The Open Scholarship Initiative

Conversations

OSI listserv

  • RSS OSI listserv

    • Re: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen August 17, 2017
      The OSI group on Open IP dealt with patents (in fact patents were part of the original charge and title for our group). Glenn, how soon are the reports going to be ready? Joyce Joyce L. Ogburn Appalachian State University 218 College Street Boone NC 28608-2026 Lifelong learning requires
    • Re: More on patents August 17, 2017
      Thanks for providing the background Joyce. From my perspective, open access is a way to demarcate the types of new knowledge that are segregated. Joann On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Joyce Ogburn wrote: > In my work on principles, economic factors were only one of the
    • Re: Today on The Scholarly Kitchen August 17, 2017
      Alright Jack, I’ll bite. Hmmm. From where I am standing this is another shadow box. Open access relates to the financial barrier to material that is already in the public domain (as long as you have enough money). It is not about preventing the ability for institutions or individuals to patent
    • Re: Wow August 17, 2017
      Hi Jack, There has long been an action of removing journals from the list for dodgy practice. 2013 was a whopper year: New record: 66 journals banned for boosting impact factor with self-citations http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/new-record-66-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with
    • Wow August 17, 2017
      http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/16/journal-retracts-107-papers-fake-reviews-pays-price/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone
    • Re: More on patents August 16, 2017
      In my work on principles, economic factors were only one of the principles listed even in the early days. See for example this excerpt from my chapter published last fall: "Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing, known as the Tempe Principles, was issued in 2000. This set of
    • Re: More on patents August 16, 2017
      Agreed Sent from my iPhone On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Michael Eisen wrote: That's an "odd" view of the history of OA. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > > I have responded to your tweet here: > https://twit
    • Re: More on patents August 16, 2017
      That's an "odd" view of the history of OA. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > > I have responded to your tweet here: > https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/897821779581906944 > > > > My main point: OA has primarily been driven by
    • More on patents August 16, 2017
      Hi Jack, I have responded to your tweet here: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/897821779581906944 My main point: OA has primarily been driven by librarians, and librarians primary focus has always been on reducing costs. Best wishes, Richard On 16 August 2017 at 14:42,
    • More on patents August 16, 2017
      The tweet that triggered the discussion I just circulated about patents is here. Do you agree with the premise in paragraph 2? JACK Jack C. Schultz jackcs...@gmail.com @jackcschultz https://schultzappel.wordpress.com

Stakeholder blogs

OSI on Twitter