• Directory
  • FAQ: about JURN
  • Group tests
  • Guide to academic search
  • JURN’s donationware
  • Links
  • openEco: titles indexed

News from JURN

~ search tool for open access content

News from JURN

Category Archives: Spotted in the news

Summary execution for students

02 Thursday Feb 2017

Posted by futurilla in My general observations, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Precis writing skills among recent American graduates: apparently disappearing faster than UC Berkeley’s federal funding…

“We had close to 500 applicants. Inasmuch as the task was to help us communicate information related to the work we do, we gave each of the candidates one of the reports we published last year and asked them to produce a one-page summary. All were college graduates. Only one could produce a satisfactory summary. … Our own research tells us that a large fraction of community college professors do not assign writing to their students because their students cannot write and the professors do not consider themselves to be writing teachers. It is no wonder that employers like us find it so hard to find candidates with serviceable writing skills.”

Admittedly precis and outline writing is a skill that’s only barely acquired after a good deal of practice, and then not by all in a class. It may help if a student has developed the knack of point-summarising by regularly taking hand-written outline lecture notes. Even then ‘getting it’ might require half a semester, rather than just a couple of hours of lessons. It’s a skill that’s likely to be especially difficult for a student who isn’t an avid advanced reader, ideally a reader of factual argumentative content that requires one to constantly unpick arguments on-the-fly.

Meta.com purchased, to be made free

31 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

In the news this week, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) have purchased an academic search engine Meta, and are set to… “offer Meta’s tools free to all researchers” at some point in the future. Very nice of them.

Currently meta.com’s search is shuttered to the public, but the site is inviting sign-ups. Meta.com is not a name that’s been on the tip of my tongue, or covered here. I don’t recall if public access to it was ever available, but possibly not. Apparently the pre-Zuckerberg Meta was one a clutch of startups trying to apply AI to a limited set of the academic literature — often in the relatively tame-but-lucrative biomedical field. I had a glancing post here on the apparently-similar Iris AI 2.0 back in November. At its search tool level Iris AI seems to propose much the same search capabilities as Meta — but via a demo of 30m+ records harvested from repositories by CORE. In contrast the pre-Zuckerberg Meta.com covered PubMed, according to a November 2015 press-release, combining that with metadata input from “dozens of publishers”. Another November 2015 press release rather ambitiously claimed that Meta.com enabled a user to…

“navigate the entirety of scientific information (25 million papers with 4,000 new ones published daily)”.

“Ambitiously” because there’s no way that the “entirety of scientific information” in journal article form = 25m papers.

After the Zuckerberg-boosted relaunch the stated aim is to expand the functionality via third-party access…

“we will enable developers to build on it or integrate it into third party platforms and services … will embrace the ideas and efforts of researchers in the diverse fields that Meta intersects with – including machine learning, network science, ontologies, science metrics, and data visualization”.

Hopefully that opening up will also include open public access to the most juicy commercial bits of Meta.com, like the ‘early awareness’ Horizon Scanning module. This claimed to be able to descry a predictive map of future research agendas and trends…

“will enable academics and industries to maintain early awareness of emergent scientific and technical advances at a speed, scale and comprehensiveness far beyond human capacity, and years in advance”

Assuming that works as intended (I haven’t encountered any gushing reviews) I’m still not sure I’d want to absolutely rely on a predictive tool that only saw a fraction of the picture. Since a mere “25 million papers” seems a little lightweight, re: a claim to index “the entirety of scientific information”. On the other hand, if it covers all of the output in one’s tight little niche, and has semantic links out into a spread of related and similarly delimited fields, then it could be quite useful for some people.

Knowledge Unlatched – 2017 round

28 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Publishers have until 10th February 2017 to submit suggested humanities book titles to Knowledge Unlatched. Selected books are made Open Access in perpetuity, albeit usually minus the cover art/design as part of the Creative Commons PDF. Losses are defrayed by a consortium of libraries.

469302_cover

106 Knowledge Unlatched titles currently show up in OAPEN and thus in JURN. Although 343 titles were unlatched for 2016, which means that a lot more are coming soon.

Persistent Identifiers for the Humanities

27 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

The Victoria & Albert Museum “Persistent Identifiers for the Humanities (workshop report)”, 20th January 2017…

“… the British Library and the DateCite organisation (as part of the THOR project) organised a workshop before Christmas on this issue of ‘Persistent Identifier Services for the Humanities’.

It was apparent from the discussions in the workshop that the implementation of this infrastructure in the humanities is still very much in its infancy in all institutions. Some of the basic concepts inherited from scientific research do not seem to map directly across. For example, do humanities’ researchers consider their source material ‘data’. Or should we even be referring to ‘data’ as a ‘dataset’? It is not immediately obvious what the distinction between the two terms is. Is an individual museum object a dataset or is a set of museum objects a dataset in the same way as a set of data points in scientific research can be?

A separate point of discussion is how to distinguish between the physical object, its digitised version, its associated catalogue record and different versions of this record, (as knowledge is accumulated/revised) as this is not currently clear in DataCite. Although a similar situation was mentioned in the sciences with ice-core samples, where different digital datasets continue to be published from the same physical ice-core samples.”

DOI availability levels

21 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

“Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed”, 3rd January 2017. For…

“the period 1966–2015 (50 years). Of the 496,665 articles studied over this period, 201,055 have DOIs (40.48%).”

