Rapport du Médiateur de l’édition publique pour l’année…

Statut

Rapport du Médiateur de l’édition publique pour l’année 2012 :

“La circulaire du 9 décembre 1999 institue une médiation de l’édition chargée d’observer l’activité des éditeurs publics, de veiller à la cohérence de leurs politiques éditoriales et au respect des règles énoncées dans la circulaire du 20 mars 1998. Conformément aux dispositions de la circulaire de 1999, le médiateur remet un rapport annuel au Premier ministre et au Ministre de la culture et de la communication portant sur l’activité des éditeurs publics, sur ses évolutions comparées aux tendances générales observées dans le secteur de l’édition française et sur la place relative qu’elle occupe au sein de l’édition nationale. Le bilan de l’année 2012 porte sur l’observation de l’activité éditoriale de 70 éditeurs publics de 2010 à 2012. Elaborée à partir des réponses à un questionnaire adressé aux éditeurs au printemps 2013, cette synthèse témoigne de la stabilité globale de l’édition publique au sein de l’édition française, comme de la place modeste qu’elle y occupe. Le présent rapport mesure en outre l’évolution des pratiques en matière de coédition et d’usage des instruments de gestion. La circulaire du 29 mars 2012 relative à l’efficience de l’activité de publication de l’Etat retenant une approche par ministères, ce rapport propose également une vision de l’activité éditoriale des principaux ministères.”

URL : http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/144000041-rapport-du-mediateur-de-l-edition-publique-pour-l-annee-2012

Study on the protection of research data and…

Statut

Study on the protection of research data and recommendations for access and usage :

“This study is basically divided into four parts. Its objective is to examine the legal requirements for different kinds of usage of research data in an open access infrastructure, such as OpenAIREplus, which links them to publications.
Within the first part, the requirements for legal protection of research data are analysed. In the process, the existing legal framework regarding potentially relevant intellectual property (IP) rights is analysed from different perspectives: first from the general European perspective and subsequently from that of selected EU Member States (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK).
It should be noted that the European legal framework is partly harmonised in the field of copyright and largely harmonised in the field of the sui generis database protection right by EU directives. Thus, the national regulations are quite similar in many respects. National differences are described following the section on national implementation in Chapter 2.5.
Despite European harmonisation, the perhaps surprising outcome of the analysis is that there are some areas of dis-harmonisation between the different Member States. One very significant example of dis-harmonisation is the “exception for scientific research” to the sui generis database right. It is not mandatory for this exception to be introduced into national legislation and it seems that every Member State has its own interpretation of the underlying directive. As it is drafted at the moment, the exception is to all intents and purposes useless.
Another area that causes difficulties is the question of who becomes the rightholder of the sui generis right in a database that is created by a public body or in the course of publicly funded research. Indeed it is far from clear. Some might say the research institution or the funding agency or both become the rightholder. But of the legal regimes under consideration in this study, the only jurisdiction with clear regulation on this matter is the Netherlands and it generally denies a public authority the right to exercise the exclusive database right.
Additionally, it is still unclear whether linking, or at least deep linking, should be seen as a relevant act of communication to the public. There are contradictory judgments at the level of the Member States. However, at least this question will soon be clarified in the scope of an actual reference to the European Court of Justice(ECJ).

The second part of the study is dedicated to the scope of protection of the potentially relevant IP rights. First there is an analysis of whether different types of usage, such as linking, access or mining, infringe the different kinds of IP rights. Secondly, a “legal prototype of an e-infrastructure”, based on selected usage scenarios that may occur during the use of e-infrastructures such as OpenAIREplus, is evaluated in more detail. The main outcome of this second part is that by far the most important IP right in the context of e-infrastructures such as OpenAIREplus is the sui generis database right, and that it is very likely not possible to use all the described einfrastructure features without the consent of the respective rightholder(s).

The third part is an examination of some relevant licensing issues. Within this part of the study, different licence models are analysed in order to identify the licence that is best suited to the aim of Open Access, especially in the context of the infrastructure of OpenAIREplus. The result is that the upcoming CC License version 4.0 will probably be the one best suited to this kind of infrastructure. Within the last part, some recommendations are given on improving the rights situation in relation to research data. To respond to the fact that the scientific research exception as presently formulated is rather useless, it is suggested that a new and broader mandatory research exception be introduced on a European level. To achieve legal interoperability of different databases and e-infrastructures, it is recommended that all of them should license their data under the upcoming CC License version 4.0.”

