Archive for May, 2006

scathing critique of wikipedia by jaron lanier

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Today, edge.org posted an essay by Jaron Lanier entitled “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism.” Here’s the abstract:

The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?

The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it’s been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it’s now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn’t make it any less dangerous.

This is a must-read piece for anyone interested in social computing generally, or wikipedia in particular. Whether or not you agree with Lanier, his criticisms are worth considering.

source: scathing critique of wikipedia by jaron lanier

Retroactive Tagging With TagThe.Net

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Hacky hack hack.

Ever since I enabled tags on taint.org, I’ve been mildly annoyed by the fact
that there were thousands of older entries deprived of their folksonomic chunky
goodness. A way to ‘retroactively tag’ those entries somehow would be cool.

Last week, Leonard posted a link on his linkblog to
TagThe.net, a web service which offers a nifty REST API;
simply upload a chunk of text, and it’ll suggest a few tags for that text, like
this:

echo 'Hi there, I am a tag-suggesting robot' | curl "http://tagthe.net/api/?text=`urlencode`"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<memes>
  <meme source="urn:memanage:BAD542FA4948D12800AA92A7FAD420A1" updated="Tue May 30 20:20:39 CEST 2006">
    <dim type="topic">
      <item>robot</item>
    </dim>
    <dim type="language">
      <item>english</item>
    </dim>
  </meme>
</memes>

This looked promising.

Anyway, I’ve now implemented this — it worked great! If you’re curious, here’s details of how I did it. It’s a bit hacky, since I’m only going to be doing this once — and very UNIXy
and perlish, because that’s how I do these things — but maybe somebody will
find it useful.

How I Retroactively Tagged taint.org

This weblog runs WordPress — so all the entries are stored in a MySQL database. I took the MySQL dump of
the tables
, and a quick
script figured out that out of somewhere over 1600-ish posts, there were 1352
that came from the pre-tag era, requiring tag inference. A mail to the
TagThe.Net team established that they were happy with
this level of usage.

I grepped the post IDs and text out of the SQL dump, threw those into a text
file using the simple format ‘id=NNN text=SQLHTMLSTRING’ (where SQLHTMLSTRING
was the nicely-escaped HTML text taken directly from the SQL dump), and ran
them through this script.

That rendered the first 2k of each of those entries as a URL-encoded string,
invoked the REST API with that, got the XML output, and extracted the tags into
another UNIXy text-format output file. (It also added one tag for the
‘proto-tag’ system I used in the early days, where the first word of the entry
was a single tag-style category name.)

Next, I ran this script, which
in turn took that intermediate output and converted it to valid PHP code, like
so:

cat suggestedtags | ./taglist-to-php.pl  > addtags.php
scp addtags.php my.server:taint.org/wp-admin/

The generated page ‘addtags.php’ looks like this:

<?php
  require_once('admin.php');
  global $utw;
  $utw->SaveTags(997, array("music","all","audio","drm-free",
      "faq","lunchbox","destination","download","premiere","quote"));
  [...]
  $utw->SaveTags(998, array("software","foo","swf","tin","vnc"));
  $utw->SaveTags(999, array("oses","eek","longhorn","ram",
    "winsupersite","windows","amount","base","dog","preview","system"));
?>

Once that page was in place, I just visited it in my (already logged in) web
browser window, at
http://taint.org/wp-admin/addtags.php,
and watched as it gronked for a while. Eventually it stopped, and all those
entries had been tagged. (If I wasn’t so hackish, I might have put in a little UI text here — but I didn’t.)

The results are very good, I think.

A success: http://taint.org/tag/research has picked up a lot of the
interesting older entries where I discussed things like IBM’s Tieresias
pattern-recognition algorithm. That’s spot on.

A minor downside: it’s not so good at nouns. This
entry
talks about Silicon Valley and geographical
insularity, and mentions “Silicon Valley” prominently — one or both of those
words would seem to be a good thing to tag with, but it missed them.

Still, that’s a minor issue — the tags it has suggested are generally very
appropriate and useful.

