Suchergebnisse

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting. ; SOMD is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (EP1-120608; EP1-120609; CEE-151618), Genome Quebec, Genome Canada, the Government of Canada, the Ministère de l'Économie, Innovation et Exportation du Québec (Can-SHARE grant 141210), and the Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine. ML, IL, JT, and TN are supported by the ELIXIR, the research infrastructure for life-science data, and the H2020 ELIXIR-EXCELERATE grant 676559. IL and GK are supported by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory; MS by Research Foundation Flanders (FWO); MH by NIH/NHGRI 5U41HG002371-15; SW by NIH/NHGRI R00HG008175; S Beck by the National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre (BRC369/CN/SB/101310); S Brenner by NIH/NHGRI U41 HG007346; BMK by the Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine; and PF by WT201535/Z/16/Z and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory.

Die Forderung nach Open Access wird wissenschaftslogisch (Beschleunigung der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation), finanziell (Linderung der Zeitschriftenkrise), sozial (Verringerung des Digital Divide), demokratietheoretisch (Zugang zu Informationen ermöglicht Partizipation) und sozialpolitisch (freier Zugang zu Informationen nivelliert Ungleichheiten) begründet. Dieser Beitrag untersucht einige dieser Annahmen mittels sozialwissenschaftlicher Modelle. Von Befunden aus der Bildungssoziologie und Sozialpsychologie bereits hinlänglich widerlegte Naivitäten wie die Annahme, Zugang zu Informationen wirke per se nivellierend, bleiben außen vor. Im Zentrum stehen die Erkenntnisse aus Pierre Bourdieus Kapitaltheorie für die Akzeptanz von Open Access und die Erkenntnisse aus Michel Foucaults Diskursanalyse für die Wirkung von Open Access innerhalb des Digital-Divide-Konzepts. Bourdieus Kapitaltheorie deutet darauf hin, dass für die Akzeptanz von Open Access bei Wissenschaftlern nicht hagiographische, wissenschaftslogische Argumente wie die Beschleunigung der Kommunikation ausschlaggebend sein dürften, sondern machtlogische Argumente: Entscheidend für die Akzeptanz von Open Access (und konzeptionell verbundener Modelle wie etwa alternative metrische Verfahren) ist, wie Wissenschaftler dessen mögliche Auswirkungen auf bestehende Akkumulationsprozesse wissenschaftlichen Kapitals wahrnehmen. Hinsichtlich der Wirkung von Open Access im Digital-Divide-Modell legt Foucaults Diskursanalyse nahe, dass Open Access Abhängigkeiten, Szientozentrismen und Ethnozentrismen verstärken kann.

In dem Beitrag wird über Erfahrungen mit dem Aufbau einer kollaborativen Publikationsplattform berichtet mit dem Ziel, einen besonderen Aspekt des "Open Access-Paradigmas zu untermauern. Hierzu werden zunächst die funktionalen und technischen Anforderungen des Content produzierenden Partners – der Zeitschrift Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research – vorgestellt. Danach folgt die allgemeinere Perspektive des Projekts German Academic Publishers als einer Initiative, die Erfahrungen mit elektronischem/Open Access Publizieren koordiniert und integriert. Anschließend setzt sich der Hauptteil des Beitrags mit Aspekten technischer Standardisierung und Transparenz als wesentlicher Grundlage von Open-Access-Strategien auseinander, die vom Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften zu diesem gemeinsamen Projekt beigetragen werden.

A concise introduction to the basics of open access, describing what it is (and isn't) and showing that it is easy, fast, inexpensive, legal, and beneficial.The Internet lets us share perfect copies of our work with a worldwide audience at virtually no cost. We take advantage of this revolutionary opportunity when we make our work "open access": digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Open access is made possible by the Internet and copyright-holder consent, and many authors, musicians, filmmakers, and other creators who depend on royalties are understandably unwilling to give their consent. But for 350 years, scholars have written peer-reviewed journal articles for impact, not for money, and are free to consent to open access without losing revenue.In this concise introduction, Peter Suber tells us what open access is and isn't, how it benefits authors and readers of research, how we pay for it, how it avoids copyright problems, how it has moved from the periphery to the mainstream, and what its future may hold. Distilling a decade of Suber's influential writing and thinking about open access, this is the indispensable book on the subject for researchers, librarians, administrators, funders, publishers, and policy makers.

Social work practitioners often make decisions in children's best interests in regard to access to divorcing parents. In this article, the author reviews legal directives and available research on access arrangements. Practice principles relating to access, separation distress, and parental conflict are suggested.

This article explores the ramifications of stretching the Equal Access Act ("EAA" or "the Act") beyond equal access to school premises for meetings during noninstructional time. Part I provides background on the Equal Access Act, from its legislative origins through its interpretations by federal courts. This part includes a careful look at the statute's often confusing language. Part II describes and criticizes Prince v. Jacoby. I argue that the decision is plagued with legal errors large and small, but that the main error is its failure to consider a central question: equal access to what? Both the EAA and the First Amendment public forum doctrine indicate that student groups should have access to forums for assembly and expression, but Prince mandated access to much more. Part III explores a parallel development in which the First Amendment public forum doctrine has been stretched beyond forums for assembly and expression. This part first describes the doctrine in its standard form and then considers how well it translates to other settings. The process reveals some of the tensions within the public forum doctrine even when applied to its usual locations. Part IV concludes the article with practical suggestions for living with Prince if it is not overturned by later court decision.