Search

This document outlines REPO4EU’s overall Dissemination and Communication strategies, providing specific action plans to reach a critical mass. It also contains the compilation of all early stage promotional actions, brand elements designed and released to execute the outreach plans, including: the project’s identity system and brand templates, online channels and future publications within the project’s overarching Open Science strategy.

Preprints enable new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial. In December 2022, 80 researchers and representatives of funders, institutions, preprint servers, journals, indexers, and review services were invited to gather online and at the Janelia Research Campus for a workshop on Recognizing Preprint Peer Review. Sponsored by HHMI, ASAPbio, and EMBO, this meeting aimed to catalyze community consensus and support for preprint peer review and to create model funder, institutional, and journal policies that recognize both preprints with reviews, and reviews of preprints. Here, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to help capture the growing momentum of preprint sharing and empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.

To ensure the widest possible dissemination of the results to the research community, pharmaceutical industry, patients and to the broader public, the REPO4EU project, in line with goals of the European Commission, is committed to an Open Science approach. Because Open Science can be interpreted widely this document lays out the strategy of the project with regard to Open Access publishing, alternative metrics, Intellectual Property and FAIR data. The Open Science Strategy forms the theoretical framework for the REPO4EU Open Science publishing portal that will develop into an open hub of research results and communication for the entire drug repurposing community.

Most book and monograph publications still lack visibility within an electronic environment due to missing digitalized and persistent bibliographic data and/or fragmentary portability or interoperability based on the variety of formats, resulting in a more error-prone, non-standardized communication between various indexing systems and platforms. But books that cannot be discovered will not be read. OA metadata for books is essential for the transformation of the whole scholarly landscape, and one of its greatest advantages is full, immediate accessibility. 1 The point of origin for the OA META project was the realization that available book metadata (i.e. ONIX/MARC records) was not primarily created for the usage of indexing within an electronic research environment. Consequentially, both detail and focus of elements tagged in datasets are not necessarily selected to output solidified and persistent book records. The question was how to enrich or edit available metadata so that it can unfold its greatest impact in an e-context.

Watch the VIDEO.The big story in scholarly publishing of the last years was the preprint revolution. Researchers demanded a faster channel for the early communication of their results, journal editors revised their policies to accept manuscripts also published as preprints, there was an explosion of new platforms and infrastructure, and Crossref gave the old/new species of not-really published articles a DOI. Funders even jumped into the fray, allowing researchers to use their preprints in grant proposals. The non-profit Center of Open Science launched a platform for new preprint servers, and publishers are jumping into the arena with preprint repositories like Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press’s bioRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, ACS’s ChemRxiv, MDPI’s Preprint.org and Elsevier’s acquisition of SSRN. These developments create new challenges for content aggregators and discovery platforms, librarians, publishers, and readers, including persistent identification of the version of record, aggregation of citations and metrics across article versions, and questions around copyright. The wide proliferation of preprint repositories across different sources also makes it difficult for researchers to reach their peers with their early results. As an aggregator and interactive discovery platform, ScienceOpen has been working to place preprints in the context of the published literature with quick preprint-filters on keyword searches and first efforts to aggregate metrics. We further provide a framework to peer review preprints in a portable system with a Crossref DOI for each peer review report, as well as editorial management of preprints in thematic collections. By showing how preprints fit in to the academic record in a broad discovery database, we are able to bring them to the attention of those searching for the newest research and more clearly highlight their status as open for peer review. Increased visibility through contextualization is our value proposition for publishers, authors and readers of preprints in 2018. We explore the disruptive potential of preprints from our experience with ScienceOpen’s discovery platform.

The increasing momentum towards opening up various dimensions of society is discussed in this article, and the authors consider whether ‘open’ is now an unstoppable force for change in the world. Various topics within research communication, such as open access (OA) and post-publication peer review (PPPR), are considered from the perspective of the authors as participants in the scholarly communication community of more than 20 years’ standing, with both for- and non-profit credentials. The authors explore how harnessing the wisdom of the crowd in rating everyday services manifests itself by improving our ability to make choices in our daily lives. They explain how this network effect can be applied to scholarly communication and how it provided some of the inspiration behind the launch of ScienceOpen, the research and OA publishing network, in May 2014. This publishing platform is then described as an example of democratizing publishing. The increasing importance of software development in publishing and the need for stand-alone expertise in this space (as opposed to a publisher-centric approach) is also discussed. Finally, the authors consider the role that the impact factor and the promotion/tenure system play in holding back progress in scholarly communication and they highlight the efforts of early career researchers to break the stalemate by taking ‘open’ pledges.

Coloras natural phenomenon and carrier of symboUc meaning fascinated Goethe from early on—both the effects of individual colors, as well as their relationships to one another as part of a system. But while the rainbow holds a central place in Goethe scholarship, the broader topic of the significance of colors Ui Faust has received remarkably little attention. The starting point of this investigation, therefore, is the shift from red flames to blue in the prologue to the Classical Walpurgisnacht. This shift poses a question about colors that has far reaching consequences for Faust. Erichtho's introduction begins with sinister red watch fires and the specter of spilt blood, but with the rise of the moon the violent images vanish and the red flames burn blue: Wachfeuer glA¼hen, rote Flammen spendende, Der Boden haucht vergoAŸnen Blutes Widerschein, Und angelockt von seltnem Wunderglanz der Nacht, Versammelt sich heUenischer Sage Legion. Um alle Feuer schwankt unsicher oder sitzt Behaglich alter Tage fabelhaft Gebild . . . Der Mond, zwar unvollkommen, aber leuchtend hell, Erhebt sich, milden Glanz verbreitend A¼berall; Der Zelten Trug verschwindet, Feuer brennen blau. (7025-33) Commentaries on Faust generally attribute these blue flames to the effects of the rising moon,1 often in terms of Goethe's scientific theories on optics.2 And yet Rupprecht Matthaei, a leading scholar of the Farbenlehre and author of the one systematic study of Goethe's use of color in Faust, observes that a Paralipomenon from 1830 describes first the change in color and then the rise of the moon.3 This decoupling suggests that at some point in the poetic process Goethe conceived of the two phenomena free of a specifically causal relationship.The blue flames clearly held, even early on, a structuring role in the Classical Walpurgisnacht. Matthaei offers a practical interpretation of the red and blue light as a theatrical device to create atmosphere as in Goethe's stage directions for a production oA- Epimenides, which produced a shift in color using colored glass Ui the lamps (95). Understanding Erichtho's mtroduction as stage dUections

The Hairy/Enhancer of split/Deadpan family of basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) proteins function as transcriptional repressors. We have examined the mechanisms of repression used by the Hairy and E(SPL) proteins by assaying the antagonism between wild-type or altered Hairy/E(SPL) and Scute bHLH proteins during sex determination in Drosophila melanogaster. Domain swapping and mutagenesis of the Hairy and E(SPL) proteins show that three evolutionarily conserved domains are required for their function: the bHLH, Orange, and WRPW domains. However, the suppression of Scute activity by Hairy does not require the WRPW domain. We show that the Orange domain is an important functional domain that confers specificity among members of the Hairy/E(SPL) family. In addition, we show that a Xenopus Hairy homology conserves not only Hairy's structure but also its biological activity in our assays. We propose that transcriptional repression by the Hairy/E(SPL) family of bHLH proteins involves two separable mechanisms: repression of specific transcriptional activators, such as Scute, through the bHLH and Orange domains and repression of other activators via interaction of the C-terminal WRPW motif with corepressors, such as the Groucho protein.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available

No abstract available