SoylentNews

Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot.

posted by martyb on Thursday January 29 2015, @07:32AM   
from the someone-should-create-an-internet-archive dept.

AnonTechie writes:

While the immediacy of publishing information on the Internet dramatically speeds the dissemination of scholarly knowledge, the transition from a paper-based to a web-based scholarly communication system has introduced challenges that Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists are seeking to address.

"For more than 70 percent of papers that link to web pages, revisiting the originally referenced web content proved impossible," said Herbert Van de Sompel, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library. "These results are alarming because vanishing references undermine the long-term integrity of the scholarly record."

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-online-scholarly-articles-affected.html

[Article]: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115253

• Re:Now there's a surprise Re:Now there's a surprise (Score: 3, Interesting) by Wootery on Thursday January 29 2015, @10:59AM

  by Wootery (2341) on Thursday January 29 2015, @10:59AM (#139137)

  It's called open access.

  There's no need to rework copyright law. Instead, tax-funded publications should be required to be made freely available.

  I believe this is the way things are going in the UK, but a quick search didn't turn up a source.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Now there's a surprise Re:Now there's a surprise (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 29 2015, @03:00PM

  by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday January 29 2015, @03:00PM (#139186) Homepage

  They're not the same - Open Access is you propagating your own work, Fair Use is you propagating others' work. The latter is what is needed when the problem is things that you are citing.

  --
  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

  Parent

  • Re:Now there's a surprise Re:Now there's a surprise (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 29 2015, @03:38PM

    by Wootery (2341) on Thursday January 29 2015, @03:38PM (#139193)

    The distinction is fair, but I don't like the idea. You're saying that Fair Use should be extended to essentially remove all copyrights over academic publications, even from non-tax-funded sources?

    If research is privately-funded, and published behind a paywall, I don't see that it's reasonable for the government to essentially strike-down the paywall... and thus kill the publisher, too.

    Or did you mean something else by you propagating others' work?

    Parent

    • Re:Now there's a surprise Re:Now there's a surprise (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 29 2015, @04:33PM

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday January 29 2015, @04:33PM (#139215) Homepage

      You have interpreted me correctly. Simply extending Fair Use for educational purposes is far less than some others are calling for, I'm relatively moderate. You have every right to chose your own position on the scale from black to white.

      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

      Parent

      • Re:Now there's a surprise (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday February 02 2015, @12:43PM

        by Wootery (2341) on Monday February 02 2015, @12:43PM (#140268)

        I oppose any change which would forcibly crush the academic publishing industry... despite that I dislike the industry.

        Property rights are a cornerstone of Western society. It does not do for the government to step in and decree that We don't like this use of copyright. Game over.

        I see no reason not to require tax-funded work to be freely available though. That should be required by law.

        Parent