Twitter Open Access Report – 31 July 2014

Times Higher Education: Open access papers ‘gain more traffic and citations’. “It found that, after 180 days, articles whose authors had paid for them to be made open access had been viewed more than twice as often as those articles accessible only to the journal’s subscribers. A further analysis of more than 2,000 papers published in Nature Communications between April 2010 and June 2013 revealed that open access articles were cited a median of 11 times, compared with a median of seven citations for subscription-only articles. The paper concludes that open access papers enjoy a “small” citation advantage in all disciplines except chemistry.” More here.

Highlights of #altmetrics: July 2014 by Keita Bando. View feed here.
Source: @KeitaBando

WISER: Open Access Oxford – what’s happening? “A briefing on open access publishing and Oxford’s position: Green vs. Gold; funder mandates and publisher policies; Oxford Research Archive (ORA) and Symplectic; OA website/ helpline; what’s new.” Takes place on Wednesday, 20 August, 11:00-12:00 at IT Training Room, Social Science Library, Manor Road Building, Manor Road Building, Manor Road, Oxford, OX1 3UQ. More here.
Source: @KUnlatched

Scholarly Kitchen: Stick To Your Ribs: The Impact Factor’s Greatest Hits (and Misses), by David Crotty. ”

The release of new Impact Factors always results in a great deal of work for publishers, editors, analysts and consultants as we pore through the numbers and figure out exactly what they mean. Love it or hate it, the Impact Factor still holds major sway over the careers of academic researchers as well as the submission rates and overall health of journals. With that in mind, I dug back into our archives to offer up some of our articles examining the Impact Factor, from a variety of angles. We’ll return with a new post tomorrow, once the dust settles.” More here.
Source: @alpsp

Open access in the developing world: The meaning of ‘impact’: prestige or relevance for developing world research? “There is an interesting circularity about the impact story in the developing world. With the expansion of the number of developing country journals in the index, the inclusion of the Latin American open access journal platform, SciELO in the Wed of Science (the Thomson Reuters citation indexes), it would seem that there is a courtship going on in which the developing world is being drawn into the journal impact tables. This is a two-way process, as has recently been analyzed in the Latin American context by Vessuri, Guédon and Cetto where they express concern that the search for ‘international’ status for SicELO journals through a chase for impact factors tends to work against development agendas, giving rise to serious concerns about equity.” More here.
Source: @alpsp

Academic Matters: Open Access and the Public Purse. “Last year, we were introduced to a “Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy,” put forward by NSERC and SSHRC to harmonize their requirements with the CIHR. Under this policy, all peer-reviewed journal articles based on research funded by these councils must be made available through Open Access (OA), free and online. Researchers could either publish in a journal that is OA or has OA options, or deposit the article in an OA repository within twelve months of publication. There is much to applaud here, particularly for those of us who have long supported OA as a means of making our work more widely available to international research communities that cannot afford increasingly high journal subscription fees or Canadians who are not physically within reach of a university library. The view, however, gets a little different once we realize that this policy does not foster OA in general, just select research publications (grant-funded journal articles), and allows federally funded research grants to be used to pay the Article Processing Charges (APCs) sometimes required for OA publication. Because of this particular focus, one of the effects of the proposed policy would be to foster the transfer of considerable funds from federal research councils to the large multinational publishers who charge some very high APCs. Such implications are not addressed in the recently published overview of the feedback SSHRC and NSERC received on its proposal, “Opening Canadian Research to the World: Summary of Responses to Draft Tri‐Agency Open Access Policy Consultation” and arguably run counter to support for the “Draft” as a matter of taxpayer fairness (see, for example, Michael Geist’s column on this topic).” More here.
Source: @alpsp

Baden-Württemberg setzt auf E-Science: Strategiepapier und Förderprogramm. “Das Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst des Landes Baden-Württemberg hat gestern ein 120-seitiges “Fachkonzept zur Weiterentwicklung der wissenschaftlichen Infrastruktur” (PDFvorgestellt. Zur Umsetzung des Konzeptes werden Mittel in Höhe von 3,7 Mio. Euro breitgestellt. Mit dem Förderprogramm soll der “Ausbaus einer leistungsfähigen, effizienten und innovativen Informationsinfrastruktur für die wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen in Baden-Württemberg” vorangetrieben werden.

Fachkonzept zur Weiterentwicklung der wissenschaftlichen Infrastruktur

Das Strategiepapier setzt auf dem “Gesamtkonzept für die Informationsinfrastruktur in Deutschland” der Kommission Zukunft der Informationsinfrastruktur (KII) und anderen Aktivitäten – z. B. der Schwerpunktinitiative “Digitale Information”  der Wissenschaftsorganisationen –  auf und widmet sich fünf zentralen Handlungsfeldern:

  • Lizenzierung elektronischer Informationsmedien
  • Digitalisierung
  • Open Access
  • Forschungsdatenmanagement
  • Virtuelle Forschungsumgebungen”

More here.
Source: @alpsp

Rijksmuseum case study: Sharing free, high quality images without restrictions makes good things happen. “The Rijksmuseum has found a way to support broad access to its rich collection of cultural heritage resources. And it’s done so in such as way that promotes interest by new audiences, recuperates costs, and upholds the principles of supporting unrestricted access to the digital public domain.” More here.
Source: @openarchives

