Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Open access journal’


Multiple Major Scientific Journals Will Fully Adopt Open Access Under Plan S

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

More university library systems have been pressuring major scientific publishing houses to adopt an open access strategy in order to reduce the library system’s budgetary burdens.  In fact some major universities like the California system of universities (University of California and other publicly funded universities in the state as well as Oxford University in the UK, even MIT have decided to become their own publishing houses in a concerted effort to fight back against soaring journal subscription costs as well as the costs burdening individual scientists and laboratories (some of the charges to publish one paper can run as high as $8000.00 USD while the journal still retains all the rights of distribution of the information).  Therefore more and more universities, as well as concerted efforts by the European Union and the US government are mandating that scientific literature be published in an open access format.

The results of this pressure are evident now as major journals like Nature, JBC, and others have plans to go fully open access in 2021.  Below is a listing and news reports of some of these journals plans to undertake a full Open Access Format.

 

Nature to join open-access Plan S, publisher says

09 APRIL 2020 UPDATE 14 APRIL 2020

Springer Nature says it commits to offering researchers a route to publishing open access in Nature and most Nature-branded journals from 2021.

Richard Van Noorden

After a change in the rules of the bold open-access (OA) initiative known as Plan S, publisher Springer Nature said on 8 April that many of its non-OA journals — including Nature — were now committed to joining the plan, pending discussion of further technical details.

This means that Nature and other Nature-branded journals that publish original research will now look to offer an immediate OA route after January 2021 to scientists who want it, or whose funders require it, a spokesperson says. (Nature is editorially independent of its publisher, Springer Nature.)

“We are delighted that Springer Nature is committed to transitioning its journals to full OA,” said Robert Kiley, head of open research at the London-based biomedical funder Wellcome, and the interim coordinator for Coalition S, a group of research funders that launched Plan S in 2018.

But Lisa Hinchliffe, a librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, says the changed rules show that publishers have successfully pushed back against Plan S, softening its guidelines and expectations — in particular in the case of hybrid journals, which publish some content openly and keep other papers behind paywalls. “The coalition continues to take actions that rehabilitate hybrid journals into compliance rather than taking the hard line of unacceptability originally promulgated,” she says.

 

 

 

 

What is Plan S?

The goal of Plan S is to make scientific and scholarly works free to read as soon as they are published. So far, 17 national funders, mostly in Europe, have joined the initiative, as have the World Health Organization and two of the world’s largest private biomedical funders — the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome. The European Commission will also implement an OA policy that is aligned with Plan S. Together, this covers around 7% of scientific articles worldwide, according to one estimate. A 2019 report published by the publishing-services firm Clarivate Analytics suggested that 35% of the research content published in Nature in 2017 acknowledged a Plan S funder (see ‘Plan S papers’).

PLAN S PAPERS

Journal Total papers in 2017 % acknowledging Plan S funder
Nature 290 35%
Science 235 31%
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 639 20%

Source: The Plan S footprint: Implications for the scholarly publishing landscape (Institute for Scientific Information, 2019)

 

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01066-5

Opening ASBMB publications freely to all

 

Lila M. Gierasch, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Biological Chemistry

Nicholas O. Davidson

Kerry-Anne Rye, Editors-in-Chief, Journal of Lipid Research and 

Alma L. Burlingame, Editor-in-Chief, Molecular and Cellular Proteomics

 

We are extremely excited to announce on behalf of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) that the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (MCP), and the Journal of Lipid Research (JLR) will be published as fully open-access journals beginning in January 2021. This is a landmark decision that will have huge impact for readers and authors. As many of you know, many researchers have called for journals to become open access to facilitate scientific progress, and many funding agencies across the globe are either already requiring or considering a requirement that all scientific publications based on research they support be published in open-access journals. The ASBMB journals have long supported open access, making the accepted author versions of manuscripts immediately and permanently available, allowing authors to opt in to the immediate open publication of the final version of their paper, and endorsing the goals of the larger open-access movement (1). However, we are no longer satisfied with these measures. To live up to our goals as a scientific society, we want to freely distribute the scientific advances published in JBC, MCP, and JLR as widely and quickly as possible to support the scientific community. How better can we facilitate the dissemination of new information than to make our scientific content freely open to all?

For ASBMB journals and others who have contemplated or made the transition to publishing all content open access, achieving this milestone generally requires new financial mechanisms. In the case of the ASBMB journals, the transition to open access is being made possible by a new partnership with Elsevier, whose established capabilities and economies of scale make the costs associated with open-access publication manageable for the ASBMB (2). However, we want to be clear: The ethos of ASBMB journals will not change as a consequence of this new alliance. The journals remain society journals: The journals are owned by the society, and all scientific oversight for the journals will remain with ASBMB and its chosen editors. Peer review will continue to be done by scientists reviewing the work of scientists, carried out by editorial board members and external referees on behalf of the ASBMB journal leadership. There will be no intervention in this process by the publisher.

Although we will be saying “goodbye” to many years of self-publishing (115 in the case of JBC), we are certain that we are taking this big step for all the right reasons. The goal for JBC, MCP, and JLR has always been and will remain to help scientists advance their work by rapidly and effectively disseminating their results to their colleagues and facilitating the discovery of new findings (13), and open access is only one of many innovations and improvements in science publishing that could help the ASBMB journals achieve this goal. We have been held back from fully exploring these options because of the challenges of “keeping the trains running” with self-publication. In addition to allowing ASBMB to offer all the content in its journals to all readers freely and without barriers, the new partnership with Elsevier opens many doors for ASBMB publications, from new technology for manuscript handling and production, to facilitating reader discovery of content, to deploying powerful analytics to link content within and across publications, to new opportunities to improve our peer review mechanisms. We have all dreamed of implementing these innovations and enhancements (45) but have not had the resources or infrastructure needed.

A critical aspect of moving to open access is how this decision impacts the cost to authors. Like most publishers that have made this transition, we have been extremely worried that achieving open-access publishing would place too big a financial burden on our authors. We are pleased to report the article-processing charges (APCs) to publish in ASBMB journals will be on the low end within the range of open-access fees: $2,000 for members and $2,500 for nonmembers. While slightly higher than the cost an author incurs now if the open-access option is not chosen, these APCs are lower than the current charges for open access on our existing platform.

References

1.↵ Gierasch, L. M., Davidson, N. O., Rye, K.-A., and Burlingame, A. L. (2019) For the sake of science. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 2976 FREE Full Text

2.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) On the costs of scientific publishing. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 16395–16396 FREE Full Text

3.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2020) Faster publication advances your science: The three R’s. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 672 FREE Full Text

4.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) JBC is on a mission to facilitate scientific discovery. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 6853–6854 FREE Full Text

5.↵ Gierasch, L. M. (2017) JBC’s New Year’s resolutions: Check them off! J. Biol. Chem. 292, 21705–21706 FREE Full Text

 

Source: https://www.jbc.org/content/295/22/7814.short?ssource=mfr&rss=1

 

Open access publishing under Plan S to start in 2021

BMJ

2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2382 (Published 31 May 2019)Cite this as: BMJ 2019;365:l2382

From 2021, all research funded by public or private grants should be published in open access journals, according to a group of funding agencies called coALition S.1

The plan is the final version of a draft that was put to public consultation last year and attracted 344 responses from institutions, almost half of them from the UK.2 The responses have been considered and some changes made to the new system called Plan S, a briefing at the Science Media Centre in London was told on 29 May.

The main change has been to delay implementation for a year, to 1 January 2021, to allow more time for those involved—researchers, funders, institutions, publishers, and repositories—to make the necessary changes, said John-Arne Røttingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway.

“All research contracts signed after that date should include the obligation to publish in an open access journal,” he said. T……

(Please Note in a huge bit of irony this article is NOT Open Access and behind a paywall…. Yes an article about an announcement to go Open Access is not Open Access)

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2382.full

 

 

Plan S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with S-Plan.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018[1][2] by “cOAlition S”,[3] a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021.[4] The “S” stands for “shock”.[5]

Principles of the plan[edit]

The plan is structured around ten principles.[3] The key principle states that by 2021, research funded by public or private grants must be published in open-access journals or platforms, or made immediately available in open access repositories without an embargo. The ten principles are:

  1. authors should retain copyrighton their publications, which must be published under an open license such as Creative Commons;
  2. the members of the coalition should establish robust criteria and requirements for compliant open access journals and platforms;
  3. they should also provide incentives for the creation of compliant open access journals and platforms if they do not yet exist;
  4. publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual researchers;
  5. such publication fees should be standardized and capped;
  6. universities, research organizations, and libraries should align their policies and strategies;
  7. for books and monographs, the timeline may be extended beyond 2021;
  8. open archives and repositories are acknowledged for their importance;
  9. hybrid open-access journalsare not compliant with the key principle;
  10. members of the coalition should monitor and sanction non-compliance.

Member organisations

Organisations in the coalition behind Plan S include:[14]

International organizations that are members:

Plan S is also supported by:

 

Other articles on Open Access on this Open Access Journal Include:

MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations, an act followed by other University Systems in the US and in Europe

 

Open Access e-Scientific Publishing: Elected among 2018 Nature’s 10 Top Influencers – ROBERT-JAN SMITS: A bureaucrat launched a drive to transform science publishing

 

Electronic Scientific AGORA: Comment Exchanges by Global Scientists on Articles published in the Open Access Journal @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com – Four Case Studies

 

Mozilla Science Lab Promotes Data Reproduction Through Open Access: Report from 9/10/2015 Online Meeting

 

Elsevier’s Mendeley and Academia.edu – How We Distribute Scientific Research: A Case in Advocacy for Open Access Journals

 

The Fatal Self Distraction of the Academic Publishing Industry: The Solution of the Open Access Online Scientific Journals
PeerJ Model for Open Access Scientific Journal
“Open Access Publishing” is becoming the mainstream model: “Academic Publishing” has changed Irrevocably
Open-Access Publishing in Genomics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Is It Time for the Virtual Scientific Conference?: Coronavirus, Travel Restrictions, Conferences Cancelled

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

UPDATED 3/12/2020

To many of us scientists, presenting and attending scientific meetings, especially international scientific conferences, are a crucial tool for disseminating and learning new trends and cutting edge findings occurring in our respective fields.  Large international meetings, like cancer focused meetings like AACR (held in the spring time), AAAS and ASCO not only highlight the past years great discoveries but are usually the first place where breakthroughs are made known to the scientific/medical community as well as the public.  In addition these conferences allow for scientists to learn some of the newest technologies crucial for their work in vendor exhibitions.

