E’ disponibile un nuovo filmato su le tecniche e le tecnologie per una VATS nei casi di carcinoma polmonare.
Tra gli obiettivi del filmato:
- Comprendere il funzionamento e le tecniche per una resezione polmonare con VATS dopo una precedente toracotomia;
- Identificare e trattare le complicazione insorgenti durante una resezione con VATS e comprendere i metodi per evitarne l’insorgenza;
- Acquistare consapevolezza e familiarità nell’esecuzione di una resezione con VATS.

Vedi l’intero filmato

Fone: Or-Live

Im Rahmen des Projekts retro.seals.ch werden wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften retrodigitalisiert und über das Internet zugänglich gemacht.

Im Projekt E-Archiving (2005-2008) wurden Fragen der langfristigen Verfügbarkeit von wissenschaftlichen Inhalten in digitaler Form geklärt. Ein Teilprojekt war dabei die Digitalisierung gedruckter Zeitschriften und der Aufbau einer Plattform zur Verwaltung und Präsentation der Inhalte. Im Rahmen des Projekts retro.seals.ch, das von “E-lib.ch: Elektronische Bibliothek Schweiz” für den Zeitraum von 2008-2011 unterstützt wird, kann die Retrodigitalisierung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften fortgeführt werden.

Pakistaniaat--Table of Contents

As we are moving to publishing three issues per year, we will need more reviewers to review our article submissions. We could use your help in reviewing articles from all fields of humanities and social sciences. Our review policy:

The reviews are blind, so the authors and reviewers never know of each other’s identity.

The reviewers get from six to eight weeks to review a submission.

Those who complete at least two successful reviews are added to our editorial team under “Advisory review Committee.”

How to sign up:

Please visit our website and register using the “Register” link in the main links.

When registering, please do provide details of your reviewing interests.

You may also watch our video tutorials on signing up and on reviewing.

Please do remember that Pakistaniaat is a collaborative effort of a global team of volunteers and by helping us in the review process, you will enable us to publish a leading, open-access journal on Pakistan Studies.

Ich möchte mal wieder einige akutelle Bundestagspetitionen vorstellen, welche ich für wichtig, sinnvoll und mitzeichnenswert halte. Die Liste ist nicht vollständig, da sie sonst zu lang wäre. Es existiert ein RSS-Feed mit den Petitionen – nutzt ihn! Normalerweise mache ich solche Ankündigungsposts nicht, aber einige der Petitionen sind meiner Meinung nach zu wichtig, um sie nicht zu erwähnen. Bitte macht auch andere auf die Petitionen aufmerksam! Und wo ich schon bei den Ankündigungen bin, nutze ich diesen Artikel auch gleich, um auf eine günstige Möglichkeit hinzuweisen, an Piratenpartei-Shirts zu kommen (siehe ganz unten) – für einen eigenen Artikel reicht das nicht, aber unerwähnt möchte ich es auch nicht lassen.

Diese Petitionen sind offizielle Petitionen an den Petitionsausschuss des deutschen Bundestags. Ab einer Anzahl von 50000 Mitzeichnungen darf normalerweise der Petent seine Bitte persönlich vortragen und erläutern. Die Petitionen werden zumindest vom Petitionsausschuss bearbeitet und können bei hoher Beteiligung einige Politiker vielleicht ins Grübeln bringen, ob sie nicht vielleicht doch im Sinn der Bevölkerung abstimmen sollten. Natürlich werden auch viele Petitionen kaum beachtet – bei großen Mitzeichnerzahlen kann aber auch die Presse darauf aufmerksam werden und eine öffentliche Debatte entstehen.

Weil sie bereits am 2.12.2009 endet, möchte ich mit einer Petition zum Wahlrecht beginnen. Diese fordert die Einführung einer “Alternativstimme”, falls die erste Stimme z. B. aufgrund der 5%-Hürde nicht berücksichtigt wird. Durch die 5%-Hürde werden Wähler davon abgehalten, kleine Parteien zu wählen, denn schließlich könnte ihre Stimme so verloren sein, also wählen sie lieber das kleinere Übel unter den etablierten Parteien. Die Petition würde zwar die Wahl komplizierter machen, dafür aber dieses Problem beheben und so die Demokratie meiner Meinung nach deutlich fördern. Hier gehts zur Petition.

