Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Information Wants to be Free

-----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-----

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index