What can I share? Here at figshare, we appreciate that the name can sometime be misleading.
It literally means the sharing of figures, nothing to do with the fruit. Last weekend at scifoo, this topic of conversation came up with Michael Nielsen, who wondered if people may just think that we host static images. We believe the future of academic publishing involves the raw outputs of the research, whether that is a video, dataset, pdf or any other file type you can think of. In this sense the ‘figure’ represents a unit of research, which bring us to the next question we get asked a lot: This is easy, there are no rules. figshare encourages the sharing of all research outputs that you feel may have some value for someone. ...and many more.
It was great to see strong recommendations in this area last week in a Joint Statement from DataCite, the International Association of STM Publishers, and CrossRef on the Linkability and Citability of Research Data: We will continue to evolve based on user feedback.
eLife. The Evolution & Medicine Review » Blog Archive » Evolutionary Medicine Course August 6-10 at Mt. Desert Island. Feb 24th, 2012 by The Editors Evolutionary Foundations for Medicine and Public Health: Focus on Infection and Cancer August 6-10 at the Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine Registration now open CME credit available This course will be limited to 40 participants.
It will be appropriate for those with a background in biology and/or medicine at diverse levels. Faculty Description This intensive one-week course will introduce strategies for applying core principles of evolutionary biology to problems in medicine and public health, with a special focus on infection and cancer. Online Social Network Seeks to Overhaul Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Three Finnish researchers have created an online service that could eventually replace or supplement the current way journals get scientists to peer review submitted manuscripts.
Already partnered with the ecology journal Ecography, published by Wiley, Peerage of Science is an innovative social network of scientists to which researchers submit their manuscripts; other members with relevant expertise, alerted by keywords in the papers, will then provide reviews that scientific journals can use to decide whether to publish the work. University of Jyväskylä and the University of Eastern Finland, where the three creators of the service are based, have sponsored the company founded to further build up the service this year. The current peer review system in which journal editors send potentially publishable manuscripts to experts for review is hotly debated.
Scientists, Fight For Access! Ask many scientists what they believe separates the pursuit of scientific inquiry from most everything else and you’ll get a wide range of open-ended, flowery, idealistic, and nearly altruistic, statements like ”unlock the mysteries of the world”, “the thrill of discovery”, “making a meaningful contribution to society”, or “improving people’s lives”.
No matter how you cut it, scientists tend to agree that science is an important framework for systematically establishing the validity of claims by relying on evidence. Scientists’ idealism is honorable, and genuinely heartfelt. Few other groups of people really do want the change the world in such a positive, progressive manner.
Access to information is crucial for science. MyDivvi. Directory of open access journals. Pas un nouveau journalisme scientifique, mais un nouveau journalisme. L’association française Acrimed organise le 8 décembre un débat intitulé « Un autre journalisme scientifique est-il possible?
». Elle s’inquiète, à juste titre, que les sciences soient chroniquement marginalisées dans nos médias, « reléguées dans des rubriques secondaires ». Je ne sais pas ce qu’en diront les panélistes, mais je doute qu’un « autre » journalisme scientifique soit la solution. Commençons par les évidences : oui, les sciences constituent le parent pauvre des médias —une minute de science par 5 heures de nouvelles continues, selon le calcul déprimant qu’avait fait le State of the News Media 2008. Oui, le journalisme scientifique décline dans les médias généralistes, comme le rappele le journaliste Pierre Barthélémy en répondant lui aussi à la question d’Acrimed.
Journals — BMJ Group. Group blogs: BMJ Web Development Blog » Blog Archive » BMJ Group journal articles now contain ‘Citing articles via Web of Science’ links. 8 Apr, 11 | by Claire Bower, Digital Comms Manager, @clairebower With users increasingly viewing articles as ’portals to greater information’, BMJ Group has introduced a new collaboration with ISI Web of Science, the multidisciplinary bibliographic database tool.
All of our journal articles now include the exact number of citations for each article being viewed, as well as a direct link to the list of citing articles on ISI Web of Science. Have a look at the screenshot below, which displays the exact location of these ‘Citing article via Web of Science’ links at article-level. The technology that permits users to navigate from the ISI Web of Science to participating publishers’ full text journal content has been around for a while. Wiley Open Access. HighWire Free Online Full-text Articles. "Free back issues":
Oxford Open participating titles. Titles participating in the Oxford Open scheme are broadly included in one of two open access models, either full or optional open access.
All open access articles are automatically deposited in PubMed Central (PMC) by Oxford Journals. The journals included in this automated process have been determined by PMC, based on subject area. All Oxford Open content at PMC. The majority of Oxford Journals offer the optional open access model. Biology Direct.
Journal of Biology. How to overhaul peer review and scientific publishing. Many are quick to criticize the peer review process, but are there any viable alternatives?
Anyone who doubts the inefficiencies and flaws of the current peer-review system would do well to read a review article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (Dec 2011) and evaluated for F1000 by Gary Aston-Jones and David Moorman. The article, entitled “Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal” by Dwight Kravitz and Chris Baker of the National Institute of Mental Health at the US NIH, highlights several serious problems with the scientific publishing machine. In particular, the authors note: Most for-profit publishers argue that the review process chaperoned by their editors ensures high standards of scientific research.
Not true, argue Kravitz and Baker. How do the authors propose fixing the system? F1000 Research.