-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Panton Principles: A breakthrough on data licensing for public science?
,----[ Quote ]
| To summarize. Data itself must be completely free. The question is how to
| ensure that it is.
|
| The Open Science and Open Knowledge community has been discussing this for
| about 2 years. We seem to be agreed that legal tools are counterproductive,
| and that moderation is best applied by the community. This is represented by
| Community Norms – agreed practices that cause severe disapproval and possibly
| action when broken.
`----
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1939
Review: The Wikipedia Revolution
,----[ Quote ]
| Much like the rest of the globe's Netizens, of course, I knew about
| Wikipedia. And as a Creative Commons blogger, open-source developer and avid
| user of all things GNU, Wikipedia's philosophies were not unknown to me,
| either. But having just finished the book, The Wikipedia Revolution, I
| realized how little I really knew about the site and the movements that
| spawned it.
`----
http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/thetechdynasty/post.htm?id=63010845&scid=rvhm_ms
The open, social web
,----[ Quote ]
| I was in Europe for the past week and half, ending up in Leuven, Belgium to
| speak at the Twiist.be conference. The topic of my talk was “The Open, Social
| Web.” (PDF)
`----
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/05/18/the-open-social-web/
Should the Foology Society sell its journals to commercial publishers
,----[ Quote ]
| As I blogged recently a major asset in C21 will be trust. I still trust
| learned societies to behave honorably (and when they do not it is deeply
| upsetting). I do not now trust commercial publishers to act honorably in all
| circumstances. The lobbying in Congress, Parliament, Europe by commercial
| publishers is often directly against the interests of scientists, most
| notably through the draconian imposition of copyright. The PRISM affair
| highlighted the depths to which some publishers will go to protect their
| income rather than the integrity of the domain. For Elsevier to finance PRISM
| to discredit Open Access science as “junk” while publishing “fake journals”
| means that no society can rely on their integrity.
`----
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1941
Recent:
Elsevier Had A Whole Division Publishing Fake Medical Journals
,----[ Quote ]
| Remember a week ago when we wrote about pharma giant Merck and publishing
| giant Elsevier working together to publish a fake journal that talked up
| various Merck drugs and was used by doctors to show that the drugs were safe
| and useful?
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2157144822.shtml
No bottom to worse at Elsevier?
,----[ Quote ]
| The latest development, though, strikes me as something that should be
| shouted from every available rooftop: Elsevier simply must answer the
| questions raised.
|
| Via Dorothea: Jonathan Rochkind has done a little "forensic librarianship"
| and raised astonishing questions about the entire imprint, Excerpta Medica,
| which published the fake journal that started all of this.
|
| Go read Jonathan, but the bottom line is this: Excerpta Medica does not
| provide a straightforward list of its own publications or make clear which
| are, ahem, "industry-sponsored".
`----
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/05/no_bottom_to_worse_at_elsevier.php
Another Reason We Need Open Access
,----[ Quote ]
| One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in
| their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous
| as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be
| dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-reason-we-need-open-access.html
Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal
,----[ Quote ]
| It is this attitude within companies like Merck and among doctors that allows
| scandals precisely like this to happen. While the scandals with Merck and
| Vioxx are particularly egregious, we know they are not isolated incidents.
| This one is just particularly so. If physicians would not lend their names or
| pens to these efforts, and publishers would not offer their presses, these
| publications could not exist. What doctors would have as available data would
| be peer-reviewed research and what pharmaceutical companies produce from
| their marketing departments--actual advertisements.
`----
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/
Merck And Elsevier Exposed For Creating Fake Peer Review Journal
,----[ Quote ]
| Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that you can do when everything
| is locked up and proprietary, rather than open. There's almost no way to
| confirm or check the data or information to make sure it's legit, so people
| tend to assume it is. In that regard, perhaps it's no surprise that the two
| companies eventually went down this road, but it does highlight one of the
| problems with the way the system works today. As Shirky later points out this
| is hardly unique for a firm like Elsevier, which has faced some serious
| ethical questions regarding its publications in the past as well.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090503/1255574725.shtml
Related:
The serials crisis has a name, and it's Reed Elsevier.
,----[ Quote ]
| Mind you, I don't mean to imply that we should launch another boycott;
| reigning in Elsevier's profit margins and/or market share would do little to
| offset the serials crisis. The only answer to that, in the long term, is Open
| Access, because it scales where Toll access doesn't. No, this entry is not
| really about OA at all, it's just a little kick in the shins for my favorite
| Greedy Bastard Publishers.
`----
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2008/12/the_serials_crisis_has_a_name.php
Elsevier steals, then copyrights other people's free stuff
,----[ Quote ]
| Reed Elsevier caught copying my content without my permission:
|
| I was not asked for, and did not give, permission for my work to appear
| on that page, much less in that format. Needless to say, I felt a little
| slighted.
|
| The website in question appears to be a custom version of the LexisNexis
| search engine. This particular version appears to be Elsevier's own
| custom version, intended for internal use. I don't have conclusive proof
| of that, but the title bar at the top of the page reads, "Elsevier
| Corporate", and the person who accessed my blog from that page had an IP
| address that's registered to MD Consult, which is an Elsevier subsidiary.
| My guess is that Elsevier's keeping track of news articles and blog posts
| that mention them, along with the context in which they're mentioned.
|
| [...]
|
| Reed Elsevier Is Stealing My Words:
|
| I received an email from ScienceBlogling Mike Dunford that Reed Elsevier
| had excerpted one of my posts. No problem there--I like it when people
| read my stuff....except for one thing:
|
| The fuckers copyrighted my words.
|
| Copyright violation?:
|
| Apparently, publishing companies don't always get permission for the
| materials they use, either. Mike Dunford caught Reed Elsevier copying his
| content without permission (from Stephen Downes).
`----
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/elsevier_steals_then_copyright.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoSji4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo59MwCgrbxXI49Y9/9Y+l4wO9wKs+Ep
OIgAn3t1/DR0HoVhErI79jMwv1x+dCVu
=1R9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
