Open sesame: Analysing Public Library of Science as a site of production and distribution for open access scientific information and knowledge

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-238
Author(s):  
Scott S.D. Mitchell

This article explores the Public Library of Science as a site that produces and disseminates open access scientific information and knowledge for the public good. Through this case study, issues of property ownership, the nature and political economy of biological information, scientific expertise and accessibility of information and scientific knowledge as a public good are considered. Drawing on a cultural industries perspective, I examine the various intermediaries and institutional arrangements that continue to impact and shape the production and dissemination of this open access knowledge. I suggest that Public Library of Science embodies a new mode for the social production of scholarly knowledge and its dissemination, with important implications for how scientific knowledge and expertise are created, certified and circulated.

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 226
Author(s):  
D. PANAYIOTOPOULOS (Δ. ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ)

The World Wide Web disseminates scientific knowledge. The possibility of searching and retrieving simultaneously scientific publications tends to promote research and ensures originality. The traditional publishing model restricted research to published subscription-based journals, thus providing scientific information only to financially sound communities. In response to this, the Open Access movement was created, which is an economical way of diffusion and management of scientific information. As a result, scientific information is now available to all for free spreading research activity worldwide, while encouraging communication and interoperability in areas of diverse research interests. This article discusses the phenomenon of open access. Also, open access journals and repositories are referred as well as modern ways of disseminating research to the public.


First Monday ◽  
2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Tschider

Countless critics of the open access movement have cited the Budapest–Bethesda–Berlin open access principles as responsible for unsustainable business models and a dilution of the efficacy of scientific scholarship or “impact.” Impact factors measure a journal’s primacy in academic scholarship, and it reflects how frequently a journal’s articles are cited. Much to the surprise of open access critics, PLoS Biology recently achieved a high impact factor of 13.9 after only two years of publishing, a feat rarely accomplished even in more traditional print journals. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) employed the most liberal interpretation of the Budapest–Bethesda–Berlin (BBB) open access (OA) principles when creating its inaugural journal, PLoS Biology, after extensive OA advocacy efforts. BBB principles encourage open access for all individuals with an Internet connection and free use of all information for any educational purposes, including the creation of derivative works. This study explores new OA research methodologies for measuring an OA technology’s effect on the Internet community. I will analyze linking patterns from a variety of Web categories to individual PLoS Biology articles from November 2004, a one–month, investigatory glimpse into who cites these articles and how this compares to Google Scholar citations of the same article. I will describe two principles involved in the scientific OA transaction: the “gifting” of scientific articles and the further proliferation of this scientific information being given back to the community in the form of citation. Drawing on Marcel Mauss, I will highlight how the concept of “gifting” deviates from “sharing” in an Internet environment. I will conclude by highlighting the public citation finding in order to investigate the “public” in the Public Library of Science.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matías Maggio-Ramírez

El objetivo es analizar cómo el texto fundacional y el reglamento de la Biblioteca Pública de Buenos Aires interpelaron a los usuarios y cuál fue la reacción del público una vez que la institución abrió sus puertas. Por lo tanto, se rastreó la tensión entre un paradigma bibliotecológico que apelaba al fomento del saber y al bien público como objetivo institucional y las demandas de los usuarios por el horario restringido de la biblioteca. Se analizaron desde la historia de la cultura impresa las representaciones de la lectura y de la sociabilidad letrada al leer la correspondencia entre Bernardino Rivadavia y Luis José de Chorroarín, el reglamento de la Biblioteca Pública de Buenos Aires y los periódicos porteños. Se concluyó que la negativa en ampliar el horario de atención al público conspiró con el acceso a la biblioteca de los empleados. The objective is to analyze how the founding text and regulations of the Buenos Aires Public Library challenged users and what the public's reaction was once the institution opened its doors. Therefore, we traced the tension between a library paradigm that appealed to the promotion of knowledge and the public good as an institutional objective and the demands of users due to the restricted library hours. From the history of printed culture, the representations of reading and the sociability of the reader when reading the correspondence between Bernardino Rivadavia and Luis José de Chorroarín, the regulations of the Buenos Aires Public Library and the Buenos Aires newspapers were analyzed. It was concluded that the refusal to extend the opening hours to the public conspired with the access to the library of the employees. A fundação da Biblioteca Pública de Buenos Aires em 1810, pelo Primeiro Conselho de Governo, foi um marco no panorama cultural da cidade. A promoção do conhecimento esclarecido em busca do "bem público" e da "felicidade dos povos" foi um ponto crucial na cultura colonial tardia em Buenos Aires. Os leitores enviaram livros de redação como uma doação à Biblioteca, mas nem todos puderam acessá-los. A regulamentação de 1812 foi o surgimento de uma idéia da biblioteca e das práticas culturais a ela ligadas. O objetivo do artigo é investigar, a partir da análise comparativa dos regulamentos da biblioteca, a configuração da biblioteca pública durante o processo revolucionário. O leitor presente no regulamento, ao qual foi concedido acesso, não representava os moradores da cidade, devido ao horário de funcionamento restrito ao público.


