Laborjournal online: 20 Jahre Laborjournal: Björn Brembs

[From Google's English] "On the one sprout more and more subscription-independent journals in the leaves of the forest now more than 30,000 peer-reviewed journals (the so-called 'golden' road to OA). On the other hand demanding more research funding worldwide that grant recipients make their publications in institutional repositories available (the 'green' road to OA), if they are not gold-OA be published. In Germany, the copyright was exactly that extended to the secondary publication rights. In Baden-Württemberg the legislature this possibility now also planning to expand to University employees. But the German Association of University Professors, otherwise reliable representation of interests of the scientists is reflected in a spectacular change of position on the side of the corporations and is preparing a lawsuit against the law in Baden-Württemberg and thus against a development of our digital infrastructure. One is tempted to exclaim with Shakespeare: much ado about nothing! Because although the accessibility of science has by no means improved over the last 15 years, the OA movement - quite the contrary! -, Then but the entire digital infrastructure at public research institutions in the last 20 years developed more almost. This is now such a variety of shortcomings has accumulated that has completely pushed the problem of literary access in daily research work, depending on the field partly in the background. The stalemate has become a serious domino effects, which not only endanger the preservation of our research results, but also the continued existence of public research as a whole. Depending on the field fall the fruits of scientific research at one or more of the following three categories: scientific source code, digital data or text-based content.  Depending on the field fall the fruits of scientific research at one or more of the following three categories: scientific source code, digital data or text-based content. The lack of accessibility of the literature is only one of many problems of our text-based results: [1] Depending on the department, four or more engines must be used to ensure adequate coverage of the literature (in my case the neurobiology: Google Scholar , PubMed , Scopus and Web of Science ). [2] Although hyperlinks were presented in 1968 by Stanford University for the first time, they have kept still no way into our literature, even after almost 50 years. Or have you ever get an accurate description of the experimental procedures, when you click 'the experiments were Performed as Described added anonymously clicked '? [3] We will send the journals still images with curves, graphs and diagrams, even if the publishers but would only have our data and some commands to create the diagrams. By the way that would allow the evaluators and later readers to take other aspects of the data in inspection, as selected by the authors. [4] We have to rewrite our articles in part radically still after each rejection, because each journal our texts would love to have in a different form. [5] Only now a few journals begin with a technology that every student is already built in the 1990s in his websites: Counter for the number of accesses. After all, this technology is only about 20 years old, and not nearly 50 as hyperlinks. [6] The publishers actively block and pure private gain access to modern research methods such as content mining. [7] Although online retailers such as Amazon offer for over a decade, derivatives, related to products already purchased, there is a comparable technology for scientific articles only in a very limited sense. There is not a single digital tool that makes it easier for a scientist, although these technologies are already being used for many years by scientists in detail in non-scientific fields of the newly published literature individually and from user behavior learning to filter, sort, and to discover . [8] There is no scientific assessment options. [9] The much-quoted 'impact factor' is about as scientific as dowsing or pendulums. The data of the past 20 years even suggest that dice is appropriate to find a good article in a selection, as these negotiable, non-reproducible and mathematically calculated number wrong. [10] We have no ways to apply the new social media technologies on our literature. While slowly disambiguation of authors ORCID is developed - but before this implementation is established on a broad front, many years will pass ..."