Die nächsten zwei Petitionen drehen sich um typische Internet- oder “Piraten”themen: Um das Abmahnunwesen einzudämmen, fordert diese Petition eine zwingende kostenlose Vorstufe zur Abmahnung. (Mitzeichnung bis 5.01.2010) Klar gibt es auch berechtigte Abmahnungen, und vielleicht sollten diese auch vergütet werden. Allerdings nimmt der Missbrauch immer schlimmere Ausmaße an, ohne dass z. B. die Rechtsanwaltskammern dagegen wirksam vorgehen würden. Ein einfacher Brief oder eine einfache E-Mail können auch ohne Anwalt vieles bewirken und es sollte zum normalen Umgang gehören, ersteinmal miteinander zu reden, bevor man sich einen Anwalt auf den Hals hetzt.

Diese Petition fordert (partiellen) “Open Access” – wissenschaftliche Publikationen, die mit Steuergeldern finanziert wurden, sollen auch kostenlos öffentlich zugänglich sein, und so der Allgemeinheit dienen – diese hat ja auch dafür bezahlt. (Mitzeichnung bis 22.12.2009)

Damit wären wir auch schon bei der allgemeinen Politik: Diese Petition fordert die (Wieder-)Einführung einer Börsenumsatzsteuer. Diese wurde 1991 von Schwarz-Gelb abgeschafft. Eine Börsenumsatzsteuer produziert nicht nur Einnahmen, mit welchen sich die in der Krise angehäuften Staatsschulden zumindest teilweise bezahlen ließen. Vor allem macht sie großvolumige, schnelle und hochspekulative Geschäfte unattraktiver, die an der derzeitigen Wirtschaftskrise nicht ganz unschuldig sind. Durch die niedrige Höhe sind langfristige Anlagen, also das, wodurch der Aktienmarkt die Wirtschaft tatsächlich fördert, relativ wenig betroffen. Die genaue Höhe der Einnahmen ist nicht abzuschätzen, da die Umsätze an der Börse durch eine solche Steuer massiv (nämlich um die hochspekulativen Geschäfte) zurückgehen, und der Markt so stabilisiert wird. Ob man eine solche Steuer sinnvoll findet oder nicht, muss jeder selbst entscheiden – wer die Petition unterstützen will, kann dies bis zum 25.12.2009 auf der Petitionsseite tun. Da bereits über 20.000 Menschen mitgezeichnet haben, könnte diese Petition es tatsächlich schaffen, und da der Text sehr gut formuliert ist, darf gehofft werden, dass der Petent die Forderung auch würdig vertreten kann.

Gegen die von schwarz-gelb geplante Abschaffung des Solidarprinzips in der Krankenversicherung wendet sich diese Petition (bis 17.12.2009). Das Vorhaben hat mich nach der Wahl richtig schockiert, ich hätte nichtmal der FDP zugetraut, dass sie sich traut, derart einen Grundpfeiler des deutschen Sozialsystems regelrecht wegsprengen zu wollen. Diese Petition (bis 08.01.2010) will unter anderem dafür sorgen, dass die privaten Krankenkassen sich auch am solidarischen Gesundheitssystem beteiligen sollen.

Eine geniale Idee finde ich ein 14-tägiges Widerrufsrecht für Aufhebungsverträge, wie es diese Petition (bis 24.12.2009) fordert, da Aufbehungsverträge oft unter Druck und ohne ausreichend Bedenkzeit unterschrieben werden.

Arbeitslose, welche Leistungen beziehen, müssen beim Arbeitsamt “Urlaub” beantragen, wenn sie ihren Wohnort verlassen möchten. Auch, wenn es nur am Wochenende ist. (Link) Diesen “Urlaub” bekommen sie i. d. R. höchstens an 21 Tagen pro Jahr, also drei Wochen, da Wochenenden voll zählen. Arbeitnehmer haben laut Gesetz einen Mindest(!)anspruch auf vier Wochen Urlaub und dazu meist das komplette Wochenende frei. Allein deswegen ist aus meiner Sicht die Regelung für Arbeitslose eine unglaubliche Sauerei. Diese Petition (bis zum 22.12.2009) fordert Abhilfe für einen Sonderfall, wo das besonders problematisch wird – wenn getrennt lebende Eltern ihre Kinder besuchen wollen. Trotz der grauenhaften Beschreibung, die daran zweifeln lässt, dass der Petent die Petition sinnvoll begründen könnte, möchte ich auf diese Petition (bis zum 22.12.2009) hinweisen. Diese stellt die meiner Meinung nach richtige und nötige Forderung auf, Kindergeld nicht auf ALG2 anzurechnen.