Article vs Journal Impact – Perspective from PLOS ONE Editorial Director Damian Pattinson. “I don’t think the Impact Factor is a very good measure of anything, but clearly it is particularly meaningless for a journal that deliberately eschews evaluation of impact in its publications decisions. Our founding principle was that impact should be evaluated post-publication. In terms of the average number of citations per article, my sense is that this is changing due to the expanding breadth of fields covered by PLOS ONE, not to mention its sheer size (we recently published our 100,000th article). When you grow as quickly as we have, your annual average citation rate will always be suppressed by the fact that you are publishing far more papers at the end of the year than at the beginning.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

The Guardian: Open access: are effective measures to put UK research online under threat? “The universities of the UK should not squander the opportunity to put in place an effective mechanism for making their published research freely available […] A great deal of water has passed under the bridge in the two years since the UK government reinvigorated its push towards open access – making publicly funded research papers freely available online. Although there is broad agreement on the policy, vociferous debates have raged over the details of implementation. Should the UK policy favour goldopen access – making research papers freely available via the journal where they are published – or green open access, where the paper (usually the author’s final revision following peer review) is placed in a freely accessible university repository? Much of the debate has revolved around efficacy and costs. It is widely believed that gold open access may be cheaper in the long run – particularly if it encourages transparent market competition – but it may be an expensive policy during any transition away from established subscription models. The policy implemented by Research Councils UK favours gold open access but leaves the final choice to the authors. While pragmatic, this approach risks ongoing confusion in the minds of academics in what is a complex policy area. However, moves towards open access received a significant boost earlier this year when the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HECFE) – acting on behalf of equivalent bodies for the rest of the UK – announced that only papers that have been placed in institutional repositories will be considered eligible for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF), a periodic exercise that assesses the quality of the outputs of UK university departments. This is a powerful linkage because REF assessments determine how HEFCE disburses its research funds and universities take them very seriously.” More here.
Source: @OpenAccessOnline

Times Higher Education: Should you Mooc and match? ‘Another professor’s learning materials? In my course? It’s more likely than you think. The non-profit research organisation Ithaka S+R this month released its highly anticipated report on its work with the institutions in the University System of Maryland, which for the past 18 months have experimented with courseware from Carnegie Mellon University, Coursera and Pearson in face-to-face courses. Backed by a $1.4 million (£0.8 million) grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the study aimed to produce some sorely needed research about massive open online courses and their usefulness to brick-and-mortar institutions. Eighteen months later, the Mooc frenzy has calmed, and Ithaka’s findings are similarly muted. “Our findings add empirical weight to an emerging consensus that technology can be used to enhance productivity in higher education by reducing costs without compromising student outcomes,” researchers Rebecca Griffiths, Matthew Chingos, Christine Mulhern and Richard Spies write. In other words, hybrid courses that mix online content with face-to-face instruction can be just as good, though not necessarily better, than traditional courses. But a second research question – whether faculty members can use course content created by their counterparts at other institutions, potentially saving both time and resources – produced less clear results.”‘ More here.
Source: @timeshighered

Bjöen Brembs: Are We Paying US$3000 Per Article Just For Paywalls? “This is an easy calculation: for each subscription article, we pay on average US$5000. A publicly accessible article in one of SciELO’s 900 journals costs only US$90 on average. Subtracting about 35% in publisher profits, the remaining difference between legacy and SciELO costs amount to US$3160 per article. With paywalls being the only major difference between legacy and SciELO publishing (after all, writing and peer-review is done for free by researchers for both operations), it is straightforward to conclude that about US$3000 are going towards making each article more difficult to access, than if we published it on our personal webpage. Now that is what I’d call obscene.

Just to break the costs of legacy publishing down in detail:

Publisher profits 1750
Paywalls 3160
Actual costs of typesetting, hosting, archiving, etc. 90
Sum 5000

View here.
Source: @MikeTaylor

Is There a Difference Between xMOOCs and cMOOCs? Of course, classifications in education are not about black & white, either/or boxes. Classifications like “xMOOC/cMOOC” are really more of generalized categories that kind of coalesce around certain characteristics. But most people know that they are not hard, fast lines. One problem that is emerging in education is misunderstanding what educational classifications are and what they aren’t. MOOC designs that mix elements of xMOOCs and cMOOCs are not a sign that the classifications are wrong. They are a sign that we need to understand the underlying differences even more or we could continue to confuse and polarize the issue even further. More and more learners are discovering the difference between instructivism and connectivism (even if they don’t know those words), and are wanting to learn in their preferred paradigm.” More here.
Source: @eacorrao

Peter Suber: The harm caused by myths about open access. ‘For a vivid sense of the harm caused by common misunderstandings of OA, read the comments in this survey carried out at the University of Saskatchewan in November 2012 and released this month.
http://ecommons.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/6290/Report%20-%20USask%20OA%20Faculty%20Survey%20Results.pdf?sequence=1
It’s depressing how many respondents who like the idea of OA in theory turn away from it in practice because they believe one of three particular falsehoods about it:
1. All OA is gold OA (through journals). 
The truth: Green OA (through repositories) is an alternative to gold OA, and even more plentiful than gold OA. There are several ways to arrange for permission to provide green OA even for work published at the very best peer-reviewed journals.
2. All or most peer-reviewed OA journals charge publication fees. 
The truth: Most (67%) charge no fees at all. In fact, the majority (75%) of non-OAjournals charge author-side fees and only a minority of OA journals do so.
3. All or most fees at fee-based OA journals are paid by authors out of pocket.
The truth: Most fees (88%) at fee-based OA journals are paid by the authors’ funder or employer. In fact 96% of authors who make their peer-reviewed articles OA pay no fee at all, because they make their work green OA rather than gold, because they publish in a no-fee OA journal, or because their fee at a fee-based journal was paid by their funder or employer.’ More here.
Source: @OpenAccessOnline

 Steps to Implementing Open Educational Resources | Academic Impressions. ‘Join us for an online training to learn the key steps in OER implementation for a course or program. Our expert instructors will prepare you to address the challenges that arise including:

  • Selection of open educational resource and provider
  • Managing course design and modifications
  • Improving faculty adoption
  • Providing a quality student experience’

More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Education Summer Reading List.

