Blog

If science is going to save the world, we need to make it open

Source:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/why-science-needs-to-open-up/

The last few weeks have been a momentous time in the sciences: not because of a breakthrough in gene therapy or quantum computing, but because world leaders have twice called for scientific papers to be made freely available to all.

On Friday 27 May, EU ministers of science, innovation, trade and industry published a progressive commitment calling for full open access to scientific research by 2020. Then, last week, US Vice President Joe Biden announced the launch of an open-access cancer database – a first of its kind – to allow researchers to better understand the disease and develop more effective treatments. The aim is for researchers to have information at their fingertips. Two petabytes of genomic and clinical data have already been released to the public.

While Carlos Moedas, the EU’s Commissioner for Research, Science and Technology, calls it “life-changing” for Europe and a “major step forward”, Doug Lowy, acting director of the National Cancer Institute in the USA, described it sharing medical data openly and freely as “transformative”.

So why is this model so important?

The gatekeeper approach to scientific publishing

Until the beginning of the millennium, scientific publishers operated a subscription model, whereby they charged universities money for subscriptions. They controlled what research would be impactful and significant enough to warrant publication. In some cases, universities can be charged up to $25,000 a year for a single journal subscription. Taken together, a large institution could therefore pay millions a year for all of the journals in its library. This cost is often borne out by students.

Researchers submitting papers to traditional academic publishers do not get paid and they hand over their copyright. This means that traditional publishers get their articles, their peer reviewing (vetting by other researchers) and even much of their editing for free. Yet the material they publish was commissioned and funded not by them but by taxpayers, through government research grants. Yet the public, under this model, are denied access. Anyone not affiliated with a university must pay the publisher for the privilege for a limited licence to read a single article.

Authors can submit their manuscript only to one journal at a time, feeding into an industry with profit margins of between 30 percent and 40 percent and annual revenues of about $9.4bn in 2011 worldwide, while the science remains behind a firewall.

Digital disruption

But this model is being disrupted. With digital publishing, Academics started moving online, creating their own publishing forums and finding ways to freely disseminate the results of their research. In 2002, the Budapest Open Access Initiative was released, publishing the principles of open access, and the movement finally had its official name. Shortly after followed the publication of the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. A breakthrough was achieved when the second largest charitable foundation in the world, the UK-based Wellcome Trust, required all Wellcome-funded research to be published as open access in 2005.

OpenAccessWillOvertakeSubscriptionArticlesby2018
In 2003, the UK’s House of Commons science and technology committee released a report recommending that government funding agencies should require open access to publicly funded research. And in 2005, the Research Councils UK (RCUK) introduced a requirement for open access.

In the meantime, the first successful open-access publishers, including BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science (PLOS), developed a new business model in which academic institutions pay for their researchers’ articles to be published online, thereby granting open access to the latest research to anyone with access to the internet.

The state of science publishing today

So, where are we now? Two thirds of the world’s journals offer an open access option, meaning the tipping point has been surpassed.

Unlike traditional publishing, the costs for open-access publishers are far lower as they have no costs for paper or printing distribution, averaging around $2,000 compared to approximately $7,000 for each subscription article published.

Importantly, open-access publishers are innovative, having created a series of digital services that are impacting the way scholarly publishing is evolving. At the Swiss-based open access publisher, Frontiers, for example, we have introduced an online interactive peer-review forum, allowing authors, editors and reviewers to interact in real time to help scientists hone their manuscripts so the best research gets published.

New ways of measuring the significance of any research published, including article-level metrics and author-impact metrics, now allow for science to be evaluated by the community in a much more unbiased and transparent way whilst providing full access to anyone who is online.