Eine weitere Petition (bis 06.01.2010) fordert, dass öffentliche Aufträge nicht mehr an Firmen gehen dürfen, die Dumpinglöhne zahlen oder die Arbeitszeitvorschriften nicht einhalten. Ebenfalls zumindest interessant ist die Idee dieser Petition (bis 22.12.2009), nach der Leiharbeiter 10% mehr Lohn als am entsprechenden Arbeitsplatz Festangestellte bekommen sollen. Das würde Leiharbeit gegenüber Festanstellungen unattraktiver machen – auch wieder ein Thema, welches sehr kontrovers sein dürfte.

Zum Abschluss noch drei Petitionen, die andere Teilbereiche des gleichen Problems betrachten: Es lohnt sich oft nicht, eine offizielle Beschäftigung aufzunehmen oder zu erweitern, da neben einem Berg an Bürokratie oft Kosten (z. B. Krankenversicherung) auf einen zukommen, die die Einnahmen teilweise sogar übersteigen könnten. Petition 1 (bis 17.12.2009), Petition 2 (bis 23.12.2009) und Petition 3 (bis 1.01.2010)

Wie versprochen hier noch der Tipp, wo es günstige Piratenpartei-Shirts gibt: 3DSupply bietet die Shirts jetzt für 5 EUR das Stück zzgl. Versand an. (Früher gab es mal ein Shirt pro Bestellung gratis, weitere waren dann deutlich teurer.) GetDigital hat ein ähnliches Angebot, allerdings weicht da das Logo aus drucktechnischen Gründen etwas vom offiziellen Logo ab. Beide Angebote dürfte sehr nah am Selbstkostenpreis, wenn nicht sogar drunter, liegen. Wenn jemand günstige (d.h. unter 20 EUR) Angebote für langärmlige Shirts/Pullover etc. mit Piratenlogo kennt, bitte die Kommentarfunktion nutzen!

Offenlegung: Für Bestellungen über die Links erhalte ich eine Provision. Den Link hätte ich aber auch so gesetzt – ich entscheide erst, ob ich einen Link setze, und schaue dann, ob es eine Variante mit Provision gibt.

Cool science on the web made availabe by people who like to share….

About the language of open access

I am a big supporter of open access. But as I ponder on its virtues, I also ponder about its reach. As we move towards making our work available to the public through open access publishing, I wonder whether the language in which we write our work will continue to represent a barrier for true public reach. It is a difficult one, most of the jargon we use is required to express ourselves with precision and without ambiguity.

Then this week I came across this PLoS One article by David M. Lambert^, Lara D. Shepherd^, Leon Huynen^, Gabrielle Beans-Picón^, Gimme H. Walter^, and Craig D. Millar that I think has bridged this gap. The article describes some genetic studies they did on museum specimens of the extinct huia, and although I would normally give a short summary of the article, this one is worth a read by scientists and non-scientists alike.

Great finds on the web:

• Ed Yong from ‘Not exactly Rocket Science’ has a great blog on an article that looked at vision in hammerhead sharks
• Brandon Keim has a great article on Wired Science on “paleoart’, the creation of 3D representations that bring our ancestors to life
• Dr Zen from ‘NeuroDojo’ has a great blog on hummingbirds, their song and their tail sound (and how it all evolved)
• And if you aren’t yet convinced about the beauty of science, check out these beautiful pictures of fluid dynamics from New Scientist.

Become a citizen scientist

As a biologist I often get asked a lot of questions about biology, most of them of the form

“I heard that <insert favourite rumour here>. Is that true?”

Most of the time, I don’t have the answer, and more often than not, the answer is not there. These are the ‘rumours’ of science that prompted Matt Halstead, John Montgomery and I to actually try to seek the answer. For that reason, we opened a webpage at popscinz.wordpress.com where the data can be posted and, hopefully, rumours be put to rest (one way or another).