Next, I need to find a way to auto-generate titles for the really
old entries ;)

Tags:

This post was written by Justin, source: Retroactive Tagging With TagThe.Net

OA “really helps to get the job done”

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006
Quoting an anonymous researcher on LiveJournal (May 29):
I switched companies last year….I noticed, while trawling through the recent literature, that there appears to be an increased tendency for articles to cite other articles where the text is available freely (e.g. jounals like the excellent
Drug Metabolism and Disposition
) and is a simple click away when you find it through PubMed. Naturally if there is a key reference and it occurs in an obscure and/or closed-text publication it will be cited as a matter of course but, if there’s a choice between the two, the free option appears to win more often. Those personal libraries of free PDF or HTML files make searching and citing very easy, while for the special requests most electronic retrieval facilities only supply inconvenient TIFFs of scanned documents instead. I’m glad that a journal’s impact factor does not depend on it being pay-only and less accessible. In fact some of the free journals have very high impact factors. I know that money has to be made at some point but I really appreciate the open access journals and thank their publishers for making them available. It really helps to get the job done.

source: OA “really helps to get the job done”

Review of Open J-Gate

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

Henk Ellermann, Open J-Gate, In Between, May 29, 2006. Excerpt:

Some time ago, while drawing my reader’s attention to an article in Cites and Insights by Walt Crawford, I mentioned Open J-Gate as an alternative to the DOAJ. There I followed Walt Crawford by saying that the standards for inclusion are lower for Open J-Gate than for DOAJ.  In a comment to that posting, N V Sathyanarayana, disagreed with that qualification. Open J-Gate indeed indexes more journals, but they do make clear which journals are peer reviewed and which ones are not. One can also restrict searches to peer reviewed journals only. The main difference between DOAJ and Open J-Gate is not so much the quality of the indexed papers, but the fact that DOAJ is a true directory of open access journals, while Open J-Gate offers an index (of metadata), of the journals. Both services do offer a click-able list of titles.  So I have to agree with N V Sathyanarayana that Open J-Gate is not just about “lower standards” for inclusion than DOAJ. It is a different service….


[A]lthough I admit that my previous qualification was (a tad) unjust, I still have a few minor problems with this service. First, it mentions the Open Access [sic] Initiative and calls it OAI. Now, OAI usually stands for the Open Archives Initiative. Is this a mix up or am I missing something?…Second, there are a number of links that don’t work….Third, the articles are indexed based on metadata (including abstracts some of the time), not on the full text. DOAJ does offer full text searching on a (relatively) small number of articles and it would be nice of Open J-Gate would offer a similar service.


Fourth, The journals are classified using a three-layer hierarchy, but the hierarchy is not presented clearly (DOAJ does a better job here). It is only presented on their advanced search screen where it can be used (only) to limit a search term. It would be nice of such an hierarchy could be used for browsing too.


There is ample room for improvement therefore. Having said that, Open J-Gate has become one of my fav sites (on del.icio.us).

source: Review of Open J-Gate

ALPSP response to the EC report

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

The ALPSP has released its response (May 30, 2006) to the EC report and its OA recommendations (March 31, 2006). Excerpt:

Although the study was an independent one and has been published as
the basis for consultation, from which policy decisions may subsequently
follow, the Commission’s own press release did not mention that the study
was independent, and thus implied that its conclusions and
recommendations were supported by the Commission….

We are concerned at the suggestion that the EC should mandate self-archiving
for the results of EC-funded research. The primary output of
most research is data; in their raw form (before any third party has
invested in making it usable and retrievable through a database) we fully
support the view that such data should indeed, be freely available. The
same could be said of any project reports submitted to the funder.
However, bringing to the market, through a reputable journal, one or
more articles which describe and interpret the findings is a costly
business. Great care is necessary to ensure that any alternative free
access does not undermine the journals in which scholars wish to publish
their work….Different time delays of up to a year or even
longer may be necessary, depending on whether the subject is a rapidlymoving
one, and on the frequency of publication of the journal; a fixed
period should not be arbitrarily imposed by the research funder….

