Open Access (the book) - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* Chapter 2: Motivation */

2024-11-17T19:29:21Z

Chapter 2: Motivation

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 17 November 2024
Line 520:		Line 520:
	** See Martin Klein et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1 Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions], ''International Journal on Digital Libraries'', December 2019 (first online at this journal February 2018) ([https://perma.cc/RV4D-N3JV perma.cc link]): "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." Also note that the [https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363 April 2016 preprint version] ([https://perma.cc/PD9C-NNZN perma.cc link]) of this article, posted to arXiv, triggered online discussion long before the December 2019 journal version. The quoted sentence appears in both versions.		** See Martin Klein et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1 Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions], ''International Journal on Digital Libraries'', December 2019 (first online at this journal February 2018) ([https://perma.cc/RV4D-N3JV perma.cc link]): "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." Also note that the [https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363 April 2016 preprint version] ([https://perma.cc/PD9C-NNZN perma.cc link]) of this article, posted to arXiv, triggered online discussion long before the December 2019 journal version. The quoted sentence appears in both versions.
	*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."		*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."
	*** Also see Liam Brierley et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3 Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/~~B9PC~~-~~3QS8~~ perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."		*** Also see Liam Brierley et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3 Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/SL8J-85JL perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."
	*** Also see Lindsay Nelson et al., [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00368-0/fulltext Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review], ''The Lancet'', November 2022 ([https://archive.is/bzlkK perma.cc link]). "We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal."		*** Also see Lindsay Nelson et al., [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00368-0/fulltext Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review], ''The Lancet'', November 2022 ([https://archive.is/bzlkK perma.cc link]). "We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal."
	*** Also see Anthony D. Bai et al., [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301 Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles], ''JAMA Network Open'', January 27, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/SJ89-HWJJ?type=image perma.cc link]). "In this systematic review of 152 COVID-19 RCT preprints posted in 2021, 119 (78%) were subsequently published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. When preprint and journal article pairs were compared, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 of 119 studies (55%); however, the main conclusion remained consistent for all but 2 studies (2%)."		*** Also see Anthony D. Bai et al., [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301 Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles], ''JAMA Network Open'', January 27, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/SJ89-HWJJ?type=image perma.cc link]). "In this systematic review of 152 COVID-19 RCT preprints posted in 2021, 119 (78%) were subsequently published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. When preprint and journal article pairs were compared, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 of 119 studies (55%); however, the main conclusion remained consistent for all but 2 studies (2%)."

WikiSysop: /* Chapter 2: Motivation */

2024-11-17T19:27:13Z

Chapter 2: Motivation

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 17 November 2024
Line 521:		Line 521:
	*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."		*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."
	*** Also see Liam Brierley et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3 Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/B9PC-3QS8 perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."		*** Also see Liam Brierley et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3 Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/B9PC-3QS8 perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."
	*** Also see Lindsay Nelson et al.,		*** Also see Lindsay Nelson et al., [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00368-0/fulltext Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review], ''The Lancet'', November 2022 ([https://archive.is/bzlkK perma.cc link]). "We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal."
	[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00368-0/fulltext Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review], ''The Lancet'', November 2022 ([https://archive.is/bzlkK perma.cc link]). "We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal."
	*** Also see Anthony D. Bai et al., [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301 Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles], ''JAMA Network Open'', January 27, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/SJ89-HWJJ?type=image perma.cc link]). "In this systematic review of 152 COVID-19 RCT preprints posted in 2021, 119 (78%) were subsequently published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. When preprint and journal article pairs were compared, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 of 119 studies (55%); however, the main conclusion remained consistent for all but 2 studies (2%)."		*** Also see Anthony D. Bai et al., [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301 Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles], ''JAMA Network Open'', January 27, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/SJ89-HWJJ?type=image perma.cc link]). "In this systematic review of 152 COVID-19 RCT preprints posted in 2021, 119 (78%) were subsequently published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. When preprint and journal article pairs were compared, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 of 119 studies (55%); however, the main conclusion remained consistent for all but 2 studies (2%)."
	*** Also see Melanie Sterian et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-024-00152-w An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', October 7, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/2LH3-W6KL perma.cc link]). "Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality....Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study."		*** Also see Melanie Sterian et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-024-00152-w An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', October 7, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/2LH3-W6KL perma.cc link]). "Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality....Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study."