We launched the website with a very simple rumour about Tuis, and we are hoping that New Zealanders of all ages (but especially the younger ones) will tell us when and where they spot these fantastic birds.

In the future, we hope that schools will take advantage of the site to gather data for science projects, or communities will gather data that they need to put forward to their local councils, and so forth. It is, in itself an experiment, one that we think could be a lot of fun. So visit the site, and if you spot a tui please let us know here!

And my favourite tweet has to be this by @MsBehaviour, the first data point in the Tui project. Thanks Helen!

You have probably heard the term “open” used in conversations about the web; specifically, open source and open access. So, what’s the difference? Briefly, open source is free-to-use, free-to-distribute, often collaboratively produced software that is in the public domain. Open access refers to making content free to all users. Examples of open source software include the Linux operating system and the Drupal content management system. Examples of open access journals include those published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).

As a scientific and medical editor, you probably won’t be involved in the development of open source materials. However, it’s possible that your content could be built on top of these open source systems!

What you should be aware of–and spend some time thinking about–is open access and how your materials will be made available to your readers. What will be the affect of open access on your business model? How does open access fit in to the mission of your journal? These are complicated questions, and I urge you to pursue them by consulting with your colleagues and/or attending meetings or symposia sponsored by societies such as the Council of Science Editors or the Society for Scholarly Publishing.

I wanted to make a presentation about Open Research and Open Science for our internal doctoral seminar at the Dresden University of Technology (my slides from the seminar in German language are available here). For this purpose, I tried to sum up for myself, what Open Science and Open Research mean. I confess, I found it quite difficult. Anyway, this is what I came up with:

I started by trying to define the terms ‘open science’ and ‘open research. They are very often used synonymously, although I cannot agree, that they should mean the same. I therefore reviewed the definition ’science’ and ‘research’.

Fig. 1 : Science and Research

There is a close connection between science and research. Science uses research, a process of systematic inquiry, as meant of gaining new knowledge (Bordens & Abbott, 2007, p. 2; Graziano & Raulin, 2009, p. 26). However, not all research takes place in science. In fact, scientific research has to fulfil very specific criteria (Heinrich, 1993, pp. 62-66; Shugan, 2004, pp. 174-175), e.g. be public, replicable, unprejudiced, independent and it must advance the state of the art (Heinrich, 1993, pp. 62-66; Shugan, 2004, pp. 174-175). Research outside these restriction is non-scientific. This does not mean it is worse than scientific research. It simply has different aims. (During my presentation, I had a little discussion with one of the participants, who basically differentiated between scientific research and bad research. I do not share this view. I agree with the authors cited here, that rigorous and valuable research exists outside of science. It just has different purpose and hence different restrictions).  But science is not just about research. According to Bordens & Abbott (2007) science is also a way of thinking and viewing the world. Going back to open science and open research, this would mean, that there is open research outside of open science and open science outside of open research.

Now, what does “open” mean? David (2004) offers a very nice historical overview of the development of science from secretive activities towards openness (see also Nielsen, 2008). According to them, openness developed from the need to judge scientific merit. David, den Besten & Schroeder (2009) describe two levels of openness: the openness of research process and the openness of the research results. These are similar to Merton’s (1979, pp. 223-280) communalism and universalism (four or nowadays five CUDOS by Merton – see also David et al., 2009). Communalism calls for the resignation of the intellectual property rights on scientists’ findings and for common access to resources. Universalism demands, that the ability alone should be used to judge the scientists and the quality of their results – not individual factors like race, nationality, religion etc. The European Charter for Researchers goes even further and asks researchers to carry out their research for the good of the mankind. I think this already poses many interesting questions. Why do researchers publish their results? Do they do it for career purposes or for the development of science and hence the society alone? I think, that different publishing practices result from these two aims (i.e. publish or parish).

Further questions arise, if we view the development of ICT and their influence on research. The possibilities created by the technology make us reflect, how open the science should be. Because now there are different levels of openness possible.

• Publication of results – fine, but is a journal or a book open enough?
• Availability of resources – then how about sharing data?
• Free access to research projects – shall I then open my whole research process so that anyone can join any time?

These questions also mirror the areas associated to open science:  open access,  open data and open process (also open notebook and open source). I have collected a few links on these. This is of course not a full list – just a few places to get further information and ideas.

