Twitter Open Access Report – 25 Feb 2014

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers – Conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated. “The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense. Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Open Access Button searches for students to expand team to work on OA Button 2.0. “The Open Access Button is a browser bookmarklet that tracks and maps the impacts of paywalls. Users can report when they are denied access to research and then search for alternative access to the article using the Button.  We launched the Open Access Button in November 2013 at the Berlin 11 Student and Early Stage Researcher Conference. To date the Button has mapped over 5000 paywalls. This is a small taste of what we are now building, but we need to expand the team in order to create the Button 2.0.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Open Access by Peter Suber has been named an Outstanding Academic Title for 2013 by Choice. “Choice, a publication of the American Library Association, named Open Access (MIT Press, 2012) by Peter Suber an Outstanding Academic Title for 2013. Suber is the director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the Harvard Open Access Project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Guardian: Why open access should be a key issue for university leaders, by Martin Hall. “Universities are digital machines these days. But many of the decisions that have to be made as a result are not technical at all. They are about the nature of research and its public benefits, about how learning and teaching takes place, and how we confront difficult ethical issues. Strategic choices that are made now will have significant implications for the ways in which knowledge will be created and shared in the future. We couldn’t operate universities without the digital systems that run payroll, student registrations, finance and the teaching timetable. Our libraries spend more on electronic publications than paper. We reach large numbers of students online using increasingly significant digital media. But while bandwidth is now as basic a need as electricity and parking, there are critical choices ahead. Central to these is openness – the extent to which those working and studying within the university and college system can get access to any digitally-based information they need without encountering a virtual gateway: a password, subscription requirement or payment.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button 

AnthroPod: Can Scholarship be Free to Read? Cultural Anthropology Goes Open Access. “On this episode of AnthroPod, the podcast of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, Bascom Guffin and Jonah S Rubin interview four leading voices pushing for open access in anthropology. Open access policies allow readers to download academic articles free of charge. With the publishing of its February 2014 issueCultural Anthropology is now an open access journal.” Listen here.
Source: @OA_Button 

Australian Open Access Support Group: Cost of hybrid. “One reason for an historically low uptake of hybrid options could be the high cost. In order to obtain some perspective, let’s consider first fully open access journals. As noted elsewhere on this site, the majority of open access journals do not impose an article processing charge on their authors. Indeed, a 2010 study by Mark Ware Consulting  found that over 50% of authors who had made work open access had done so without incurring a charge (note many of these may have made their work open access by placing a copy in a repository). But how much do open access journals that do impose a cost charge? Of those respondents in the Ware study who had paid for open access, the most common price band was EU501-1000 (roughly AU$700-1400). A large study published in 2011 of article processing charges paid for over 100,000 open access articles published in 2010 showed the average cost to be US$906. This same study observed that ‘Biology researchers appeared to be quite familiar with page charges and did not consider article processing charges for OA journals excessive’ aligns with the finding that journals in Biomedicine had the highest article processing charges of any discipline.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button 

The Open Knowledge Festival 2014 website has launched! The call for session proposals is currently open. More here.
Source: @OA_Button 

Call for Papers: Open Access Tage 2014 (Germany). “Folgende Nachricht erreichte mich so eben. Interessant für alle, die sich mit Open Access beschäftigen und gerne zu seiner Entwicklung beitragen möchten. Am 08.-09. September 2014 finden die 8. Open-Access-Tage in Köln statt. Die Konferenz wird von der FH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft, gemeinsam mit GESIS – Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften und der ZB MED – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften in Kooperation mit der Informationsplattform open-access.net ausgerichtet.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Martin Eve: Predatory Publishers: Not Just OA (and who loses out?) “Several of the critics of OA, most notably in recent days Jeffrey Beall and John Bohannon – the former of whom believes, with an almost McCarthyite tone, that Open Access is an anti-corporatist movement – have pointed out the practices of so-called “predatory” gold open access publishers. They have a point. In a publication system driven by article processing charges, there are players present who are out for a quick buck, who will disavow quality control mechanisms in the service of profit and who will behave in ways that are incongruous with standards for ethical publication. The problem, however, with many of these arguments is that they are only ever framed from one side. The anti-OA crowd point out the potential for “predatory” publishers, find the examples and then try to make them into metonyms for the entirety of gold open access. Conversely, those who are pro-OA (a group in which I include myself) often dismiss such problems out of hand. I think there are sometimes good reasons why we should dismiss them which have been covered elsewhere. We do, however, have to be open to the possibility of such practices and to work to put them to bed.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

