Sind Bachelor- und Masterstudium in der Medizin ein...
http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news324327
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Open Access am Standort D erweiterte Perspektiven für die...
Birgit SCHMIDT, Karin ILG-HARTBECKE: Open Access am Standort D erweiterte Perspektiven für die Wissenschaft
Zusammenfassung: Mit der zunehmenden Umsetzung der Open-Access-Idee entstehen in der deutschen wie der internationalen Forschungslandschaft neue Modelle der wissenschaftlichen Informationsversorgung und der Wissenschaftskommunikation. So betreiben inzwischen über die Hälfte der forschungsorientierten deutschen Universitäten ein institutionelles Repositorium. Open-Access-Repositorien bieten damit perspektivisch eine ideale Basisinfrastruktur für den Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Publikationen: weltweite Zugänglichkeit, verbesserte Sichtbarkeit, zudem Mehrwertdienste wie fachliche und fachübergreifende Recherche-Optionen, Nutzungsstatistiken und Zitationsanalysen. Der Beitrag gibt einen aktuellen Überblick und zeigt die derzeitigen Rahmenbedingungen und Entwicklungen, aber auch Entwicklungshindernisse der deutschen Repositorienlandschaft auf. Zugleich werden Initiativen einbezogen, die Verlage, Autoren und allgemein Informationsanbieter an Praktiken des Open Access heranführen.
Schlüsselwörter: Open Access, Repositorien, Wissenschaftskommunikation, Publikationsmodelle, Netzwerke, Policies, Mandate, Verlage, Bibliotheken
Birgit SCHMIDT, Karin ILG-HARTBECKE: Open Access in Germany new prospects for science and scholarship
Abstract: The increasing implementation of the Open Access idea has given rise to new scholarly information-supply and communication models in both the German and international research landscapes. For example, over half the research-oriented universities in Germany now operate their own institutional repository. In the long term, Open Access repositories represent an ideal basic infrastructure for handling scholarly publications since they offer worldwide accessibility, enhanced visibility and value-added services such as disciplinary and cross-disciplinary search options, usage statistics and citation analysis. This contribution provides an up-to-date overview and describes not only the current framework conditions and developments but also the barriers to development in the German repository landscape. It also deals with initiatives designed to introduce publishers, authors and general information providers to Open Access practices.
Keywords: Open Access, repositories, scholarly communication, publishing models, networks, policies, mandates, publishers, libraries
GMS Med Bibl Inf 2009;9(1):Doc05
Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/mbi/2009-9/mbi000133.shtml
Wie auch bei früheren Ausgaben von GMS MEDIZIN - BIBLIOTHEK - INFORMATION werden die Beiträge des aktuellen Schwerpunktheftes zum Thema Green Road to Open Access - Institutionelle und fachliche Repositorien, jeweils mit Abstract in deutscher und englischer Sprache, in medinfo vorgestellt.
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Skeptical review of Anderson’s Free
Freibier schlägt alles - oder etwa doch nicht? Ich kaufe bei Amazon
auch immer 2 Bücher… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/07/skeptical-review-of-andersons-free.htm
l
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Comparative study says benefits of OA outweigh costs
Kostenvorteile nun auch in zwei weiteren Ländern. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/07/comparative-study-says-benefits-of-oa.htm
l
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Court orders release of Elsevier license terms
Non-disclosures clauses in Lizenzverträgen unwirksam? http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/07/court-orders-release-of-elsevier.htm
l
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Cancellations and OA, the flip side
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/07/cancellations-and-oa-flip-side.html
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted?