URL : Study on the protection of research data and recommendations for access and usage

Collaborative Improvements in the Discoverability of Scholarly Content…

Statut

Collaborative Improvements in the Discoverability of Scholarly Content : Accomplishments, Aspirations,
and Opportunities
:

“The life cycle of academic works is supported by extensive cross-sector collaboration throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. In recent years, traditional codes of practice have been disturbed. In response, in 2012, SAGE published a white paper that offered conversation starters for reinventing conventions and relationships among libraries, publishers, and service providers. To carry on the investigation of the first white paper, Improving Discoverability of Scholarly Content in the Twentieth Century: Collaboration Opportunities for Librarians, Publishers, and Vendors, this paper explores the latest accomplishments, aspirations, opportunities, and challenges for improved discoverability of scholarly content. As the discovery landscape is rapidly shifting, this paper demonstrates that progress continues to depend on core principles of cross-sector collaboration, taking the form of these actionable recommendations for anyone in scholarly communications:
•Standards: When relevant, all sectors should participate in ratified standards to ensure that cooperation is part of business-as-usual routines.
•Transparency: Standards compliance is critical for successful discovery, and the development, implementation, and enforcement of these standards require open relationships across the industry
focused on reaching our shared goals.
•Metadata: Quality metadata, observing ratified standards, enables successful discovery of scholarly
content, products, and services.
•Partnerships: Opportunities exist for new discovery innovations across the industry, such as linked open data and cross-publisher discovery tools.”

URL : http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/pdf/improvementsindiscoverability.pdf

Open Access Scholarly Publishing in India A Scientometric…

Statut

Open Access Scholarly Publishing in India: A Scientometric Perspective of DOAJ :

“The present study attempts to evaluate the initiatives taken by India to make its intellectual output accessible for all by publishing in Open Access resources like Open Access journals. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is the most accepted and authoritative list of scholarly, peer-reviewed, fully Open Access journals. It also highlights various facets related to open access publishing in India on the bases of data collected from DOAJ. The position of India in terms of number of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is fourth well ahead of countries such as Germany, Spain, Canada. Most of the Indian open access journals listed in DOAJ were started in the beginning of 21st century.”

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/21169/

L’Avenir du contrôle par les pairs dans la…

Statut

L’Avenir du contrôle par les pairs dans la publication scientifique face au défis du libre accès :

“Le sujet de notre thèse “L’Avenir du contrôle par les pairs dans la publication scientifique face aux défis du libre accès” aborde la problématique du contrôle par les pairs à l’ère d’Internet. Composé de trois parties (Brève histoire de la communication humaine, Evolution et outils du libre accès et Contrôle par les pairs et libre accès), il retrace l’évolution de la communication humaine associée à une étape primordiale et indispensable de la Science : le contrôle par les pairs. Il essaye de répondre à la question de son devenir et orientation dans un monde en changement constant ainsi qu’au devenir de la publication de la science et de la construction science elle-même dans un monde de plus en plus ouvert et rapide.”

“The subject of our thesis “The future of peer review in the scholarly publication and the challenge of open access ” pertains to the subject of peer review in the Internet age .Made up of three distincts parts (“Short history of human communication , Evolution and open access tools , Peer review and open access ) it relates the human communication associated to an important and unavoidable stage of Science : peer review .it tries to answer the question of its future and orientation in a world in a perpetual change and also the future of science publication and its construction in a more and more rapid and open world.”

URL : http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00922600

On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics…

Statut

On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics: Principles, Practices, and Prospects :

“Claims about the transformations enabled by modern science and medicine have been accompanied by an unsettling question in recent years: might the knowledge being produced undermine – rather than further – human and animal well being? On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics examines the potential for the skills, know-how, information, and techniques associated with modern biology to serve contrasting ends. In recognition of the moral ambiguity of science and technology, each chapter considers steps that might be undertaken to prevent the deliberate spread of disease. Central to achieving this aim is the consideration of what role ethics might serve. To date, the ethical analysis of the themes of this volume has been limited. This book remedies this situation by bringing together contributors from a broad range of backgrounds to address a highly important ethical issue confronting humanity during the 21st century.”

URL : http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=462759

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing

Statut

“Peer review is an important element of scientific communication but deserves quantitative examination. We used data from the handling service manuscript Central for ten mid-tier ecology and evolution journals to test whether number of external reviews completed improved citation rates for all accepted manuscripts. Contrary to a previous study examining this issue using resubmission data as a proxy for reviews, we show that citation rates of manuscripts do not correlate with the number of individuals that provided reviews. Importantly, externally-reviewed papers do not outperform editor-only reviewed published papers in terms of visibility within a 5-year citation window. These findings suggest that in many instances editors can be all that is needed to review papers (or at least conduct the critical first review to assess general suitability) if the purpose of peer review is to primarily filter and that journals can consider reducing the number of referees associated with reviewing ecology and evolution papers.”

URL : With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: the Importance of Rejection, Power, and Editors in the Practice of Scientific Publishing

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085382