During the coronavirus pandemic, multiple cancellations of business travel, conferences, and even university based study abroad programs are being cancelled and these cancellations are now hitting the 2020 Spring and potentially summer scientific/medical conferences.  Indeed one such conference hosted by Amgen in Massachusetts was determined as an event where some attendees tested positive for the virus, and as such, now other attendees are being asked to self quarantine.

Today I received two emails on conference cancellations, one from Experimental Biology in California and another from The Cancer Letter, highlighting other conferences, including National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN) meetings which had been canceled.

 

Experimental Biology - San Diego 2020 - April 4-7

Dear Stephen,

After thoughtful deliberations, the leaders of the Experimental Biology host societies have made the difficult but necessary decision to cancel Experimental Biology (EB) 2020 set to take place April 4–7 in San Diego, California. We know how much EB means to everyone, and we did not make this decision in haste. The health and safety of our members, attendees, their students, our staff, partners and our communities are our top priority.

As we have previously communicated via email, on experimentalbiology.org and elsewhere, EB leadership has been closely monitoring the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease). Based on the latest guidance from public health officials, the travel bans implemented by different institutions and the state of emergency declared in California less than 48 hours ago, it became clear to us that canceling was the right course of action.

We thank you and the entire EB community for understanding the extreme difficulty of this decision and for your commitment to the success of this conference – from the thousands of attendees to the presenters, exhibitors and sponsors who shared their time, expertise, collaboration and leadership. We deeply appreciate your contributions to this community.

What Happens Next?

Everyone who has registered to attend the meeting will receive a full registration refund within the next 45 days. Once your registration cancellation is processed, you will receive confirmation in a separate email. You do not need to contact anyone at EB or your host society to initiate the process. Despite the cancellation of the meeting, we are pleased to tell you that we will publish abstracts in the April 2020 issue of The FASEB Journal as originally planned. Please remember to cancel any personal arrangements you’ve made, such as travel and housing reservations. 

We ask for patience as we evaluate our next steps, and we will alert you as additional information becomes available please see our FAQs for details.

And in The Cancer Letter

Coronavirus vs. oncology: Meeting cancellations, travel restrictions, fears about drug supply chain

By Alexandria Carolan

NOTE: An earlier version of this story was published March 4 on the web and was updated March 6 to include information about restricted travel for employees of cancer centers, meeting cancellations, potential disruptions to the drug supply chain, and funds allocated by U.S. Congress for combating the coronavirus.

Further updates will be posted as the story develops.

Forecasts of the inevitable spread of coronavirus can be difficult to ignore, especially at a time when many of us are making travel plans for this spring’s big cancer meetings.

The decision was made all the more difficult earlier this week, as cancer centers and at least one biotechnology company—Amgen—implemented travel bans that are expected to last through the end of March and beyond. The Cancer Letter was able to confirm such travel bans at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Meetings are getting cancelled in all fields, including oncology:

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network March 5 postponed its 2020 annual conference of about 1,500 attendees March 19-22 in Orlando, citing precautions against coronavirus.

“The health and safety of our attendees and the patients they take care of is our number one concern,” said Robert W. Carlson, chief executive officer of NCCN. “This was an incredibly difficult and disappointing decision to have to make. However, our conference attendees work to save the lives of immunocompromised people every day. Some of them are cancer survivors themselves, particularly at our patient advocacy pavilion. It’s our responsibility, in an abundance of caution, to safeguard them from any potential exposure to COVID-19.”

UPDATED 3/12/2020

And today the AACR canceled its yearly 2020 Meeting (https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-annual-meeting-2020/coronavirus-information/)

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Board of Directors has made the difficult decision, after careful consideration and comprehensive evaluation of currently available information related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, to terminate the AACR Annual Meeting 2020, originally scheduled for April 24-29 in San Diego, California. A rescheduled meeting is being planned for later this year.

The AACR has been closely monitoring the rapidly increasing domestic and worldwide developments during the last several weeks related to COVID-19. This evidence-based decision was made after a thorough review and discussion of all factors impacting the Annual Meeting, including the U.S. government’s enforcement of restrictions on international travelers to enter the U.S.; the imposition of travel restrictions issued by U.S. government agencies, cancer centers, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies; and the counsel of infectious disease experts. It is clear that all of these elements significantly affect the ability of delegates, speakers, presenters of proffered papers, and exhibitors to participate fully in the Annual Meeting.