Where the article is made freely available by the publisher (whether in a
wholly or partly Open Access journal, or as a special arrangement with the
funder) it is preferable that users have access to the version on the
publisher’s site where it will include all the functionality added by the
publisher, such as links to cited articles and supplementary materials. In
no circumstances should the funder or any other third party take the
author’s manuscript and ‘re-publish’ it with functionality which competes
with that added by the publisher….

The authors appear to recognise (page 71) that, once all or most of a
journal’s content was easily accessible in free archives, journal
subscriptions would be adversely affected. We are already finding that,
where this is the case (e.g. in physics and related disciplines) downloads
on the publisher’s own site are falling dramatically as usage migrates to
the free site. While librarians do not yet see free archives as a substitute
for subscriptions – they would need to contain near to 100% of a journal’s
content for this to be the case – they do already see usage as an
important driver of cancellation decisions. We therefore fear that it can
only be a matter of time before cancellations follow.

Comment. I’ve often replied to the concern that mandated self-archiving will harm journal subscriptions. But to recap quickly: on the one hand, all the evidence to date suggests that there is no harm, even in fields where the rate of self-archiving approaches 100%. And on the other hand, even if there will be harm, the public interest in public access to publicly-funded research takes priority over the economic interests of a private-sector industry. The ALPSP response emphasizes the fear of economic harm to journals, but doesn’t even address the second fork in this two-prong debate, why the economic prosperity of publishers (even if proved to be at stake in these policies) should trump the public interest. As I put it in SOAN for 11/2/04, “publishers who object to [national OA policies] are defending the remarkable proposition that they should control access to research conducted by others, written up by others, and funded by taxpayers.”

source: ALPSP response to the EC report

links for 2006-05-29

Monday, May 29th, 2006

Tags:

This post was written by dailylinks, source: links for 2006-05-29

New discussion list on OA journals

Monday, May 29th, 2006
Stephen V. Pomes has launched a Yahoo group and discussion list on open access journals.

source: New discussion list on OA journals

Web 2.0 and Open Source

Monday, May 29th, 2006

A commenter at this post on Colm MacCarthaigh’s
weblog

writes:

I guess I still don’t understand how Open Source makes sense for the
developers, economically. I understand how it makes sense for adapters like
me, who take an app like Xoops or Gecko and customize it gently for a
contract. Saves me hundreds of hours of labour. The down side of this is that
the whole software industry is seeing a good deal of undercutting aimed at
sales to small and medium sized commercial institutions.

Similarly, in the follow-up to the O’Reilly “web 2.0″ trademark shitstorm,
there’s been quite a few comments along the lines of “it’s all hype anyway”.

I disagree with that assertion — and Joe Drumgoole has posted a great list of
key Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0
differentiators
,
which nails down some key ideas about the new concepts, in a clear set of
one-liners.

Both open source software companies, and “web 2.0″ companies, are based on new
economic ideas about software and the internet. There’s still quite a lot of
confusion, fear and doubt about both, I think.

Open Source

As I said in my comment at Colm’s weblog — open source is a network effect. If
you think of the software market as a single buyer and seller, with the seller
producing software and selling to the buyer, it doesn’t make sense.

But that’s not the real picture of a software market. If you expand the
picture beyond that, to a more realistic picture of a larger community of all
sorts of people at all levels, with various levels interacting in a more
complex maze of conversation and transactions, open source creates new
opportunities.

Here’s one example, speaking from experience. As the developer of
SpamAssassin, open source made sense for me because I could never compete with
the big companies any other way.

If I had been considering it in terms of me (the seller) and a single customer
(the buyer), economically I could make a case of ‘proprietary SpamAssassin’
being a viable situation — but that’s not the real situation; in reality there
was me, the buyer, a few 800lb gorillas who could stomp all over any puny
little underfunded Irish company I could put together, and quite a few other
very smart people, who I could never afford to employ, who were happy to help
out on ‘open-source SpamAssassin’ for free.

Given this picture, I’m quite sure that I made the right choice by open
sourcing my code. Since then, I’ve basically had a career in SpamAssassin. In
other words my open source product allowed me to make income that I wouldn’t
have had, any other way.

