1. Peer-reviewed physics for Wikipedia: PLOS ONE Topic Pages
Science Wikipedia pages are not just for non-experts. Physicists – researchers, professors, and students - use Wikipedia daily. Despite Wikipedia’s importance as a resource for both practicing physicists and the wider community, it is rare for professional physicists to contribute, in part because there are few, if any, professional incentives to do so, notes Kaden Hazzard, in his post in the PLOS Blog.
The blog post says (quote): PLOS introduced PLOS ONE Topic Pages, which are peer-reviewed review articles written with Wikipedia in mind. These provide opportunities for author attribution and will result in both journal articles and Wikipedia pages of high quality and utility. PLOS Computational Biology has created similar topic pages, findable through this collection. Topic Pages combine features of Wikipedia (e.g., a living document, hyperlinking) with services associated with top-tier journal publications. Examples of these services include editing by active physics researchers, peer review, open access, and visibility associated with PLOS ONE. Importantly, Topic Pages are citable, with citations indexed by standard citation indices.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. The world debates open-access mandates
How far will Plan S spread? Since the September 2018 launch of the Europe-backed program to mandate immediate open access (OA) to scientific literature, 16 funders in 13 countries have signed on. If Plan S fails to grow, it could remain a divisive mandate that applies to only a small percentage of the world's scientific papers, notes Tania Rabesandratana, in her post in the Science Blog.
The blog post says (quote): OA mandates are nothing new: In Europe, 74 research funders require that papers be made free at some point, up from 12 in 2005, according to the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies. But existing policies typically allow a delay of 6 or 12 months after initial publication, during which papers can remain behind a publisher paywall. Plan S requires immediate OA; it also insists that authors retain copyright and that hybrid journals, which charge subscriptions but also offer a paid OA option, sign "transformative agreements" to switch to fully OA. Some European funders think Plan S goes too far. Germany is the Europe's top producer of scientific papers, ahead of the United Kingdom and France, whose main funding agencies have signed on to Plan S.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. How Do We Redirect Scientific Investigation?
Is it possible to direct scientific research? While scientists working in the private sector are directed by their corporate funders, for scientists in the public arena, academia or non-profits, their choice of research is less controlled. It is no surprise that scientists apply to highly similar projects, especially when they are more readily available, because of less competition, and come with good funding. In his post in The American Council on Science and Health Blog, Chuck Dinerstein looks at what tradeoffs do scientists make changing course and applying for less similar projects.
The blog post says (quote): Using NIH grant data from 2002 to 2009 and the similarity of applicants' prior work to the objectives of each RFA grant a recent paper looks at the scientists' bargain. The measure of similarity was based upon how much of scientists prior published abstracts used terminology found in the individual RFA application research objectives – the underlying assumption was the use of the same scientific language was a useful marker for the underlying science to be similar. It is no surprise that scientists apply to highly "similar" projects, especially when they are more readily available, because of less competition, and come with good funding. So what tradeoffs do scientists make changing course and applying for less similar projects?..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply