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
가입일: 2016년 4월
사진 및 동영상 34개 사진과 동영상

트윗

@OSIUnited 님을 차단했습니다

정말로 이 트윗을 보시겠어요? 트윗을 봐도 @OSIUnited 님의 차단을 해제하지 않습니다

  1. 4월 9일

    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."
    답글 1개 리트윗 1개 2 마음
    취소
  2. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    4월 2일

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

    답글 1개 리트윗 13개 11 마음
    이 스레드 보기
    이 스레드 보기
    취소
  3. 3월 28일

    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
    취소
  4. 3월 28일

    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
    리트윗 1개 3 마음
    취소
  5. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 25일

    "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

    리트윗 8개 14 마음
    취소
  6. 3월 14일

    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.

    리트윗 2개
    취소
  7. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 12일

    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.

    리트윗 1개 1 마음
    취소
  8. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 12일

    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.

    리트윗 1개 11 마음
    취소
  9. 3월 7일

    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.”
    취소
  10. 3월 7일

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

    리트윗 2개 1 마음
    취소
  11. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 7일

    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

    리트윗 5개 5 마음
    취소
  12. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2018년 10월 12일

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

    리트윗 11개 10 마음
    취소
  13. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 7일

    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?

    @RickyPo 님에게 보내는 답글
    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.
    답글 4개 리트윗 9개 3 마음
    취소
  14. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    3월 5일
    님에게 보내는 답글

    cc Note raw, unadulterated version here

    리트윗 2개 3 마음
    취소
  15. 2월 28일

    UC terminates subscriptions with Elsevier via

    취소
  16. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2월 20일

    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.

    답글 5개 리트윗 19개 42 마음
    취소
  17. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2월 19일

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

    답글 1개 리트윗 3개 9 마음
    취소
  18. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2월 19일

    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.

    답글 5개 리트윗 14개 82 마음
    취소
  19. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2월 19일

    "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"

    리트윗 11개 8 마음
    취소
  20. 님이 리트윗했습니다
    2월 19일

    "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

    리트윗 4개 1 마음
    취소

@OSIUnited 님은 아직 트윗이 없습니다.

로딩하는데 시간이 지연되고 있습니다.

트위터의 트래픽이 폭주했거나 일시적인 문제가 발생했을 수 있습니다. 다시 시도하거나 트위터 상태 페이지를 방문하여 자세한 내용을 확인해 보세요.

    관심사 추천:

    ·