It’s certainly not simple economics, is a risk, and is complicated, and many
people don’t believe it works — but it’s viable as an economic strategy for
developers, in my experience. (I’m not sure how to make it work for an entire
company, mind you, but for single developers it’s entirely viable.)

Web 2.0

Similarly — I feel some of the companies that have been tagged as “web 2.0″
are using the core ideas of open source code, and applying them in
other ways.

Consider Threadless, which encourages designers
to make their designs available, essentially for free — the designer doesn’t
get paid when their tee shirt is printed; they get entered into a contest to win prizes.

Or Upcoming.org, where event tracking is entirely
user-contributed; there’s no professional content writers scribbling reviews
and leader text, just random people doing the same. For fun, wtf!

Or Flickr, where users upload their photos for free to
create the social experience that is the site’s unique selling point.

In other words — these companies rely heavily on communities (or more
correctly certain actors within the community) to produce part of the system –
exactly as open source development relies on bottom-up community contribution
to help out a little in places.

The alternative is the traditional, “web 1.0″ style; it’s where you’re Bill Gates
in the late 90’s, running a commercial software company from the top down.

  • You have the “crown jewels” — your source code — and the “users” don’t get
    to see it; they just “use”.
  • Then they get to pay for upgrades to the next version.
  • If you deal with users, it’s via your sales “channels” and your tech support
    call centre.
  • User forums are certainly not to be encouraged, since it could be a PR
    nightmare if your users start getting together and talking about how buggy
    your products are.
  • Developers (er, I mean “engineers”) similarly can’t go talking to customers
    on those forums, since they’ll get distracted and give away competitive
    advantage by accidentally leaking secrets.
  • Anyway, the best PR is the stuff that your PR staff put out — if customers
    talk to engineers they’ll just get confused by the over-technical messages!

Yeah, so, good luck with that. I remember doing all that back in the ’90’s and
it really wasn’t much fun being so bloody paranoid all the time ;)

URLs:

(PS: The web2.0 companies aren’t using all of the concepts of open-source, of course — not all those
web apps have their source code available for public reimplementation and
cloning. I wish they were, but as I said, I can’t see how that’s entirely
viable for every company. Not that it seems to stop the cloners,
anyway.
;)

Tags:

This post was written by Justin, source: Web 2.0 and Open Source

Moving toward OA at the University of Konstanz

Monday, May 29th, 2006

Karlheinz Pappenberger, Strategien zur Umsetzung von Open Access an der UB Konstanz, a presentation at German Librarian Day in Dresden, March 22, 2006. Self-archived May 25, 2006. In German, but here’s Google’s English version of the abstract:

Strategies for the conversion of open ACCESS at the UB Konstanz. Open ACCESS is not in the reason a new thought, but converts the most characteristic task of libraries on a new technical basis: Not to withhold information a singular use, whereby a free simultaneous world-wide use is possible technically for the first time. Libraries must create a suitable surrounding field for scientists as intermediaries of the scientific discussion that these open ACCESS publications notice and both when author and and readers use. The experiences at the library of the University of Konstanz show that for this a close co-operation with the scientists and the consideration of their specialized specific functions are important.

source: Moving toward OA at the University of Konstanz

Access to knowledge seminar in Ukraine

Monday, May 29th, 2006

Advocacy for access to knowledge: International seminar on copyright and libraries in Kiev, UNESCO News, May 29, 2006. Excerpt:

[At the] end of last week, the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Kiev, Ukraine, played host to experts from across the region at an international seminar on the role of libraries and access to knowledge….Thirty specialist librarians from twenty-five countries debated how copyright law impacts on access to information and knowledge, especially in the digital age and discussed policies and strategies to safeguard future access to our cultural and scientific heritage….

“Librarians must defend the interests of students, researchers and the general public who use the library. We must ensure that copyright is an enabler of access to knowledge, not a barrier. That is what this seminar is about”, says Teresa Hackett, Project Manager eIFL-IP.

