photog.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for your photos and banter. Photog first is our motto Please refer to the site rules before posting.

Administered by:

Server stats:

250
active users

#funders

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

“Communities are scared & facing violence the likes of which few of us have ever experienced…I hear stories of #funders shutting themselves up to do strategic planning. Stop the toxic intellectualizing…Increase your payout rate, fund #advocacy & #organizing political work enabling us to fight back. Increase #funding for legal defense/offense. Remove barriers! We don’t have time for grant applications, reports, & other relatively trivial, meaningless tasks anymore.”

nonprofitaf.com/2025/02/funder

Nonprofit AFFunders, stop bringing spreadsheets to knife fights!A few weeks ago, which now feels like an eternity ago, Inside Philanthropy gave me the award for Philanthropy Critic...

🥳 The #Dutch #Diamond #OpenAccess Expertise Center is now live!

🔗 openaccess.nl/en/diamond-open-

The center aims to reinforce and future-proof the Netherlands' #DiamondOA #publishing landscape.
It serves as a knowledge hub connecting #researchers, publishers, #librarians, #policymakers, and #funders.

🤩 We're excited to be a partner with our University of Groningen Press.

www.openaccess.nlAbout | Open Access

India spends $715 million on academic journals, but with the wrong kind of open access

Numerous articles here on Walled Culture have chronicled the struggles to turn the aspirations of open access to knowledge into reality. The central reason people do not have free digital access to all academic knowledge is that publishers have been successful in subverting attempts to provide it. Publishers are strongly motivated to undermine open access, since its successful implementation […]

#apcs #businessModels #diamondOa #funders #gatesFoundation #goldOa #grants #india #openAccess #plos #profits

walledculture.org/india-spends

🔦 New #OpenAccess publication in the spotlight

➡️ #Replication studies in the #Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for #funders, #publishers and #editors, and #universities

🔗 rug.nl/library/open-access/blo

Read our interview with author Maarten Derksen @derxen on why #replication in the #humanities is an idea worth exploring and the advantages of the buffet approach to #OpenScience

"As part of the #treaty discussions, #LMICs are asking…public #funders of…research to require that…#pandemic-related #drugs…that result from [their] grants be shared equitably during a…health emergency…Funders could…require grantees to openly share study results…Funders could retain certain #IP rights to be used only when [necessary] to develop & distribute products equitably...However, the latest version of the treaty text does not include such provisions."
nature.com/articles/d41586-024

www.nature.comResearch funders must join the fight for equal access to medicinesPandemic treaty is a rare opportunity to ensure pandemic-related technologies are accessible and affordable to all.

Most of the best practices for sharing #ClinicalTrial #data are not yet required by #funders of #medical research.
doi.org/10.1111/eci.14187
(#paywalled)

"But how is it possible that large non-commercial funders in developed countries have committed to complying with only a minority of these best practices? How is it possible that signatories to the #WHO Joint Statement in 2017 have adopted only between 1 and 4 practices in 2022?"

New study: "While many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of #preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of #PeerReview of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations, such as #journals, funding agencies [#funders], and #universities."
medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/20

medRxiv · An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Preprinting Attitudes Among Biomedical ResearchersBackground Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer reviewed. While preprints are becoming more prevalent uptake is not uniform or optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes towards preprints is valuable to their successful implementation. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders like journals, funding agencies, and universities to implement preprints more effectively. Here, we aim to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints in across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Biomedical authors were identified by a keyword-based, systematic search from the MEDLINE database, and their emails were extracted to invite them to our survey. A cross-sectional anonymous survey was distributed to all identified biomedical authors to collect their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 biomedical researchers with a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages around the world. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints, but most had not published a preprint before. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the most impact on decisions to post a preprint, while employers/research institute had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increases to authors’ visibility was highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusion While many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to increase researcher’s attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols <https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QA9GN> ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was approved by the Ottawa Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (OHSN-REB Number: 20220584-01H). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced are available online on the Open Science Framework. <https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WN92Q> * FAST : Focused, Appropriate, Specific and Transparent CHERRIES : Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys OSF : Open Science Framework

Effects of the #OpenAccess mandate at the US Department of Energy (#DOE): "Articles subject to the mandate were not cited more frequently by other academic papers" but were cited 42% more often in #patents, which the authors take as a "proxy for technological development." Among the "primary beneficiaries" of the policy were "small firms" or those "with historically low access to scientific research."
cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S25

New study: "The average proportion of #OpenAccess publications in European countries is significantly higher (39.07%) than the world average (30.16%), with a clear inclination [toward] the #GreenOA route (79.41%) compared to the #GoldOA route (52.30%). Most European research #funders and institutions [#universities] have required researchers to make OA available for their research findings."
emerald.com/insight/content/do
(#paywalled)

www.emerald.com Open access initiatives in European countries: analysis of trends and policies | Emerald InsightOpen access initiatives in European countries: analysis of trends and policies - Author: Mohammad Nazim, Raj Kumar Bhardwaj
Continued thread

Update. The US #NIH and Australian Research Council (#ARC) have banned the use of #AI tools for the #PeerReview of grant proposals. The #NSF is studying the question.
science.org/content/article/sc
(#paywalled)

Apart from #quality, one concern is #confidentiality. If grant proposals become part of a tool's training data, there's no telling (in the NIH's words) “where data are being sent, saved, viewed, or used in the future.”

Continued thread

My PhD is in Applied #psychology. I've worked a lot w/ Black-led #NonProfit #NGO #thirdSector orgs to create system changes. Clinical psych is mainly white middle-class women oriented and many #Black #BIPOC /asylum seekers won't get mental health help. We need to look at #music, #dance, #movement #innerWisdom as a way to promote #mentalHealth. I try to play matchmaker, finding #grants but I'd like to see #funders devote #funding to #innovative & #inclusive work