[BlueObelisk-discuss] Article in The Guardian

[Jérôme Pansanel]

Dears,

Did some one read this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science

Any comment about it?

Cheers,

Jerome

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Post by Jérôme Pansanel
Dears,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science

Yes - Mike Taylor asked by to review it before publication. I think it's
very powerful.

I hope that this pushes science inexorably to Open Access. I'm not
suggesting that OA should be part of the BlueO - we specifically omitted
that from the mantra of Open/Data/Standards/Source. But it's gratifying to
see that the J.Cheminform BlueO article is highly accessed.

Post by Jérôme Pansanel
Any comment about it?
Cheers,
Jerome
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss

[Robert E. Belford]

There seems to be several things going on in the US right now. Wikipedia is
down in the US today protesting two other house bills, SOPA and PIPA.



Does anyone know if sites like this are legit?



http://www.thepetitionsite.com/207/support-the-open-access-movement-stop-the
-research-works-act/?cid=FB_TAF



Cheers,

Bob

From: Peter Murray-Rust [mailto:***@cam.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 2:49 AM
To: Jérôme Pansanel
Cc: blueobelisk-***@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Article in The Guardian





On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jérôme Pansanel <***@pansanel.net>
wrote:

Dears,

Did some one read this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-sc
ience


Yes - Mike Taylor asked by to review it before publication. I think it's
very powerful.

I hope that this pushes science inexorably to Open Access. I'm not
suggesting that OA should be part of the BlueO - we specifically omitted
that from the mantra of Open/Data/Standards/Source. But it's gratifying to
see that the J.Cheminform BlueO article is highly accessed.


Any comment about it?

Cheers,

Jerome


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
Blueobelisk-***@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Post by Robert E. Belford
There seems to be several things going on in the US right now. Wikipedia
is down in the US today protesting two other house bills, SOPA and PIPA.**
**
** **
Does anyone know if sites like this are legit?****
** **
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/207/support-the-open-access-movement-stop-the-research-works-act/?cid=FB_TAF
****
**

I came across it 3 days ago - I'm pretty sure it's legit. I have asked on
the Open Access lists but they are so disorganised they haven't responded
on where to post petitions

Post by Robert E. Belford
**
Cheers,****
Bob****
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2012 2:49 AM
*To:* Jérôme Pansanel
*Subject:* Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Article in The Guardian****
** **
** **
wrote:****
Dears,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science
****
Yes - Mike Taylor asked by to review it before publication. I think it's
very powerful.
I hope that this pushes science inexorably to Open Access. I'm not
suggesting that OA should be part of the BlueO - we specifically omitted
that from the mantra of Open/Data/Standards/Source. But it's gratifying to
see that the J.Cheminform BlueO article is highly accessed.****
Any comment about it?
Cheers,
Jerome
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss****
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
[phone]****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss

[Karol M. Langner]

Post by Peter Murray-Rust

Post by Jérôme Pansanel
Dears,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science

Yes - Mike Taylor asked by to review it before publication. I think it's
very powerful.
I hope that this pushes science inexorably to Open Access. I'm not
suggesting that OA should be part of the BlueO - we specifically omitted
that from the mantra of Open/Data/Standards/Source. But it's gratifying to
see that the J.Cheminform BlueO article is highly accessed.

One thing that occurred to me while reading this article was that OA would
probably benefit a lot from an elite, high profile journal. One that could
seriously compete with the likes of Nature or Science. Sounds a little far-fetched
as I read it, but often I get the impression that scientists treat publishing
in OA journals as a sort of charity or activism. It does not have the
kudos effect that gets scientists so excited by Nature/Science.

More specifically, what I mean is that most people agree that OA is a good idea,
and they are quite apt to read OA articles. But publishing OA comes a lot harder.
Especially when it comes to their best work, I am sure that no less than 99% of
all scientists would ever pass on the chance of publishing in Nature/Science.
Simply because they are so prestigious, highly filtered, etc.

Just look at the official "benefits" of publishing in a PLoS journal:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/static/benefits.action
... the most exciting point, for most people, is clearly #8 (the chance to have a high impact),
and perhaps OA needs a place where that point is #1.

