The last week of October will be the ninth International Open Access Week with the theme “Open in Action;” the theme will “highlight the researchers, librarians, students, and others who have made a commitment to working in the open and how that decision has benefited them—from researchers just starting their careers to those at the top of their field.” We don’t currently have any special events planned at Washington University, although I post about open access issues nearly every month and will display our faculty open access resolution in the lobby during the last half of October. If I learn about free webcasts, I will post them at libguides.wustl.edu/oa1/events. Meanwhile, check out Why Open Research? Advance your Career by Sharing Your Work; it includes some very useful pages, graphics and videos.
#FixCopyright is European-focused but interesting series of short videos about copyright, preparing for European copyright review; these are licensed for reuse:
— #FixCopyright: Copy (aka copyright) Tells the Story of His Life 9:16
— I thought this was especially useful and, I think, valid in US also: #FixCopyright: Copyright & Research – Text & Data Mining (TDM) Explained 3:51
There are several others in this series.
I blogged about the “relative citation ratio” preprint in June and July. The paper has now been published in PLOS Biology, Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level. As Stefano Bertuzzi, Executive Director of the American Society for Cell Biology posts, “Today we received strong evidence that significant scientific impact is not tied to the publishing journal’s JIF [Journal Impact Factor] score. First results from a new analytical method that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is calling the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) reveal that almost 90% of breakthrough papers first appeared in journals with relatively modest journal impact factors. According to the RCR, these papers exerted major influence within their fields yet their impact was overlooked, not because of their irrelevance, but because of the widespread use of the wrong metrics to rank science.”