Organised by Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net) and local partner Informatio Consortium, the event is supported by UNESCO’s Information for All Programme. High level speakers from Egypt, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Ukraine and the UK shared their expertise with participants in what was a lively two days of learning and debate….

PS: I can’t find a URL for the seminar itself yet. But if I do, I’ll post it here.

source: Access to knowledge seminar in Ukraine

Thinking about the ideal free information resource

Sunday, May 28th, 2006

Lawrence M. Sanger, The Future of Free Information, Digital Universe Journal, 2006. Sanger is one of the co-founders of the Digital Universe.

Abstract: The ideal information resource would feature high quality of content (i.e., be accurate and complete) as well as high accessibility (i.e., excel in availability, ease of use, and interactivity). This very programmatic paper first describes these various features and their implications. Then it applies the set of features to some extant resources, arguing that the ideal information resource does not yet exist. The paper speculates that, in the future, there will be little debate whether a startlingly new and better information resource is possible, because that much will be taken for granted; the debate will concern what the resource’s main features should be. Aiming to foster this debate, the paper concludes with a list of topics needed to be addressed to fully justify an answer to the question, “What would the ideal information resource look like?”

From the body of the article:

Outside of a few corporate talking heads and curmudgeons, there has been little opposition to open source and open content, probably because there is no good reason to be opposed to making freely-distributed information as widely available as possible—but also because the profits of proprietary projects have not yet seen much threat from these projects. It seems unlikely that all of the world’s information will be open content in the future; as long as authors, artists, and coders perceive no other viable model but traditional intellectual property to support their work, many of them will be opposed to simply “giving away” their work. But increasingly large segments of academe, government, and the general public, whose livelihoods do not depend on payment for specific pieces of work, have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to release their work under a license that makes it as widely available as possible. This trend is thriving.

source: Thinking about the ideal free information resource

OA archive in cultural studies

Sunday, May 28th, 2006

Culture Machine, an OA journal and archive, is trying to build up deposits in its archive. From today’s announcement:

Culture Machine is looking for contributions to a digital archive for media and cultural studies texts and related materials. The archive, called CSeARCH (which stands for Cultural Studies e-Archive), is completely free to both download from and upload into. What’s more, recent figures suggest that research published as ‘open access’ is between two and four times more likely to be read and cited than if it is just published in print-on-paper form….


This will let you browse the archive as well as read and download its contents for free. It already contains over 500 books, book chapters,journal articles, interviews, lectures and so on, from Abbas and Agamben, through McRobbie and Poster, to Williams and Zizek….


We realise it’s going to take a little time to grow. But one of the ideas behind open access archives is that if everyone deposits a digital copy of their published material in the archive, then it means that all the media and cultural studies research is going to be available for students, teachers, lecturers and researchers to use anywhere in the world, for free, for ever (as opposed to being restricted just to those individuals and institutions who can afford to pay for access to it in the form of journal subscriptions, books cover prices, interlibrary loans, photocopying charges etc., as is the case now)….

source: OA archive in cultural studies

More from the OA rector

Sunday, May 28th, 2006

Bernard Rentier, Accès libre, suite, a posting on his blog, May 28, 2006. Rentier, the Rector of the University of Liege, responds to comments he received on his May 20 blog posting in support of OA. Read the original French or Google’s English.

source: More from the OA rector

choosing to give

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

A lot of people have asked me recently if I’m planning on going back to RIT at the end of my sabbatical—or if, having tasted the sweet nectar of well-funded industry research, I might be tempted to stay in Seattle. I decided a few weeks ago that I was going to return to Rochester, but I had some lingering doubts and fears in my mind about whether I was making the right choice.

This weekend I flew back to Rochester for a few days, primarily to attend RIT’s commencement ceremonies. For the first day or two, I did have some second thoughts about my decision. Departmental politics were running rampant, colleagues were stressed with last-minute grading, and the overcast skies were more oppressive than I remembered.

Last night, though, I heard two wonderful addresses at the university-wide convocation ceremony. The first was by Dean Kamen, which I really hope will be posted in its entirety on the RIT web site (as they’ve done with past speakers). Elouise covered some high points, but you had to be there to appreciate the warmth, wit, and charm of Kamen’s delivery. It was lovely. (And yes, he did in fact ride a Segway up to and back from the platform, wearing his academic robes.) The second was by Erhardt Graeff, a student whom I first had in freshman seminar, and whose progress I’ve watched closely over the past four years. Erhardt’s a wonderful young man—intellectually curious, adventurous, articulate, creative, and genuinely goodhearted. He was selected as our college’s delegate for the university-wide ceremony, and then chosen as the one delegate to give the student address for all of RIT—and he did a spectacular job. Both of the speakers (without knowing the other’s theme) chose to speak about graduation as a passage not from learning to doing, but rather as one from taking to giving…something that hit a resonant note for me.

This morning I woke up at 6:15am so that I could be at RIT by 7:15, and in my robes ready to line up for our college’s commencement ceremonies at 7:30. Even after nearly ten years of doing this, I still love marching into the field house with pomp and circumstance playing, watching the parents and grandparents and spouses and partners and children craning their necks for a view of the processional, snapping photographs and clapping. And my favorite part of the school year is when our undergraduate students walk across the stage as their name is called. As they come down the steps, there are always a group of faculty waiting to shake their hands, and I’m always part of that group. I love watching the faces of these young men and women, many of whom I taught during their first quarter of freshman year, as they grapple with the realization that they’re really, truly, graduating. More than one of them gets a hug from me rather than a handshake.

After the ceremony, our department hosts a brunch for the students and their families. It’s hard to explain how much it means to me when a student pulls his or her parents over to meet me, telling them “This is Professor Lawley! Remember me telling you about her?” When I met Erhardt’s mother today, however, I got something new…she told me she reads my blog. (Hi, Mrs. Graeff!)

I nearly cried a couple of times today. One of those times was meeting the family of Katie Giebel, a delightful young woman who took my introductory web/multimedia class the fall of her first year at RIT. She came close to leaving IT, but stayed after I (and others) convinced her that it was only a short term rough spot she’d run into. When she was invited into the RIT honors program, she told me she was worried she couldn’t handle that and her ROTC responsibilities, and wanted to decline. I helped convince her to give it a shot, and she didn’t just survive—she thrived. Katie graduated with honors today, and the Navy is sending her to Monterey to pursue a master’s degree. (I’m wiping away a little tear right now, just typing all that.)

This year at MSR I’ve gotten an enormous amount from the amazing people around me, and I’m beyond grateful for that. But I don’t have the opportunity to change lives that being a professor provides to me, to give what I can of myself to my students. I left the reception today 100% sure that coming back to RIT was the right choice. And as I pulled into the driveway of my mother’s house, the sun finally came out…as if to welcome me home.

source: choosing to give

More on the Eysenbach study

Saturday, May 27th, 2006
Points for Open Access, Science Magazine, May 19, 2006. (Thanks to Jennifer Heffelfinger.) A short unsigned news story. Excerpt:
Advocates of open-access publishing got new fuel for their argument
from a study published online this week in the open-access Public
Library of Science (PLoS) Biology suggesting that free papers get
cited more often. The analysis, conducted by Gunther Eysenbach of the Centre for Global
eHealth Innovation in Toronto, Canada, looked at articles published
from June to December 2004 in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, after the journal started letting authors pay $1000 to
make their papers immediately available for free. By April 2005, 78 (37%) of the 212 open-access articles had not been
cited versus 627 (49%) of the 1280 regular articles, which are free
online after 6 months. By October, 11 open-access articles (5%) were
still uncited compared to 172 (14%) of regular articles. After data
adjustments for factors such as authors’ previous citation rates, the
open-access papers were twice as likely to be cited by April and
three times as likely by October. They also averaged more citations:
6.4 per paper versus 4.5.

source: More on the Eysenbach study

Good WHA resolution could be better

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen, Agreement Reached On IP And Public Health Resolution At WHO, IP Watch, May 27, 2006.