More here.
Source: @okfnedu

Brill Announces New Suite of Open Access Journals. ‘Brill, the international scholarly publisher, announces a new suite of open access journals covering four major disciplines. In the Brill Open program, Brill is now announcing the launch of four new full Open Access journals in the following disciplines: HumanitiesSocial SciencesLaw, and Biology. These journals will offer a pure open access environment. Each journal will be divided in sections that align with the major subject areas in the discipline. Each of the four new Brill Open journals will have a dedicated editorial board and undergo the same rigorous peer review and uphold the same high-quality publication standards that Brill is known for. In addition, once accepted, papers will be published online in just one month. The Brill Open program makes research freely accessible online in exchange for an Article Publication Charge (APC). This can be by choice, or to comply with funding mandates or university requirements. As a rule, APCs are not charged until a paper is accepted for publication. In 2014 and 2015 the four new Open Access journals will offer reduced APCs and waive all submission fees.View the APC details here.’ More here.
Source: @oatp

OER Research Hub: July Round-Up. ‘July kicked off with the release of a range of our research on open textbooks during the aptly named Open Textbook Research week. With contributors from all of our fantastic open textbook collaborators, this was a great chance to see what work we’ve been doing together. Beck (OERRH researcher) and Megan Beckett (Siyavula) co-authored a series of blog posts on the survey findings in South Africa, Clint Lalonde of BCcampus told us more about the Open Textbook Project Geography sprint in an exclusive post and we also released the revised OpenStax College educator survey findings, preliminary student survey findings and three educator interviews. Phew! With 11 blog posts in total there’s a wealth of research to explore. […] Later in the month, we also released the full audio of last year’s OpenEd13 interview with co-author of OpenStax College Introductory Statistics, Barbara Illowsky. This is an incredibly rich interview with Barbara telling us about the journey of Collaborative Statistics, which she co-authored with Susan Dean, the students at De Anza College in California, why their open textbook is licensed CC-BY, her work with Cable Green to “influence OER policy”, student savings and how open has improved quality. Catch up on Part One and Part Two … perfect summertime listening! […] Half way through July Beck, Rob and Martin headed to Berlin to participate in this year’s Open Knowledge Festival (#OKFest14). The festival took place in the amazing Kulturbrauerei which provided a great space to host a vast array of sessions on openness in all different kinds of contexts, including education. Did you manage to catch our session on Wednesday at unFestival?! For the bigger picture check out our Storify and the official OKFest day-by-day reviews!’ More here.
Source: @OER_Hub

The Conversation: Technology improves higher learning, it doesn’t kill it. ‘As MOOC mania approached its peak in 2012, Anant Agarwal, the president of the Massive Open Online Course platform edXclaimed:

Online education for students around the world will be the next big thing in education. This is the single biggest change in education since the printing press.

The claim was repeated many times. Indeed, 15 years earlier, management guru Peter Drucker had anticipated this:

Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won’t survive. It’s as large a change as when we first got the printed book.

That seemed improbable since university lectures have been as important in the five-and-a-half centuries since Gutenberg invented the printing press as they presumably were for the three-and-a-half centuries before. Yet printing had profound and pervasive effects on society, as has been established by many, notably Elizabeth Eisenstein in her study on The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. In a paper published recently in History of Education, I considered how printing changed universities, such as their lectures and libraries.’ More here.
Source: @MOOCsNews

Reports of MOOCs’ demise have been greatly exaggerated, by Craig Weidermann. ‘Last year’s exuberance about the impact of massive open online courses has fizzled. MOOCs have been widely eulogized as “overpromised,” “off course,” and just plain “enough already!” This much ballyhooed and belittled phenomenon is clearly neither the cure for all that ails higher education, nor the end of colleges and universities as we know them. But in our urge to find the next big thing, we shouldn’t ignore what MOOCs can offer to learners around the world and to institutions of higher education. Our true return on investment for MOOCs may be difficult to quantify — and it may not be monetary. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. “MOOCs have advanced the conversation and sharpened our focus on helping students learn. And that’s the ultimate return on investment. MOOCs are showing potential to attract applicants and engage alumni. Penn State’s GIS Mapping MOOC, for example, increased traffic to our GIS graduate program website by 400 percent. In addition, MOOCs are creating communities of online learners around the world and in some cases providing critical employment skills.’ More here.
Source: @MOOCsNews

 

Twitter Open Access Report – 22 July 2014

The Guardian: Retractions are coming thick and fast: it’s time for publishers to act. “No journal, either in print or online, has any excuse not to be using plagiarism detection tools on every manuscript it receives. The same should go for fledgling image detection systems when they become mature. Another encouraging development is the rise of post-publication peer review, which has been made possible in recent years by the availability of papers online. Contributors to PubPeer, for example, have found signs of flawed or falsified results, leading to papers being retracted. Some critics of PubPeer – which allows anonymous posting – and related sites have argued that they are little better than nests of libel. But PubPeer is in fact carefully moderated, and the results are hard to argue with. In one case from 2013, an article in the prestigious Journal of Biological Chemistry was pulled after a commenter on PubPeer raised questions about the images in the paper. And last month, the authors of a paper in Current Biology retracted their article in the wake of a flood of comments on PubPeer, and a university committee ruling that there had been image manipulation.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Slides: Open Data and the Panton Principles in the Humanities, by Peter Kraker. View here.
Source: @openscience

