[open-science] IsItOpen letter for feedback

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Sat Nov 27 09:26:55 UTC 2010

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Open Science,
> Wanted to let you know that Nature has responded to our IsItOpenData?
> enquiry.  Their response is at the IsItOpenData site, and I've also blogged
> it <http://science.okfn.org/2010/11/26/natures-response-to-isitopendata/>on the open science blog (psst anyone else want to blog there too?  It is
> fun!).
> Note that Nature's response requires some careful reading.  Nonetheless,
> kudos to them for responding.
> That wraps up my IsItOpenData enquiries for a while.  Thanks to everyone
> who helped make it happen.  To make future enquiries easier, I pulled
> together a quick blog post with tips<http://science.okfn.org/2010/11/26/isitopendata-tips/>and lessons learned.  Please add more info in the comments!

Thank you very much Heather. We appreciate the work you have done and how
much effort it was!

It's really important that others take this up. It's now fairly
straightforward mechanically - just needs consistent continuing effort.

> Sincerely,
> Heather
> --
> Heather Piwowar
> DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad
>   remote from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada
> hpiwowar at nescent.org
> http://researchremix.org
> @researchremix
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Egon,
>> We did indeed get a response from PLoS and BMC.  Haven't heard from
>> Nature.  Also, in response to a slightly different email about open API
>> data, Mendeley clarified their open data policies.
>> The summary of the PLoS and BMC response is on the new OKFN science blog:
>> http://science.okfn.org/2010/09/13/bmc-and-plos-all-the-data-is-cc-by-enjoy/
>> I have plans to do a quick writeup of the Mendeley response and also a
>> "tips for IsItOpenData enquiries" post to summarize what I learned about
>> avoiding spam filters etc.  I'll finish those Real Soon Now.
>> Alas I don't have time at this point to send the letter out to other
>> publishers, though others are certainly welcome to!  Let me know if I can be
>> of help.  Anita de Waard had useful suggestions about making the definition
>> of metadata looser before we send it out to commercial publishers.  The most
>> recent version of the letter on etherpad incorporates this feedback:
>> http://okfnpad.org/isitopenLetters
>> Cheers,
>> Heather
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Egon Willighagen <
>> egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Heather,
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > We've drafted a letter to send to publishers on behalf of the OKF
>>> through
>>> > IsItOpen, requesting clarification on journal policies with respect to
>>> Open
>>> > Data.  We've received feedback on the draft from several sources and
>>> the
>>> > letter has improved greatly as a result.  Your turn!
>>> I just ran into this email while cleaning up my inbox... I was
>>> wondering about the status of this effort... was there much response?
>>> did you write up a summary?
>>> Egon
>>> --
>>> Dr E.L. Willighagen
>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
>>> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
>>> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
>>> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20101127/e80e0e7d/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list