Open Access

• Open Access Initiative – a lot of information about Open Access, its history and issues
• Direcory of Open Journals
• Public Library of Science – committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource
• arXiv.org -  the greatest archive of open access scientific work
• Sprouts – an archive for scientific work on information systems
• Academic Publishing Wiki

Open Data

• openPSI – making publicly collected data avalilable
• Swivel – platform for sharing data
• many eyes – platform for sharing data

Open Process

• OpenWetWare - the open notebook wikis
• myExperiment – exchanging workflows

The discussions around open science and open research gave me lot to think about. I think there are no easy answers here. Everyone has to make a choice and find his or her position. The technology may act as an enabler, but the question of open science is more about culture and ethics (e.g. one of the presentation participants pointed out to me, that when collecting data in social sciences, the researchers assure the participants not to use the data for purposes other than this research – passing such data to others would not be ethical). Just as that there is science beyond scientific research – a particular way of thinking and viewing the world, there appears to me to really be open science beyond open research. The open research can utilize the chances the technology offers for sharing whatever we want. Open science, however, further calls for a culture of openness within science.

On Monday my colleague Naumi Haque sent me a link to an interesting article by Professor Francis Heylighen titled “Why is Open Access Development is so successful? Stigmergic organization and the economics of information“. It provides a great overview of open access / self-organizing systems in relation to traditional economic theory, but the part I found most interesting was in relation to the two different types of stigmergy.

I will now admit that I didn’t actually know what that word meant before reading the article. According to Wikipedia, “Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, apparently intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even awareness of each other.” More simply, Heylighen says “a process is stigmergic if the work done by one agent provides a stimulus that entices other agents to continue the job.”

You can start seeing the link between stigmergy, community building, and social media from that description. But to highlight the difference between direct and indirect stigmergy, Heylighen used termite and ant examples.

Direct stigmergy: exemplified by termite hill-building, it is the “work-in-progress” itself that directs subsequent contributions.

Indirect stigmergy: exemplified by the way ants create trails of pheremones that direct other ants to food sources. The trails are left as “side effects” of the actual work being performed.

I thought about these differences, and how they might relate to companies in terms of community building and social media strategies. It occurred to me that building a community is primarily driven by direct stigmergy, while the use of social media is the indirect stigmergy that draws people to you.

The reason is simple. In the termite (direct) example, the little critters go around dropping bits of mud randomly, and where the heaps are formed stimulate other termites to add to them – causing them to grow and grow. By definition, the termite can’t add to the heap without being there. So while no centrally controlled plan is needed, the community must already be there. In an organizational context, the company /moderators start by dropping little heaps of information here and there, hopefully others do to, and where the heaps “pile up” emerge as the key focal point.

The challenge (from an organization context) is, obviously, that this approach doesn’t work if you don’t have a critical mass of termites. You can drop all the heaps you want, but if no one else is there, they’re not going to grow. This is where the indirect stigmergy / social media tie comes in. Using platforms like Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, etc., organizations (and early contributors) leave “trails” that direct people back to the (in the ant case) the “food source”.

So it’s obviously a little bit awkward trying to elegantly merge the termite and ant examples together – right now I’d end up with a bunch of ants piling in to eat the Termite hills. But if you squint a bit I think you’ll see what I’m saying. Organizations need to think about direct stigmergy principles in order to build up their own community from within, and indirect stigmergy principles in order to draw people to them. It’s a subtle, but important, distinction.

Staff at JORUM have released their November newsL

The November edition of Jorum Update is now available at the Jorum website.

The last Jorum Update of 2009 brings together highlights of the past few months in relation to the release of JorumOpen, which includes future directions for the service. We take a sneak preview at plans for 2010, incorporating further enhancements to the service alongside JorumOpen and JorumUK. Other key topics include the new interactive map on the Jorum website, and the positive feedback received from the training events.

http://www.jorum.ac.uk/news/newsletter.html

Don’t forget you can also keep up to date with the Jorum team through Twitter:  http://twitter.com/JorumTeam.

Web: http://www.jorum.ac.uk
Jorum Community Bay: http://community.jorum.ac.uk

Jorum is a free online repository service for teaching and support staff in UK Further and Higher Education Institutions. Helping to build a community for the sharing, reuse and repurposing of learning and teaching materials, created by the community for the community.