The health, safety, and security of all Annual Meeting attendees and the patients and communities they serve are the AACR’s highest priorities. While we believe that the decision to postpone the meeting is absolutely the correct one to safeguard our meeting participants from further potential exposure to the coronavirus, we also understand that this is a disappointing one for our stakeholders. There had been a great deal of excitement about the meeting, which was expected to be the largest ever AACR Annual Meeting, with more than 7,400 proffered papers, a projected total of 24,000 delegates from 80 countries and more than 500 exhibitors. We recognize that the presentation of new data, exchange of information, and opportunities for collaboration offered by the AACR Annual Meeting are highly valued by the entire cancer research community, and we are investigating options for rescheduling the Annual Meeting in the near future.

We thank all of our stakeholders for their patience and support at this time. Additional information regarding hotel reservation cancellations, registration refunds, and meeting logistics is available on the FAQ page on the AACR website. We will announce the dates and location of the rescheduled AACR Annual Meeting 2020 as soon as they are confirmed. Our heartfelt sympathies go out to everyone impacted by this global health crisis.

However,  according to both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former FDA director)  the outbreak may revisit the US and the world in the fall (see https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/04/were-losing-valuable-time-ex-fda-chief-says-of-coronavirus-spread.html)  therefore these meetings may be cancelled for the whole year.

Is It Time For the Virtual (Real-Time) Conference?

Readers of this Online Access Journal are familiar with our ongoing commitment to open science and believe that forming networks of scientific experts in various fields using a social strategy is pertinent to enhancing the speed, reproducibility and novelty of important future scientific/medical discoveries.  Some of these ideas are highlighted in the following articles found on this site:

Scientific Curation Fostering Expert Networks and Open Innovation: Lessons from Clive Thompson and others

Old Industrial Revolution Paradigm of Education Needs to End: How Scientific Curation Can Transform Education

Twitter is Becoming a Powerful Tool in Science and Medicine

e-Scientific Publishing: The Competitive Advantage of a Powerhouse for Curation of Scientific Findings and Methodology Development for e-Scientific Publishing – LPBI Group, A Case in Point

Reconstructed Science Communication for Open Access Online Scientific Curation

In addition, we understand the importance of communicating the latest scientific/medical discoveries in an open and rapid format, accessible over the social media platforms.  To this effect we have developed a methodology for real time conference coverage

see  Press and Conference Coverage

at  https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

AND

The Process of Real Time Coverage using Social Media

at https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/part-one-the-process-of-real-time-coverage-using-social-media/

Using these strategies we are able to communicate, in real time, analysis of conference coverage for a multitude of conferences.

Has technology and social media platforms now have enabled our ability to rapidly communicate, in a more open access platform, seminal discoveries and are scientists today amenable to virtual type of meetings including displaying abstracts using a real-time online platform?

Some of the Twitter analytics we have curated from such meetings show that conference attendees are rapidly adopting such social platforms to communicate with their peers and colleagues meeting notes.

Statistical Analysis of Tweet Feeds from the 14th ANNUAL BIOTECH IN EUROPE FORUM For Global Partnering & Investment 9/30 – 10/1/2014 • Congress Center Basel – SACHS Associates, London

Word Associations of Twitter Discussions for 10th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at the Harvard Medical School, November 12-13, 2014

Comparative Analysis of the Level of Engagement for Four Twitter Accounts: @KDNuggets (Big Data) @GilPress @Forbes @pharma_BI @AVIVA1950

Twitter Analytics on the Inside 3DPrinting Conference #I3DPConf

 

Other Twitter analyses of Conferences Covered by LPBI in Real Time have produced a similar conclusion: That conference attendees are very engaged over social media networks to discuss, share, and gain new insights into material presented at these conferences, especially international conferences.

And although attracting international conferences is lucrative to many cities, the loss in revenue to organizations, as well as the loss of intellectual capital is indeed equally as great.  

Maybe there is room for such type of conferences in the future, and attending by a vast more audience than currently capable. And perhaps the #openscience movement like @MozillaScience can collaborate with hackathons to produce the platforms for such an online movement of scientific conferences as a Plan B.

Other articles on Real Time Conference Coverage in the Online Open Access Journal Include:

Innovations in electronic Scientific Publishing (eSP): Case Studies in Marketing eContent, Curation Methodology, Categories of Research Functions, Interdisciplinary conceptual innovations by Cross Section of Categories, Exposure to Frontiers of Science by Real Time Press coverage of Scientific Conferences

Real Time Coverage and eProceedings of Presentations on 11/16 – 11/17, 2016, The 12th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston

Tweets by @pharma_BI and by @AVIVA1950: Real Time Coverage and eProceedings of The 11th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, November 18-19, 2015, Harvard Medical School

REAL TIME Cancer Conference Coverage: A Novel Methodology for Authentic Reporting on Presentations and Discussions launched via Twitter.com @ The 2nd ANNUAL Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering & Investment Forum in Drug Development, 19th March 2014 • New York Academy of Sciences • USA

Search Results for ‘Real Time Conference’

Read Full Post »


@PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com –  A Case Study on the LEADER in Curation of Scientific Findings

Author: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Multi-facets of the LPBI Group Intellectual Property (IP) ASSETS

 

 

 

