Open Access of COVID-19-related publications in the first quarter of 2020: a preliminary study based in PubMed

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has made funders, researchers and publishers agree to have research publications, as well as other research outputs, such as data, become openly available. In this extraordinary research context of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, publishers are announcing that their coronavirus-related articles will be made immediately accessible in appropriate open repositories, like PubMed Central (PMC), agreeing upon funders’ and researchers’ instigation. Methods: This work uses Unpaywall, OpenRefine and PubMed to analyse the level of openness of the papers about COVID-19, published during the first quarter of 2020. It also analyses Open Access (OA) articles published about previous coronavirus (SARS CoV-1 and MERS CoV) as a means of comparison. Results: A total of 5,611 COVID-19-related articles were analysed from PubMed. This is a much higher amount for a period of 4 months compared to those found for SARS CoV-1 and MERS during the first year of their first outbreaks (337 and 125 articles, respectively). Regarding the levels of openness, 97.4% of the SARS CoV-2 papers are freely available; similar rates were found for the other coronaviruses. Deeper analysis showed that (i) 68.3% of articles belong to an undefined Bronze category; (ii) 72.1% of all OA papers don’t carry a specific license and in all cases where there is, half of them do not meet Open Access standards; (iii) there is a large proportion that present a copy in a repository, in most cases in PMC, where this trend is also observed. These patterns were found to be repeated in most frequent publishers: Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, although scientific production is much higher than during previous epidemics and is open, there is a caveat to this opening, characterized by the absence of fundamental elements and values on which Open Science is based, such as licensing.

Download Full-text

Open Access of COVID-19-related publications in the first quarter of 2020: a preliminary study based in PubMed

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.24136.1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 649 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Olatz Arrizabalaga ◽

David Otaegui ◽

Itziar Vergara ◽

Julio Arrizabalaga ◽

Eva Méndez

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Science ◽

Scientific Production ◽

The Other ◽

First Year ◽

Pubmed Central ◽

Research Context ◽

Research Publications ◽

Preliminary Study

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has made funders, researchers and publishers agree to have research publications, as well as other research outputs, such as data, become openly available. In this extraordinary research context of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, publishers are announcing that their coronavirus-related articles will be made immediately accessible in appropriate open repositories, like PubMed Central, agreeing upon funders’ and researchers’ instigation. Methods: This work uses Unpaywall, OpenRefine and PubMed to analyse the level of openness of articles about COVID-19, published during the first quarter of 2020. It also analyses Open Access (OA) articles published about previous coronavirus (SARS CoV-1 and MERS CoV) as a means of comparison. Results: A total of 5,611 COVID-19-related articles were analysed from PubMed. This is a much higher amount for a period of 4 months compared to those found for SARS CoV-1 and MERS during the first year of their first outbreaks (335 and 116 articles, respectively). Regarding the levels of openness, 88.8% of the SARS CoV-2 papers are freely available; similar rates were found for the other coronaviruses. Deeper analysis showed that (i) 67.4% of articles belong to an undefined Bronze category; (ii) 76.4% of all OA papers don’t carry any license, followed by 10.4% which display restricted licensing. These patterns were found to be repeated in the three most frequent publishers: Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, although scientific production is much higher than during previous epidemics and is open, there is a caveat to this opening, characterized by the absence of fundamental elements and values on which Open Science is based, such as licensing.

Download Full-text

Critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para repositório conforme a Ciência Aberta

#Tear: Revista de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia ◽

10.35819/tear.v6.n2.a2255 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Angélica Conceição Dias Miranda ◽

Milton Shintaku ◽

Simone Machado Firme

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Evaluation Criteria ◽

Open Data ◽

Open Science ◽

Scientific Production ◽

Open File ◽

Research Institutes ◽

Criteria For Evaluation ◽

Science Movement ◽

Bibliographic Study

Resumo: Os repositórios têm se tornado comum nas universidades e institutos de pesquisa, como forma de ofertar acesso à produção científica e, com isso, dar visibilidade à instituição. Entretanto, em muitos casos ainda estão restritos aos conceitos do movimento do arquivo aberto e acesso aberto, sendo que já se discute o Movimento da Ciência Aberta, revelando certo descompasso, requerendo estudos que apoiem a atualização dessa importante ferramenta. Nesse sentido, o presente estudo verifica os requisitos envolvidos nos movimentos abertos, de forma a apoiar a discussão técnica e tecnológica. Um estudo bibliográfico, que transforma as informações sobre os movimentos em critérios para avaliação de ferramentas para criação de repositórios, apresentando a implementação da interação como um novo desafio. Nas considerações procura-se contribuir com a discussão sobre a Ciência Aberta, de forma mais aplicada bem como o ajuste dos repositórios a esse movimento.Palavras-chave: Repositórios. Critérios de avaliação. Arquivo aberto. Acesso aberto. Dados abertos. Ciência aberta.SURVEY OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF REPOSITORY TOOLS ACCORDING TO OPEN SCIENCE Abstract: Repositories have become common in universities and research institutes, as a way of offering access to scientific production, thereby giving visibility to the institution. Meanwhile, in many cases, repositories are restricted to the concepts of open movement and open access considering that the Open Science Movement is already being discussed. Regarding this matter, this study verifies the requirements involved in the open movements, in order to support a technical and technological discussion. A bibliographic study that transforms information about movements into criteria to evaluate tools used to create repositories, presenting an implementation of interaction as a new challenge. In the considerations, we contribute with a discussion about an Open Science, in a more applied way, as well as the adjustment of the repositories to this movement.Keywords: Repositories. Evaluation Criteria. Open File. Open Access. Open Data. Open Science.

Download Full-text

Preliminary Study on the Efficient Electrohysterogram Segments for Recognizing Uterine Contractions with Convolutional Neural Networks

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2019/3168541 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2019 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jin Peng ◽

Dongmei Hao ◽

Haipeng Liu ◽

Juntao Liu ◽

Xiya Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Neural Network ◽

Neural Networks ◽

Open Access ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Uterine Contraction ◽

Cross Validation ◽

The Other ◽

Uterine Contractions ◽

Preliminary Study ◽

Electrical Activities

Background. Uterine contraction (UC) is the tightening and shortening of the uterine muscles which can indicate the progress of pregnancy towards delivery. Electrohysterogram (EHG), which reflects uterine electrical activities, has recently been studied for UC monitoring. In this paper, we aimed to evaluate different EHG segments for recognizing UCs using the convolutional neural network (CNN). Materials and Methods. In the open-access Icelandic 16-electrode EHG database (122 recordings from 45 pregnant women), 7136 UC and 7136 non-UC EHG segments with the duration of 60 s were manually extracted from 107 recordings of 40 pregnant women to develop a CNN model. A fivefold cross-validation was applied to evaluate the CNN based on sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and accuracy (ACC). Then, 1056 UC and 1056 non-UC EHG segments were extracted from the other 15 recordings of 5 pregnant women. Furthermore, the developed CNN model was applied to identify UCs using different EHG segments with the durations of 10 s, 20 s, and 30 s. Results. The CNN achieved the average SE, SP, and ACC of 0.82, 0.93, and 0.88 for a 60 s EHG segment. The EHG segments of 10 s, 20 s, and 30 s around the TOCO peak achieved higher SE and ACC than the other segments with the same duration. The values of SE from 20 s EHG segments around the TOCO peak were higher than those from 10 s to 30 s EHG segments on the same side of the TOCO peak. Conclusion. The proposed method could be used to determine the efficient EHG segments for recognizing UC with the CNN.

Download Full-text

AS INSTRUÇÕES AOS AUTORES PODEM ESTIMULAR O ACESSO ABERTO NO BRASIL?

P2P E INOVAÇÃO ◽

10.21721/p2p.2015v1n2.p54-59 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 54-59

Author(s):

Juliana Gonçalves Reis ◽

Helio Kuramoto ◽

Pascal Aventurier ◽

Rodrigo Murtinho

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Science ◽

Scientific Production ◽

Digital Resources ◽

Access Policy ◽

Minimum Standards ◽

Essential Resource ◽

N 93 ◽

Access Policies ◽

The Web

Um recurso imprescindível ao desenvolvimento da Ciência Aberta é ter padrões mínimos de informação sobre Política de Acesso Aberto nas instruções aos autores. Foram analisadas n=93 instruções aos autores de periódicos de Ciências da Saúde da Coleção SciELO Brasil. Observou-se que os periódicos estão disponíveis na Web, possuem ISSN Versão online, não contemplam informações divulgação em recursos digitais, refletem o modelo impresso em suas diretrizes, não informam sobre a disseminação da produção científica por meio de redes sociais, revistas secundárias e repositórios institucionais ou temáticos. A ausência de tais estímulos nas instruções aos autores não apoia as Políticas de Acesso Aberto. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS CAN ENCOURAGE THE OPEN ACCESS IN BRAZIL?AbstractAn essential resource for the development of the Open Science is to have minimum standards of information about Open Access Policy in the guidelines. Were analyzed n = 93 instructions to journal authors of Health Sciences Collection SciELO Brazil. It was observed that the journals are available on the web, have ISSN online version, does not include disclosure information in digital resources, reflect the printed pattern in its guidelines, do not report on the dissemination of scientific production through social networks, secondary journals and repositories institutional or thematic. The absence of such stimuli in the guidelines does not support the Open Access Policies.