You can also have your say and find out more about all aspects of sharing at the Jorum Community Bay: http://community.jorum.ac.uk

Der Deutsche Bundestag möge beschließen, dass wissenschaftliche Publikationen, die aus öffentlich geförderter Forschung hervorgehen, allen Bürgern kostenfrei zugänglich sein müssen. Institutionen, die staatliche Forschungsgelder autonom verwalten, soll der Bundestag auffordern, entsprechende Vorschriften zu erlassen und die technischen Voraussetzungen zu schaffen.

via oapetition.de.

Es herrscht ja derzeit kein Mangel an Petitionen und Zensursula und die ZenDU hat sich in der vergangenen Regierung auch wenig dran gestört, aber dieses o.g. Anliegen muss ich unterstützen.

The top 20 downloads from Spiral for October 2009 is now available to view on the Library website.

Spiral, the Digital Repository for research output of Imperial College London, aims to:

• increase the visability of the College’s research publications
• allow free and open access to all material added to it, and
• provide links to academics’ professional web pages

To find out more about Spiral, click here.

I have a paper that would be a great fit for BMC Bioinformatics, but the article-processing charge of $1700US is beyond my means.

The Instruction to Authors page states that “waivers or discounts are granted on a case-by-case basis to authors who lack funds” so I decided to apply.  To do this, one must first upload all components of the submission, then check the box that says that you would like to apply for a fee waiver.  Here is the explanation I provided:

This work was done as part of my PhD dissertation.  I am currently unfunded and unemployed.  Although I received tuition support and a stipend during much of the research, there are no funds available for open access publication of the research outputs.  The grants of my advisor and co-author, Dr Wendy Chapman, are not related to this work.  [Details: Funding from National Library of Medicine (training fellowship 5T15-LM007059-19 to HAP, 5R01-LM009427-01 to WWC)]

I feel passionate about releasing this work into the open domain: the research is about openly sharing research outputs and facilitating retrieval.  It is especially important that researchers who may not have access to subscription journals can read about research methods and results such as those in our study, to ensure full participation in the opportunities (and potential limitations) of free, open, biomedical data resources.

Thank you for considering this request for a waiver.

Sincerely,
Heather Piwowar

Within two days, they replied:

Many thanks for considering BMC Bioinformatics for your research. We have considered your waiver request, and although we cannot grant a full waiver in this instance, in these exceptional circumstances, we can agree to a discount of the article-processing charge.

This would mean that if your manuscript was accepted you would have to pay a GBP 820.00/USD 1,360.00/EUR 920.00 article-processing charge on this article. Since you are based in United States of America, you will be charged the price of USD 1,360.00.

If you can pay this charge, you should go back to the submission pages for your manuscript, click ‘I agree to pay’, and then finish submitting. The link to your submission page is: [link]

I hope that you are happy with this, and are able to submit your manuscript to us for peer review.

Sincerely,

BioMed Central Waivers

Unfortunately, $1360US is still beyond my means, so I will have to pursue other options.

I wonder in what cases BMC Bioinformatics might give a full waiver?  Authors from developing countries, hopefully?  ??

It is worth noting that PLoS appears to be much more willing to grant waivers when needed:  “PLoS is committed to ensuring that our fee is never a barrier to publication and so we offer a waiver to any authors who do not have access to funds to cover our publication fees.”

Here is a new book from NAP Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age;

National Academy of Sciences

As digital technologies are expanding the power and reach of research, they are also
raising complex issues. These include complications in ensuring the validity of research
data; standards that do not keep pace with the high rate of innovation; restrictions on data
sharing that reduce the ability of researchers to verify results and build on previous
research; and huge increases in the amount of data being generated, creating severe
challenges in preserving that data for long-term use.
Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility,
and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age examines the consequences of the
changes affecting research data with respect to three issues – integrity, accessibility, and
stewardship-and finds a need for a new approach to the design and the management of
research projects. The report recommends that all researchers receive appropriate
training in the management of research data, and calls on researchers to make all
research data, methods, and other information underlying results publicly accessible in a
timely manner. The book also sees the stewardship of research data as a critical
long-term task for the research enterprise and its stakeholders. Individual researchers,
research institutions, research sponsors, professional societies, and journals involved in
scientific, engineering, and medical research will find this book an essential guide to the
principles affecting research data in the digital age.

