Talk:Reviews

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(BMC not-so-open access)
Line 6: Line 6:
** '''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST):''' Wow, not really "open access" I guess.  That's pretty disappointing.  However, I think the authors hold the copyright when they publish with MSB (see here where they describe their [http://www.nature.com/msb/about/oa.html not-so-open access policy ]), so if we can get Weiss et al to re-release it under a CC license with derivative works allowed then we're good to go, correct?
** '''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST):''' Wow, not really "open access" I guess.  That's pretty disappointing.  However, I think the authors hold the copyright when they publish with MSB (see here where they describe their [http://www.nature.com/msb/about/oa.html not-so-open access policy ]), so if we can get Weiss et al to re-release it under a CC license with derivative works allowed then we're good to go, correct?
*** '''[[User:GregTyrelle|GregTyrelle]] 21:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)''' I don't remember the location of the discussion online, but if I recall correctly, authors have control over the pre-print copyright. So I think you are right, if we contact authors and ask permission to use the pre-print (if they don't have control over the published version's copyright) then this ''should'' be okay. A second suggestion is to move this discussion to [[OpenWetWare_talk:Reviews]] and revise the text of the page to make the goals more concrete.
*** '''[[User:GregTyrelle|GregTyrelle]] 21:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)''' I don't remember the location of the discussion online, but if I recall correctly, authors have control over the pre-print copyright. So I think you are right, if we contact authors and ask permission to use the pre-print (if they don't have control over the published version's copyright) then this ''should'' be okay. A second suggestion is to move this discussion to [[OpenWetWare_talk:Reviews]] and revise the text of the page to make the goals more concrete.
 +
*** '''[[User:pedrobeltrao|pedrobeltrao]] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)''' I am not really sure about this. I think actually to change the copyright both the publisher and the authors would have to agree on changing it. Have a look at the [http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/authorsaddendum.html Science Commons FAQ on the Author's Addendum]. This addendum is meant to change the copyright of the publication and both the author and the publisher have to sign it.
==Lets get reviews started==
==Lets get reviews started==

Revision as of 17:28, 10 March 2007

BMC not-so-open access

  • Jasonk 11:23, 6 March 2007 (EST): Anyone have any suggestions for good reviews?
  • pedrobeltrao 8 March 2007: Sorry, it looks like for copyright issues it will not be possible to use MSB content for this.
    • Jasonk 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST): Wow, not really "open access" I guess. That's pretty disappointing. However, I think the authors hold the copyright when they publish with MSB (see here where they describe their not-so-open access policy ), so if we can get Weiss et al to re-release it under a CC license with derivative works allowed then we're good to go, correct?
      • GregTyrelle 21:33, 8 March 2007 (EST) I don't remember the location of the discussion online, but if I recall correctly, authors have control over the pre-print copyright. So I think you are right, if we contact authors and ask permission to use the pre-print (if they don't have control over the published version's copyright) then this should be okay. A second suggestion is to move this discussion to OpenWetWare_talk:Reviews and revise the text of the page to make the goals more concrete.
      • pedrobeltrao 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST) I am not really sure about this. I think actually to change the copyright both the publisher and the authors would have to agree on changing it. Have a look at the Science Commons FAQ on the Author's Addendum. This addendum is meant to change the copyright of the publication and both the author and the publisher have to sign it.

Lets get reviews started

Moved from OpenWetWare:Ideas page:

  • Jasonk 09:26, 6 October 2006 (EDT): Along the lines of adopt-a-protocol, it might be great to have adopt a topic area as well. Basically, trying to solve the problem of review articles always being out of date. It seems like the job of writing reviews would be much simpler if it was done on the fly as new papers came out. THat way when a new paper came accross your desk in the area you review you could read it, and then add the relevant details and the reference to the OWW Review page. This is in contrast to coming back to that same paper a year later when you're asked to write a review and having to re-read it, re-analyze it, etc. Seems like a win-win for the both the review-writer (less work) and the readers (who get a more up-to-date source.)
  • Jasonk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (EST): I think it might be worth trying this out with the 'curator' approach we discussed for Consensus protocols.
Personal tools