The Open Education Challenge announces nine winning edtech startups. “After a final pitch competition, the Open Education Challenge has announced nine winning edtech startups. The award consists of an invitation to join the inaugural European Incubator for Innovation in Education.” The winning teams:

More here.
Source: @OpenEdEU

AOASG’s Open Access journal options flowchart (updated)AOASG Flowchart Publishing OA Journal
Source: @RickyPo

Cost effectiveness of open access publications: Jevin D. West, Ted C. Bergstrom, and Carl T. Bergstrom. “Open access publishing has been proposed as one possible solution to the serials crisis—the rapidly growing subscription prices in scholarly journal publishing. However, open access publishing can present economic pitfalls as well, such as excessive article processing charges. We discuss the decision that an author faces when choosing to submit to an open access journal. We develop an interactive tool to help authors compare among alternative open access venues and thereby get the most for their article processing charges.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

IPG: Open access and the Wellcome Trust | Independent Publishing Guild in the UK. “If you publish monographs in the areas we fund, I encourage you to contact me to see how your publishing and our policy could come together to increase access to research.” Cecy Marden is open access project manager at the Wellcome Library. More here.
Source: @alpsp

RCUK gathers evidence in OA review. “Research Councils UK (RCUK) has launched a call for evidence for the 2014 review of the implementation of the RCUK policy on open access. The independent review focuses on implementation of the RCUK Open Access policy. The aim is to try and understand the effectiveness of the policy and its impact on universities, research organisations, researchers and publishers, amongst others. Robert Burgess, chair of the Independent Review Panel, explained: ‘This is an open call and the review panel will be interested to hear from individuals, institutions and organisations alike where there is evidence of how the implementation of the RCUK Policy on Open Access is having an impact. Although we recognise that this review is taking place early in the policy’s implementation period, it is a good opportunity to take stock and we hope that as much evidence as possible is put forward to the review.'” More here.
Source: @alpsp

The SCOAP3 repository: OAI-PMH feed now available. “The SCOAP3 repository hosts Open Access articles published under the SCOAP3 initiative. It is built on Open Source software and is now open for the community to harvest content through OAI-PMH feeds. It has been recently featured at the Open Repository 2014 conference. The SCOAP3 initiative has converted to Open Access the majority of the literature in High-Energy Physics through a partnership of libraries, publishers, funding agencies and the research community in 35 countries. About 400 new articles appear monthly on the publishers platform and on the SCOAP3 repository under a CC-BY license. PDF, PDF/A and XML formats are available on the SCOAP3 repository, together with full metadata under a CC0 waiver. All “gold” Open Access articles published under the SCOAP3 initiative and their metadata are now exposed leveraging theOpen Archive Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). As the de-facto standard technically underpinning the Open Access movements, OAI-PMH feeds allow the worldwide repository and library community to exchange information and enrich their services. The SCOAP3 repository handler is available at http://repo.scoap3.org/oai2d. Additional information, help and examples are available on the SCOAP3 website.” More here.
Source: @alpsp

OpenEd Raises $2M to Build More Free Education Apps. “In its first attempt at raising venture capital funds, OpenEd, a free online catalog of common-core aligned materials, had one firm open its pocket book – for $2 million. The funds were raised during a seed round, with PivotNorth Capital as the sole investor. The $2 million investment comes after a $10 million valuation and serves as the first outside financing for the company. OpenEd’s previous investors were none other than the firm’s co-founders, Adam and Lisa Blum, who invested $500,000 to help launch the company in 2012. The Los Gatos, Calif.-based OpenEd has seen its catalog of web-based educational videos, games, and exercises increase from 250,000 at its inception to more than 1 million today. That growth, in addition to the site’s ability to make algorithm-based recommendations for students, parents, and teachers, seemed to appeal to PivotNorth. OpenEd plans to use the new funds to continue building out more apps and capabilities, especially as they look to cover national education standards for Mexico, Scotland, and Singapore in the coming months.” More here.
Source: @educationweek

Open access and “A Subversive Proposal”. ‘In 2012, The Ohio State University Libraries adopted the Faculty Open Access Resolution, which requires Ohio State Libraries’ faculty to grant the University a license to make their scholarly articles openly accessible.  The goal of this initiative, and open access in general, is to increase the accessibility of research so that others can easily make use of it. According to Peter Suber, open access works are “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” While free of many restrictions, open access works are still protected by copyright law; publicly available does not mean copyright free. An important contributor to the open access movement is Stevan Harnad.  In 1994, Harnad posted a message to a discussion list on electronic journals hosted by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute.  Harnad’s message, titled “A Subversive Proposal”, suggested that researchers should make their papers freely available.  The message sparked significant discussion and Harnad is now creditedwith initiating the concept of self-archiving.  In 1995, Harnad’s original message and the email discussion it provoked were collected into a book: Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing.  The full copy of that book is available through HathiTrust, under an open-access, Google digitized license. In honor of the proposal’s twentieth anniversary, Richard Poynder posted an interview with Harnad titled “The Subversive Proposal at 20”, which looks back at the proposal’s impact and discusses the development of the open access movement.’ More here.
Source: @AmSciForum

examiner.com: What e-learning that works looks like. “Making it possible to work while attending college and to study when and where one chooses, online learning appeals to nearly all prospective 21st century students. But not everyone is ready to succeed in e-learning courses or degree programs: attrition rates for digital distance learners, which can reach a staggering 90% for students of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS), far outpace those for students enrolled in traditional brick-and-mortar courses. Also, effective online courses and degree programs have salient features. Those thinking about taking online courses or enrolling in online university degree programs should know what successful e-learning demands going in.” More here.
Source: @openlrning