This is an important step towards equality within the scientific community, by scratching away at the bias towards US and EU-centric views of our understanding the world, connecting scientific communities and allowing them to exchange data and research findings freely.
Written by

Nina Hall, Journal Manager, Frontiers

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

500强企业教会我的价值观 | 林正刚 | 领英

通过 500强企业教会我的价值观 | 林正刚 | 领英

我相信企业的影响力来自它的文化价值观,它是可以传播的,能成为正确管理方法的灯塔。

1985年,我从生活了差不多20年的北美搬回香港,加入Digital Equipment Corp(当时世界第二大IT企业),开始25年在中国的职业生涯。25年内,我服务了两间五百强IT企业,一是DEC,另一个是思科,两间企业最后我都做到中国CEO的位置。35年(包括国外的十年)的职业生涯,差不多都是在500强外企度过,直到2010年从思科退休,开致力于帮助中国的一部分中小企业成为世界五百强。

回顾过去35年职业生涯,在思科的12年应该学得最多。原因主要有两个:一是我的职业阶段已进入了高管层面,视野更加高远开阔;二是我与钱伯斯关系相对密切,有幸近距离观察这个世界级CEO的做事风格。

如果要说在思科学到最重要的是什么,那一定是价值观。刚到思科没多久,见到钱伯斯我就问他:“一个CEO最重要的工作是什么?”他毫不犹豫地回答:“树立企业的文化价值观。”我再问:“怎样去树立企业文化呢?”他说:“Tell a lot of stories.”每次见面,他一定有故事跟我们分享,这些故事其实都在传递着企业的文化价值观。

事实上,这些文化价值观是有历史背景的,如果钱伯斯到思科前,没有经过一些500强的失败经验,这些文化价值观可能就不会在思科出现。换句话说,很多这些五百强企业,它的文化价值观都是随着时代、历史教训而不断积累起来。西方的商业文化走了100多年,从没停止过变化,而这些成功的企业,都有能力将这些经历和经验积累起来,不断更新传承下去,这也是它们成功的很大原因。下面我着重分享在思科培养出来的五点文化价值观。

一、拥抱变化

首先对我影响最大的价值观就是拥抱变化,这个价值观已经融进我血液里了。我们的员工都要能够拥抱变化,这个拥抱不止说接受,而是要主动追求变化。很多人说思科是一间很强创新的公司,创新这个字眼在思科却很少出现,我们不会整天说创新,拥抱变化本身就是一个创新的心态。我们的创新无处不在,可以说已渗透到每个人的基因里,每件事情做完,我们都会问下次是否有更好的方法来完成。

拥抱变化这条价值观怎么来的呢,我觉得是钱伯斯过去在IBM、在王安的经验,给到他很痛苦的教训。特别是王安,就因不能适应市场变化,结果就退出舞台,成为历史的一部分。所以钱伯斯将“拥抱变化”这条价值观带进了思科。我曾服务过的DEC也是这样,由于不能顺应市场变化,一个当年的IT巨无霸企业,最终也惨遭淘汰。

二、引领市场

我学到的第二点,就是不要整天盯着竞争者,而是要关注市场变化,找机会引领市场。市场竞争是企业不可回避的一部分,但我从钱伯斯这里学到的,是要盯着市场的改变,更重要是跑在市场前面,不断寻找新的机会,最终是成为市场的领先者,而不是处处去竞争。

这个思路对人来讲也是一样,不要整天盯着同事,眼红别人,甚至打压同事,这个很浪费时间和精力,也是令人讨厌的行为。正确的思路是不断提高自己的价值,让自己不断增值,这样就能走在前面,创造新机会。

三、行动为王

第三点是行动为王。一切都要行动,不要整天坐下来做计划。计划是必要的,但如果整天做计划,没办法产生任何执行力。没有行动,永远也证明不了做的计划是否靠谱。计划只是让我们有一个启动的方向,当开始行动之后,就会根据市场的反馈来调整计划。

很多人说计划赶不上变化,就认为计划是负面的东西,这是不对的。计划一定会变,赶不上变化是正常的,做好计划就是为更好的迎接变化,适应变化。关键是执行,有了想法就马上行动,在执行过程不断调整,方向也因此越来越清晰。我一直都是这样走过来的。

四、注重沟通

第四点是注重沟通。在思科我们对沟通特别注重,有很多的一对一沟通。刚到思科不久,有次去总部,我的上司鼓励我找钱伯斯沟通,我说不会吧,他那么忙还会跟我沟通。上司说可以的,于是我就约了钱伯斯,没想到他马上回复,并接受了请求。

