Infoscience

Maintenance imprévue [terminée]

Mise à jour - 3 mai 2012, 09:24

Le système est à nouveau pleinement opérationnel. Aucune perte de données n'est à déplorer.

.......................................................

Infoscience a été passé en mode lecture seule à 8h10 ce matin du 3 mai 2012. Une panne affecte les fulltexts et en empêche l'édition tout comme la visualisation.

Nous espérons remettre le système en service complet vers 9h-9h30.

 

Posted by Gregory Favre at 8:28
Comments (0)
Une nouvelle documentation
Refonte complète de la documentation utilisateur d'infoscience: http://wiki.epfl.ch/infoscience
Posted by Pierre Crevoisier at 14:41
Comments (0)
Faut-il tuer le pair ?
Un sujet chaud, l'avenir du « peer-reviewing » comme unique modèle de validation de la recherche :

http://affordance.typepad.com/mon_weblog/2006/04/fautil_tuer_le_.html
Posted by Frédéric Gobry at 8:26
Comments (0)
Un rapport de l'OCDE plaide pour l'Open access
Selon l'OCDE, les gouvernements devraient ouvrir l?accès aux résultats de la recherche financée sur fonds publics.
C'est ce que dit le rapport publié le 2 sept 05 et intitulé : Digital Broadband content : scientific publishing,
disponible ici : http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf


Nicolas Nova du CRAFT (http://craft.epfl.ch) m'a signalé qu'un artcle de The Economist signale ce rapport. Je le colle in extenso ci-après (je sais, c'est mal...) :



The paperless library
Sep 22nd 2005
From The Economist print edition

Free access to scientific results is changing research practices
IT USED to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors' names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal.

No longer. The internet?and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it?is making free access to scientific results a reality. This week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavour.

The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $7 billion and $11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2,000 publishers worldwide specialising in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2m articles each year in some 16,000 journals.

This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report's authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically supported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published. Finally, there are open-access archives, where organisations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it.

All this could change the traditional form of the peer-review process, at least for the publication of papers. The process is organised by the publisher but conducted, for free, by scholars. The advantages afforded by the internet mean that primary data is becoming available freely online. Indeed, quite often the online paper has a direct link to it. This means that reported findings are more readily replicable and checkable by other teams of researchers. Moreover, online publication offers the opportunity for others to comment on the research. Research is also becoming more collaborative so that, before they have been finalised, papers have been reviewed by several authors. This central tenet of scholarly publishing is changing, too.
Posted by David Aymonin at 16:47
Comments (0)
Deux rapports du JISC sur les évolutions de la communication scientifique
JISC. New reports give further insights into open access publishing
7 Sep 2005

Accès depuis ici :
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=schol_comms_reports



EXTREMEMENT intéressants, notamment le premier sur les différences entre disciplines dnas les besoins et les pratiques d'accès à l'information et d'auto archivage :

"The first report ? Disciplinary Differences and Needs - written by Sue Sparks of Rightscom Ltd, explores the nature of disciplinary differences as far as they impact both upon the use of information resources by researchers as well as the means available to them of disseminating their research results. The survey, responded to by 780 UK research academics in a wide variety of institutions and departments, also investigated wider issues affecting scholarly communications, such as the Research Assessment Exercise, institutional repositories and self-archiving.

Among the many findings of the report was the discovery of the importance of e-prints (pre- and post-) in the physical sciences and engineering, the broader mix in the social sciences and the particular importance of books in languages and area studies.

However, the overwhelming majority of researchers in all disciplines, the report finds, do not know if their university has an institutional repository. Once again disciplinary differences were marked, though, with around 50% of respondents in the physical sciences routinely depositing into institutional repositories, against 18% in the medical and biological sciences. Of greatest importance, perhaps, to the current debates about open access publishing, the report notes a high level of awareness of these debates amongst researchers, with the majority of respondents favouring the mandating of self-archiving in institutional repositories by research funding bodies."

Le second est plus intéressant pour les spécialistes de l?achat de licences de périodiques électroniques, mais le résumé devrait vous informer suffisamment :

The second report ? Learned Society Open Access Business Models ? by Mary Waltham provides an in-depth exploration of 13 learned society journals, their business and pricing models, the wider context of their societies, and open access business models.