Unexpected Ways Millennials Are Impacting Higher Education. “Colleges are massively reluctant to jump aboard the MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) bandwagon. Only 2.6 percent of colleges had MOOCs in 2013, with only 9.4 percent in the planning stages. Over 55 percent of institutions said they were generally undecided about utilizing this particular tool. Yet Millennials are comfortable learning on the Internet, and many enjoy the ease and convenience of being able to learn on their own schedule. In fact, the number of students taking at least one online course has grown to encompass 6.7 million students and faculty are finally taking notice. According to research, over 69 percent of academic leaders say online learning is critical to their education strategy. Millennials have been instrumental in this shift toward online learning, and Generation Z will demand digital tools in the learning process, as well.” More here.
Source: @MOOCsNews

Springer celebrates open access milestone. “Springer is celebrating the milestone of 200,000 open access articles published to date. The articles, published acrossBioMed Central andSpringerOpen are freely available and published under a Creative Commons (CC) license. Springer now has 417 open access journals publishing across all areas of science – 265 at BioMed Central and 152 at SpringerOpen. In addition, SpringerOpen recently published its 35th open access book. BioMed Central was formed in 1999 as the first open access publisher and was acquired by Springer in 2008.  All articles published by BioMed Central and SpringerOpen are made freely available online immediately upon publication.  An article-publishing charge is levied to cover the cost of the publication process. Authors retain the copyright to their work, licensing it under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows articles to be re-used and re-distributed without restriction, as long as the original work is correctly cited.” More here.
Source: @McDawg

Why Students Enroll in Online Courses. Infographic via @CollegeAtlas.
Why students enrole online
Source: @OpenEduEU

LSE Blogs: Will David Willetts be remembered for progressive push for Open Access or pernicious effects of neoliberal academy? “Now that the cabinet reshuffle news has settled and Greg Clark MP, the new Minister for Universities, Science, and Cities has begun his tenure, we asked for further reflections on the positions taken by previous minister David Willetts. David Prosser covers the dramatic influence Willetts had on open access legislation and momentum in the UK. Lee Jones instead emphasises the escalation of marketisation in higher education and the damaging consequences of market-driven intensification for teaching and research activities. David Prosser is Executive Director of Research Libraries UK, supporting research libraries across the UK and Ireland.” More here.
Source: @McDawg

LSE Blogs: MOOCs must move beyond open enrolment and demonstrate a true commitment to reuse and long-term redistribution. “In contrast with the type of openness encouraged by Open Education Resources and Open Courseware labels, the openness of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is severely limited. Consequently, Leo Havemannand Javiera Atenas find the recent growth of high quality online learning content is not able to be used to its full advantage. The process of opening up MOOC resources would add value to the resources by reaching a wider community. But most importantly, HE institutions currently investing in MOOCs could demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, their real commitment to openness and improved access to education for all.” More here.
Source: @openscience

Twitter Open Access Report – 25 June 2014

Scholarly Kitchen: What Societies Really Think About Open Access, by Alice Meadows. “Over half the respondents (55%) had either a Strongly Positive or Positive attitude towards OA, with only 15% responding that their attitude was Negative; the remaining 30% were Neutral. Interestingly, the society officers surveyed believe that their members are, if anything slightly less supportive of OA than they are – 45.5% believe members are Neutral, 42% that they are Strongly Positive or Positive, and 12.1%, Negative.” More here.
Source: @scholarlykitchn

Open Repositories 2014: Recorded sessions available. Many of the OR2014 main conference sessions were broadcast via Adobe Connect. These sessions were also recorded, and you can find links to each of them on this page.”
Source: @OpenExpl

Slides: Implementing Open Access: Effective Management of Your Research Data, by Martin Hamilton. ‘The slides from my session with the DCC’s Martin Donnelly at the Understanding ModernGov “Implementing Open Access” event in June 2014. Our talk is all about the support available from Jisc and the DCC to help you manage your research data, and potential future initiatives that might help institutions to handle the move to “open science”.’ View here.
Source: @RickyPo

The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories, by Enrique Orduña-Malea and Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cozar. “Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access, determining their presence and impact on the Web is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.” View here.
Source: @DOAJplus

Downloadable graphics for Open Access. “The AOASG has developed a series of downloadable graphics for the community to use in their advocacy of open access. All graphics are available under a CC-BY license. Please contact us for the source files if required through the contact form. Graphics available include:

More here.
Source: @ORBi_ULg

PLOS ONE Publishes its 100,000th Article. “The impact of PLOS ONE on scientific publishing has been tremendous and revolutionary. The world of scientific communication is a different place because of it, and that is something PLOS and its entire community of collaborators should be proud of.” More here.
Source: @alpsp

Editors of sociological Open Access journals seem hesitant to adopt Open Knowledge principles. “And again a by-product of my dissertation thesis: I compared the numbers and shares of journals from all disciplines using Creative Commons (CC) licenses with the numbers and shares of Open Access journals from Sociology using CC licenses. The date of data collection was June 8, 2014, the data source was the Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ, it listed 9.834 journals at the date mentioned. The results indicate that editors of sociological Open Access journals are more hesitant than editors of non-sociological Open Access journals to adopt Open Knowledge principles.’ More here.
Source: @oatp

