Remuneration Of Authors Of Books And Scientific Journals, Translators, Journalists And Visual Artists For The Use Of Their Works

Europe Economics and the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam were commissioned by DG Connect to undertake a study on the remuneration of authors of books and scientific journals, translators, journalists and visual artists (all groups are hereafter referred to as “authors”) for the use of their freelance works. The overarching objectives of this study are to analyse the current situation regarding the level of remuneration paid to authors in order to compare the existing national systems of remuneration for authors and identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of those systems for them. We also aim to assess the rationale for harmonising mechanisms affecting the remuneration of authors, and to identify which are the best suited to achieve this. Their potential impact on the functioning of the Internal Market is also examined

Remuneration Of Authors And Performers For The Use Of Their Works And The Fixations Of Their Performances

This study analyses the current situation regarding the level of remuneration paid to authors and performers in the music and audio-visual sectors. We compare, from both a legal and economic perspective, the existing national systems of remuneration for authors and performers and identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of those systems for them. We also explore the need to harmonise mechanisms affecting the remuneration of authors and performers, and to identify which ones are the best suited to achieve this. Their potential impact on distribution models and on the functioning of the Internal Market is also examined. Finally, the study outlines a series of policy recommendations based on the analysis conducted. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

The African Open Science Platform: The Future of Science and Science for the Future

This document presents a draft strategy and makes the scientific case for the African Open Science Platform (AOSP). It is based on an expert group meeting held in Pretoria on 27-28 March 2018. Its purpose is to act as a framework for detailed, work on the creation of the Platform and as a basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting to be held on 3-4 September 2018, which will lead to a definitive strategy for implementation from 2019. Expert group members at the March meeting were drawn from the following organisations: African Academy of Sciences (AAS), Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), International Council for Science (ICSU), National Research and Education Networks (NRENS), Research Data Alliance (RDA), South African Department of Science & Technology (DST) and National Research Foundation (NRF), Square Kilometre Array (SKA), UNESCO. The African Open Science Platform The Future of Science and Science for the Future 4 The African Open Science Platform. The Platform’s mission is to put African scientists at the cutting edge of contemporary, data-intensive science as a fundamental resource for a modern society. Its building blocks are: • a federated hardware, communications and software infrastructure, including policies and enabling practices, to support Open Science in the digital era; • a network of excellence in Open Science that supports scientists & other societal actors in accumulating and using modern data resources to maximise scientific, social and economic benefit. These objectives will be realised through seven related strands of activity: Strand 0: Register & portal for African & related international data collections & services. Strand 1: A federated network of computational facilities and services. Strand 2: Software tools & advice on policies & practices of research data management. Strand 3: A Data Science Institute at the cutting edge of data analytics and AI. Strand 4: Priority application programmes: e.g. cities, disease, biosphere, agriculture. Strand 5: A Network for Education & Skills in data & information. Strand 6: A Network for Open Science Access and Dialogue. The document also outlines the proposed governance, membership and management structure of the Platform, the approach to initial funding and the milestones in building up to the launch. The case for Open Science is based on the profound implications for society and for science, of the digital revolution and of the storm of data that it has unleashed and of the pervasive and novel means of communication that it has enabled. No state should fail to recognise this potential or to adapt their national intellectual infrastructure in exploiting benefits and minimising risks. Open Science is a vital enabler in maintaining the rigour and reliability of science; in creatively integrating diverse data resources to address complex modern challenges; in open innovation and in engaging with other societal actors as knowledge partners in tackling shared problems. It is fundamental to realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. National science systems worldwide are struggling to adapt to this new paradigm. The alternatives are to do so or risk stagnating in a scientific backwater, isolated from creative streams of social, cultural and economic opportunity. Africa should adapt and capitalise on the opportunities, but in its own way, and as a leader not a follower, with broader, more societally-engaged priorities. It should seize the challenge with boldness and resolution

Cultivating the Installed Base: The Introduction of e-Prescription in Greece

publishedVersionnivå

Justify your alpha

Benjamin et al. proposed changing the conventional “statistical significance” threshold (i.e.,the alpha level) from p ≤ .05 to p ≤ .005 for all novel claims with relatively low prior odds. They provided two arguments for why lowering the significance threshold would “immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research.” First, a p-value near .05provides weak evidence for the alternative hypothesis. Second, under certain assumptions, an alpha of .05 leads to high false positive report probabilities (FPRP2 ; the probability that a significant finding is a false positive

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme