I do sincerely apologize for this boring video, a few talking heads is not the right medium to pass a message. An important message that is. But I couldn’t find any palatable alternatives on YouTube. Has nobody tried to make an attractive, short film on this subject? Anyway, a couple of big shots from the Dutch University World passing the message on the importance of Open Access. They talk in Dutch, but this version has English sub-titles.
Today an editorial of Nature stressed -yet again- the importance for scientists to blog about their research (and what’s more, that editorial is freely available on-line). I can’t agree more and I do try to follow some Dutch scientists that blog -parts of- their research. Quite a succesful example is Lilia Efimova who’s about to finish her PhD, the other example is Anne Helmond who is just on the brink of starting her PhD research.
Today Anne had a post that really did make me wonder. In her post of Anne is… for which she apperently searched in Google, which should actually read Anne Helmond is…The first hit is
- Lovink stresses that the Main object of research Anne Helmond is working on is that bloggers start to realize they are ‘working for google’ and contributing …
Which statement really amazes me. Certainly for social scientists. If the research question was phrased differently, such as “are Bloggers (really) working for Google?”, then it was a valid research question. But if the research question is stated as it is, it takes me actually by surprise. Value free research? I know that sounds idealistic, but we have to keep up to some ideals.
The facts are, that certainly on my Dutch blog I have build an audience for whom I am writing. Combined with the direct visitors they combine for half of the blog visitors. And yes indeed, the other 50% of the visitors, do stop by because of maily Google. And they are more than wellcome.
This morning I had to look up the citations to an article. It did no show up in WoS immediately so I had to look a bit around to trace it’s exact details. I found the article as an open access article on Highwire. No problem.
However, I was struck by the extensive and confusing copyright statements at the top of the abstract. On the first line is has the classic copyright sign © which indicates to me “all rights reserved” in this case to the CBS fungal biodiversity Centre. But the all rights reserved sign was followed immediately with their own worded Creative Commons license. CC 3.0 in this case.
I was little bemused by the third clause “”You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work”. Isn’t that what science is all about? Building on previous work?
Another annoying fact is that the DOI is not working. But this is the link to the abstract, there are plenty of similar examples in this “Studies in Mycology” to be found.