WikiSysop: /* Chapter 2: Motivation */

2024-11-17T19:25:11Z

Chapter 2: Motivation

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 17 November 2024
Line 520:		Line 520:
	** See Martin Klein et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1 Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions], ''International Journal on Digital Libraries'', December 2019 (first online at this journal February 2018) ([https://perma.cc/RV4D-N3JV perma.cc link]): "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." Also note that the [https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363 April 2016 preprint version] ([https://perma.cc/PD9C-NNZN perma.cc link]) of this article, posted to arXiv, triggered online discussion long before the December 2019 journal version. The quoted sentence appears in both versions.		** See Martin Klein et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1 Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions], ''International Journal on Digital Libraries'', December 2019 (first online at this journal February 2018) ([https://perma.cc/RV4D-N3JV perma.cc link]): "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." Also note that the [https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05363 April 2016 preprint version] ([https://perma.cc/PD9C-NNZN perma.cc link]) of this article, posted to arXiv, triggered online discussion long before the December 2019 journal version. The quoted sentence appears in both versions.
	*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."		*** Also see Clarissa Carneiro et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', December 1, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/YG4W-3E6G perma.cc link]): "The greatest difference observed from preprints to their peer-reviewed versions was the prevalence of conflict of interest statements, an item that is commonly required at journal submission."
	*** Also see ~~Jessica Polka~~ et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.~~432090v2~~ Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/B9PC-3QS8 perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."		*** Also see Liam Brierley et al., [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3 Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication], bioRxiv, April 4, 2021 ([https://perma.cc/B9PC-3QS8 perma.cc link]): "Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 6% of non-COVID-19-related and 15% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not reverse the main message of the paper."
			*** Also see Lindsay Nelson et al.,
			[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00368-0/fulltext Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review], ''The Lancet'', November 2022 ([https://archive.is/bzlkK perma.cc link]). "We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal."
			*** Also see Anthony D. Bai et al., [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301 Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles], ''JAMA Network Open'', January 27, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/SJ89-HWJJ?type=image perma.cc link]). "In this systematic review of 152 COVID-19 RCT preprints posted in 2021, 119 (78%) were subsequently published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. When preprint and journal article pairs were compared, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 of 119 studies (55%); however, the main conclusion remained consistent for all but 2 studies (2%)."
			*** Also see Melanie Sterian et al., [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-024-00152-w An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency], ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', October 7, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/2LH3-W6KL perma.cc link]). "Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality....Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study."
	** For another example of subtracted value, see Samuel Moore in a [https://twitter.com/samoore_/status/1286611380582457344 tweet thread], July 24, 2020. "Just spent three hours fixing typesetter-introduced errors in a forthcoming article. They had swapped around two sentences in the abstract (???) and incorrectly introduced commas left, right and centre. The reason this takes so long to fix is that the errors were so basic that it completely shattered my trust in their competence. I'm still pretty sure I missed half the errors they introduced and have no faith that my corrections will be implemented correctly."		** For another example of subtracted value, see Samuel Moore in a [https://twitter.com/samoore_/status/1286611380582457344 tweet thread], July 24, 2020. "Just spent three hours fixing typesetter-introduced errors in a forthcoming article. They had swapped around two sentences in the abstract (???) and incorrectly introduced commas left, right and centre. The reason this takes so long to fix is that the errors were so basic that it completely shattered my trust in their competence. I'm still pretty sure I missed half the errors they introduced and have no faith that my corrections will be implemented correctly."
	** For another example of subtracted value, see Conor Meehan in a [https://twitter.com/con_meehan/status/1358080649916219396 tweet thread], February 6, 2021. "Journal-enforced limits of reference numbers suck. All these papers deserve the excellent credit for all the excellent work our paper is built on and now I have to cut some for an out of date paper publication reason."		** For another example of subtracted value, see Conor Meehan in a [https://twitter.com/con_meehan/status/1358080649916219396 tweet thread], February 6, 2021. "Journal-enforced limits of reference numbers suck. All these papers deserve the excellent credit for all the excellent work our paper is built on and now I have to cut some for an out of date paper publication reason."

