek, NewTeeVee, The Q Function and many other blogs. Check it out.

Knowble.net

Just had coffee with Emile Petrone, the developer of Knowble, a social networking site for scientists (and yes, this includes social scientists as well). The site is already open if you want to join and look around (find me and ping me), but watch this space for future information – there will be a big official rollout soon and I will provide more information at that time.

Preaching Open Access

Checking out hundreds of pictures from Scifoo that people have uploaded on Flickr and their blogs, I found a couple of more that have me in them:
In this one, I explain to Greg Bear that Open Access is not Science Fiction any more:
BOra%20and%20Greg%20Bear.jpg
[Photo: Simon Quellen Field]
In this one, I tell Sara Abdulla (of Nature) how nice it is to work for an Open Access publisher:
Bora%20and%20Sara%20Abdulla.jpg
[Photo: Jacqueline Floyd]
And in this one, I stand on a street corner in the middle of Googleplex, preaching Open Access to whoever will listen (perhaps I should grow a long beard, wear a toga and some sandals, and get Jack Chick to draw me some comic strips to hand out):
Me%20gesticulating.jpg
[Photo: Stephana Patton]

Open Access Explained

Lisa Junker of Associations Now interviewed Patrick Brown, one of the founders of the Public Library of Science:
Into the Great Wide Open
A very clear explanation of what Open Access is all about. Obligatory Reading of the Day.
(Via via)
Want it shorter? Here is a five-liner by Jonathan Eisen.