OpenEdition: PKP’s first European partner. “OpenEdition is proud to support the Canadian projectPKP (Public Knowledge Project) and thereby contribute to the development of open source solutions for digital publishing. This partnership demonstrates the shared vision of OpenEdition and PKP to promote open access academic and scientific publishing by providing innovative and scalable professional solutions.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Opening up science to the world: open access and why it matters, by Dr Jelena Aleksic. View slides here.
Source: @jeroenson

PLOS’ New Data Policy: Public Access to Data. “Access to research results, immediately and without restriction, has always been at the heart of PLOS’ mission and the wider Open Access movement. However, without similar access to the dataunderlying the findings, the article can be of limited use. For this reason, PLOS has always required that authors make their data available to other academic researchers who wish to replicate, reanalyze, or build upon the findings published in our journals. In an effort to increase access to this data, we are now revising our data-sharing policy for all PLOS journals: authors must make all data publicly available, without restriction, immediately upon publication of the article. Beginning March 3rd, 2014, all authors who submit to a PLOS journal will be asked to provide a Data Availability Statement, describing where and how others can access each dataset that underlies the findings. This Data Availability Statement will be published on the first page of each article.” More here.
Source: @PLOSONE

Open Peer Review as a Service. “Scientific publishers are in some respects like Cinderella. They used to provide an immense service to the scientific world, by disseminating  new results and archiving old results into books. Before the internet era, like Cinderella at the ball, they were everybody’s darling. Enters the net. At the last moment, Cinderella tries to run from this new, strange world. Cinderella does not understand  what happened so fast. She was used with the scarcity (of economic goods), to the point that she believed everything will be like this all her life! What to do now, Cinderella? Will you sell open access for gold? But wait! Cinderella forgot something. Her lost shoe, the one she discarded when she ran out from the ball. In the scientific publishers world, peer-review is the lost shoe. (As well, we may say that up to now, researchers who are writing peer-reviews are like Cinderella too, their work is completely unrewarded and neglected.)” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

OA Publishing London has adopted the Publication Integrity & Ethics Guidelines for all its journals. “After consultation with our Senior Editors and Medical Director,  Open Access Publishing London (UK) has taken the unilateral action of becoming the first global publishing house to adopt the PIE Guidelines.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Menachem Wecker: Should You Share Your Research on Academia.edu? “Academia.edu’s motto, “share research,” may sound like a godsend to scholars who want to do everything possible to make sure their work echoes far beyond the ivory tower. The pared-down social network lets users connect with colleagues, post their own publications, and track the readership of their work—all without having to dig through photographs of people’s cats and reactions to whatever is on TV. It’s a message with resonance, as the site’s growth bears out. More than 7 million people have created academic profiles on the site, says Richard Price, the company’s founder and CEO, with more than 800,000 joining each month. “Around 25 percent come back each month,” he says, “which is a return rate comparable to Twitter’s.” But the appeal of that motto is precisely what worries publishers like Elsevier, the self-declared “leading provider of science and health information.” Starting in late 2013, Elsevier began demanding that Academia.edu—and institutions such as University of Calgary, University of California-Irvine, and Harvard University—take down research publications that, in many cases, authors had posted themselves.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

U.K. Libraries Offer Free Article Access to Walk-Ins. ‘Public libraries in the United Kingdom are set to play a role in expanding public access to academic research via the recently announced “Access to Research” plan. Thousands of research journal articles will be made available for free: but only on computers located physically within a public library, not remotely. The plan implements one of the key recommendations of the Finch Group, which was commissioned by the U.K. government to investigate how access to publicly funded research could be expanded. The group recommended providing walk-in access to “the majority of journals in public libraries across the UK.”’ More here.
Source: @oatp

UC Davis: Seeking New Paths to Open Access in the Humanities. “Earlier this week, I attended webinar, called “Open Access in the Humanities” led by Rupert Gatti. Dr. Gatti is a Fellow in Economics at Trinity College, Cambridge and Co-Founder and Director of Open Book Publishers. The presentation outlined the landscape and the challenges of Open Access in the humanities. One point that resonated with me, given the centrality of monographs to the humanities, was a statistic that showed the relative dearth of new open access academic books in relation to new journal titles. Clearly there are combinations of reasons preventing a more robust move to open access in the humanities, both economic (the problem of financial capital: books (e or print) are more labor intensive) and sociocultural (the problem of cultural capital: in that humanities books are awarded status and prestige through publishing houses). Gatti’s presentation took on these challenges by seeking a sustainable ways to address these conditions, showing some exciting options moving forward.” More here.
Source: @oatp

 OpenMENA (Middle East & North Africa) launched. “We are very pleased to announce the launch of our new and ambitious initiative: OpenMENA! OpenMENA is a work group within the Open Knowledge Foundation global community network that aims at bringing the values of an open and more collaborative society to the Middle East and North Africa. We want to include the wider open community, so do share this with people who care about open more generally: we’re making change together.”
Source: @oatp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *