Open Science Papers Science Software

Mendeley sells out; I’m moving to Zotero

“The empire acquires the rebel alliance.” – a very common response in Twitter with the news of Elsevier buying Mendeley.

Yes, this is more on the side of poetic license than reality, but not by far. If you haven’t heard, Techcrunch reported last January on talks between Mendeley and Elsevier. Yesterday, it was confirmed that Elsevier bought Mendeley for an amount between $69-100 million. This announcement opened the floodgates of people denouncing the deal and Mendeley people’s promises that they won’t change. It was sad to see them try to promise something they will have no control over and never talking about any evidence or contractual obligations to protect what Mendeley is from what most people perceive Elsevier is.

Mendeley wasn’t an ideal solution. Mendeley Desktop is heavy and slow and their API was hardly documented. Mendeley admitted their public API is different from the API they used in their application and that the public API sucks. This deal now makes us question Mendeley’s commitment to open science.

This has nothing to do with dealing with for-profit companies or wanting everything for free. This has to do with a company that had become a parasite of research and that doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, as Mendeley’s people seem to claim. They could have waited for Elsevier to show a true commitment to right their wrongs, but not, they want to become part of the rag Elsevier uses to try to clean up their image.

Elsevier has been denounced by editorial boards, libraries, thousands of researchers, and many other groups for their greedy behavior over content that is not generated by them. They bundle titles, forcing libraries to buy access to more than what they want. MIT has opted out of this at a premium. The company also was caught doing some shady business:

“[...] Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.” – The Scientist

Elsevier was among the companies that supported the draconian SOPA, until it became too hot to handle. As a reference, check the full MIT fact sheet on Elsevier. Basically, they oppose open access, squeeze the budget of libraries, and make an obscene profit from our work. A former developer, that moved to PeerJ, has written an interesting post on the matter.

Elsevier has also published some open access journals recently, that with the purchase of Mendeley, will be used to try to clean the company’s image. Their efforts for open science have been cosmetic. The question remains, what will happen when they change the current model of Mendeley service to universities to their hated bundles? What will happen when they close access to it to try to squeeze more money from us?

The satirical account @FakeElsevier just published this tweet that summarizes the discussions many have had with some Mendeley people during the last hours:

 

Moving from software to software

I’ve used several reference managers. The first was Endnote 3, but never had a big or important database since I had most of my references in paper. About 6 years ago I moved from Windows to Ubuntu and moved, as much as possible, to open source software. Endnote was not an option. Then, I started using Zotero when it was a Firefox plugin, but I found it limiting. I moved to Aigaion, a system based on Codeigniter that you ran in your own LAMP server. Unfortunately, Aigaion seems to have been abandoned, with their last release two and a half years ago, and their website is dead. I started to look for a new option. I think back then Zotero was available for Linux only as a plugin, so I went with Mendeley.

 

Time to move (hopefully for the last time) to Zotero

So, it was with great pleasure that i saw that Zotero now has a standalone application for my OS (Linux 64bit). They are also available for Windows and Mac and have plugins for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and LibreOffice/OpenOffice. Moving from Mendeley to Zotero took some time, but reasonable for my large library, and it was easier than I thought. It will still require some cleanup and checking, but it is better than the alternative (staying with an Elsevier company).

I moved about 1600 references, with only around 50 without a file attached, with Mendeley Desktop version 1.8.4 and Zotero version 4.0.4 on Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit. The process should be the same in other platforms, but make a backup just in case. By default Zotero will upload your files to their servers. The free account is limited to 300MB, so if you have more than this, go to “Edit”, “Options”, then in the Sync tab unselect “Sync attachment files in My Library”.

I suggest working in batches if you have a large library. I worked 100 a time to keep it manageable.

  1. Create new folders in Mendeley. You will divide your full library into each folder.
  2. Select a bunch of references from your library and drag-and-drop to an empty folder.
  3. Delete those references from the main library (to avoid duplication). Once the drag-and-drop is done it is as easy as clicking Del on your keyboard.
  4. Go to the new folder, select all the references (Ctrl-A) and hit Ctrl-E.
  5. Save the references in RIS format.
  6. In Zotero, select “Import…” and look for the RIS file. If you have files attached, the RIS file should have the full path to the file in your disk and Zotero will copy it.

That is it. If Zotero works for you, support them by talking about it or getting a subscription. I’ll test it for a while and, if satisfied that it works for me, I’ll get into one of their plans: 2 GB for $20/yr, 6 GB for $60/yr, 10 GB for $100/yr, among other options. Worthwhile for our personal libraries.

If this helps or you find a problem, please feel free to drop a comment below.

 

Science

The Nine Circles of Scientific Hell

A blog post by Neuroskeptic was so relevant that it got published in a journal! Neuroskeptic’s The 9 Circles of Scientific Hell got published in the November 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science:

Neuroskeptic. 2012. The Nine Circles of Scientific Hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science November 7: 643-644, doi:10.1177/1745691612459519. PDF

It is a funny but spot-on describing the sins of scientists. Check it out and avoid science hell.

Data Open Science Science

PLoS shows that publishing raw data can be a win-win situation

The PLoS blog Integrative Paleontologists has a cool story that shows why is it a good idea to have open data, or publish your raw research data. A paper in PLoS ONE studied dinosaur teeth, but what gave the authors the edge to answer the question they were after was being able to add data to their dataset from other papers. This allowed them to have a dataset of 1,200 data points!

A selection of carnivorous dinosaur teeth. These are representatives of eight tooth types that occur in rocks spanning 15 million years of evolutionary history–but the general forms surely represent more than eight biological species over this time! Figure 2 from Larson & Currie 2013.. CC-BY.

A selection of dinosaur teeth. Figure 2 from Larson & Currie 2013.

This is a win-win situation for everyone. Researchers Larson and Currie were able to merge the previously-published data with their own new data into a monster analysis (1,200+ data points, remember) that significantly advances science as a whole.

Why would we keep data we are done with when others can do more science with it?

Check out the post for the details.

Paper: Larson DW, Currie PJ. 2013. Multivariate analyses of small theropod dinosaur teeth and implications for paleoecological turnover through time. PLOS ONE 8(1): e54329. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054329

Data Open Science Papers Science

PHD explains open access and why it is necessary

Check out this video that explains what open access is and why it is so necessary.

 

 

Narrated by Nick Shockey and Jonathan Eisen and illustrated by  Jorge Cham, the genius behind PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper).

Bioacoustics Science Sensors Software

SeaBASS and career paths

A couple of weeks ago I participated in SeaBASS 2012, the BioAcoustics Summer School, a week-long course on marine bioacoustics that was offered for the second time at Penn State University. The course was sponsored by the Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State, the Office of Naval Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Acoustical Society of America.

SeaBASS was a great opportunity to learn about the latest discoveries on marine bioacoustics and the questions many groups are trying to answer. In addition, we got to meet several researchers and graduate students from all over the world. I even had the chance to meet another Puerto Rican researcher that was going to her field site in Panama right after the course to work with bottlenose dolphins.

The course featured both lectures on theory and practical aspects, like problems dealing with the marine environment, calibration, and some cool hardware several research groups are using. There were also hands-on training on several software packages, like MMPE, Raven and Ishmael. It covered themes from basic acoustics in water to how marine mammals listen. Of course, there are many unknowns in all areas, it is our job to answer the questions that still remain. If you are interested, or are currently working, in the area, consider applying for the next time the course is offered.

One of the nights, the course featured a career paths panel, something that I hope most short courses start doing. In particular in this job market, where jobs in science are not what they used to be, it was quite inspiring to get a glimpse of how established researchers have dealt with their own careers. The one common theme across all presenters was that they did not end up where they originally planned. Some opportunities appeared to them, some others were chosen to solve conflicts with their family or significant other. In the end, we all learned that we must have our eyes open for when opportunities arise, even if they are not what we had planned.

Software

I made the mistake of paying for Microsoft Office

My university, Purdue, has been offering discounted licenses of several software products. Some of these licenses carried restrictions like having to delete it after you graduate. This one is annoying but it makes sense, after all the idea is to hook the students, who are not earning money. Another restriction was that between Purdue and, in this case, Microsoft, they could unilaterally decide to end their agreement and void whatever license you paid for. I made this mistake. My advisor insists on using Microsoft Office, so I decided to buy myself a student copy to save some time when working with him on documents and presentations. Never again.

To my knowledge, Purdue has not made this announcement public. According to the licensing manager, less than 8,000 licenses for Microsoft products were sold last year (out of 48,000 students). Apparently, the rest of the students are using other alternatives, like Google Docs and pre-installed versions in their laptops. Interestingly, Open Office, now LibreOffice (a free and open source office suite), is not mentioned and it is not installed in the campus’ computers.

So, according to the agreement (I never thought that this would happen), my copy of MS Office will end this Summer. This is why people hate companies like Microsoft that restrict their users for no reason. There is no refund. There is no option other than paying, twice, for another student license for MS Office – or resort to piracy. There is also no institutional push for a standard, be it docx or odt, creating a mess of conflicting formats after pushing for years the Microsoft way.

If you create documents with the software of these type of companies, the moment you stop paying you have no way to access your documents and data. This is why open standards must be a priority in research and the academia. There is no reason to keep giving money to these companies that have such little regards to their users. I don’t mind paying for good software or services, what I do mind is when that software is taken from my hands for no reason other than greed.

Science Soundscape

“Is silence going extinct?” in the New York Times

Last week, the New York Times had a story on the problem of noise and how hard it is to find a quiet spot, even in National Parks. My advisor got interviewed for the piece and it also features some cool sounds.

Bioacoustics Science Soundscape

Soundscapes are featured by the NSF!

The National Science Foundation published yesterday a note featuring our Soundscapes work!

Open Science Papers Science

Will 2012 be the year of open science publishing?

The Research Works Act (HR 3699) seems to have launched a wave of criticism that may finally end the publishers unfair profit of science. This bill pretends to prohibit the federal government, which funds a lot of research, from forcing publishers to make scientific papers available for free. Right now the NIH has a policy that says all funded research must be available for free one year after publication.

The problem lies in that the publishers dictate a, usually ridiculous, price to access research that has been paid for by funds from the government or private foundations. The questions that everyone, scientists and taxpayer, need to ask are:

  • What are they bringing to the table?
  • Why do we have to put up with them?
  • Why are they making a lot of profit from our work while our libraries spend millions and keep cutting subscriptions?

The economics of the current model are not justified, an analysis revealed that we could publish all papers in the world using the PLoS ONE model and costs with just the profits of the two largest publishers: Elsevier and Springer. The HR 3699 has brought a lot of discussion because it will only benefit the publishers, not the scientists and definitely not the taxpayers.

Please join the discussion and contact your Congress representative.

Some other articles of interest:

Bioacoustics Papers Science Software Soundscape Ubuntu

New paper on our software to manage sound archives

The paper describing our software Pumilio has just been published in the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. Pumilio is a web-based sound archive and analysis tool.

Pumilio was created out of necessity. Our lab was collecting a lot of sound data and there was no system that could help us manage that amount of data. In addition, we used at least two operating systems (Windows and Linux) and some collaborators even use Mac. On top of that, some of us used Chrome, while some used Firefox. We started just putting files in folders in a network share. After a few hundred files there is no way of keeping track. Plus, we were wasting time each time we had to open a file in Audacity or Raven to see its spectrogram.

One of the first instances of this system was a simple database that would display rows of spectrograms with a Flash mp3 player on the bottom of each. Similar to the “gallery” view of the current version of Pumilio. The problem was generating all those spectrograms. Using R was easy, but took too long to write the png files. The function specgram() in Python crashed with our files (15 minutes). After a while, I stumbled upon a Python script written by the people of Freesound.org. This was a very fast script and I took it and implemented it.

Afterwards it was all step by step. A JavaScript plugin built to crop images over the web became a selection tool for zooming in a sound and filtering.

The main idea is to make it easy to navigate a sound archive using any modern computer. This means using cross-browser tools to allow the use of any modern browser. Blueprint enables a consistent CSS, JQuery takes care of most of the JavaScript and some of the styling.

Screenshots of Pumilio:

Main Menu

Browsing the archive

All the data of a sound file

The software is available for free under an open source license from the project website.

Villanueva-Rivera, Luis J. and Bryan C. Pijanowski. 2012. Pumilio: A Web-Based Management System for Ecological Recordings. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 93:71–81. doi:10.1890/0012-9623-93.1.71PDF. Full textPumilio Website.

Page 1 of 512345