Front Matter i-xvi
Summary 1-10 (skim)
1 Research Data in the Digital Age 11-32 (skim)
2 Ensuring the Integrity of Research Data 33-58 (skim)
3 Ensuring Access to Research Data 59-94 (skim)
4 Promoting the Stewardship of Research Data 95-114 (skim)
5 Defining Roles and Responsibilities 115-120 (skim)
Appendix A: Biographical Information on the Members of the Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age 121-132 (skim)
Appendix B: Relevant National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council Reports 133-142 (skim)
Appendix C: Letters from Scientific Journals Requesting the Study 143-154 (skim)
Index 155-162 (skim)

- Formato de etiqueta normalizado para intercambio de citas entre gestores de referencias bibliográficas: RIS.

- Evaluación científica a través del etiquetado social (2007) y gestores de referencia sociales.

- Difusión científica y open access.

- Buscar pruebas para la acreditación científica.

- Journals en acceso abierto híbrido.

- Biblioteca escolar 2.0 y enlaces a la biblioteca 2.0.

- ISBD Consolidada y suplemento de ejemplos completos.

NICE consiglia la somministrazione del topotecan per via orale come trattamento per le persone con una recidiva di cancro ai polmoni a piccole celle, se non può essere ripetuto il trattamento già fatto e ci sono ragioni mediche che impediscano l’assunzione di una combinazione di ciclofosfamide, doxorubicina e vincristina.
La somministrazione per endovena del topotecan non è raccomandata.

Leggi le linee guida

Fonte: NICE

150 years ago, on this date, The Origin of Species was published. This seminal scientific text started a revolution in our understanding of the world around us and generated a storm of discussion. It is a reflection of its idea’s power that it is still causing reactions today.

The book remains a fascinating read 150 years later. The full text is available free from Project Gutenberg.

Watch Darwin’s Lost Paradise, a dramatic reconstruction of the voyages of the Beagle and the origin of Darwin’s theory, in English or in French on Athena Web. Also free; registration is required.

Stimulus grant to enhance arXiv e-preprints for scientists by Bill Steele, Chronicle Online, Cornell University, November 17, 2009. Excerpts:

Soon, Cornell’s e-print arXiv of scientific papers will evolve from a simple database to a place where “authors, articles, databases and readers talk to each other” to help users identify a work’s main concepts, see research reports in context and easily find related work.

…..

Other enhancements will provide interoperability with such research sites as PubMedCentral and provisions to allow scientists to contribute in newer, more flexible text formats.

Researchers might be more enthusiastic about participating in open access journals and repositories if they could see that their work was more accessible and usable, [Paul] Ginsparg suggested. “And perhaps the academic community will again play a role at the forefront as the semantic Web 3.0 rolls out,” he said. Academic publishing has lagged behind the commercial Internet in providing interactive enhancements that today’s students take for granted, he explained. “Configuring research communications infrastructure for the next generation of researchers requires getting into the heads of near-term future researchers — undergrads and grad students — coming of age in the Google/Facebook/Twitter era.”

Found via posts in [Digital & Scholarly] and [Open Access News].

Comment: The arXiv repository has been at the forefront of the Green route to OA. The proposed enhancements may once again permit it to play a leadership role. These enhancements are intended to add value of a kind that will enhance the appeal of repositories to a wider range of users.

Green OA mandates implemented by funding agencies and universities can be regarded as “sticks”, designed to push appropriate content into repositories. Enhancements of the kind being proposed for the arXiv can be regarded as “carrots”, designed to pull a variety of users toward repositories. The latter approach has, so far, received less attention from OA advocates than the former.

Gavin Baker at Open Access News is reporting on a survey on the use of digital repositories and open access. Unfortunately, the PDF is not open access, so Baker’s summary will have to suffice. From the post:

About 28% said that they sympathize and try to help out by providing open access to their research materials as much as they possibly can.

• Uni brennt: Zu viele digitale Lagerfeuer

• Bildungsstreik analog statt digital: Studenten sind nicht über das Web zu mobilisieren

• Petition für die kostenfreie Bereitstellung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen – Open Access

• Petition pro Open Access

_skywalker_