Over 120 countries download KU Pilot Collection titles. “On 11 March 2014, Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Collection books became available for anyone in the world to read or download for free on a Creative Commons licence. This was the culmination of a behind-the-scenes process of loading the books onto our partner host platforms: OAPEN andHathiTrust. The books became live on the OAPEN platform first – followed soon after by HathiTrust. A few books in the collection are yet to be published but as they are, they are also being made available via these platforms. An overview of the availability status for all of the KU Pilot Collection titles can be seen here. Helping authors to connect more effectively with readers that value the knowledge and ideas contained in scholarly books is central to the KU mission. Usage data has an important role to play in helping us to understand the extent to which the KU Pilot has succeeded in accomplishing this goal.” More here.
Source: @KUnlatched

Björn Brembs: Your University Is Definitely Paying Too Much For Journals. “There is an interesting study out in the journal PNAS: “Evaluating big deal journal bundles“. The study details the disparity in negotiation skills between different US institutions when haggling with publishers about subscription pricing. For Science Magazine, John Bohannon of “journal sting” fame, wrote a news article about the study, which did not really help him gain any respect back from all that he lost with his ill-fated sting-piece. While the study itself focused on journal pricing among US-based institutions, Bohannon’s news article, where one would expect a little broader perspective than in the commonly more myopic original papers, fails to mention that even the ‘best’ big deals are grossly overcharging the taxpayer” More here.
Source: @openscience

Scholarly Kitchen: Hit the Road — How a Forgettable Paper and a Misguided Publisher Created an Unnecessary Controversy, by Kent Anderson. “It was difficult to generate any interest in blogging about this as events were unfolding, because the story was so tendentious and obvious. Now that it’s apparently concluded, this is what we’re left with — a paper that is best ignored, a publisher who committed an egregious set of misguided intrusions into editorial matters, and a lesson about how doing nothing is sometimes the wisest course of action.” More here.
Source: @scholarlykitchn

Open access to research data: the Open Research Data Pilot. “A novelty in Horizon 2020 is the Open Research Data Pilot which aims to improve and maximise access to and re-use of research data generated by projects. It will be monitored with a view to developing the European Commission policy on open research data in future Framework Programmes.” More here.
Source: @OpenAccessOnline

Data on article-processing charges released by the University of Sussex library. “This data was collected by Information Power Ltd on behalf of Jisc Collections in March and April 2014, along with the APC expenditure of 23 other UK higher education institutions. As of April 2014, it lists all known APCs paid by the University of Sussex during 2013 and the first two months of 2014. It is likely that many more articles published by University of Sussex authors were open access, but the full extent is not known. It has been publicly released with the permission of University of Sussex library.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Twitter Open Access Report – 11 June 2014

FCW: A brief history of open data. “In December 2007, 30 open-data pioneers gathered in Sebastopol, Calif., and penned a set of eight open-government data principles that inaugurated a new era of democratic innovation and economic opportunity. ‘The objective…was to find a simple way to express values that a bunch of us think are pretty common, and these are values about how the government could make its data available in a way that enables a wider range of people to help make the government function better,’ Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig said. ‘That means more transparency in what the government is doing and more opportunity for people to leverage government data to produce insights or other great business models.’ The eight simple principles — that data should be complete, primary, timely, accessible, machine-processable, nondiscriminatory, nonproprietary and license-free — still serve as the foundation for what has become a burgeoning open-data movement.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

How does Elsevier’s text mining policy work with new UK TDM law? “In January, Elsevier announced a new text and data mining policy, which allows academic researchers at subscribing institutions to text mine subscribed content for non-commercial research purposes. Last week, a new UK text and data mining copyright exception came into force which allows researchers with lawful access to works to make copies of these for the purposes of non-commercial text and data mining. Accordingly, it’s is a good opportunity to reflect on how our policy and the exception work together. Elsevier has provided text and data mining support for researchers since 2006. We designed our policy framework to span across all legal environments as research is global, and this framework complements the UK exception. Since the beginning of the year, in accordance with our policy, we have started to include text and data mining rights for non-commercial purposes in all new ScienceDirect subscription agreements and upon renewal for existing academic customers. The UK law adds weight to our position; we are ensuring that those with “lawful access” (in UK legislation speak) have the right to mine our works. Contrary to what some have suggested, our policy was not designed to undermine library lobbying for copyright exceptions for text and data mining, but rather to position us to continue to offer flexible and scalable solutions to support researchers no matter where they are based. What the law alone cannot do – in the UK or elsewhere – is resolve some of the technical sticking points that often frustrate a researcher’s mining experience. That’s why our policy facilitates text mining via an Application Programming Interface (API).” More here.
Source: @MikeTaylor

Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books in a digital environment, by Alex Clark and Brenda Chawner. “This paper explores restrictions that are being applied to New Zealand public domain books once they have been digitized and hosted online. The study assesses access and usage restrictions within six online repositories, using a sample of 100 pre–1890 New Zealand heritage books. The findings indicate that new restrictions are being applied to works no longer protected by copyright. Out of the 50 titles that had been digitized, only three were hosted by repositories that do not restrict any type of subsequent use. Furthermore, 48 percent (24) were subject to access restrictions. Copyright law’s delicate balance between public and private interests is being eroded by the prevalence of online terms and conditions, which invoke the doctrine of contract law in an attempt to restrict the public domain and opt–out of limitations upon copyright. Furthermore, ambiguity surrounding the copyright status of some books is encouraging digitizers to adopt restrictive access policies, even when a work is highly likely to be in the public domain. Unless clear rules of online curatorship are articulated within legislation, previously liberated public domain works are at risk of being restricted by online intermediaries.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Canadian Federation for the Humanities & Social Sciences seeks input for OA policy for Scholarly Publications Program. “In October 2013, the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences embarked on a multi-year project to develop an Open Access policy for the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program (ASPP). The initial phase focused on research and information gathering, including a scan of international and Canadian policy and practice, and informal discussions with several groups from Canada and around the world. Out of this process, the Federation developed a draft policy position for consultation […] The Federation is seeking input on this draft policy for the ASPP. A public event was held at the Congress for the Humanities and Social Sciences on Sunday, May 25. Following this event, the Federation has launched an online consultation. The consultation period will close September 18, 2014.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

