FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2893829585> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2893829585 endingPage "2712" @default.
• W2893829585 startingPage "2711" @default.
• W2893829585 abstract "We already know that an open metaphor for “scoop”—stealing other people's ideas—exists in the academic world. It may not happen often, but it does happen. It is a very sensitive subject that often evades formal discussion. Underlying reasons may be our unconscious apprehension that relations with academic colleagues could worsen or that our career development could be in danger accordingly. However, we must confront such an inconvenient truth directly. Such unethical behaviour promotes distrust among scholars, which is never desirable for us in our shared quest for knowledge through the active exchange of ideas and productive discussions for scientific advances (Zare, 2017). Besides, the right to intangible intellectual property is also becoming increasingly important in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Park & Glenn, 2017). Today, software-driven industries have seen rapid growth (Park & Glenn, 2017). Unlimited super connectivity through cloud-based big data-driven Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things and the real estate-integrated Virtual Reality platform have boosted such hyper-growth (Schwab, 2017). It has accordingly accelerated the global sharing economy, ultimately enabling a situation where “the winner (pacemaker with creative ideas) takes all” (Park, 2018a). To take the crown for the winner—i.e., intellectual property rights—competition already seems to be fierce. China's quantum leap is particularly noteworthy. For the last ten years, the total of patent applications (direct and Patent Cooperation Treaty [PCT] national phase entries) increased by 635.87% in China (210,501 for 2006 to 1,338,503 for 2016); that is more than quadruple the 142.16% increase in the USA (425,966 for 2006 to 605,571 for 2016) (World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO], 2018). Such an advancement of technology is no exception to nursing practice. To mitigate the global nursing shortages, robot nurses (Wolinsky, 2018) as well as an AI-integrated decision-making support system—i.e., a platform for creative knowledge production—for desirable optimal safe staffing policy-making (Park, 2017a, 2018b) are already active in research and development. As the front-line gatekeeper for providing direct care to patients, nurses are the best-qualified talent for creating new innovative inventions for better work environments while securing patient safety, leading to better value-based nursing care with reduced cost yet enhanced quality (Park, 2017b) and more individualized patient-centric precise nursing care, which demonstrate the great promise of nurses’ inroad into the healthcare industry market. Here, I would like to share my key advice on how to protect ideas with Journal of Advanced Nursing readers who might plan to develop their own distinctive inventions, based on my experience filing direct and PCT patents and registering a copyright for my body of knowledge (Park, 2017a, 2018b) in both Korea and the USA. First, decide if your idea is worth being protected by intellectual property rights and then determine which intellectual property rights would be best for your situation. Since registering intellectual property rights requires considerable cost (http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/fees.pdf; accessed 10 September 2018), time and endeavour, a well-planned strategy is necessary. Specifically, a copyright protects “expressions,” while a patent protects “ideas” (Korea Copyright Commission [KCC], 2018a; Korean Intellectual Property Office [KIPO], 2018a). The copyright—i.e., an author's moral right and property right—(a) takes effect as soon as the creative works are completed; (b) holds its effect for more than 55 years after the death of the copyright holder; and (c) is protected by all countries that have joined the Universal Copyright Convention (KCC, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). Copyright registration is not required, but it is recommended since otherwise the copyright holder must prove all the facts in the event of a copyright dispute (Korea Copyright Commission [KCC], 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). It is noteworthy that different registration rules apply per country: for its process period and open status once the registration is completed, about four business days and nondisclosure are the standard in Korea (once the expected date of publication is set up at registration, it can be open to the others upon request for 30 min only after the date) vs. about 9 months and disclosure in the USA. Since the copyright-registered materials in the USA are open to the public, a well-planned time management strategy is necessary considering that most journals require the author(s) to declare that the article has never been published elsewhere. The UK is considered to have the most rigid regulations on copyright across the globe. The UK does not have an official registration system; however, UK's “fair use” is only allowed for circumstances described in the law, differing from the USA's “fair use” which allows a considerable scope of discretion (KCC, 2018b). Nonetheless, since the copyright laws of the country where a copyright infringement happens are applied in addressing the copyright dispute (KCC, 2018d), the protection of the idea through a copyright is limited. While the patent is valid only within countries that are granted—based on a so-called “localism”—for twenty years from the date of application and can be registered only after passing through a separate, rigid and long screening process (about 2 years) (KIPO, 2018a), if a PCT patent is applied after filing the direct patent, the idea can be protected within PCT Contracting States (http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/pct_contracting_states.html) during a maximum of thirty months from the date of application—i.e., by before entering national phase entries—through a written warning and claim for loss compensation based on Article 65-3 of the Patent Act, even though the patent has not yet been granted (KIPO, 2018b). Nonetheless, the best strategy to secure the idea is to: (a) file the direct patent and register the copyright for it; and then (b) make presentations at conferences and/or submit the work to a journal, which enables the idea to be protected on all sides. As a scholar, stealing other people's ideas is such a disgrace that it cannot be tolerated ethically regardless of whether it violates the law. However, excessive research outcome-oriented competition in academia produces serious side-effects, driving PhD students to despair or even causing them to drop out (Zare, 2017). Such a harsh environment is no exception to postdoctoral fellows or assistant professors—even full professors. The temptation to “scoop” may be hard to resist against ethical integrity for that reason, despite the fact that we all are well aware that to “scoop” is risky: it can destroy comradeship or intimate relations between mentors and pupils as well as ruin one's scholarly reputation. Further, when someone “scoops,” it is very difficult to determine a clear, factual relationship among cause, process, and effect because the act leaves no absolute proof, which in turn increases the possibility of a “scoop.” Legal protection for creative ideas as noted above may thus be helpful for preventing the possibility of scooping and instead encouraging spirited dialogue and debate among nurse scientists, leading to enhanced value-based care along with the establishment of a fair research culture." @default.
• W2893829585 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2893829585 creator A5073881036 @default.
• W2893829585 date "2018-11-05" @default.
• W2893829585 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2893829585 title "Is Your Idea Safe?" @default.
• W2893829585 cites W2610268234 @default.
• W2893829585 cites W2767772648 @default.
• W2893829585 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13862" @default.
• W2893829585 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30259556" @default.
• W2893829585 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2893829585 type Work @default.
• W2893829585 sameAs 2893829585 @default.
• W2893829585 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2893829585 countsByYear W28938295852020 @default.
• W2893829585 countsByYear W28938295852022 @default.
• W2893829585 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2893829585 hasAuthorship W2893829585A5073881036 @default.
• W2893829585 hasBestOaLocation W28938295851 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConceptScore W2893829585C15744967 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConceptScore W2893829585C17744445 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConceptScore W2893829585C199539241 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConceptScore W2893829585C2779473830 @default.
• W2893829585 hasConceptScore W2893829585C71924100 @default.
• W2893829585 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2893829585 hasLocation W28938295851 @default.
• W2893829585 hasLocation W28938295852 @default.
• W2893829585 hasOpenAccess W2893829585 @default.
• W2893829585 hasPrimaryLocation W28938295851 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2893829585 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2893829585 hasVolume "74" @default.
• W2893829585 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2893829585 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2893829585 magId "2893829585" @default.
• W2893829585 workType "article" @default.