[open-science] Marking free but not open data/linking data to publications

Tue May 31 20:12:39 UTC 2011

Icons are something that are easy to do, but hard to get to catch on. 
We're actually reducing our use of icons at CC. See 
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/27467 for a very recent post on 
how we're actually reducing the iconic clutter of the CC legal user 
interface.

In the short term, good metadata that is panton compliant is the best 
medicine. Lots of data can't be "open" as per definitions, for 
commercial, or privacy, or because of legacy restrictions as the data 
were gathered before people thought about open data. But if the 
conversations about that data can be open, if the data structures are 
described, if we know what kind of data it is and how we can apply for 
it, and one can use search engines to parse it...that's pretty good.

jtw

On 5/31/2011 4:03 AM, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> BioMed Central is working on better tools/article formats to link
> content to data in repositories (more details to follow this summer).
> One part of this strategy is to mark PDFs and article full texts -on the
> first page-with an 'Open data' or equivalent logo, to make it clear when
> a reader lands on an article from a web or bibliographic database
> search, they can get all the supporting data/the numbers reported should
> be reproducible.
>
>
>
> Some repositories of course use a Panton Principles complaint waiver but
> many -used by many of our authors - do not, but do provide free access
> to data. It would be ideal for more repositories to be fully open but
> being pragmatic for the short-medium term, we perhaps need an
> alternative that indicates data are freely available online, but aren't
> necessarily open.
>
>
>
> Has anyone thought about marking free-but-not-open data or developed a
> logo/button for free-but-not-open data? I'd like to give authors who are
> sharing their data some recognition, in the reference list, article
> section and by stamping (effectively) their article to this effect but
> within the limitations of the myriad license agreements that currently
> exist for research data. Something that gives even more
> recognition/credit for fully open data would be ideal, of course, but I
> fear the majority would currently sit in the former category.
>
>
>
> I'd welcome your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Iain
>
> Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
> Journal Publisher
>
> BioMed Central
> 236 Gray's Inn Road
> London, WC1X 8HB
>
> T: +44 (0)20 3192 2175
> F: +44 (0)20 3192 2011
> M: +44 (0)782 594 0538
> W: www.biomedcentral.com<http://www.biomedcentral.com/>
> Skype: iainh_z
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

-- 
John Wilbanks
VP for Science
Creative Commons
web: http://creativecommons.org/science
blog: http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge
twitter: @wilbanks