WikiSysop: /* Chapter 2: Motivation */

2024-09-27T18:47:11Z

Chapter 2: Motivation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 27 September 2024
Line 578:		Line 578:

	<span id="p46"></span>		<span id="p46"></span>
	* At [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access#page/n58/mode/2up p. 46], I quote from Thomas Jefferson's beautiful 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson. In endnote 24 (p. 187), however, I only cite a print edition of the letter. Here's an [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html online edition] as well. Appropriately, the relevant parts of the letter are reprinted in Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ The Founder's Constitution], University of Chicago, 1987, as annotations to the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.		* At [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access#page/n58/mode/2up p. 46], I quote from Thomas Jefferson's beautiful 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson. In endnote 24 (p. 187), however, I only cite a print edition of the letter. Here's an [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html online edition] as well ([https://perma.cc/QMA5-77Q9 perma.cc link]). Appropriately, the relevant parts of the letter are reprinted in Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/ The Founder's Constitution], University of Chicago, 1987, as annotations to the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

	<span id="ch3"></span>		<span id="ch3"></span>

WikiSysop: /* Preface */

2024-07-23T16:47:28Z

Preface

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 23 July 2024
Line 171:		Line 171:
	*** See Michael Gough and Steven Milloy, [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450184.pdf The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data], Cato Institute, February 2, 2000 ([https://perma.cc/BP84-M7HS perma.cc link]): "The government and its scientists appear to be as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Requiring the government 'to show its work' [by opening open access to data arising from publicly-funded research] opens up the regulatory process. Moreover, it ensures that federal regulations are based on sound science and reduces doubts about the need for federal intervention. Whether one supports or opposes regulatory action, we should all acknowledge that independent review of scientific data and methodology can serve only to strengthen the scientific foundations of public policy."		*** See Michael Gough and Steven Milloy, [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450184.pdf The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data], Cato Institute, February 2, 2000 ([https://perma.cc/BP84-M7HS perma.cc link]): "The government and its scientists appear to be as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Requiring the government 'to show its work' [by opening open access to data arising from publicly-funded research] opens up the regulatory process. Moreover, it ensures that federal regulations are based on sound science and reduces doubts about the need for federal intervention. Whether one supports or opposes regulatory action, we should all acknowledge that independent review of scientific data and methodology can serve only to strengthen the scientific foundations of public policy."
	*** See Brian Head and co-authors, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.04.004 Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia], ''Policy and Society'', June 2014 ([https://perma.cc/P7RS-24S5 perma.cc link]). Australian policy-makers agreed that academic research was useful for policy-making. For example, 39% agreed that "Academic research alters or transforms how policy makers think about issues and choices" and 42% agreed that "Academic research is used to shape and inform the design and implementation of policies and programs." Interestingly, surveyed academics thought these propositions were true more often than policy-makers themselves. Most relevant here, however, is the result cited by the authors in a [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/06/13/are-policy-makers-interested-in-academic-research/ blog post] summarizing the study (June 13, 2014) ([https://perma.cc/2B96-9RBS perma.cc link]): "The main reasons provided by policy-makers for the [relatively] low uptake of academic research were the perception that academic research is not available when needed, is difficult to access, or is not being translated in a user-friendly form for policy-makers." It's hard to avoid the conclusion that academic research would be even more useful for policy-making if it were OA.		*** See Brian Head and co-authors, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.04.004 Are policy-makers interested in social research? Exploring the sources and uses of valued information among public servants in Australia], ''Policy and Society'', June 2014 ([https://perma.cc/P7RS-24S5 perma.cc link]). Australian policy-makers agreed that academic research was useful for policy-making. For example, 39% agreed that "Academic research alters or transforms how policy makers think about issues and choices" and 42% agreed that "Academic research is used to shape and inform the design and implementation of policies and programs." Interestingly, surveyed academics thought these propositions were true more often than policy-makers themselves. Most relevant here, however, is the result cited by the authors in a [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/06/13/are-policy-makers-interested-in-academic-research/ blog post] summarizing the study (June 13, 2014) ([https://perma.cc/2B96-9RBS perma.cc link]): "The main reasons provided by policy-makers for the [relatively] low uptake of academic research were the perception that academic research is not available when needed, is difficult to access, or is not being translated in a user-friendly form for policy-makers." It's hard to avoid the conclusion that academic research would be even more useful for policy-making if it were OA.