WikiProject Open Access launched on the English Wikisource. “During the Zürich Hackathon 2014, WikiProject Open Access was launched on the English Wikisource. Furthermore, progress was made in the Open Access Signalling project in a number of ways: building on previous work on the most cited DOIs on the English Wikipedia (see April report), the DOIs issued by publishers whose articles are mostly openly licensed were identified. Of the 9327 DOIs cited at least once from mainspace pages on the English Wikipedia, 250 were cited at least five times, and 49 at least ten times. Of these, nine were selected to test automated import into Wikisource, for which a pipeline was then developed and tested, with the results being made available via a subpage of the newly founded WikiProject Open Access. More details here. In parallel, previews of new icons for Wikimedia projects became available, which fit neatly into the concept of the Open Access Signalling project.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

The Conversation: Time to discard the metric that decides how science is rated. “Scientists, like other professionals, need ways to evaluate themselves and their colleagues. These evaluations are necessary for better everyday management: hiring, promotions, awarding grants and so on. One evaluation metric has dominated these decisions, and that is doing more harm than good. This metric, called the journal impact factor or just impact factor, and released annually, counts the average number of times a particular journal’s articles are cited by other scientists in subsequent publications over a certain period of time. The upshot is that it creates a hierarchy among journals, and scientists vie to get their research published in a journal with a higher impact factor, in the hope of advancing their careers. The trouble is that impact factor of journals where researchers publish their work is a poor surrogate to measure an individual researcher’s accomplishments. Because the range of citations to articles in a journal is so large, the impact factor of a journal is not really a good predictor of the number of citations to any individual article. The flaws in this metric have been acknowledged widely – it lacks transparency and, most of all, it has unintended effects on how science gets done.” More here.
Source: @mbeisen

Open Access appeal to researchers | UM – Maastricht University LibraryUM – Maastricht University Library. “Open Access is a hot topic in the Netherlands, even during academic ceremonies. Recently, Professor Gerard Meijer called on researchers to ‘actively contribute to the open accessibility of our scientific publications’. Meijer is the President of the Radboud University Nijmegen Executive Board. He delivered his speech on Open Access on 15 May 2014, to celebrate the 91st anniversary of the university.”
Source: @alpsp

Fact sheet on “Open access to publications and data in Horizon 2020: FAQ”. “Affordable and easy access to scientific information is very important for the scientific community itself, but also increasingly important for innovative small businesses. Improving access to scientific information is also about increasing openness and transparency, which are essential features of Responsible Research and Innovation and contributes to better policy-making.All projects receiving Horizon 2020 funding will have the obligation to make sure any peer-reviewed journal article which they publish is openly accessible, free of charge. This fact sheet is written as a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document, in order to answer queries received from Horizon 2020 applicants. This fact sheet should be read in parallel with the “Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020”.” Download here.
Source: @alpsp

Wellcome: Improvements to the ORCID Researcher Identification System. “Telling Jane Smith from John Smith might be easy in person, but when you’re searching academic libraries, it can prove a little trickier. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) system (of which the Wellcome Trust is a member aims to help solve this problem, and lots more besides.Jonathan Kram, from the Evaluation team at the Wellcome Trust explains more…”
Source: @KeitaBando

NISO Altmetrics Standards Project White Paper v. 4. “In the first phase of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project (July 2013 through June 2014), three in-person meetings were held and 30 in-person interviews conducted. The goal was to collect input from all relevant stakeholder groups, summarize the discussion in this white paper, and identify potential action items for further work in Phase II of the project. Because of the open format used in the meetings and interviews, we were able to collect a broad range of input that touched on many aspects of metrics and assessment, which also includes input not directly related to standards or best practices. Overall there were very lively discussions with much consensus as to the areas that need further work and very little controversial discussion. These observations are a good indication that an evolving community cares about this topic and that we can expect productive work going forward. Overall, a total of 25 action items in 9 categories were identified, listed below and again within each category.” More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

Rene Bekkers: Conditional Review Acceptance Policy. “Here’s CRAP: a new policy regarding review requests I’ve decided to try out. CRAP means Conditional Review Acceptance Policy, the new default response to review requests. I will perform review only if the journal agrees to publish the article in a Free Open Access mode – making the article publicly available, without charging any fees for it from universities, authors, or readers. Here’s the story behind CRAP. If you’re an academic, you will recognize the pattern: you get an ‘invitation’ or a ‘request’ to review a paper submitted to the journal because ‘you have been identified as an expert on the topic’. If you’re serious about the job, you easily spend half a day reading the article, thinking about the innovations in the research questions, the consistency of the hypotheses, wondering why previous research was ignored, vetting the reliability and the validity of the data and methods used, checking the tables, leaving aside the errors in references which the author copied from a previously published article. As a reviewer accepting the task to review a paper you sometimes get a 25% discount on the hugely overpriced books by the publisher or access to journal articles which your university library already paid for.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Times Higher Education: Resignations threat over Taylor & Francis ‘censorship’. ‘A journal’s editorial board has been left on the brink of resignation after an eight-month standoff with its publisher Taylor & Francis over the publication of a debate on academic publishing and the profits made by major firms. The debate, in the journal Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, was due to appear last September, but was delayed by Taylor & Francis and published only at the end of last month. Its “proposition” paper, “Publisher, be damned! from price gouging to the open road”, by four academics from the University of Leicester’s School of Management, criticises the large profits made by commercial publishers on the back of academics’ labours, and the failure of the Finch report on open access to address them. The paper compares academic publishing with the music industry, which, it says, has “booming” sales after lowering prices in the face of widespread piracy. It suggests that “doing nothing to prevent the trading of electronic copies of our academic work” could also force prices down in publishing. The journal’s general editor, Stuart Macdonald, a visiting professor of economics at Aalto University in Finland, said the non-appearance of the journal in September was followed, two months later, by a letter from a senior manager at Taylor & Francis demanding that more than half of the proposition article be cut.’ More here.
Source: @skreilly

