One thing I've heard is that a lot of the contracts between professional societies and publishers tend to be long term - in the 25 year+ range - so the prestgious 'Journal of X', compeltely owned by the 'Society for the Study of X' is still tied into a contract with 'Asshole publisher Y' which was signed before the internet was a 'real' way of doing academic business. Hence we can expect to see a lot of journals abruptly becoming open access and web only as those contracts expire.
Looks like you're right. I had a paper accepted by an Elsevier Journal in October and did the copyright stuff about a week ago. The form I received had the following radio buttons, which was what made me think other governments had carved out similar agreements. But a few minutes googling says this is just about who owns the copyright, not whether elsevier has to open access it after x months.
We are all US Government employees and there is no copyright to transfer
I am US Government employee but some of my co-authors are not
I am not a US Government employee but some of my co-authors are
The work was performed by contractors of the US Government under contract number: [textbox]
We are all UK Government employees electing to transfer copyright
We are all UK, Canadian or Australian Government employees and Crown Copyright is claimed
I am claiming Crown Copyright but some of my co-authors are not employees of the UK, Canadian or Australian Government
I am not claiming Crown Copyright but some of my co-authors are employees of the UK, Canadian or Australian Government
That's actually kind of what's happened. The US Government now requires all journals to make any paper funded by US tax dollars freely accessible to everyone within 12 months of publication. There's similar agreements in the EU, Britain, and Australia. When you do the copyright paperwork after a maunscript is accepted one of the things you incldue is the grant numbers that funded it so the journal knows whether they have to open-access it or not. The US agreement went into force in about 2007 from memory.
It's not about just 'getting your work out' - it's about the fact that the university who decides whether you get tenure or post-tenure promotions still does so partially on the basis of how many publications you have in peer-reviewed journals, and how high the impact factor of those journals is. My institution literally has a tenure requirements document that says "at least 3 papers published in journals from this list of high-impact journals, or at least 5 in this other list of lower-impact journals'. So it's publish in those journals or lose your job when you fail to get tenure. So you sign whatever the journal wants you to sign if you get a paper accepted there, no matter how stupid the terms. What needs to change is universities removing journals who abuse everyone from those magic lists, so we can all safely ignore them.
Opus wasn't designed for audio files, but for streaming audio. In that realm it's adoption looks very promising. It has already been integrated into the Skype codebase and will likely be used in the next major release of Skype. It is also one of two mandatory audio codecs for in the draft for WebRTC, which is a new standard for browser-based chatting.
Don't give the bastards ideas!
Too lazy to write a cross-platform website? No worry dawg, we put a browser in your browser, so you can suck while you suck.
It is actually quite easy to do, and RMS has been talking about it for a while, this recent article mentions it in passing and links to something a more detailed reference. Think of those VISA debt gift cards that you can buy today. If you are allowed to pay cash for them without showing ID, then they are truly anonymous (unlike bitcoin), and can be used both online and in person. The systems he has in mind are basically refined versions of that basic concept.
Phase I-III are needed for treatments. FDA regulation of tests is different and considerably milder.
"There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property, or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." (Blackstone, 1766 Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume II of the Rights of Things
In a lot of disciplines, the most prestegious journals are actually owned by scholarly societies, and are published under contract with publishers. 'Science' is the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 'Addiction' (the highest impact journal in my own field) is the journal of the British Society for the Study of Addiction., but is published under contract by Wiley. In other words, publishers *don't* actually "hold the prestige".
A lot of the contracts between scolarly societies and publishers are 25 year kind of things, and were signed long before open access was a thing. But for a lot of journals those contracts are coming towards their end, and I suspect in the next decade we'll see increasing numbers of high impact journals go open access as a consequence.
I stopped using chrome when google started getting *creepy* about trying to get you to link your youtube and other accounts to each other. Now I'm slowly migrating each thing I use google for to other providers or to my own servers (each service to a different provider, so if one of them turns out to be particularly inept or Evil I only have one thing to get out of their clutches). In 1997 I started using google for search; well before 2017 I'd like to be able to say that's the only thing I use them for.
I like how they describe SAPs customers as an industry (automobiles) which struggles, and a specifc company (HP) which outright sucks. If correlation was causation I'd say buying SAP is how you destroy a company.
I think the point of the PubMed Commons pilot is to experiment with providing a forum where "the kinds of mistakes my undergrads pickup in journal clubs" *do* get shared.
The main thing holding back HTTPS is advertisements. Browsers (especially IE) complain if your encrypted page includes unencrypted content (like iframes served from a a third party ad server) and rightly so. Google can get away with it because they serve their own ads, and Wikipedia doesn't have any ads. Arstechnica ran an article a few years back describing the reasons why they couldn't switch to HTTPS by default, but most of it boils down the fact that they can't get rid of the third party content in their pages.