OSI

@OSIUnited

The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is a diverse, inclusive, global network of high level experts working together to develop the future of open scholarship.

Seattle, WA
osiglobal.org
Vrijeme pridruživanja: travanj 2016.
34 fotografije ili videozapisa Fotografije i videozapisi

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @OSIUnited

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @OSIUnited

  1. 9. tra

    JIFs are bad for scholcomm, but researchers still love ‘em. Not surprising. Frustrating though. Maybe we need to come up with a sugar-free JIF—great taste, fewer calories.

    From et al: "87% of institutions that mentioned the supported [its] use...while 13% of institutions expressed caution about [its] use....None of the RPT documents we analyzed heavily criticized the JIF or prohibited its use."
    1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. tra

    Court orders publisher OMICS to pay U.S. gov't $50 million in suit alleging "unfair and deceptive practices"

    1 reply 13 proslijeđenih tweetova 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 28. ožu

    Fascinating---a must-read for all angst-ridden academics: WOS records "suggest that fewer than 10% of scientific articles are likely to remain uncited. But the true figure is probably even lower, because...uncited [articles] have actually been cited somewhere by someone."

    If I want to know how many papers remain uncited, would be the last source! The science that’s never been cited
    Poništi
  4. 28. ožu

    Einstein, Planck, Curie, Bohr, Schrodinger, Rutherford, Thomson et al all wouldn't have qualified for this position in their early careers. Using publication metrics in RPT decisions is a problem that everyone recognizes. What to do about it is the $64k question.

    Spotted on a job advert. 🧐🤮😭 ping
    1 proslijeđeni tweet 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    25. ožu

    "open access publishing accounts for over 40% of articles and was significantly associated with increased short-term citations": Open Access Publishing and Subsequent Citations Among Articles in Major Cardiovascular Journals

    8 proslijeđenih tweetova 14 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  6. 14. ožu

    A new edition of OSI's report on Plan S is ready for review at . This edition includes a section examining how Plan S deals with green open access. Thank you to those who recommended adding this section.

    2 proslijeđena tweeta
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. ožu

    We shared this article on the list last week: . It speaks to the new normal in debate where we vilify people we disagree with. Of course, Jefferson and Hamilton debated this way too, but at least they produced tons of scholarship in the process.

    1 proslijeđeni tweet 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. ožu

    By popular demand (or more accurately the unpopularity of tweets sent out under my work account ), I am thrilled to announce the launch of my new, destined to be immensely popular personal account. Expect 2-3 tweets per year, but they'll be really awesome.

    1 proslijeđeni tweet 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  9. 7. ožu

    As if scholcomm didn't have enough problems already...

    “Universities require staff to publish several papers a year…If you bought your doctoral dissertation and struggle with teaching and administration loads, you will never be able to produce original research. But $15,000 will get you around that problem.”
    Poništi
  10. 7. ožu

    Guest Post -- Leveling the Playing Field: How to Address Global Imbalances in Scholarly Communication via

    2 proslijeđena tweeta 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    7. ožu

    Last week, the University of California terminated its license with Elsevier. Leakage has reduced the value of the big deal -- and publisher pricing power -- while empowering library negotiators, argues . via

    5 proslijeđenih tweetova 5 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. lis 2018.

    From our friends at . Paying for Open Access does not increase your paper's impact, but self-archiving in a repository does -

    11 proslijeđenih tweetova 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    7. ožu

    THREAD: What should we make of Swedish funder Riksbankens Jubileumsfond having second thoughts about Plan S? Should its decision to pull back be viewed as a brave move, or does it reflect badly on them?

    Odgovor korisniku/ci @RickyPo
    Considering the national conversation, not surprising this happens in Sweden. Two thoughts: RJ is not a very big funder, so real effect apart from PR is relatively small; and second, this does not reflect well on RJ: if you are so unsure, don't sign in the first place.
    9 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    5. ožu
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    cc Note raw, unadulterated version here

    2 proslijeđena tweeta 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  15. 28. velj

    UC terminates subscriptions with Elsevier via

    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    20. velj

    NO SURPRISE: "Is Hybrid a Valid Pathway to Open Access? Publishers Argue Yes, in Response to Plan S" But hybrid only 'works' if we plough millions of extra £ into the system. View the UK over past 6 years. Hybrid is a pathway to profit.

    5 replies 19 proslijeđenih tweetova 42 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. velj

    Which future research scenario resonates most: 1) Brave open world 2) Tech titans or 3)Eastern ascendance?

    1 reply 3 proslijeđena tweeta 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. velj

    Writing the final report for my fellowship. I asked at the beginning - why are libraries central to the ‘Open' agenda? Conclusion, and hard lesson - they aren’t. We are in and throughout, but not central. Researchers are the alpha and omega of Open.

    5 replies 14 proslijeđenih tweetova 82 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. velj

    "Only around 8% of referees chose to reveal their identity by signing their reports...Reviewers typically chose to disclose their names when their feedback on a manuscript was positive"

    11 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    19. velj

    "By removing value from subscriptions over time, all hybrid models eventually give way to full open access. But this is not where Plan S incentives lead." via

    4 proslijeđena tweeta 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
    Poništi

@OSIUnited još nije objavio nijedan Tweet.

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·