The report finds that alternative models for publishing research are required since existing models, reliant as they are on institutional subscription fees, are becoming increasingly unsustainable. This is because, as the volume of both submitted articles and published research literature increases, so do the costs incurred by publishers. While higher education is in no position to pay for these increases through higher journal subscription prices, learned society publishers ? who are heavily dependent upon institutional subscriptions - will find their margins increasingly jeopardised. For these reasons learned society publishers found the open access business model attractive, but also, as the report says, expressed deep concern over the financial sustainability of a possible switch.

Once again, the report notes the importance of disciplinary differences, and notes too that there is no ?universal answer? to the complex issues in funding the publication of research literature. Any transition from traditional forms of publishing to newer models will therefore take time, will need to be explored collaboratively and will need to proceed from a firm evidence base.
Posted by David Aymonin at 13:25
Comments (0)
Blog Information scientifique
Un site très riche pour informer la communauté scientifique des évolutions et paramètres de l'édition et de la communication scientifique, universités de l'Illinois à Urbana Champaign (USA) :

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/blog/scholcomm/

Voir la page : sticker shock sur le prix des journaux :
C'est de l'activisme musclé.

http://www.englib.cornell.edu/exhibits/stickershock/


ref signalée dans Biblioacid, aout 2005.
Posted by David Aymonin at 16:23
Comments (0)
les auteurs et l'auto archivage. Une étude anglaise de juin 2005
Ce rapport signalé en juin 2005 sur le site Open Access de l'INIST CNRS tire les conclusions d'une enquête réalisée pour la seconde fois auprès d'un échantillon de chercheurs anglais.

principales conclusions :
- 50% des chercheurs ont autoarchivé au moins une fois une publication (sur leur site web, dans une archive institutionnelle ou dans une archive sujet).
- 80% des chercheurs se décrent prêts à obéir à leur univeristé si elle les obligeaient à autoarchiver toutes leurs publications.

c'est y pas beau ?


Bien d'autres données très intéressantes dans ce rapport, qui montre aussi les évolutions depuis 3 ans.

Je mets directement le rapport en pièce jonte. Pour être sûr de ne pas perdre l'info.
Posted by David Aymonin at 7:40
Comments (1)
Discussion sur les « Institutional Repositories »
<http://www.surf.nl/en/download/Discussion%20paper%20on%20insitutional%20repositories.pdf>

Analyse réflexive sur ce que doivent être ou ne pas être les archives institutionnelles. Avec des propositions intéressantes sur l'intégration des données numériques directement porduites par les laboratoires, en plus des publications elles-mêmes.

Produit pour le compte de SURF-DARE, l'organisme qui pilote les archives institutionnelles de universités hollandaises. Rappelons que TOUTES les uni hollandaises ont une IR.
Posted by Frédéric Gobry at 12:01
Comments (1)
Vers une reconnaissance implicite de la qualité des journaux en libre accès ?
Le responsable de l'évaluation des chercheurs au Royaume-Uni pour le domaine des sciences biologiques explique que la prochaine évaluation ne se fera pas (uniquement) en fonction du prestige des journaux mais dépendra de tous les moyens mis en oeuvre pour disséminer la recherche de qualité :

<http://www.inist.fr/openaccess/breve.php3?id_breve=312>

Dommage qu'ils ne traitent pas de la méthode utilisée.
Posted by Frédéric Gobry at 7:50
Comments (0)
CLADDIER, projet anglais pour la e-science
Projet CLADDIER http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=project_claddier
CLADDIER est un prototype visant a brancher deux archives de publications et des bases de donnees meteorologiques pour permettre aux meteorologistes d acceder simultanement et de maniere integree aux donnees dont ils ont besoin pour travailler..

Ce projet soutenu par JISC, dans le cadre de la politique nationale UK de developpement des archives institutionnelles
JISC : http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_digital_repositories

a ete evoque par Tony Hey (e-Science Core Programme, UK) lors de sa presentation sur le theme de "e-Research, cyberinfrastructure and the future of libraries", au congres LIber2005 a Groningen http://www.libergroningen2005.nl (les ppt devraient arriver).

Il a fait une tres interessante conclusion sur le role des archives institutionnelles comme element constitutif de l infrastructure nationale de e-science (grid ou autre), et donc
insiste sur la necessite de les developper.
Posted by David Aymonin at 10:48
Comments (0)
Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
RSS