	*** ~~More on OA for improved policies:~~ See Samantha Vilkins and Will Grant, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2544-2 Types of evidence cited in Australian Government publications], October 10, 2017 ([https://perma.cc/JM8J-YNFM perma.cc link]): "The study also found a possible increased chance for academic research to be cited [in policy documents] if it was open access."		*** See Samantha Vilkins and Will Grant, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2544-2 Types of evidence cited in Australian Government publications], October 10, 2017 ([https://perma.cc/JM8J-YNFM perma.cc link]): "The study also found a possible increased chance for academic research to be cited [in policy documents] if it was open access."
	*** ~~More on OA for improved policies:~~ See Fernando Hoces de la Guardia, Sean Grant, and Edward Miguel, [https://osf.io/preprints/bitss/jnyqh A Framework for Open Policy Analysis], a preprint from he Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS), April 5, 2018 ([https://perma.cc/Z7BX-YR97 perma.cc link]): "In this paper we have argued that policy analysis can address the threat of its own credibility crisis by adopting solutions from the open science movement."		*** See Fernando Hoces de la Guardia, Sean Grant, and Edward Miguel, [https://osf.io/preprints/bitss/jnyqh A Framework for Open Policy Analysis], a preprint from he Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS), April 5, 2018 ([https://perma.cc/Z7BX-YR97 perma.cc link]): "In this paper we have argued that policy analysis can address the threat of its own credibility crisis by adopting solutions from the open science movement."
	*** ~~More on OA for improved policies:~~ See Marialuisa Taddia, [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/good-citations/5065645.article Good Citations], ''The Law Society Gazette'', April 16, 2018 ([https://perma.cc/JG28-KQVU perma.cc link]). Law professors have always influenced law and policy, and today open access amplifies their influence. "More academic journals are making their content freely available online through ‘open access’, making the dissemination of scholarly articles quicker and wider. [Jon Yorke, law professor at Birmingham City University] points to an academic paper he co-authored in 2013 on the EU and the abolition of the death penalty as ‘the most downloaded article in the Pace International Law Review’, with over 2,000 downloads by governments, institutions and non-governmental organisations. ‘With open access of journals globally, policy-makers can have at their fingertips instant access to the quality of material which they are required to [use to] form intricate arguments. It definitely helps them and they do listen to legal academics in that way,’ Yorke adds...."		*** See Marialuisa Taddia, [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/good-citations/5065645.article Good Citations], ''The Law Society Gazette'', April 16, 2018 ([https://perma.cc/JG28-KQVU perma.cc link]). Law professors have always influenced law and policy, and today open access amplifies their influence. "More academic journals are making their content freely available online through ‘open access’, making the dissemination of scholarly articles quicker and wider. [Jon Yorke, law professor at Birmingham City University] points to an academic paper he co-authored in 2013 on the EU and the abolition of the death penalty as ‘the most downloaded article in the Pace International Law Review’, with over 2,000 downloads by governments, institutions and non-governmental organisations. ‘With open access of journals globally, policy-makers can have at their fingertips instant access to the quality of material which they are required to [use to] form intricate arguments. It definitely helps them and they do listen to legal academics in that way,’ Yorke adds...."
	*** ~~More on OA for improved policies:~~ See David Rose and Chris Tyler, [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/07/inundated-overloaded-and-bombarded-seven-insights-for-communicating-research-to-busy-policymakers/ Seven insights for communicating research to busy policymakers], LSE Blog, April 7, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/EE9J-2UHX perma.cc link]): "MPs and Peers tended not to search for evidence in academic papers, but their staff and House Library staff do. Staff talked about their frustration at finding paywalls that restricted them from accessing information. Open access is crucial." Or as I paraphrased this conclusion in a [https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1248312584023035904 tweet]: "Legislators are more likely to draft evidence-based policies if they and their staffers have #openaccess to the evidence."		*** See David Rose and Chris Tyler, [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/07/inundated-overloaded-and-bombarded-seven-insights-for-communicating-research-to-busy-policymakers/ Seven insights for communicating research to busy policymakers], LSE Blog, April 7, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/EE9J-2UHX perma.cc link]): "MPs and Peers tended not to search for evidence in academic papers, but their staff and House Library staff do. Staff talked about their frustration at finding paywalls that restricted them from accessing information. Open access is crucial." Or as I paraphrased this conclusion in a [https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1248312584023035904 tweet]: "Legislators are more likely to draft evidence-based policies if they and their staffers have #openaccess to the evidence."
	*** ~~More on OA for improved policies:~~ See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."		*** See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."
	***See Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."		***See Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."
	*** See Sean Grant et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy], ''Prevention Science'', May 13, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/MV3G-YP8Z perma.cc link]). "We evaluated TOP [transparency and openness promotion] implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy."		*** See Sean Grant et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy], ''Prevention Science'', May 13, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/MV3G-YP8Z perma.cc link]). "We evaluated TOP [transparency and openness promotion] implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy."

