Author Rights vs Self-Archiving in Spanish Scientific Journals

The paper analyzes publishers" copyright policies and self-archiving conditions of Spanish scientific journals. Data are extracted from the directory DULCINEA that contains information of 1318 Spanish journals, of which 775 (61%) allow some form of self-archiving to be about 60% of the post-print version and allowing them 87% of the deposit of the version of record. In 72% of journals the deposit can be performed immediately after publication and in 16% after article acceptance. 72% of the journals are freely available without charge to the user this figure raises up to 86% if free access after an embargo is considered. Only 18% of the journals use Creative Commons licenses. The adoption of different open access journals model in Spain is favorable, however there is still a high percentage of journals (39%) that do not provide any information about authors and publishers rights and that difficult or inhibits reuse of published articles.

Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain: Alternative publishing models

This paper describes high-quality journals in Brazil and Spain, with an emphasis on the distribution models used. It presents the general characteristics (age, type of publisher, and theme) and analyzes the distribution model by studying the type of format (print or digital), the type of access (open access or subscription), and the technology platform used. The 549 journals analyzed (249 in Brazil and 300 in Spain) are included in the 2011 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data on each journal were collected directly from their websites between March and October 2012. Brazil has a fully open access distribution model (97%) in which few journals require payment by authors thanks to cultural, financial, operational, and technological support provided by public agencies. In Spain, open access journals account for 55% of the total and have also received support from public agencies, although to a lesser extent. These results show that there are systems support of open access in scientific journals other than the"author pays" model advocated by the Finch report for the United Kingdom.

The use of non-animal alternatives in the safety evaluations of cosmetics ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)

In Europe, the safety evaluation of cosmetics is based on the safety evaluation of each individual ingredient. Article 3 of the Cosmetics Regulation specifies that a cosmetic product made available on the market is to be safe for human health when used normally or under reasonably foreseeable conditions. For substances that cause some concern with respect to human health (e.g. colorants, preservatives, UV-filters), safety is evaluated at the Commission level by a scientific committee, presently called the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). According to the Cosmetics Regulations, in the EU, the marketing of cosmetics products and their ingredients that have been tested on animals for most of their human health effects, including acute toxicity, is prohibited. Nevertheless, any study dating from before this prohibition took effect is accepted for the safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The in vitro methods reported in the dossiers summited to the SCCS are here evaluated from the published reports issued by the scientific committee of the Directorate General of Health and Consumers (DG SANCO); responsible for the safety of cosmetics ingredients. The number of studies submitted to the SCCS that do not involve animals is still low and in general the safety of cosmetics ingredients is based on in vivo studies performed before the prohibition.

Research networks and scientific production in Economics: The recent spanish experience

This paper studies Spanish scientific production in Economics from 1994 to 2004. It focuses on aspects that have received little attention in other bibliometric studies, such as the impact of research and the role of scientific collaborations in the publications produced by Spanish universities. Our results show that national research networks have played a fundamental role in the increase in Spanish scientific production in this discipline.

Selecting Scientific Papers for Publication via Citation Auctions

The scientific community has been suffering from peer review for decades. This process (also called refereeing) subjects an author's scientific work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more experts in the field. Publishers use it to select and screen manuscript submissions, and funding agencies use it to award research funds. The goal is to get authors to meet their discipline's standards and thus achieve scientific objectivity. Publications and awards that haven't undergone peer review are often regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. However, peer review, although universally used, has many drawbacks. We propose replacing peer review with an auction-based approach: the better the submitted paper, the more scientific currency the author likely bid to have it published. If the bid correctly reflects the paper's quality, the author is rewarded in this new scientific currency; otherwise, the author loses this currency. We argue that citations are an appropriate currency for all scientists. We believe that citation auctions encourage scientists to better control their submissions' quality. It also inspire them to prepare more exciting talks for accepted papers and to invite discussion of their results at congresses and conferences and among their colleagues. In the long run, citation auctions could have the power to greatly improve scientific research

Citation auctions as a method to improve selection of scientific papers

This paper describes the basis of citation auctions as a new approach to selecting scientific papers for publication. Our main idea is to use an auction for selecting papers for publication through - differently from the state of the art - bids that consist of the number of citations that a scientist expects to receive if the paper is published. Hence, a citation auction is the selection process itself, and no reviewers are involved. The benefits of the proposed approach are two-fold. First, the cost of refereeing will be either totally eliminated or significantly reduced, because the process of citation auction does not need prior understanding of the paper's content to judge the quality of its contribution. Additionally, the method will not prejudge the content of the paper, so it will increase the openness of publications to new ideas. Second, scientists will be much more committed to the quality of their papers, paying close attention to distributing and explaining their papers in detail to maximize the number of citations that the paper receives. Sample analyses of the number of citations collected in papers published in years 1999-2004 for one journal, and in years 2003-2005 for a series of conferences (in a totally different discipline), via Google scholar, are provided. Finally, a simple simulation of an auction is given to outline the behaviour of the citation auction approach