Foto: Michael Nielsen
Eine der meistgelesenen Blog Posts dieser Tage über die Zukunft des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens ist Michael Nielsen’s Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted?. Im wesentlichen vergleicht er den gegenwärtigen Zustand der Publishign Industry mit dem der Zeitungsindustrie vor 5-10 Jahren und prophezeit damit ein Versagen der Verlags-Dinosaurier und die Übernahme durch flinke Start-ups. Hier folgen ein paar lose verknüpfte Zitate, um ihnen Apetitt auf den (langen) Rest zu machen (Fettdruck durch mich):
In conversations with editors I repeatedly encounter the same pattern: But idea X wont work / shouldnt be allowed / is bad because of Y. Well, okay. So what? If youre right, youll be intellectually vindicated, and can take a bow. If youre wrong, your company may not exist in ten years. Whether youre right or not is not the point. When new technologies are being developed, the organizations that win are those that aggressively take risks, put visionary technologists in key decision-making positions, attain a deep organizational mastery of the relevant technologies, and, in most cases, make a lot of mistakes. Being wrong is a feature, not a bug, if it helps you evolve a model that works: you start out with an idea thats just plain wrong, but that contains the seed of a better idea. You improve it, and youre only somewhat wrong. You improve it again, and you end up the only game in town. Unfortunately, few scientific publishers are attempting to become technology-driven in this way. The only major examples I know of are Nature Publishing Group (with Nature.com) and the Public Library of Science.
Er vermisst folgende Features bzw. sieht dort großes Potenzial:
- Personalized paper recommendations
- A great search engine for science
- High-quality tools for real-time collaboration by scientists
- Scientific blogging and wiki platforms
- The data web
What I will do instead is draw your attention to a striking difference between todays scientific publishing landscape, and the landscape of ten years ago. Whats new today is the flourishing of an ecosystem of startups that are experimenting with new ways of communicating research, some radically different to conventional journals. Consider Chemspider, consider startups like SciVee (YouTube for scientists), the Public Library of Science, the Journal of Visualized Experiments, vibrant community sites like OpenWetWare and the Alzheimer Research Forum, and dozens more. And then there are companies like Wordpress, Friendfeed, and Wikimedia, that werent started with science in mind, but which are increasingly helping scientists communicate their research. [...] Lets look up close at one element of this flourishing ecosystem: the gradual rise of science blogs as a serious medium for research. [...] This flourishing ecosystem of startups is just one sign that scientific publishing is moving from being a production industry to a technology industry. A second sign of this move is that the nature of information is changing. Until the late 20th century, information was a static entity. The natural way for publishers in all media to add value was through production and distribution, and so they employed people skilled in those tasks, and in supporting tasks like sales and marketing. But the cost of distributing information has now dropped almost to zero, and production and content costs have also dropped radically. At the same time, the worlds information is now rapidly being put into a single, active network, where it can wake up and come alive. The result is that the people who add the most value to information are no longer the people who do production and distribution. Instead, its the technology people, the programmers.
Related posts
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Global economic downturn will affect scientific societies
Andrew Spong macht sich in Societies deliver the value. Publishers value the delivery. Gedanken zu einer Studie von Wiley-Blackwell über “global economic downturn affecting scientific societies”.
Today, Wiley-Blackwell has published the results of a survey undertaken earlier this year of 47 officers from scholarly and professional societies ranging in size from less than 500 members to more than 25,000, and from a variety of subject disciplines, the majority of whom are based in Europe and the United States.
Remember: you are the expert scientists. Publishers are just expert publishers. Scientific societies can be publishers; publishers cannot be scientists. It is the societies that deliver the value; publishers merely value the delivery, and their organizational immune system [darauf komme ich auch noch zurück] may prevent them from ever adequately supporting the local optimum that your scientific reputation possesses, and could be holding back the local optimum you may go on to achieve as publishers in your own right.