WikiSysop: /* Preface */

2024-07-23T16:41:49Z

Preface

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 23 July 2024
Line 176:		Line 176:
	*** More on OA for improved policies: See David Rose and Chris Tyler, [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/07/inundated-overloaded-and-bombarded-seven-insights-for-communicating-research-to-busy-policymakers/ Seven insights for communicating research to busy policymakers], LSE Blog, April 7, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/EE9J-2UHX perma.cc link]): "MPs and Peers tended not to search for evidence in academic papers, but their staff and House Library staff do. Staff talked about their frustration at finding paywalls that restricted them from accessing information. Open access is crucial." Or as I paraphrased this conclusion in a [https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1248312584023035904 tweet]: "Legislators are more likely to draft evidence-based policies if they and their staffers have #openaccess to the evidence."		*** More on OA for improved policies: See David Rose and Chris Tyler, [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/07/inundated-overloaded-and-bombarded-seven-insights-for-communicating-research-to-busy-policymakers/ Seven insights for communicating research to busy policymakers], LSE Blog, April 7, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/EE9J-2UHX perma.cc link]): "MPs and Peers tended not to search for evidence in academic papers, but their staff and House Library staff do. Staff talked about their frustration at finding paywalls that restricted them from accessing information. Open access is crucial." Or as I paraphrased this conclusion in a [https://twitter.com/petersuber/status/1248312584023035904 tweet]: "Legislators are more likely to draft evidence-based policies if they and their staffers have #openaccess to the evidence."
	*** More on OA for improved policies: See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."		*** More on OA for improved policies: See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."
	***Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."		***See Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."
	*** See Sean Grant et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy], Prevention Science, May 13, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/MV3G-YP8Z perma.cc link]). "We evaluated TOP [transparency and openness promotion] implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy."		*** See Sean Grant et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy], ''Prevention Science'', May 13, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/MV3G-YP8Z perma.cc link]). "We evaluated TOP [transparency and openness promotion] implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy."
	*** See Qianjin Zong et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04750-1 Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact?] Scientometrics, May 31, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/VH7R-TCCT perma.cc link]). "This study revealed that open access had significant and positive effects on the policy impact."		*** See Qianjin Zong et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04750-1 Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact?] ''Scientometrics'', May 31, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/VH7R-TCCT perma.cc link]). "This study revealed that open access had significant and positive effects on the policy impact."
	*** See Hashem Atapour et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05091-3 Policy citations of scientometric articles: an altmetric study], Scientometrics, June 27, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/U7R3-WFAD perma.cc link]). "Open Access articles were cited more frequently than non-open access articles in policy documents."		*** See Hashem Atapour et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05091-3 Policy citations of scientometric articles: an altmetric study], ''Scientometrics'', June 27, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/U7R3-WFAD perma.cc link]). "Open Access articles were cited more frequently than non-open access articles in policy documents."