  • Editorial & Publication of Articles in e-Books by Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence: Contributions of Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/10/16/editorial-publication-of-articles-in-e-books-by-leaders-in-pharmaceutical-business-intelligence-contributions-of-larry-h-bernstein-md-fcap/

  • Editorial & Publication of Articles in e-Books by Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence: Contributions of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/10/16/editorial-publication-of-articles-in-e-books-by-leaders-in-pharmaceutical-business-intelligence-contributions-of-aviva-lev-ari-phd-rn/

 

Innovations in e-Scientific Publishing Methodology Development accomplished by LPBI Group:

A.  Methodology for Curation of Scientific Findings – implementations for

  • Multi-Auhtors Authoring Cloud-based Platform

 

  • Journal Statistics – Interdisciplinary Journal covers interfaces of six domains (Life sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Medicine, Healthcare Policy, Biotech Intelligence and Medical Devices)

Curations of Scientific Findings of peer reviewed articles in top three journals in each of the Six domain

Curations written on a multi-Authoring platform by MDs, MD/PhDs, PharmD and PhDs, all 15 years after graduation of the advanced degree program, and each has a publication list before joined my team – they write clinical and medical interpretations of the scientific frontier as evidenced in the Scientific Finding section of published articles in Cell, Nature, Science, NEJM, other top journals in these six domains.

  1. Volume: 1.3 Million eReaders, ~5,150 Scientific articles, +500 categories of Research defining the Journal Ontology, 9,500 tags, 7,300, scientific comment on the articles submitted and exchange recorded between the Scientific community and our Team members
  2. Top two articles >25,000 eReaders
  3. Clicks on two Top Authors: >551,000
  4. from NIH +3,700 hits
  5. 2250 Journal subscribers by e-mail
  6. +6,200 Biotech Executive following up on LinkedIn
  • BioMed e-Series of e-Books in Medicine – 16 Volumes in Five e-Series: Cardiovascular, Genomics, Cancer, Immunology, Patient-centered Medicine

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_9?ie=UTF8&text=Aviva+Lev-Ari&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Aviva+Lev-Ari&sort=relevancerank

  • Team expertise
  1. e-Scientific Publishing: The Competitive Advantage of a Powerhouse for Curation of Scientific Findings and Methodology Development for e-Scientific Publishing – LPBI Group, A Case in Point
  2. FIVE years of e-Scientific Publishing @pharmaceuticalintellicence.com, Top Articles by Author and by e-Views >1,000, 4/27/2012 to 4/27/2017
  3. Innovations in electronic Scientific Publishing (eSP): Case Studies in Marketing eContent, Curation Methodology, Categories of Research Functions, Interdisciplinary conceptual innovations by Cross Section of Categories, Exposure to Frontiers of Science by Real Time Press coverage of Scientific Conferences

B.  Methodology for REAL TIME Coverage of Scientific Conferences using Social Media and Real Time e-Proceedings Generation: Conferences in Biotech, Life Sciences and Medicine

  • In House Developed Methodology for Real Time Press Coverage of Biotech Top International conferences – selective  topics covered at conferences lead to NEW Curations in the Journal

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

 

9 results for Kindle Store : “Aviva Lev-Ari”

Sort by 
Relevance
Featured
Price: Low to High
Price: High to Low
Avg. Customer Review
Publication Date
Showing most relevant results. See all results for .
  • Product Details

    Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2)

    May 13, 2017 | Kindle eBook

    by Larry H. Bernstein and Demet Sag
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics

    Nov 28, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Justin D. Pearlman MD ME PhD MA FACC and Stephen J. Williams PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms (Biomed e-Books Book 1)

    Jun 20, 2013 | Kindle eBook

    by Margaret Baker PhD and Tilda Barliya PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine (Frontiers in Genomics Research Book 1)

    Nov 22, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Sudipta Saha PhD and Marcus W Feldman PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics (BioMedicine – Metabolomics, Immunology, Infectious Diseases Book 1)

    Jul 21, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Larry H. Bernstein MD FCAP and Prabodah Kandala PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Milestones in Physiology: Discoveries in Medicine, Genomics and Therapeutics (Series E: Patient-Centered Medicine Book 3)

    Dec 26, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Larry H. Bernstein MD FACP and Aviva Lev-Ari PhD RN
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis (Series C: e-Books on Cancer & Oncology Book 1)

    Aug 10, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Larry H Bernstein MD FCAP and Prabodh Kumar Kandala PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Regenerative and Translational Medicine: The Therapeutic Promise for Cardiovascular Diseases

    Dec 26, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Justin D. Pearlman MD ME PhD MA FACC and Ritu Saxena PhD
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly
  • Product Details

    Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Co-Curation: The Art of Scientific & Medical Curation

    Nov 29, 2015 | Kindle eBook

    by Larry H. Bernstein MD FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari PhD RN
    Subscribers read for free.
    Auto-delivered wirelessly

Read Full Post »


 

Yay! Bloomberg View Seems to Be On the Side of the Lowly Scientist!

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Justin Fox at BloombergView had just published an article near and dear to the hearts of all those #openaccess scientists and those of us @Pharma_BI and @MozillaScience who feel strong about #openscience #opendata and the movement to make scientific discourse freely accessible.

His article “Academic Publishing Can’t Remain Such a Great Business” discusses the history of academic publishing and how consolidation of smaller publishers into large scientific publishing houses (Bigger publishers bought smaller ones) has produced a monopoly like environment in which prices for journal subscriptions are rising. He also discusses how the open access movement is challenging this model and may oneday replace the big publishing houses.

A few tidbits from his article:

Publishers of academic journals have a great thing going. They generally don’t pay for the articles they publish, or for the primary editing and peer reviewing essential to preparing them for publication (they do fork over some money for copy editing). Most of this gratis labor is performed by employees of academic institutions. Those institutions, along with government agencies and foundations, also fund all the research that these journal articles are based upon.

Yet the journal publishers are able to get authors to sign over copyright to this content, and sell it in the form of subscriptions to university libraries. Most journals are now delivered in electronic form, which you think would cut the cost, but no, the price has been going up and up:

 

This isn’t just inflation at work: in 1994, journal subscriptions accounted for 51 percent of all library spending on information resources. In 2012 it was 69 percent.

Who exactly is getting that money? The largest academic publisher is Elsevier, which is also the biggest, most profitable division of RELX, the Anglo-Dutch company that was known until February as Reed Elsevier.

 

RELX reports results in British pounds; I converted to dollars in part because the biggest piece of the company’s revenue comes from the U.S. And yes, those are pretty great operating-profit margins: 33 percent in 2014, 39 percent in 2013. The next biggest academic publisher is Springer Nature, which is closely held (by German publisher Holtzbrinck and U.K. private-equity firm BC Partners) but reportedly has annual revenue of about $1.75 billion. Other biggies that are part of publicly traded companies include Wiley-Blackwell, a division of John Wiley & Sons; Wolters Kluwer Health, a division of Wolters Kluwer; and Taylor & Francis, a division of Informa.

And gives a brief history of academic publishing:

The history here is that most early scholarly journals were the work of nonprofit scientific societies. The goal was to disseminate research as widely as possible, not to make money — a key reason why nobody involved got paid. After World War II, the explosion in both the production of and demand for academic research outstripped the capabilities of the scientific societies, and commercial publishers stepped into the breach. At a time when journals had to be printed and shipped all over the world, this made perfect sense.

Once it became possible to effortlessly copy and disseminate digital files, though, the economics changed. For many content producers, digital copying is a threat to their livelihoods. As Peter Suber, the director of Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, puts it in his wonderful little book, “Open Access”:

And while NIH Tried To Force These Houses To Accept Open Access:

About a decade ago, the universities and funding agencies began fighting back. The National Institutes of Health in the U.S., the world’s biggest funder of medical research, began requiring in 2008 that all recipients of its grants submit electronic versions of their final peer-reviewed manuscripts when they are accepted for publication in journals, to be posted a year later on the NIH’s open-access PubMed depository. Publishers grumbled, but didn’t want to turn down the articles.

Big publishers are making $ by either charging as much as they can or focus on new customers and services

For the big publishers, meanwhile, the choice is between positioning themselves for the open-access future or maximizing current returns. In its most recent annual report, RELX leans toward the latter while nodding toward the former:

Over the past 15 years alternative payment models for the dissemination of research such as “author-pays” or “author’s funder-pays” have emerged. While it is expected that paid subscription will remain the primary distribution model, Elsevier has long invested in alternative business models to address the needs of customers and researchers.

Elsevier’s extra services can add news avenues of revenue

https://www.elsevier.com/social-sciences/business-and-management

https://www.elsevier.com/rd-solutions

but they may be seeing the light on OpenAccess (possibly due to online advocacy, an army of scientific curators and online scientific communities):

Elsevier’s Mendeley and Academia.edu – How We Distribute Scientific Research: A Case in Advocacy for Open Access Journals

SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based

e-Recognition via Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research”

Indeed we recently put up an interesting authored paper “A Patient’s Perspective: On Open Heart Surgery from Diagnosis and Intervention to Recovery” (free of charge) letting the community of science freely peruse and comment, and generally well accepted by both author and community as a nice way to share academic discourse without the enormous fees, especially on opinion papers in which a rigorous peer review may not be necessary.

But it was very nice to see a major news outlet like Bloomberg View understand the lowly scientist’s aggravations.

Thanks Bloomberg!

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Mozilla Science Lab Promotes Data Reproduction Through Open Access: Report from 9/10/2015 Online Meeting

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Mozilla Inc. is developing a platform for scientists to discuss the issues related to developing a framework to share scientific data as well as tackle the problems of scientific reproducibility in an Open Access manner. According to their blog

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/06/14/5992/

We’re excited to announce the launch of the Mozilla Science Lab, a new initiative that will help researchers around the world use the open web to shape science’s future.

Scientists created the web — but the open web still hasn’t transformed scientific practice to the same extent we’ve seen in other areas like media, education and business. For all of the incredible discoveries of the last century, science is still largely rooted in the “analog” age. Credit systems in science are still largely based around “papers,” for example, and as a result researchers are often discouraged from sharing, learning, reusing, and adopting the type of open and collaborative learning that the web makes possible.

