Scholarly communication: the journey towards openness

Conference report: Jisc CNI meeting 2014: Opening up scholarly communications. 10-11 July 2014, Bristol

Heavy metals in plants and phytoremediation - A state-of-the-art report with special reference to literature published in Chinese journals

Goal, Scope and Background. In some cases, soil, water and food are heavily polluted by heavy metals in China. To use plants to remediate heavy metal pollution would be an effective technique in pollution control. The accumulation of heavy metals in plants and the role of plants in removing pollutants should be understood in order to implement phytoremediation, which makes use of plants to extract, transfer and stabilize heavy metals from soil and water. Methods. The information has been compiled from Chinese publications stemming mostly from the last decade, to show the research results on heavy metals in plants and the role of plants in controlling heavy metal pollution, and to provide a general outlook of phytoremediation in China. Related references from scientific journals and university journals are searched and summarized in sections concerning the accumulation of heavy metals in plants, plants for heavy metal purification and phytoremediation techniques. Results and Discussion. Plants can take up heavy metals by their roots, or even via their stems and leaves, and accumulate them in their organs. Plants take up elements selectively. Accumulation and distribution of heavy metals in the plant depends on the plant species, element species, chemical and bioavailiability, redox, pH, cation exchange capacity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and secretion of roots. Plants are employed in the decontamination of heavy metals from polluted water and have demonstrated high performances in treating mineral tailing water and industrial effluents. The purification capacity of heavy metals by plants are affected by several factors, such as the concentration of the heavy metals, species of elements, plant species, exposure duration, temperature and pH. Conclusions. Phytoremediation, which makes use of vegetation to remove, detoxify, or stabilize persistent pollutants, is a green and environmentally-friendly tool for cleaning polluted soil and water. The advantage of high biomass productive and easy disposal makes plants most useful to remediate heavy metals on site. Recommendations and Outlook. Based on knowledge of the heavy metal accumulation in plants, it is possible to select those species of crops and pasturage herbs, which accumulate fewer heavy metals, for food cultivation and fodder for animals; and to select those hyperaccumulation species for extracting heavy metals from soil and water. Studies on the mechanisms and application of hyperaccumulation are necessary in China for developing phytoremediation.

Trends in use of electronic journals in higher education in the UK - views of academic staff and students

Bonthron, Karen; Urquhart, Christine; Thomas, Rhian; Armstrong, Chris; Ellis, David; Everitt, Jean; Fenton, Roger; Lonsdale, Ray; McDermott, Elizabeth; Morris, Helen; Phillips, Rebecca; Spink, Sian, and Yeoman, Alison. (2003, June). Trends in use of electronic journals in higher education in the UK - views of academic staff and students. D-Lib Magazine, 9(6). Retrieved September 8, 2006 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june03/urquhart/06urquhart.html This item is freely available online at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june03/urquhart/06urquhart.html Sponsorship: JISC

Use of library and information science journals by Master?s students in their dissertations: experiences at the University of Wales Aberystwyth

Tedd, L.A. (2006).Use of library and information science journals by Master?s students in their dissertations: experiences at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58(6), 570-581.

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

William F. Albright Papers

This file contains a finding aid for the William F. Albright Collection. To access the collection, please contact the archivist (asorarch@bu.edu) at the American Schools of Oriental Research, located at Boston University.

Scholarly research productivity is not related to higher three-year licensure pass rates for physical therapy academic programs.

BACKGROUND: In the domain of academia, the scholarship of research may include, but not limited to, peer-reviewed publications, presentations, or grant submissions. Programmatic research productivity is one of many measures of academic program reputation and ranking. Another measure or tool for quantifying learning success among physical therapists education programs in the USA is 100 % three year pass rates of graduates on the standardized National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE). In this study, we endeavored to determine if there was an association between research productivity through artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates on the NPTE. METHODS: This observational study involved using pre-approved database exploration representing all accredited programs in the USA who graduated physical therapists during 2009, 2010 and 2011. Descriptive variables captured included raw research productivity artifacts such as peer reviewed publications and books, number of professional presentations, number of scholarly submissions, total grant dollars, and numbers of grants submitted. Descriptive statistics and comparisons (using chi square and t-tests) among program characteristics and research artifacts were calculated. Univariate logistic regression analyses, with appropriate control variables were used to determine associations between research artifacts and 100 % pass rates. RESULTS: Number of scholarly artifacts submitted, faculty with grants, and grant proposals submitted were significantly higher in programs with 100 % three year pass rates. However, after controlling for program characteristics such as grade point average, diversity percentage of cohort, public/private institution, and number of faculty, there were no significant associations between scholarly artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates. CONCLUSIONS: Factors outside of research artifacts are likely better predictors for passing the NPTE.

Tambalacoque. For a formal account of the gist of a scholarly argument

Argumentation as reflected in a short communication from the published literature of botany and zoology is discussed. Trying to capture the logic structure of the argument, however imperfectly, is relevant to information science and depends on a particular goal: namely, to potentially benefit the task of sketching the relationship between bibliographic entries in a better manner than is possible with present-day bibliometric or scientometric practice. This imposes tight limits on the depth of analysis of the text.

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals

Aim: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters. Methods: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. Results: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO = 5, Archives = 1, BJO = 2, IOVS = 2, and Ophthalmology = 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n = 4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items. Conclusions: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.