	<span id="ch1"></span>		<span id="ch1"></span>

WikiSysop: /* Preface */

2024-07-23T16:39:58Z

Preface

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 23 July 2024
Line 177:		Line 177:
	*** More on OA for improved policies: See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."		*** More on OA for improved policies: See Michael Taylor, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8 An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences], ''Scientometrics'', October 10, 2020 ([https://perma.cc/LGN3-ZHDU perma.cc link]): "Both OA books and chapters have...higher rates of social impact in policy documents."
	***Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."		***Stefan Reichmann et al., [https://zenodo.org/record/3875055 ON-MERRIT D5.1 Scoping Report: Open Science Outputs in Policy-Making and Public Participation], May 31, 2021. Cutting against some of the studies above, the authors conclude that "policymakers prefer receiving information through personal networks rather than academic publications. The reviewed literature suggests that the availability of information in the form of academic publications and other research outputs is of secondary concern." But they also conclude that "improved infrastructure for sharing scientific outputs could have a positive impact on the use of evidence in policy making."
			*** See Sean Grant et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy], Prevention Science, May 13, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/MV3G-YP8Z perma.cc link]). "We evaluated TOP [transparency and openness promotion] implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals’ policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy."
			*** See Qianjin Zong et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04750-1 Can open access increase LIS research’s policy impact?] Scientometrics, May 31, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/VH7R-TCCT perma.cc link]). "This study revealed that open access had significant and positive effects on the policy impact."
			*** See Hashem Atapour et al., [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05091-3 Policy citations of scientometric articles: an altmetric study], Scientometrics, June 27, 2024 ([https://perma.cc/U7R3-WFAD perma.cc link]). "Open Access articles were cited more frequently than non-open access articles in policy documents."

	<span id="ch1"></span>		<span id="ch1"></span>

WikiSysop at 19:53, 13 August 2023

2023-08-13T19:53:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 13 August 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|}		\|}

	* This is the home page for my book, [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access ~~''Open Access'']~~ (MIT Press, 2012). I use it for posting updates and supplements, and linking to reviews, translations, and OA editions. — [http://bit.ly/petersuber Peter Suber].		* This is the home page for my book, [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001 ''Open Access''] <!-- prev link now dead = http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access --> (MIT Press, 2012). I use it for posting updates and supplements, and linking to reviews, translations, and OA editions. — [http://bit.ly/petersuber Peter Suber].

	* Suggested short URL for this page = [http://bit.ly/oa-book bit.ly/oa-book]		* Suggested short URL for this page = [http://bit.ly/oa-book bit.ly/oa-book]

WikiSysop: /* About the book */

2023-08-08T12:38:31Z

About the book

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 8 August 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== About the book ==		== About the book ==

	* The book was released in June 2012 and became OA in June 2013. MIT Press itself hosts [https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262517638/open-access/ four OA editions], in [https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/~~2009032~~/book_9780262301732.pdf PDF]<!-- old URL for PDF = https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2009032/book_9780262301732.pdf ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/5cxsyzs58a5yx5q/9286.pdf ; older =		* The book was released in June 2012 and became OA in June 2013. MIT Press itself hosts [https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262517638/open-access/ four OA editions], in [https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2105053/book_9780262301732.pdf PDF]<!-- old URL for PDF = https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2009032/book_9780262301732.pdf --><!-- old URL for PDF = https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2009032/book_9780262301732.pdf ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/5cxsyzs58a5yx5q/9286.pdf ; older =
	http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf -->, [https://openaccesseks.mitpress.mit.edu/ HTML]<!-- [http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/openaccess/Suber_05_toc.html HTML] = old URL for MITP HTML = -->, [https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.epub ePub]<!-- old URLs for MITP ePub = https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbxzndjohwaej38/9286.epub?dl=1 ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/quhm7dsziyk0dzw/9286.epub;before that = http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open%20Access_ePUB_Version.epub -->, and [https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.mobi Mobi] (Kindle)<!-- old URL for MITP Mobi = https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.mobi ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcyxmw7mg7q3o2o/9286.mobi?dl=1 ; older = http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_Mobi_Version.mobi and then https://www.dropbox.com/s/sopr28o2g1is2i7/9286.mobi -->. The same editions are [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 available in DASH] (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), and other places around the web. The Internet Archive hosts [http://archive.org/details/9780262517638OpenAccess 12 OA editions], adding [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_abbyy.gz ABBYY GZ], [http://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_daisy.zip Daisy], [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access.djvu DjVu], [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638OpenAccess_xisbn.json OCLC XISBN JSON], [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_djvu.txt plain text], [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_jp2.zip Single page processed JP2 zip], [https://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access#mode/2up streaming], and [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638OpenAccess_archive.torrent Torrent].		http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf -->, [https://openaccesseks.mitpress.mit.edu/ HTML]<!-- [http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/openaccess/Suber_05_toc.html HTML] = old URL for MITP HTML = -->, [https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.epub ePub]<!-- old URLs for MITP ePub = https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbxzndjohwaej38/9286.epub?dl=1 ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/quhm7dsziyk0dzw/9286.epub;before that = http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open%20Access_ePUB_Version.epub -->, and [https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.mobi Mobi] (Kindle)<!-- old URL for MITP Mobi = https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/9286/open-access.mobi ; older = https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcyxmw7mg7q3o2o/9286.mobi?dl=1 ; older = http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_Mobi_Version.mobi and then https://www.dropbox.com/s/sopr28o2g1is2i7/9286.mobi -->. The same editions are [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 available in DASH] (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), and other places around the web. The Internet Archive hosts [http://archive.org/details/9780262517638OpenAccess 12 OA editions], adding [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_abbyy.gz ABBYY GZ], [http://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_daisy.zip Daisy], [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access.djvu DjVu], [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638OpenAccess_xisbn.json OCLC XISBN JSON], [http://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_djvu.txt plain text], [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access_jp2.zip Single page processed JP2 zip], [https://archive.org/stream/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638_Open_Access#mode/2up streaming], and [https://archive.org/download/9780262517638OpenAccess/9780262517638OpenAccess_archive.torrent Torrent].