Related posts
- Weltwirtschaftskrise? Rockefeller University Press friert Preise ein (0)
- UCLA: Erosion of library budgets -> Open letter to publishers (0)
- MLA: 70% expecting budget cuts (0)
- Mehrwertsteuer für Bücher rauf auf 19% ? (2)
- Company of Biologists: 0% increase in subscription rates reflects our commitment to the community we serve in these difficult financial times (0)
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
12th ECMHL Lisbon: 1st Call for Papers
The 12th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries, Estoril, Lisbon, Portugal, 14th - 18th June 2010
FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS AND POSTERS
The International Programme Committee invites you to submit papers and
posters for the 12th European Conference of Medical and Health
Libraries “DISCOVERING NEW SEAS OF KNOWLEDGE: technologies,
environments and users in the future of health libraries” to be held
in Estoril, Lisbon, Portugal, 14th - 18th June 2010.
The Committee invites research papers, innovative approaches, examples
of best practice and case studies on the following topics:
Health technologies assessment, for example:
Information support for health care decision-makers. Evidence
provision for the introduction, allocation and cost-effective use of
medical technologies.
Evidence-based librarianship, for example:
Supporting evidence-based health care. Evidence-based library and
information practice.
Bibliometrics, for example:
Qualitative indicators. Measuring impact and quality. Citation
indexing systems. Cost justification for information services.
Preservation and memory, for example:
Old collections in a digital world.
Health and biomedical informatics, for example:
Data analysis and data mining. Content analysis. Health databases.
Ontology. Web search and information credibility.
Library spaces and places, for example:
Physical and virtual spaces. Changing physical library space. Value of
library and information services. Health libraries architecture.
Ubiquitous libraries.
Scholarly publishing and open access, for example:
Self-archiving. Scientific information. Knowledge society. Copyright
agreements. Pre-print and post-print. Publishing systems.
Emerging technologies and tools, for example:
Innovative health information management. Mobile technologies.
Information visualisation. Wiki technology and communities. Virtual
libraries. Microblogging. Communication and collaboration
technologies. Semantic web. Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. technologies.
Health librarians in the 21st century, for example:
Opportunities, roles, competencies, skills, marketing, leadership.
Information literacy, for example:
Advocacy, marketing and promotion. Recognizing the need. User
education. Benchmarking.
User statistics, for example:
Performance measures. Benchmarking. Quality measurement.
Library management, for example:
Fund raising. Accreditation. Partnerships. Stakeholders. Ethical
issues in information practice.
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION will be online only from the 1st July 2009 until
6th of November 2009. http://www.eahil.uio.no/cop_index.html
Abstract submission instructions
1.Both EAHIL members and non-members may submit abstracts. EAHIL
members will login with their ordinary username and password.
Non-members first have to register their personal details to get a
username and password.
2.When you login, you come to the abstract submission system. Click
on “Papers”. If you already have submitted abstract(s), you will get a
list of your abstract(s) and you can update the information by
clicking on the title. If you want to submit a paper or poster, click
on “Add paper”. For author information, use format: surname, forename;
surname, forename.
3.Abstract length should not exceed 2500 characters.
4.Within the abstract submission period 1st July to 6st of November
2009, you may update your abstract.
IMPORTANT DATES
Abstracts should be submitted online by the 6th of November 2009.
Notification of acceptance will be made by the 21st of December 2009.
The authors should confirm their participation in the Conference by
the 31st of January 2010. The full text of accepted papers should be
submitted by the 30th of April 2010.
FULL TEXT PRESENTATIONS
The full text of all the conference papers will be published on
http://www.eahil.net/conferences_eahil.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Isabel Andrade, Chair of the International Programme Committee,
isabel.andrade@ensp.unl.pt Paula Saraiva, Co-chair of the
International Programme Committee, psaraiva@fm.ul.pt
Related posts
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
Skyscape Anwendungen fast für lau
The Pediatric PDA Blog weist darauf hin, dass Skyscape 4 med. Anwendungen im Wert von 80$ für 1,99$ weg gibt - wenn man sie nur im Apple shop kauft. Also noch ein Argument, einen iPhone/iPod zu kaufen…
Related posts
- No related posts.
|
Bookmark:
|
Follow:
