“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.
“Google Scholar is Filled with Junk”… and now, what-claims-to-be porn, even. The aptly-named iPensatori investigates.
I’d noticed this problem starting to creep in as long ago as 2014, by another route, even before Scholar began to be being targeted by SEO spivs. When searches for ‘Lovecraft’ (seeking new scholarship on the 20th century’s greatest horror/sci-fi writer) on Google Scholar started bringing up ebooks of explicit sex-stories listed on Google Books, as well as other more dubious sources. Here’s my screenshot of a Google Books entry in Google Scholar, from 2014…
Many more occurrences since then, too.
My quick tickle of ‘naked’ ‘celebrities’ in JURN suggests there’s no such content to be found via JURN.
Over the last month or so Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads has become a must-read weekly newsletter. Not just the usual slate of links to stonkingly huge retractions but also tales of academic embezzlement, an article in The Economist on the systemic problems in Chinese science and academic publishing, ghost-management of the entire process of bringing a drug to market, news of quiet Elsevier acquisitions, and how Northwestern Polytechnic University in Silicon Valley became a corrupt test-faking visa-factory. That’s just a small sample from this week’s edition. There’s also optimism-inducing stuff, like this week’s news of Google’s new ‘Science Journal’ phone app which turns your phone into a citizen-science research lab.
Another observation on Facebook’s Group search. Searching a Group’s archives for “winning” shows all posts with “won’t” in them, seemingly on the principle that “won’t” contains “won” in it.
More vaccine-conspiracy nuttiness has been published by the OMICS Publishing Group, aka OMICS International. Galalae, K. (2016) “Turning Nature against Man: The Role of Pandemics, Vaccines and Genetics in the UN’s Plan to Halt Population Growth. Epidemiology, 2016 6:232. The article claims a total global eugenics conspiracy by the U.N….
“All epidemics and pandemics of the past 30 years are fabrications of the UN system and its partners in crime at the national level for the purpose of lowering births below the magic line of replacement level fertility and, more recently, also for limiting life to an economically acceptable and environmentally sustainable age.”
The last such article got pulled by OMICS after a while (I hear the whining about such things, regrettably, because I take a daily glance at the raw feed for “open access” via Twitter Live) so I guess this article may also be pulled soon. Although it seems to have been up for a month now, judging by the dates on the PDF.
There are no OMICS journals indexed in either the DOAJ or JURN, though it appears that their journals are indexed in JournalTOCs and Google Scholar in substantial numbers, and “Turning Nature against Man” is currently discoverable via Google Scholar.
SHERPA REF Beta is an open access compliance checking tool.
It seems that some universities are in for a rude awakening as they prepare for the next REF. According to the Wellcome Trust, 54% of Wiley’s hybrid OA articles published in 2014-15… “are non-compliant with terms of grant funding”. Across all publishers, 30% that Wellcome paid to be OA were not made OA in a REF-valid manner.
A quick check of the front-page statement “Our corpus currently includes only computer science papers” on Paul Allen’s Semantic Scholar shows that it’s no longer quite true. “Our corpus is mostly computer science papers and… a whole lot of other stuff that the A.I. dragged in” might be a more apt statement.
Semantic Scholar is definitely now ranging more widely in science, looking for fulltext PDFs. I’d guess that its A.I. is working outward from highly-cited papers and ferreting among their citations to try to dig up the fulltext for each. That would explain what appears to be the eclectic nature of Semantic Scholar’s spread away from computer science. On searches for ecology and other not-computer-sci stuff I very easily found a Powerpoint in PDF, a workshop presentation, even a saved print-to-PDF of a book reviews page in Science…
… as well as PDF papers from MDPI and ResearchGate, plus really obscurely self-archived and departmental archived PDFs. That kind of scattergun approach and lack of judicious curation seems to me to be the sign of a self-learning baby A.I. in action.
A quick note on the increasing tendency to wrongly use “Master’s degree”, instead of “Masters degree”, when referring to the Masters degree (the degree of the masters, not the degree of a master). Tonight I spotted “Master’s” occurring throughout the government consultation document on UK postgraduate loans. Open access to old books makes past usage into a sound and easily consulted guide, for those disinclined to open a dictionary. 60 seconds with Google Books, for instance, shows…
” … as in the case of a Masters degree” (Oxford University Calendar, 1850).
“the Masters degree to begin …” (The American Journal of Education, 1873).
A Study of All Masters Degree Graduates of The New York School of Social Work (1954).
Standards for Professional Masters Degree Programs (National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, 1988).
The Masters Degree by Coursework (Australian Government Public Service, 1995).
Distance Education and the Masters Degree in Canada (University of Alberta, 1998).
One can also refer to a collection of “Masters’ theses” in America, it seems, though here in the UK I’ve only ever known of “Masters’ dissertations”.