Following on from my post yesterday about the ongoing UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology peer review enquiry, the oral session that Faculty of 1000 (F1000) took part in focussed on a long and interesting discussion about splitting up the review process into two constituent parts as the Public Library of…
An update on the story of Jonathan Eisen and his late father’s papers: David Dobbs in Wired writes that Eisen has managed to get PDFs for almost all the papers, and they’re available at Mendeley. Well done!
We have a little bit of an interest in Open Access here at F1000 (yes, I know F1000 itself is a subscription service, but bear with me). We’re part of the same company that brought you BioMed Central; we publish original, open access reviews; and we have the world’s largest? first? best? research poster repository.…
Open source, open access, open posters even–but open science? Is that a step too far? The arguments over whether open data–publishing experimental results on the web, making datasets available, etc.–is a good thing, for science as a whole or individual careers, are likely to rage for quite a long time to come. That hasn’t stopped…
Via a tweet from Chris Surridge (Chief Editor and Associate Publisher, Nature Protocols) I found Richard Poynder‘s potted history of PLoS ONE. Fair warning though: that link goes to a short teaser; the full, 42-page analysis is available as a PDF. So no, I haven’t read it all.
