Open Notebook Science History The term "open notebook science" was first used in a blog post by Jean-Claude Bradley, an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Drexel University. Bradley described open notebook science as follows: ... there is a URL to a laboratory notebook that is freely available and indexed on common search engines. It does not necessarily have to look like a paper notebook but it is essential that all of the information available to the researchers to make their conclusions is equally available to the rest of the world—Jean-Claude Bradley Practitioners Active Experimental Jean-Claude BradleyAndrew S.I.D. Theoretical Tobias J. Archived Recurrent (Educational) Junior Physics Lab (307L) at University of New Mexico Partial/Pseudo open notebooks These are initiatives more open than traditional laboratory notebooks but lacking a key component for full Open Notebook Science. Benefits Drawbacks Funding and sponsorship Logos
Open Access Timeline Physical Review X 4 May 2011 American Physical Society officially launched PRX, a online-only, open access journal, Scientific Reports 6 Jan 2011 Nature launched Scientific Reports, online and open access journal covering all areas of the natural sciences PLoS ONE 21 Dec 2006 An interactive open-access journal for the communication of all peer-reviewed scientific and medical research Scholarpedia 1 Feb 2006 Scholarpedia is a peer-reviewed open-access encyclopedia written by scholars from all around the world Science Commons 1 Jan 2005 A project of Creative Commons to make scientific research “re-useful” and integrate fragmented information sources. Google Scholar 18 Nov 2004 Google announced the launch of Google Scholar. Elsevier 3 Jun 2004 Elsevier liberalizes copyright for authors CrossRef 28 Apr 2004 An infrastructure for linking citations across publishers, and a full-scale implementation of the Digital Object Identifier (or DOI) System to date. Berlin Declaration 22 Oct 2003 PLoS Biology 13 Oct 2003 Citebase
Solar Power is getting cheaper and getting grid stabilized with natural gas Grist has an article that makes the claim that solar PV will become the cheapest option to generate electricity by about 2018 in the sunniest places in the world. Cumulative installed PV capacity globally was 40 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year. Three doublings mean this has to grow by a factor of eight, to 320 GW, to achieve the necessary halving of cost (to 6 cents per kwh). From 2005 to 2010, PV capacity installed annually grew by an average of 49 percent per year. Even if this slows down to 25 percent per year in the near future, we will reach 320 GW in 2018. 320 GW would be about 500 TWh. China has the following targets for 2015 and 2020 Targets disclosed early 2011 target 2015 target 2020 Hydropower 250 260 (865 TWh) 390-430 GW (1300-1430 TWh) Wind 90 100 (190 TWh) 200-250 GW (380-470TWh) Solar 5 10 (15 TWh) 50 GW (70 TWH) Bio-energy 13 13 Geothermal N/A 0.1 Tidal wave N/A 0.01-0.02 Nuclear 40 40 (320 TWh) 65 GW (520 TWh)
NDLTD: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations — NDLTD Les premières journées de la Science Ouverte - Sciencesconf.org Jeudi 06 décembre Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l’innovation - Amphi Poincaré | 09.00 - 18.00 L'évaluation par les pairs L'évaluation est considérée comme un facteur crucial de conservatisme dans les communautés scientifiques. Faut-il pour autant que la science ouverte s'impose de nouvelles modalités, mesures et pratiques d'évaluation ? Parmi les multiples pratiques d'évaluation portant sur les projets, les résultats, les données, les communications, les publications et les personnes, nous avons choisi d'aborder deux chantiers en cours de transformation par la science ouverte. D'une part, nous traiterons de la question du peer review pour les articles et livres, du point de vue des collectifs qui organisent l'évaluation de manuscrits. D'autre part, nous traiterons de la question d'une évaluation dans un monde qui ne serait plus dominé par l'obsession des supports de publication, et en particulier du Journal impact factor.
Science in the Open Open science now! Michael Nielsen on TED Playlist Space oddity, indeed: 18 talks from astronauts, including Chris Hadfield Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut who’s become a YouTube sensation aboard the International Space Station, has showed us why tears won’t fall in space and the dangers of clipping one’s fingernails in zero gravity. But he has truly outdone himself with his latest video. Scheduled to leave the space station tonight at 7pm – and […] Business Michael v. Their names may both be Michael. Why the Current Crop of Twentysomethings Are Going to Be Okay Every generation finds, eventually, a mode of expression that suits it. Cavemen drew lines on their cave walls. Sixties kids marched. My generation, we Gchat, a million tiny windows blinking orange with hopes and dreams and YouTube links, with five-year plans and lunch plans. (10:24 p.m.) I know this might read as very woe-is-us, but these are the facts: Nearly 14 percent of college graduates from the classes of 2006 through 2010 can’t find full-time work, and overall just 55.3 percent of people ages 16 to 29 have jobs. Being young is supposed to mean you have the luxury of time. Earlier generations have weathered recessions, of course; this stall we’re in has the look of something nastier.
Budapest Open Access Initiative | Budapest Open Access Initiative Science Europe – cOAlition S On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles. cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement, by 1 January 2020, the necessary measures to fulfil its main principle: “By 2020 scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.” cOAlition S currently comprises 13 national research funding organisations and two charitable foundations from 13 countries who have agreed to implement the 10 principles of Plan S in a coordinated way, together with the European Commission and the ERC.
Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already Photo from iStockphoto. Looking back on 2009, there was one particular note that seemed to sound repeatedly, resonating through the professional discourse at conferences and in posts throughout the blogosphere: the likelihood of disruptive change afoot in the scientific publishing industry. Here in the digital pages of the Scholarly Kitchen, for example, we covered John Wilbanks’ presentation at SSP IN and Michael Nielsen’s talk at the 2009 STM Conference. They were both thoughtful presentations and I agree with many of the points raised by both speakers. I think Wilbanks is right when he says that thinking of information in terms of specific containers (e.g. books, journals, etc.) presents an opening to organizations in adjacent spaces who are able to innovate without the constraints of existing formats. It has occurred to me, however, that I would likely have agreed with arguments that scientific publishing was about to be disrupted a decade ago—or even earlier. And yet it has.