The Science Lab will foster dialog between the open web community and researchers to tackle this challenge. Together they’ll share ideas, tools, and best practices for using next-generation web solutions to solve real problems in science, and explore ways to make research more agile and collaborative.

On their blog they highlight various projects related to promoting Open Access for scientific data

On September 10, 2015 Mozilla Science Lab had their scheduled meeting on scientific data reproduce ability.  The meeting was free and covered by ethernet and on social media. The Twitter hashtag for updates and meeting discussion is #mozscience (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23mozscience )

Open Access Meeting Announcement on Twitter

https://twitter.com/MozillaScience/status/641642491532283904

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

mozilla science lab

Mozilla Science Lab @MozillaScience

Join @khinsen @abbycabs + @EvoMRI tmrw (11AM ET) to hear about replication, publishing + #openscience. Details: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/sciencelab-calls-sep10-2015 …

AGENDA:

  • Mozilla Science Lab Updates
  • Staff welcomes and thank yous:
  • Welcoming Zannah Marsh, our first Instructional Designer
  • Workshopping the “Working Open” guide:
    • Discussion of Future foundation and GitHub projects
    • Discussion of submission for open science project funding
  • Contributorship Badges Pilot – an update! – Abby Cabunoc Mayes – @abbycabs
  • Will be live on GigaScience September 17th!
  • Where you can jump in: https://github.com/mozillascience/paperbadger/issues/17
  • Questions regarding coding projects – Abby will coordinate efforts on coding into their codebase
  • The journal will publish and authors and reviewers get a badge and their efforts and comments will appear on GigaScience: Giga Science will give credit for your reviews – supports an Open Science Discussion

Roadmap for

  • Fellows review is in full swing!
  • MozFest update:
  • Miss the submission deadline? You can still apply to join our Open Research Accelerator and join us for the event (PLUS get a DOI for your submission and 1:1 help)

A discussion by Konrad Hinsen (@khinsen) on ReScience, a journal focused on scientific replication will be presented:

  • ReScience – a new journal for replications – Konrad Hinsen @khinsen
  • ReScience is dedicated to publishing replications of previously published computational studies, along with all the code required to replicate the results.
  • ReScience lives entirely on GitHub. Submissions take the form of a Git repository, and review takes place in the open through GitHub issues. This also means that ReScience is free for everyone (authors, readers, reviewers, editors… well, I said everyone, right?), as long as GitHub is willing to host it.
  • ReScience was launched just a few days ago and is evolving quickly. To stay up to date, follow @ReScienceEds on Twitter. If you want to volunteer as a reviewer, please contact the editorial board.

The ReScience Journal Reproducible Science is Good. Replicated Science is better.

ReScience is a peer-reviewed journal that targets computational research and encourages the explicit reproduction of already published research promoting new and open-source implementations in order to ensure the original research is reproducible. To achieve such a goal, the whole editing chain is radically different from any other traditional scientific journal. ReScience lives on github where each new implementation is made available together with the comments, explanations and tests. Each submission takes the form of a pull request that is publicly reviewed and tested in order to guarantee any researcher can re-use it. If you ever reproduced computational result from the literature, ReScience is the perfect place to publish this new implementation. The Editorial Board

Notes from his talk:

– must be able to replicate paper’s results as written according to experimental methods

– All authors on ReScience need to be on GitHub

– not accepting MatLab replication; replication can involve computational replication;

  • Research Ideas and Outcomes Journal – Daniel Mietchen @EvoMRI
    • Postdoc at Natural Museum of London doing data mining; huge waste that 90% research proposals don’t get used so this journal allows for publishing proposals
    • Learned how to write proposals by finding a proposal online open access
    • Reviewing system based on online reviews like GoogleDocs where people view, comment
    • Growing editorial and advisory board; venturing into new subject areas like humanities, economics, biological research so they are trying to link diverse areas under SOCIAL IMPACT labeling
    • BIG question how to get scientists to publish their proposals especially to improve efficiency of collaboration and reduce too many duplicated efforts as well as reagent sharing
    • Crowdfunding platform used as post publication funding mechanism; still in works
    • They need a lot of help on the editorial board so if have a PhD PLEASE JOIN
  • Website:
  • Background:
  • Science article:
  • Some key features:
  • for publishing all steps of the research cycle, from proposals (funded and not yet funded) onwards
  • maps submissions to societal challenges
  • focus on post-publication peer review; pre-submission endorsement; all reviews public
  • lets authors choose which publishing services they want, e.g. whether they’d like journal-mediated peer review
  • collaborative WYSIWYG authoring and publishing platform based on JATS XML

A brief discussion of upcoming events on @MozillaScience

Meetings are held 2nd Thursdays of each month

Additional plugins, coding, and new publishing formats are available at https://www.mozillascience.org/

Other related articles on OPEN ACCESS Publishing were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