从那之后,我们基本上每年至少有一到两次一对一,后来沟通越来越多。也是从那时起,我从一个全球CEO身上体会到沟通有多重要,我们时时刻刻都注重沟通。

五、尊重员工

最后一点就是尊重。这是我跟钱伯斯学到的很重要的价值观,他说不管员工在哪个岗位,是什么样的职位,都必须要尊重。我见过不少公司,要辞退某些人时,完全不考虑尊重人,处理方式十分粗暴,甚至有保安盯着清理好东西走出门口,不让再进。这种事情我们从来不会这样处理,因为我们有条价值观就是无论这个员工怎样,只要是人我们都必须要尊重。

以上是我总结十二年学到的一些企业文化价值观。除了文化价值观外,我也学到很多具体管理的方法与流程,但这些招数会因企业具体情况而异。我相信企业的影响力来自它的文化价值观,它是可以传播的,能成为正确管理方法的灯塔。

欧盟:2020年以后所有科学文章进行开放获取

2016年5月27日星期五,欧盟负责科学、创新、贸易和工业的部长决定,从2020年开始,科学论文必须向所有人免费开放。这个目标是之前为了促进开放科学而已经给出的一揽子建议中的一部分。此决定同时指出,对于研究数据,如果可能,也要作为开放数据进行出版,并且数据必须可为第三方获取。

在这个2020年后全面进行科学论文开放获取的欧盟决定之前,欧盟秘书长Sander Dekker 在两年前就曾经决定,在2024年,所有的科学论文都应该是100%开放获取的。

原文:

EU: from 2020 “open access” standard for all scientific articles

Friday May 27 2016 the European ministers of science, innovation, trade, and industry decided that from 2020 all scientific articles must be freely available to everyone. This goal is part of a broader set of recommendations that has been done to promote open science. The Ministers also decided that research data, if possible, should be published as open data, and that the data must be made available to third parties.

This European decision for fully open access of scientific articles in 2020 is ahead of the position of Secretary Sander Dekker. Two years ago he decided that that in 2024 all scientific articles should be 100 percent open access available.

点击访问英文原文网站@www.openaccess.nl

 

抛弃期刊影响因子?

期刊影响因子,本身是图书馆界为了评估期刊产出成果的一个指标,是对一个期刊的整体评价,但是却被广泛的应用到了对于一篇文章的评价,甚至被用于对于文章的作者进行评价的指标。长时间以来,对于这一不合理现象,出版界和图书馆界有很多专家提出反对意见。随着近期的一系列事件发生,对于这一话题的关注度变得很高。本文对于近期的重要资讯进行了整理如下。

7月11日,Thomson Reuters集团在其官网发布消息,宣布将知识产权业务和科学信息业务(IP & Science)以 35.5 亿美元的价格出售给 Onex Corp 和霸菱亚洲投资(Baring Private Equity Asia)。这件事情迅速在国内的图书馆界引起了极大的关注。同时,对于SCI等引文指标的关注,也导致了对于JIF(Journal Impact Factors)-期刊影响因子的更多讨论。

而恰恰在这之前两天的7月8日,Nature上发表了一篇文章,名为Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric。该文章介绍,当前社会上和主要期刊的资深专家们都不赞成过分强调期刊影响因子,甚至都不应该再提到这个概念。

Nature 0708

另一则来自美国微生物学会的一篇评论文章,更加促进了人们反对期刊影响因子的情绪。该文章声称,将从该学会所有期刊和网站中,以及所有市场宣传和广告中避免提到期刊影响因子。

研究者们认为,不谈完全从行业里面消除期刊影响因子的指标,就是消除这些指标的影响也要花上好长的一段时间才行。也有研究者则认为,完全放弃期刊影响因子的想法也应该被谨慎对待,并提出了引用分布的新方法。预印本服务器bioRxiv7月5日的一篇论文, A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions,对于这一新的方法进行了介绍。