Download Full-text

Fra Hamann til Fasc. 209.10. Om Grundtvigs forhold til Johann Georg Hamann og dennes samtidige

Grundtvig-Studier ◽

10.7146/grs.v63i1.16589 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 63 (1) ◽

pp. 14-32

Author(s):

Bent Christensen

Keyword(s):

Literary History ◽

Initial Period ◽

The Other ◽

First Year ◽

Detailed Knowledge ◽

Sturm Und Drang ◽

Personal Letter ◽

Storm And Stress ◽

The World ◽

Preliminary Study

Fra Hamann til Fasc. 209.10. Om Grundtvigs forhold til Johann Georg Hamann og dennes samtidige[From Hamann to Fascicle 209.10. On Grundtvig's relation to Johann Georg Hamann and his contemporaries]By Bent ChristensenThe German critic and Enlightenment philosopher Johann Georg Hamann (1730-88) can be seen as a German forerunner of Grundtvig who according to a few places in his Verdenskrøniken (World Chronicle), 1817, has known about his writings and perhaps felt a spiritual kinship to him. By all accounts, the only other mention of him at all by Grundtvig occurs in a brief and somewhat enigmatic manuscript entitled “Synchronismer” (synchronisms) (The Grundtvig Archive, Fascicle 209 nr 10). It lists names of 24 German authors supplied with dates marking periods in their careers between the years 1741 and 1781 and has been regarded as a preliminary study for the World Chronicle 1817. But it can also be seen as a view of these authors from a specific “synchronistic” angle, resulting in a particular profile of these 40 years. The list also reflects Grundtvig’s detailed knowledge of German literary history.After a presentation of Hamann, Grundtvig’s evaluation of him in the World Chronicle of 1817 is quoted and commented upon, followed by a an examination of the manuscript list author by author, inclusive of references to treatments in the World Chronicle.The list begins with “Rabener 1741-57” and finishes with “Bürger 1769- 78”; the latest year brought up, however, is “1781” (under the names of Kant and Hamann). In his World Chronicle, Grundtvig states that the period he wants to depict, covers the reign of the Prussian king Frederick the Great (1740-86). The list corresponds almost exactly to this ambition. Hamann’s first year, 1759, is the year in which Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten appeared, his first work addressing a general public. Hamann’s last year, 1781, indicates that he at that time started to write a critical review of Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernunft, having read the proofs of it, as a personal friend of the philosopher, before its publication that same year. At first, however, Hamann did not print his text but only communicated it to Herder in a personal letter. The Metakritik über den Purismum der Vernunft was finished in 1784 but not published until 1800. When Kant in his work asks for a foundation of cognition prior to and independent of experience, Hamann accuses him of aiming at constituting a new kind of metaphysics. Two later works published by Hamann (1784 and 1786) are of a retrospective and summary nature.Concerning the other authors listed, the “first year” in most cases presents the very first step in their literary careers, and the “last year” marks the ending of their initial period. This applies, for example, to Rabener’s “last year”, 1757, when his satires had started already to appear in book form. In Lessing’s case, 1761 is the year in which he accepted a position as secretary for the governor of Breslau. Wieland was appointed town clerk in Biberach in 1760, but in the World Chronicle Grundtvig emphasizes the importance of his Shakespeare translations which did not begin to appear until 1762, though it is likely that Wieland had been encouraged to take up this project as early as 1759. Herder’s “last year” is 1767, the date of publication featured on the title page of Fragmente über die neuere deutsche Literatur—a date often considered to be the prime year of the “Sturm und Drang” (“Storm and Stress”) movement. Goethe’s “last year” is 1774 due to the publication of his best-seller novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers.In several cases the often paired dates of Grundtvig’s list differ from those found in ordinary histories of literature as well as in the World Chronicle of 1817. A closer study of them—and a study of Grundtvig as compared to Hamann—might cause important contributions to Grundtvig research and to the study of German intellectual and literary history.

Download Full-text

Massive Open Access Publications

10.31219/osf.io/4wcvr ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Matheus Pereira Lobo

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Substantial Reduction ◽

Open Science ◽

Science Culture ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Article Processing Charges

A huge collaborative open science model is proposed. Many authors collaborating in a paper leads to a substantial reduction for the Article Processing Charges (APCs) in the Open Access Journals. This can significantly stimulate research within a healthier citizen and open science culture.

Download Full-text