First the good news:

A technical group at the World Health Assembly today agreed on a resolution that will increase the worldwide research and development focus on diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries….The text of the resolution is not yet available but will be distributed at the meeting on 27 May by the World Health Organization (WHO)….

And then the bad news:

Participants said some language was removed due to overlaps from combining the two draft resolutions….Deleted language with no apparent overlap may have been removed because it was controversial. This might include…references to open access to public research such as the Human Genome Project and open access models in general. It might also include references to the public domain (“proper balance between intellectual property rights and the public domain”), and to the public interest (“imperative to reconcile the public interest in accessing the products and derived from new knowledge with the public interest in stimulating invention”), a global appeal from 2,500 scientists, and the importance of the WHO’s regional committees to include the CIPIH [Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health] report in their agendas.

Comment. I understand going for the low-hanging fruit before the higher-hanging fruit, and not waiting for consensus on harder questions before resolving easier ones. We do it ourselves in the OA movement. But OA isn’t an easily separable side-issue in the current WHA debate. Any serious attempt to accelerate R&D on diseases that affect developing countries has to reckon with the power of open access to help the cause and the power of toll access to hurt it.

source: Good WHA resolution could be better

OA can help translate basic medical research into practical therapies

Saturday, May 27th, 2006
Stig Linder and Maria C. Shoshan, Is translational research compatible with preclinical publication strategies? Radiation Oncology, March 24, 2006.
Abstract: The term “translational research” is used to describe the transfer of basic biological knowledge into practical medicine, a process necessary for motivation of public spending. In the area of cancer therapeutics, it is becoming increasingly evident that results obtained in vitro and in animal models are difficult to translate into clinical medicine. We here argue that a number of factors contribute to making the translation process inefficient. These factors include the use of sensitive cell lines and fast growing experimental tumors as targets for novel therapies, and the use of unrealistic drug concentrations and radiation doses. We also argue that aggressive interpretation of data, successful in hypothesis-building biological research, does not form a solid base for development of clinically useful treatment modalities. We question whether “clean” results obtained in simplified models, expected for publication in high-impact journals, represent solid foundations for improved treatment of patients. Open-access journals such as Radiation Oncology have a large mission to fulfill by publishing relevant data to be used for making actual progress in translational cancer research.

source: OA can help translate basic medical research into practical therapies

Three perspectives on OA

Saturday, May 27th, 2006
G.W. Brian Owen, Andrew Waller, and Lesley Perkins, Open Access: Three Perspectives, a presentation delivered at Sharing a Vision: The Power of Collaboration (Burnaby, April 20-22, 2006).
Abstract: Open Access has the potential to transform scholarly communications and access to academic research, especially for libraries in smaller institutions or in economically disadvantaged areas around the world. This important and timely panel discussion will focus on three aspects of open access: 1) the library as publisher, 2) the librarian as archivist, and 3) the role of open access
in the careers of upcoming professionals.

source: Three perspectives on OA

German profile of Harold Varmus and PLoS

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Hartmut Wewetzer, Bibliothek auf Knopfdruck, Der Tagesspiegel, May 26, 2006. A profile of Harold Varmus and PLoS, apparently based on the new Wired article. Read the original German or Google’s English.

source: German profile of Harold Varmus and PLoS

Informal scholarly communication

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

Christina Pikas, The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Informal Scholarly Scientific Communication: A Literature Review, a paper for a doctoral seminar at the University of Maryland College of Information Studies, May 13, 2006.

Abstract: This paper provides a review of the extensive research on the social structure and process of informal scholarly scientific communication and more recent research on the adoption and use of information and communication technologies by scientists for informal scholarly scientific communication. The benefits and uses of the information and communication technologies reported in the literature were examined to determine the influence of the technologies on the prior system. Information and communication technologies have not changed the social structure of science, but have enabled new forms of remote collaboration and slightly higher productivity as measured by number of publications.

PS: Pikas only mentions OA once, in the title of one work in the bibliography. Yet according to her definitions of “formal” and “informal” (pp. 5-6), OA preprint archiving is informal.

source: Informal scholarly communication