Just a reflection,
Karol

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
One thing that occurred to me while reading this article was that OA would
probably benefit a lot from an elite, high profile journal. One that could
seriously compete with the likes of Nature or Science. Sounds a little far-fetched
as I read it, but often I get the impression that scientists treat publishing
in OA journals as a sort of charity or activism. It does not have the
kudos effect that gets scientists so excited by Nature/Science.
It's happening in Biomedicine. Wellcome Trust/Howard Hughes /Max Planck

are creating eLife. Mark Patterson has left PLoS to run this. I am sure it
will succeed and challenge NatSciCell. But the volume of papers will
probably be small.

http://wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/elife-a-journal-by-scientists-for-scientists/

[Karol M. Langner]

Post by Peter Murray-Rust
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
One thing that occurred to me while reading this article was that OA would
probably benefit a lot from an elite, high profile journal. One that could
seriously compete with the likes of Nature or Science. Sounds a little far-fetched
as I read it, but often I get the impression that scientists treat publishing
in OA journals as a sort of charity or activism. It does not have the
kudos effect that gets scientists so excited by Nature/Science.
It's happening in Biomedicine. Wellcome Trust/Howard Hughes /Max Planck

are creating eLife. Mark Patterson has left PLoS to run this. I am sure it
will succeed and challenge NatSciCell. But the volume of papers will
probably be small.
http://wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/elife-a-journal-by-scientists-for-scientists/

Thanks for that info. I suppose small volume is good thing for a
high profile journal. And a high rejection rate means publication
in that journal will be a privelege, right?

- Karol

[Egon Willighagen]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
Thanks for that info. I suppose small volume is good thing for a
high profile journal. And a high rejection rate means publication
in that journal will be a privelege, right?

Right. Prestige is orthogonal to quality, but serves it role. (OA is
orthogonal to quality too).

Egon

[Karol M. Langner]

Post by Egon Willighagen
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
Thanks for that info. I suppose small volume is good thing for a
high profile journal. And a high rejection rate means publication
in that journal will be a privelege, right?

Right. Prestige is orthogonal to quality, but serves it role. (OA is
orthogonal to quality too).
Egon

They sure are independent, if that's what you mean by orthogonal,
but many people would claim they are correlated (at least statistically).

- Karol

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner

Post by Egon Willighagen
Right. Prestige is orthogonal to quality, but serves it role. (OA is
orthogonal to quality too).
Egon

They sure are independent, if that's what you mean by orthogonal,
but many people would claim they are correlated (at least statistically).
Yes - they are independent variables which may or may not be statistically

indepdent. In Factor Analysis (allied to principal components analysis) the
algorithm tries to rotate orthogonal axes onto independent (non-orthogonal)
axes. Then to select the independent non-orthogonal axes which are closest
to orthogonality. I think we should reserve orthogonality for its precise
meaning (right-angles in multidimensional parameter space)


P

[Egon Willighagen]

Post by Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
They sure are independent, if that's what you mean by orthogonal,
but many people would claim they are correlated (at least statistically).

Yes - they are independent variables which may or may not be statistically
indepdent. In Factor Analysis (allied to principal components analysis) the
algorithm tries to rotate orthogonal axes onto independent (non-orthogonal)
axes. Then to select the independent non-orthogonal axes which are closest
to orthogonality. I think we should reserve orthogonality for its precise
meaning (right-angles in multidimensional parameter space)

OK, OK, ... I meant to say:

They span a 2D orthogonal space that describes in which things occupy
an area with large variance in both directions, where both access
point pretty much in the direction of the two variables we were
talking about.

Egon

[Karol M. Langner]

Post by Egon Willighagen

Post by Karol M. Langner

Post by Karol M. Langner
They sure are independent, if that's what you mean by orthogonal,
but many people would claim they are correlated (at least statistically).

Yes - they are independent variables which may or may not be statistically
indepdent. In Factor Analysis (allied to principal components analysis) the
algorithm tries to rotate orthogonal axes onto independent (non-orthogonal)
axes. Then to select the independent non-orthogonal axes which are closest
to orthogonality. I think we should reserve orthogonality for its precise
meaning (right-angles in multidimensional parameter space)

They span a 2D orthogonal space that describes in which things occupy
an area with large variance in both directions, where both access
point pretty much in the direction of the two variables we were
talking about.
Egon

So in this terminology, the variance of prestige in OA is not large enough.