Brill content now live at ScienceOpen

Recently we made the announcement that we were partnering with Brill, a major publisher in the Humanities and Social Sciences for more than 300 years, and who publishes more than 250 journals and 1000 books and reference works each year.

The journals now indexed on our site, and some of the selected articles are:

  1. Indo-European Linguistics, a fully open access journal devoted to the study of the ancient and medieval Indo-European languages:
    1. Dark matter (link)
    2. Using stem suppletion for semantic reconstruction: The case of Indo-European modals and East Baltic future tense formations (link)
    3. Borrowing, Character Weighting, and Preliminary Cluster Analysis in a Phylogenetic Analysis of the Ancient Greek Dialects (link)
    4. Sonority Sequencing Violations and Prosodic Structure in Latin and Other Indo-European Languages (link)
    5. Accent in Thematic Nouns (link)
    6. Reconstruction Syntactic Variation in Proto-Indo-European (link)

  2. Journal of Greek Linguistics, a fully open access journal dedicated to the descriptive and theoretical study of the Greek language:
    1. On the theoretical implications of Cypriot Greek initial geminates (link)
    2. Subject-verb agreement with coordinated subjects in Ancient Greek (link)
    3. Greek phonetics: The state of the art (link)
    4. Perceptions of difference in the Greek sphere: The case of Cyprus (link)
    5. Morphology in Greek linguistics: The state of the art (link)
  3. Language Dynamics and Change, an international peer-reviewed journal that covers both new and traditional aspects of the study of language change:
    1. On some problematic aspects of subjectification (link)
    2. Correlates of reticulation in linguistic phylogenies (link)
    3. Some principles on the use of macro-areas in typological comparison (link)
    4. A pipeline for computational historic linguistics (link)
    5. Using phylogenetic networks to model Chinese dialect history (link)
    6. Molecular perspectives on the Bantu expansion: A synthesis (link)

Continue reading…

New journals coming to ScienceOpen!

A month ago, we launched a new competition for ‘platinum open access’ journals – those which are fully open access and do not charge an APC (article-processing charge). We called this ‘hassle free indexing’, because that is precisely what we’re offering!

The response from the open publishing community was fantastic, and today we’re pleased to announce the winners of the first round!

The following journals will all become part of our next-generation indexing and discovery platform:

  1. JLIS.it
  2. Magnificat Cultura i Literatura Medievals
  3. Algerian Journal of Natural Products
  4. Matters and Matters Select
  5. Informationspraxis
  6. Izquierdas (revista)
  7. Journal of Paleontological Techniques

On top of this, two of the journals will receive a free promotional collection with us! These are Magnificat Cultura i Literatura Medievals, representing the humanities and social sciences (HSS), and Matters, Matters Select representing the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine (STEM) fields.

Continue reading…

The winner of our Peer Review Week 2016 competition

For Peer Review Week 2016, we set a simple competition for you all, to publicly peer review one of 25 million research articles on our platform. This fitted perfectly with the theme this year of ‘Recognising Review’, as every single peer review conducted with us is published openly and creditable through the application of a CC BY license, which enables the unrestricted sharing and re-use of the reviews providing that attribution is given.

We’re happy to announce that Lauren Collister was the winner this year, and a t-shirt is on your way!

1

Lauren performed a civil, constructive, and detailed peer review of a paper entitled Crowdsourcing Language Change with Smartphone Applications. This article is also part of our Language Change collection, created by George Walkden.

2

We now have 118 open post-publication peer reviews on our platform. Each one is citable with CrossRef DOIs and can be interlinked with PublonsORCID, and ImpactStory, helping to build you profile as a researcher. This is a practical example that this form of peer review works!

Dasapta Erwin Irawan: The state of Open Science in Indonesia and how to drive change to make research better for everyone

Full steam ahead with our incredible Open Science Stars! We hope you’ve been enjoying it so far, and today we’re bringing you Dasapta Erwin Irawan, a a researcher based in Indonesia at the interface between Engineering, Hydrogeology and Geoscience, and an avid open science supporter. Enjoy his story!

When did you first hear about ‘open science’? What was your first reaction, do you remember?
It’s kind of funny, I heard it first from you :). (Ed: *sniff*) It was one of your blog post in 2012 Relocation, and a chance to try some open science-ing that gave me ideas of sharing my results as fast as I can and as wide as I can. I had finished my PhD when I first read it and your posts on EGU blog. There I noticed your hash tags ‘#OpenPhD` then followed it. I wasn’t serious in using my Twitter handle for academic purposes back then. My first reaction was, to make all my published papers available online, posted them all on my ResearchGate account and my blog.