WikiSysop: /* Chapter 8: Casualties */

2023-06-26T16:59:00Z

Chapter 8: Casualties

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 26 June 2023
Line 1,192:		Line 1,192:
	\| width="10px" style="background:white" \|		\| width="10px" style="background:white" \|
	\|}		\|}
			h
	'''Updates and supplements for Chapter 8:'''		'''Updates and supplements for Chapter 8:'''

Line 1,249:		Line 1,249:
	** See [https://twitter.com/bah_lab/status/1295462463605886976 Bruce Hamilton's tweet] on August 17, 2020: "Nice that your paper is out. But if you put it behind a paywall & didn't preprint, so that I have to open the vpn, type in a password, and then unlock my phone for two-factor authentication, and then find that my Uni doesn’t have access, I'm gonna read something else."		** See [https://twitter.com/bah_lab/status/1295462463605886976 Bruce Hamilton's tweet] on August 17, 2020: "Nice that your paper is out. But if you put it behind a paywall & didn't preprint, so that I have to open the vpn, type in a password, and then unlock my phone for two-factor authentication, and then find that my Uni doesn’t have access, I'm gonna read something else."
	** See Farhad's [https://farhadinfo.medium.com/doi-digital-object-identifier-for-systematic-reviewers-and-other-researchers-benefits-66fcd96c5e35 comments on the authentication hassle], February 1, 2022 ([https://perma.cc/TYP9-DT2D perma.cc link]): "Accessing a paper from home through OpenAthens and Shibboleth is like you simply pay for a cup of coffee in advance but to get the coffee you should climp up a ladder, squeeze thorugh a toilet’s window and swallow a frog!"		** See Farhad's [https://farhadinfo.medium.com/doi-digital-object-identifier-for-systematic-reviewers-and-other-researchers-benefits-66fcd96c5e35 comments on the authentication hassle], February 1, 2022 ([https://perma.cc/TYP9-DT2D perma.cc link]): "Accessing a paper from home through OpenAthens and Shibboleth is like you simply pay for a cup of coffee in advance but to get the coffee you should climp up a ladder, squeeze thorugh a toilet’s window and swallow a frog!"
			** See Mike Taylor's [https://svpow.com/2023/06/26/seamless-access/ 47-step authentication hassle] when trying to open a "Seamless access" article in a journal to which his university subscribes, June 26, 2023 ([https://perma.cc/8LSN-XXNU perma.cc link]).

	<span id="p154"></span><span id="p154.3"></span>		<span id="p154"></span><span id="p154.3"></span>