Archives of Medicine (AOM) to Publish from “Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI)” Open Access On-Line Scientific Journal http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Annual Growth in NIH Clicks: 32% Open Access Online Scientific Journal http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Collaborations and Open Access Innovations – CHI, BioIT World, 4/29 – 5/1/2014, Seaport World Trade Center, Boston

Elsevier’s Mendeley and Academia.edu – How We Distribute Scientific Research: A Case in Advocacy for Open Access Journals

Reconstructed Science Communication for Open Access Online Scientific Curation

The Fatal Self Distraction of the Academic Publishing Industry: The Solution of the Open Access Online Scientific Journals

 

Read Full Post »

SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based


Reporters: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN & Pnina G. Abir-Am, PhD

Drastic change in academic education by design: FREE ACCESS to knowledge — Program edX – the  Harvard+MIT collaboration on Online education!! 
FREE ACCESS to Scientific Journals will be the next step. Research to support that by a study carried by Bjork, B. C., and D. Solomon. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 10(1):73+. 
“Following step will be to demonstrated that Scientific Websites like http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com have SAME Scientific impact as Open Journals!!
“We are well positioned to demonstrate that” said Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Director & Founder of Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence and the 2/2012 launcher of the initiative called  http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com  To trace her contributions to Research Methodology, 1976-2005, go to  https://sites.google.com/site/avivasopusmagnum/aviva-s-home-page
The merit of Scientific Website is manifold:
  • Time from Lab/Desk to Publication on the Internet and Search engines is reduced to seconds
  • comments by other scientists are equally valuable to peer review
  • collaboration with other scientist around the globe is fostered on WWW
  • the platform is of collaborative authoring, we have 60 categories of research in one site
  • interdisciplinary work can be published in one site the over arching domain in our case is Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
In May 2012 MIT and Harvard are collaborating on distribution of course material of all classes on the Internet – a Program called EdX
In the Press Release“EdX represents a unique opportunity to improve education on our own campuses through online learning, while simultaneously creating a bold new educational path for millions of learners worldwide,” MIT President Susan Hockfield said.

Harvard President Drew Faust said, “edX gives Harvard and MIT an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically extend our collective reach by conducting groundbreaking research into effective education and by extending online access to quality higher education.”

“Harvard and MIT will use these new technologies and the research they will make possible to lead the direction of online learning in a way that benefits our students, our peers, and people across the nation and the globe,” Faust continued.

Princeton, Stanford, Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania announced that they would offer free Web-based courses through a for-profit company called Coursera that was founded by two Stanford computer science professors. One of those professors, Andrew Ng, taught a free online course in machine learning this past fall with an enrollment of more than 100,000 students.

There’s also Udacity, co-founded by a former Stanford professor, andKhan Academy, which boasts 3,100 free educational videos across a variety of subjects.

MIT and Harvard said that they hope to eventually partner with other universities to expand the offerings on the edX platform.

Results of the BMC Medicine study are reported, below and they are:  Open Access, But Same Impact
profile

BioTechniques

http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Open-Access-But-Same-Impact/biotechniques-333012.html#.UA2SsRxueMU 

Open Access, But Same Impact

07/19/2012

Jesse Jenkins
By comparing two-year impact factors for journals, researchers found that open access and subscription-based journals have about the same scientific impact.
Open access (OA) journals are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as traditional subscription journals, according to a new study. In a study published in BMC Medicine on July 17 (1), researchers surveyed the impact factors, the average number of citations per paper published in a journal during the two preceding years, of OA and traditional subscription journals.

By comparing two-year impact factors for journals from the four countries that publish the most scientific literature, researchers have found that OA journals have about the same scientific impact as their subscription-based counterparts. Source: BMC Medicine.

At first, the study’s authors—Bo-Christer Björk from the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland, and David Solomon from the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University—found that there was a 30% higher average citation rate for subscription journals. But after controlling for journal discipline, location of publisher, and age of publication, their results showed that OA and subscription journals had nearly identical scientific impact.

“The newer open access published within the last 10 years, particularly those journals funded by article processing fees, had basically the same impact as subscription journals within the same category,” said Solomon. “I think that that is the key finding.”

The initial higher citation rate for subscription journals was the result of a higher percentage of older OA journals from countries that are not major publishing countries. “A lot of them are from South America or other developing countries, and they tend to have lower impact factors,” said Solomon. “When you compare apples to apples and start looking within subgroups, particularly journals launched after 2000 in biomedicine for example, the differences fall away.”

However, the authors identified a sector of low quality, OA publishers that are looking to capitalize on the article processing charge model rather than contribute to the advancement of science. Solomon said that this could partly be to blame for negative perceptions about the integrity of OA publishing as a whole and its impact on the peer review system. But most researchers are aware of these low-quality publishers and prefer to publish in more reputable OA journals.

In the end, Bjork and Solomon are hopeful that the study’s findings may help dispel some of the misconceptions in the debate over OA publishing. “Open access journals still have the reputation of being second class in the minds of some people. So, we think that this is important because this is objective data verifying that at least the open access journals published in the last 10 years by professional publishers are on par with subscription journals.”

References

  1. Bjork, B. C., and D. Solomon. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 10(1):73+.

Read Full Post »