So just under 60% are without DOIs, and that’s for biomedical in PubMed — albeit when including thirty years of pre-1995 (pre the mass Internet) coverage. More recently, for 2015, the study found that 13.5% of new content was still without a DOI.

The DOI-free figures for the humanities will be far higher, according to “Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus”, February 2016…

“Many journals related to the Natural Sciences and Medicine with considerable impact have no DOI. Arts & Humanities WoS [Web of Science] categories have the highest percentage of documents without DOI.” … “exceeding 50% only since 2013. The observed values for Books and Proceedings are even lower despite the importance of these document types …”

As for DOI availability within articles in repositories, IRUS-UK provides a “DOI Summary” field giving “the numbers and percentages that have DOIs available” in UK repositories, although the access to their datasets is controlled. IRUS-UK has no summary infographics that I could find, relevant to DOI availability. But it would be interesting to determine what proportion of UK repository free/open journal articles have DOIs.

New list of 7,400 journals with no or discounted APC

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Now updated and available as a Microsoft Office Excel .xls file (750kb)…

“Surfmarket [has] made a list of more than 7,400 journals in which […] Dutch universities and academic hospitals can publish in open access for free or with a substantial discount.”

570 of the titles fit the arts & humanities category, and these are all published by a small handful of establishment publishers.

It’s not possible to separate out the list’s eco/nature titles, since the “Natuur” category is too broad. At one end it ranges from New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research through to Potato Research, and at the other end goes spinning off into chemistry, maths and physics titles like Polymer Bulletin, Probability Theory and Related Fields, and Progress in Nuclear Energy.

I thought the list might be a useful source of some new URLs for JURN. But there doesn’t yet seem to be any way to filter journals by their “hybrid OA” / “wholly OA” status. Random sampling of the list of the 570 humanities titles suggests most are hybrid, and that as yet they only have a few OA articles in them. Thought doubtless that will start to change, once mandates start to operate fully.

Two new studies of OA indexing

11 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Spotted in the news

≈ 1 Comment

“Are Open Access Monographs Discoverable in Library Catalogs?”, Libraries and the Academy, Volume 17, No. 1, January 2017…

The analysis indicates that only a small percentage of college and university library catalogs in the United States and Canada consistently enable discovery and access for the test sample.

“The open access aggregators challenge: how well do they identify free full text?”, Medium article-post, 7th January 2017. Looks at BASE and CORE…

when OAI-PMH (which is the standard way of harvesting open access repositories [was established,] no provision was made to have a standard way or a mandatory field to indicate if the item is free to access.” [But today] “many have in fact more metadata-only records than full-text records.

[BASE] “is only able to see 75 free records in National University of Singapore’s IR, 654 free records in Nanyang Technology University’s IR, 143 free records in Singapore Management University’s IR. I did not do a check to see if there were false positives in BASE’s identification of full text but [assuming] they are 100% correct, we see only a full text identification ratio of 0.6%, 3.8% and 2.7% respectively!” […] “the results for CORE are as dismal as BASE.

See also: “From open access metadata to open access content: two principles for increased visibility of open access content”, conference paper presented at Open Repositories 2013, 8th-12th July 2013, Charlottetown, Canada.

… only 27.6% of research outputs in repositories are linked to content that can be downloaded by automatic means and analysed (e.g. indexed). […] the median repository will only provide machine readable content for 13% of its deposited resources. [but] it is likely that these statistics are in fact rather optimistic …

Repositories and Creative Commons license metadata

07 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Ooops!, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

“Assigning Creative Commons Licenses to Research Metadata: Issues and Cases”, 19th September 2016…

“From a recent analysis, out of a sample of around 2500 publication repository services in OpenDOAR 2 ([those] supporting the OAI-PMH protocol standard), only 9 expose metadata license information: 3 with CC-0, 2 with CC-BY, and 4 which require a permission for commercial use, 3 with CC-0 and 1 with CC-BY.”

Nine. Not nine percent, just… nine. And one can assume that the other 1,100 repositories in OpenDOAR are even less likely to host CC license information for metadata in some form or other.

Beall’s List 2017

04 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2017, just released.

2017 Edge Question – a Kindle ebook conversion

03 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by futurilla in Official and think-tank reports, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

The 2017 Edge Question responses have just been released. Over 200 of the world’s finest minds answer “What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?”. As usual the combined single mega-page weighs in at around the length of two novels, on which the likes of Instapaper will choke. So Kindle ereader owners may want the unabridged unofficial .mobi ebook conversion for the Kindle.

concept

← Older posts
Newer posts →
RSS Feed: Subscribe

 

Please become my patron at www.patreon.com/davehaden to help JURN survive and thrive.

JURN

  • JURN : directory of ejournals
  • JURN : main search-engine
  • JURN : openEco directory
  • JURN : repository search
  • Categories

    • Academic search
    • Ecology additions
    • Economics of Open Access
    • How to improve academic search
    • JURN blogged
    • JURN metrics
    • JURN tips and tricks
    • JURN's Google watch
    • My general observations
    • New media journal articles
    • New titles added to JURN
    • Official and think-tank reports
    • Ooops!
    • Open Access publishing
    • Spotted in the news
    • Uncategorized

    Archives

    • February 2026
    • January 2026
    • October 2025
    • May 2025
    • April 2025
    • September 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009

    Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.