scholarly journals Why article-level metadata is important to monitor agreements

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mafalda Marques ◽  
Anna Mette Morthorst ◽  
Frank Manista
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Finish Group ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Reporting Tool ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

The Knowledge Exchange (KE) Monitoring Open Access (OA) task and finish group has undertaken research on agreements with OA elements (e.g. agreements with APC discounts, offsetting agreements, read and publish agreements) set between consortia from KE countries and major publishers between 2016 and early 2019. It assessed agreements with OA elements to investigate what OA article-level metadata consortia request from publishers and what metadata publishers deliver to consortia. With more academic publishing agreements including OA elements, publishers must account for the articles published OA. For example, article processing charges may be paid directly by authors, institutions or research funders and the paying entity has the right to know what research it has funded. Another example includes agreements with a cap on the number of articles that can be published OA. In these cases, consortia and institutions must monitor how many articles are being published OA and they can only do so if publishers deliver OA article-level metadata reports on a regular basis. With Plan S research funders requiring a full transition to OA by 2021, the delivery of OA metadata becomes critical to monitor publishers’ compliance with Plan S requirements for transformative arrangements. In its research, the KE Monitoring OA group used recommendations issued by KE and the Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative to develop a list of OA article-level metadata to evaluate if consortia requested OA metadata and if publishers delivered it. The research findings showed that not all consortia agreements requested the OA metadata as recommended by KE and ESAC. Most importantly, none of the publishers provided all the metadata that the consortia requested. Publishers also did not deliver exactly the same OA metadata across countries and this may be due lack of consistency in their practices. The research findings can be used as a benchmark to monitor how major publishers were performing in KE countries until early 2019 and prior to Plan S comes into effect in 2021. To assist in the process OA metadata collection, the KE Monitoring OA task and finish group created a template based on the KE and ESAC recommendations that consortia can use as a guideline for what OA metadata to request from publishers and that publishers can use as a reporting tool.

Speaking ‘out of turn’: Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galina B. Bolden
Keyword(s):  
Right To Know ◽  
Speaking Out ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Turn Taking ◽  
Multiparty Conversation ◽  
Corrective Actions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Empirical Demonstration ◽  
Do So

This article provides an empirical demonstration of the saliency of epistemics to two core conversational organizations, turn-taking and repair. To that end, I examine cases in which a participant of a multiparty conversation intervenes into a repair sequence to respond to a repair initiation addressed to the trouble-source speaker, that is, in violation of the turn-taking rules, without having an epistemically grounded entitlement to do so. I show that such interventions enact a range of corrective actions vis-a-vis the repair initiation, such as contesting and correcting assumptions or understandings conveyed by the repair initiation. In providing these corrections ‘out of turn’, the intervening speakers demonstrate their own attentive recipiency or cultural expertise and, at the same time, expose the repair initiator’s interactional faux pas. The analysis demonstrates the procedural consequentiality of epistemic considerations (such as who knows, should know and has the right to know what) for the interlocutors – and, thus, the necessity to incorporate them into an empirically grounded analysis of their actions.

Legislative Proposals for Reversing the Cancer Epidemic and Controlling Run-Away Industrial Technologies

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Food Production ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
Genetically Engineered Food ◽  
The Right

An interlocking legislative complex is proposed for the control of carcinogenic and other adverse impacts of established run-away petrochemical and radionuclear technologies, with particular reference to winning the losing war against cancer. These proposals are also applicable to the poorly recognized, potentially adverse public health and environmental hazards of emerging technologies, particularly genetically engineered food production. The proposals embody fundamental democratic rights—the right to know and balanced and transparent decision making—the “Precautionary Principle,” reduction in the use of toxics, incentives for the development of safe industrial technologies, and criminal sanctions for suppression or manipulation of information.

P–477 The child’s right to know vs. the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Gamete Donation ◽  
Biological Origin ◽  
Gamete Donor ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable

The Right to Know Why

1926 ◽  
Vol 104 (23) ◽  
pp. 595-596
Author(s):  
A. W. Burr
Keyword(s):  
Right To Know ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document