Von Open Access zu Open Science

download Von Open Access zu Open Science

of 49

  • date post

    10-Jan-2017
  • Category

    Science

  • view

    1.203
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Von Open Access zu Open Science

  • Von Open Access zu Open Science

    Leonhard Dobusch Professor fr Betriebswirtschaftslehre mit Schwerpunkt Organisation

    Institut fr Organisation und Lernen

    3. Veranstaltung des Open Access Netzwerks Austria (OANA) Von der Open-Access-Transition zu Open Science

    1. Juni 2016, Palais Harrach, Freyung 3, WienDieses Werk steht unter der LizenzCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

  • Prolog: Publikationspfade

    2

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsultation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsultation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

    Copyrightan Verlag

  • I hereby assign to [scientific publisher] exclusively all my right, title and interest in said article, including without limitation the copyright therein.

    aus: Copyright Form eines groen Wissenschaftsverlags

  • Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers

    Sci-Hub: 28 Millionen Downloads in 6 Monaten

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers

  • Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers

    31.5.2016 Tell us what you think about Sci-HubLove it or Hate it? Beantwortungen | SurveyMonkey

    https://de.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-PQX56R8R/ 1/4

    Tweet Share

    10937 responses4/21/2016 - 5/5/2016

    224 views

    Tell us what you think about Sci-HubLove it or

    Hate it?

    Share ShareQ1

    Q2

    Q3

    12.13% 1,315

    87.87% 9,526

    Do you think it is wrong to download

    pirated papers?

    Answered: 10,841 Skipped: 96

    Total 10,841

    Yes

    No

    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

    Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen

    Yes

    No

    41.11% 4,470

    33.27% 3,618

    25.62% 2,786

    Have you used Sci-Hub, and if so, how

    often?

    Answered: 10,874 Skipped: 63

    Total 10,874

    Never

    A few times

    Daily or weekly

    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

    Antwortoptionen Beantwortungen

    Never

    A few times

    Daily or weekly

    Have you used other repositories of pirated

    journal articles, or used the twitter hashtag

    #IcanhazPDF to obtain a paper.

    Answered: 10,817 Skipped: 120

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbs-pirated-papers

  • Source:Screenshot http://www.sci-hub.cc/

    http://www.sci-hub.cc/

  • Source:Screenshot http://www.sci-hub.cc/

    http://www.sci-hub.cc/

  • Open Access

    10

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsulation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

    Copyrightan Verlag

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsulation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

    Copyrightan Verlag

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsulation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

    Copyrightan Verlag

  • Open Access

    Open Licenses

    Open Formats

  • eine Gegenrevolution, die sie von oben durchsetzen mssten

    Interview mit Wissenschaftler zu Open Access

  • Open-Access-Mandate

    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research & Innovation

    Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data

    in Horizon 2020

    Version 2.1

    15 February 2016

    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research & Innovation

    Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data

    in Horizon 2020

    Version 2.1

    15 February 2016

    ERC Executive Agency Place Rogier 16, COV2 21/132, BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium I Tel: +32 2 299 45 89 I Fax +32 2 299 45 89 I ERC-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu I http://erc.europa.eu I

    Brussels, ERCEA/12.04.2016

    Dear grantee of the European Research Council,

    You are the Principal Investigator of an ERC grant funded under Horizon 2020, and we would like to provide you with important information regarding the requirements for open access to publications.

    Please be reminded that you have an obligation to ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications related to the results of the ERC project. We would like to emphasize that the mandatory open access for ERC projects in H2020 applies not only to peer reviewed journal articles, but to all types of peer reviewed scientific publications, including books and monographs.

    You can ensure open access through the green (self-archiving) or gold (publishing open access) route.

    Choosing green open access means that you provide open access by depositing a copy of the final peer-reviewed manuscript (or published version) in a repository. Open access should be provided as soon as possible and in any case no later than six months after the official publication date. For publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain a delay of up to twelve months is acceptable.

    Choosing gold open access means ensuring that an electronic version will be available for free via the publisher. Be aware that also in these cases, a copy of the publication must be deposited in a repository, at the latest on publication (either by the publisher or the researcher).

    These are the main open access obligations in your grant agreement and we advise you to read the full text of the relevant article (29.2) with more details, at the end of this letter.

    The ERC strongly encourages ERC funded researchers to use discipline-specific repositories for their publications. The recommended repository for Life Sciences is Europe PubMed Central (http://europepmc.org) and for Physical Sciences and Engineering arXiv (http://arxiv.org/). The recommended repository for monographs, book chapters and other long-text publications is the OAPEN Library (http://oapen.org). Institutional repositories and centralised repositories are also acceptable.

    Open access fees are eligible costs that may be charged to the ERC grant, if they incur in the duration of the projects, even if this was not planned in the original budget. There is however no additional funding for this type of costs. Be reminded that as stated in your

  • If you can't beat them, join them?

  • Hybrid?

  • Volume 169 ( 2016 )

    Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anik Liptk, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

    International Review of General

    Linguistics

    Revue Internationale de

    Linguistique Gnrale

    Interim editor

    H. Whitaker

    Amsterdam Boston London New York Oxford Philadelphia San Diego St. Louis

    Volume 169 ( 2016 )

    Please note that the articles in this issue were handled by the previous editorial team: Johan Rooryck, Anik Liptk, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Chung-hye Han and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli

    International Review of General

    Linguistics

    Revue Internationale de

    Linguistique Gnrale

    Interim editor

    H. Whitaker

    Amsterdam Boston London New York Oxford Philadelphia San Diego St. Louis

    >>

  • Open Access 2.0

    25

  • The Garbage Strike Test

  • Lets say all large publishers suddenly refused anyone any access to any of their copyrighted materials at 9am tomorrow morningwhat would they be replaced with?

    James Heathers,https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-sci-hub-will-win-595b53aae9fa#.6f2z0k6dz

    https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-sci-hub-will-win-595b53aae9fa#.6f2z0k6dz

  • Open Science

    37

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier GutachterInnen

    Herausgeber_in entscheiden

    Herausgeber_inentscheidet

    (ggf. nach Konsulation von GutachterInnen)

    Artikel erscheint

    berarbeitungs-mglichkeit (R&R)

    Copyrightan Verlag

  • Publikationsprozess

    AutorInnen reichen ein

    Herausgeber_inliest Einreichung

    Desk Rejection Begrndung der Ablehnung durch Hg.

    Versand an zwei bis vier Guta