Author(s):  
Francisco Gilson Rebouças Porto Junior ◽  
Edson De Sousa Oliveira

O artigo discute o projeto de criação e implantação do Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Tocantins, RIUFT. O objetivo é agrupar, armazenar, organizar, preservar, recuperar e divulgar a produção científica e acadêmica da UFT com vistas à gestão da informação cientifica, aumentando a visibilidade e o prestígio da instituição em âmbito nacional e internacional. Busca disponibilizar à comunidade universitária um espaço para armazenar e preservar a informação produzida na Instituição e ao mesmo tempo promover a transparência dos gastos públicos e apoio às atividades de pesquisa e criação do conhecimento científico no âmbito da UFT. A implantação do RIUFT será mediante adesão ao edital do Ibict, e será desenvolvido em duas fases: planejamento e implementação. Este estudo aborda também um histórico das ações implantadas pelo Ibict em prol do movimento de acesso livre ao conhecimento científico, bem como uma breve revisão de literatura sobre a sociedade do conhecimento e as tecnologias de informação e comunicação. Como técnica de pesquisa, adotamos uma abordagem qualitativa, utilizando-se de revisão bibliográfica e pesquisa exploratória. O método de coleta de dados adotado foi a partir de informações fornecidas pela universidade e seus programas de pós-graduação. Palavras-chave: Repositório Institucional; Comunicação científica; Acesso aberto. ABSTRACTThe article discusses the project of creation and implementation of the Institutional Repository of the Federal University of Tocantins, RIUFT. The goal is to gather, store, organize, preserve, retrieve and disseminate scientific and academic production of UFT with a view to the management of scientific information, increasing the visibility and prestige of the institution in the national and international levels. Search available to the university community a space to store and preserve the information produced in the institution and at the same time promoting the transparency of public spending and support for research activities and creation of scientific knowledge within the UFT. The implementation of RIUFT is through adherence to Ibict the notice, and will be developed in two phases: planning and implementation. This study also addresses a history of actions implemented by Ibict in favor of open access movement to scientific knowledge as well as a brief literature review of the knowledge society and information and communication technologies. As a research technique, we adopted a qualitative approach, using literature review and exploratory research. The data collection method adopted was based on information provided by the university and its graduate programs. Keywords: Institutional Repository; scientific communication; open access


Author(s):  
Joseph Hilgard ◽  
Nan Li

This synthesis chapter recapitulates the major themes of Part I. The chapter proposes that science communication is challenging because science is complex, because humans interpret evidence in biased ways, and because the science–media landscape is shifting. Consequently, the mere supply of scientific information alone is not likely to guide audiences to science-consistent beliefs. Instead, science communicators must learn to navigate both the cultural implications of their work and the heuristics audiences use when deciding whom to trust. Consideration must be given to scientific knowledge and the audience’s values alike. A science of science communication provides an understanding of these multiple considerations and promotes effective dialogue between scientists and the public.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Peter Willett ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
...  

Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.


Author(s):  
Stephen Zehr

Expressions of scientific uncertainty are normal features of scientific articles and professional presentations. Journal articles typically include research questions at the beginning, probabilistic accounts of findings in the middle, and new research questions at the end. These uncertainty claims are used to construct clear boundaries between uncertain and certain scientific knowledge. Interesting questions emerge, however, when scientific uncertainty is communicated in occasions for public science (e.g., newspaper accounts of science, scientific expertise in political deliberations, science in stakeholder claims directed to the public, and so forth). Scientific uncertainty is especially important in the communication of environmental and health risks where public action is expected despite uncertain knowledge. Public science contexts are made more complex by the presence of multiple actors such as citizen-scientists, journalists, stakeholders, social movement actors, politicians, and so on who perform important functions in the communication and interpretation of scientific information and bring in diverse norms and values. A past assumption among researchers was that scientists would deemphasize or ignore uncertainties in these situations to better match their claims with a public perception of science as an objective, truth-building institution. However, more recent research indicates variability in the likelihood that scientists communicate uncertainties and in the public reception and use of uncertainty claims. Many scientists still believe that scientific uncertainty will be misunderstood by the public and misused by interest groups involved with an issue, while others recognize a need to clearly translate what is known and not known. Much social science analysis of scientific uncertainty in public science views it as a socially constructed phenomenon, where it depends less upon a particular state of scientific research (what scientists are certain and uncertain of) and more upon contextual factors, the actors involved, and the meanings attached to scientific claims. Scientific uncertainty is often emergent in public science, both in the sense that the boundary between what is certain and uncertain can be managed and manipulated by powerful actors and in the sense that as scientific knowledge confronts diverse public norms, values, local knowledges, and interests new areas of uncertainty emerge. Scientific uncertainty may emerge as a consequence of social conflict rather than being its cause. In public science scientific uncertainty can be interpreted as a normal state of affairs and, in the long run, may not be that detrimental to solving societal problems if it opens up new avenues and pathways for thinking about solutions. Of course, the presence of scientific uncertainty can also be used to legitimate inaction.


2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-217
Author(s):  
DAVID WALTON

One of the most important elements of the Antarctic Treaty is the requirement to provide open and free access to all information collected south of 60° S. For this reason the current focus on making all published science free for everyone strikes a sympathetic cord. Led by various institutions promoting web posting of published material and the Public Library of Science enthusiasts proposing open access through the author-pays model there is a ferment of activity at present around the world to convert scientists and librarians to this new religion.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanne Provencal

In May 2010, with the support of funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a one-day workshop, entitled, “Social Sciences and Humanities Research as a Public Good: Identifying Research Prospects for Advancing Research Among Academic and Non-Academic Discourse Communities” was held in Montreal, Québec. The workshop brought together Canadian stakeholders involved in extending the reach of research (for the public good), including those involved in open access and knowledge mobilization, as well as organizations linked to the research community, and non-academic organizations with a clear mandate to include research in their activities or to extend the reach of research. This article presents a summary of the workshop presentations and a synthesis of the workshop discussions. The article also provides a discussion of the emergent issues arising from the workshop (such as the sustainability of open access journal publishing, the challenges of knowledge mobilization, and the limited media uptake of social sciences and humanities research), areas of inquiry that these issues open up (engaged scholarship and the engaged university, faculty reward structures, and public knowledge/knowledge mobilization as areas of scholarly inquiry), and collaborative next steps for stakeholders to take, to address concerns raised and to seize opportunities to advance shared interests. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document