You have a very strong commitment to open science. What is it that drives this for you?

My strong commitment has been built by seeing so many other doing the same thing. In Indonesia, where not many universities have subscription to major journals, open science could be the answer of what we’ve been looking for. Everybody here keeps saying to submit papers to major paywalled journals, as they have good reputation and indexed by WoS or Scopus, while it should not be that way. What we need in Indonesia is to keep writing, write more in English and find a way to make it easier to be found and accessible by others, as if it was indexed by WoS and Scopus. And I see by using the latest free and open source services, we can do that.

In Indonesia, where not many universities have subscription to major journals, open science could be the answer of what we’ve been looking for

Continue reading…

Xuan Yu, a man with a mission to bring Open Science to the Earth [Sciences]

Part of my job at ScienceOpen is, and this might come as a surprise, advocating Open Science practices. It’s very easy to get bored of my own voice and ideas though, and I love hearing the perspectives and experiences of others. By listening to others about their Open Science adventures, and taking on board what they have to say and learning from them, we become stronger ourselves and as part of a community, and understand how to put things into practice more easily. This is why the Open Science Stars series exists, and why it’s so important! The next interview in the series is with Xuan Yu, and is our first with an Earth scientist, which is very exciting! Enjoy!

Credit: Xuan Yu
Credit: Xuan Yu

Hi Xuan! When did you first hear about ‘open science’? What was your first reaction, do you remember?

When I joined the OntoSoft committee meeting in March, 2015, I was introduced the concept of ‘open science’. I was not convinced by the concept, because there are usually many individual preference-based methods involved in most of geoscience projects.

It seems like much of the global push for open science comes from the Life Sciences. How are things in the Earth Sciences in terms of awareness and solutions?

Earth Sciences are slowing moving towards transparent, reproducible, and open culture. Many funding agencies and publishers have made actions to promote open science.

Can you tell us about some of the strategies you’ve developed for sharing data and software in geoscience? What drives your commitment to this?

I would like to recommend the strategy of transparent publication in geoscience. Sharing data and software with journal articles will draw wide attention and be practical. Because: 1) background information about the data and software has been explained in the article, which increases data transparency, 2) a scientific story in the article will lead readers to the data and software, which promotes the utility of the data. Specifically, there are four key steps in transparent publication of geoscience: persistent, linked, user-friendly, and sustainable (PLUS).

Continue reading…

berlin-long-white

OpenCon Berlin 2016: Advancing Openness in Research and Education

ScienceOpen has teamed up with OpenAIRE and Digital-Science, alongside two of their portfolio companies – Figshare and Overleaf, to organise an OpenCon ‘satellite’ event to be held in Berlin on the 24-26th November.

This event will form one of the many international satellite events of the bigger OpenCon 2016 conference that will take place two weeks earlier in Washington, DC.

OpenCon is the student and early career academic professional conference that focuses on Open Access, Open Education, and Open Data. It seeks to empower the next generation to advance openness in research and education.

OpenCon satellite events are organised by those who are passionate about communicating the important messages of Open Information with the world, and are welcome to anyone interested in joining the conversation and connecting with a community of like-minded individuals.

When: 24th to 26th of November 2016.

Where: Humboldt University Berlin.

What: The event:will focus on putting Open Science into action through open collaboration. On Thursday evening (24th) we will be hosting a hackathon to get people in the mood and have a chance to get settled before the main event!

Hashtag: #OpenConBerlin

Our keynote speaker (Friday 25th, 10am), will be Julia Reda MEP – a woman on a mission to reform copyright legislation.

Alongside presentations and interesting talks made by those who have benefited and gained from open information, we’ll run focused workshops on themes you’ll choose via crowdsourcing.

During the event, we will run a few short and themed focus group sessions; in each session we hope to start a conversation where people share advice and success stories about the industry. Discussions and resources willbe collated via open documents like etherpads and collected as outputs of the event.

We’re all in the business of collaboration and we hope the event will inspire those who attend to do just that!

Registration: OpenCon Berlin 2016 is free to attend, but you must RSVP via the OpenCon Berlin 2016 website: http://www.opencon2016.org/opencon_2016_berlin

Useful links:

OpenCon: http://www.opencon2016.org/

ScienceOpen: https://www.scienceopen.com/

Digital Science: https://www.digital-science.com/

OpenAIRE: https://www.openaire.eu/

Etherpad: https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/OpenConBerlin2016 – updates, the agenda, and notes will all be posted here.

Recognition for Review is focus for Peer Review Week 2016

To honor and celebrate peer review, a group of organizations is working collaboratively to plan a week of activities and events. The group is delighted to announce that the second annual Peer Review Week will run from September 19- 25, 2016.

Logo

This year’s theme is Recognition for Review, exploring all aspects of how those participating in review activity – in publishing, grant review, conference submissions, promotion and tenure, and more – should be recognized for their contribution.

Continue reading…

Disambiguating post-publication peer review

Guest post by Tony Ross-Hellauer, Scientific Manager of OpenAIRE (email ross-hellauer@sub.uni-goettingen.de). Originally posted on the OpenAIRE blog. Re-posted with permission under a CC BY license.


NOTE: OpenAIRE would like to know what you think about open peer review! Have your say here until 7th October! 

Tl;dr – “Post-publication peer review” (PPPR) has gained a lot of traction in recent years. As with much of peer review’s confusing lexicon, however, this term is ambiguous. This ambiguity stems from confusion over what constitutes “publication” in the digital age. PPPR conflates two distinct phenomena, which we would do better to treat separately, namely “open pre-review manuscripts” and “open final-version commenting”.

What is “post-publication peer review”?

Peer review can have two senses, one specific and the other more general. “Peer Review” (henceforth PR) is a well-defined publishing practice for the quality assurance of research articles and other academic outputs. It is intimately tied to the publication process. It traditionally begins when an editor sends a manuscript to reviewers and ends when the editor accepts a manuscript for publication. But “peer review” (lower-case, henceforth “pr”) is just the critique and appraisal of ideas, theories, and findings by those with particular insight into a topic. Such feedback happens all the time. It happens before manuscripts are submitted: in colleagues’ initial reactions (positive or negative) to a new idea, feedback gained from conferences, lectures, seminars and late-night bull sessions, or private comments on late-stage first-draft manuscripts from trusted peers. And it continues after the article’s appearance in a journal, via a multitude of channels through which readers can give feedback, including comment sections on journal websites, dedicated channels for post-publication commentary, blogs and social media, and of course in future research that cites and comments back on the findings.

Continue reading…

Why ScienceOpen Research doesn’t have an impact factor

ScienceOpen is more than just a publisher – we’re an open science platform!

We publish from across the whole spectrum of research: Science, Technology, Engineering, Humanities, Mathematics, Social Sciences. Every piece of research deserves an equal chance to be published, irrespective of its field.

We also don’t discriminate based on the type of research.  Original research, small-scale studies, opinion pieces, “negative” or null findings, review articles, data and software articles, case reports, and replication studies. We publish it all.

At ScienceOpen, we believe that the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a particularly poor way of measuring the impact of scholarly publishing. Furthermore, we think that it is a highly misleading metric for research assessment despite its widespread [mis-]use for this, and we strongly encourage researchers to adhere to the principles of DORA and the Leiden Manifesto.

csu07dewcaabjyn

This is why for our primary publication, ScienceOpen Research, we do not obtain or report the JIF. We provide article-level metrics and a range of other article aspects that provide and enhance the context of each article, and extend this to all 25 million research articles on our platform.

Further reading

A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions (link)

How can academia kick its addiction to the impact factor (link)

A thoroughly British interview with Matthew Partridge

Cup of tea, anyone?
 
Continuing our amazing Open Science Stars series, we’re going a little closer towards my own routes today. We spoke with Matthew Partridge, a biochemist at Cranfield University in the UK about his experiences and thoughts on all things academia and open science. Caution: this post contains sarcasm.
 
Hi Matt! Thanks for joining us. Could you tell us a bit about your background?
 
No problem, happy to be here! And by here I mean ‘at my laptop 2 months after you sent me these questions, and several more weeks before it’s published’…
 
I’m not sure what to tell you about my background really (your next question deals with the ‘scientist’ bit) so I guess I could fill you in on the non-science part of my backstory. I’m British and in my mid 30’s and I currently work at Cranfield University – which is pretty much slap bang in the dead centre of England. My first degree is in BioChemistry, after which I spent 6 years toiling away in industrial medical device research. I then rejoined academia to do a PhD and have stayed ever since.
 
Matt assures me this a realistic representation of him..
Matt assures me this a realistic representation of him..
 
When did you first realise you wanted to be scientist? What was it that turned you?
I don’t think there was a time when I didn’t want to be a scientist. At various points in my life I’ve wanted to be various kinds of scientist – at one point even a pathologist. Both my parents were pharmacists so I was raised in a pretty pro-science house and it just appealed to me really. Although I did question it once when my science teacher wrote in final report (before moving to a bigger school) “Matthew should consider any career except science”. Since finding this out a few years ago, I have strongly resisted the urge to mail him 1,000 copies of my PhD thesis.
 

Continue reading…