Metadata and Open Access: Reliably Finding: Content and Finding Reliable Content, by Sommer Browning, Jean-Claude Guédon and Laurie Kaplan. “Metadata and open access publishing continue to be topics of debate and discussion in the popular media, blogs, and listservs. Different points of view exist among librarians, researchers, publishers, and others, and several examples will be presented regarding open access journals and articles and digital data from the perspective of metadata and accessibility. Open access content is the utmost accessible content, if students and researchers know how to find it and know how to judge whether what they find is worthy of inclusion in their research. The discussion will focus on how to make open access publications and articles more accessible. Questions the paper will strive to answer are:

  • What metadata elements would help academic librarians and researchers find these resources within the larger databases, institutional repositories, and/or discovery services?
  • How do librarians vet open access publications for research by students and faculty? How do they determine which titles to include in their catalogs and how to catalog them?
  • What additional information would be helpful? What role could publishers of directories and providers of link, search, and discovery services play to that would lead to open access content?
  • How can metadata better describe digital data and make it more accessible to researchers?”

More here.
Source: @oatp

20 ways to reuse repository content.

20 ways to reuse repository contentSources: @nataliafay & @lastic

Elsevier: Librarians and Research Impact. “More and more librarians are being called upon to help track and report on the outputs and impact of research. From a landscape of article and book citations, the vista has broadened to a range of research outputs, measures and applications. Download and share the new infographic from Elsevier’s Library Connect and Jenny Delasalle, a freelance consultant and librarian. It tells the story of how librarians are working with researchers and the research office to measure research impact and to explore the application of these measurements.”

Librarians & Research Impact, by Elsevier's Library Connect and Jenny Delasalle

Librarians & Research Impact, by Elsevier’s Library Connect and Jenny Delasalle

More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

Open Access in India: Q&A with Subbiah Arunachalam. “Today the world is awash with OA advocates, and the number of them grows year by year. But it was not always thus. When Chennai-based information scientistSubbiah Arunachalam began calling for OA, for instance, there were hardly any other OA advocates in India, and not a great many more in the rest of the world either. Yet like all developing countries, India faced (and continues to face) a serious access problem with regard to the scholarly literature — a function of the fact that the costs of subscribing to scholarly journals are very high, and these costs consistently rise at a faster rate than overall inflation. As a result, Indian scientists do not have access to all the journals they need to do their job properly.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Twitter Open Access Report – 27 May 2014

Privacy and the Open Access Button.

  • The Open Access Button will not display your exact location if you share your browser location with us. The location shown is an approximate location where the coordinates given from your browser are rounded off.
  • You are free not to enter your full name, or even an accurate name into the tool.
  • Our data is available for download, however we do not share email addresses or names as part of this.
  • Data can be deleted upon request.

More here.
Source: @RickyPo

LSE Blogs: Publishers respond to growing need for collaboration by offering an open access home for interdisciplinary research. “The new journal Palgrave Communications aims to support interdisciplinary development by offering a high-quality outlet for research in the humanities, the social sciences and business, hoping to foster interaction, creativity and reflection within and between disciplines. Sam Burridge provides an initial overview of the new outlet. But developing truly collaborative research takes time, a feature with little appreciation in funding and policy demands, and dialogue. Editorial board member Michele Acuto finds that as we strive for truly interdisciplinary research, between social and natural sciences, and for truly global research, as a balanced dialogue between north and south, the issue of how and where we publish is an important facet of interdisciplinary development.” More here.
Source: @LSEImpactBlog

Academic citation practices need to be modernized so that all references are digital and lead to full texts. “Researchers and academics spend a lot of time documenting the sources of the ideas, methods and evidence they have drawn on in their own writings. But Patrick Dunleavywrites that our existing citation and referencing practices are now woefully out of date and no longer fit for purpose. The whole scholarly purpose of citing sources has changed around us, but our conventions have not recognized the change nor adapted yet. Below he sets out what’s wrong with what we do now, and then sketches a radical agenda for starting afresh.” More here.
Source: @LSEImpactBlog

The tech behind digitizing the Vatican Library : Open access for all | #EMCWorld. “In its 500-year history, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (the Vatican Library) has only allowed 20 percent of its 80,000 plus manuscript collection to be studied. On top of that, it’s extremely difficult to get access to the library. Now, the Vatican is working to digitize its collection so everyone can have open access to this historic archive.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

Justice Everywhere: Should Teaching be Open Access? “Do online educational resources actually help people learn?  Much here might depend on ideas about learning theory.  Those who think we learn through stimulus and repetition (‘behaviouralists’ and, to some extent, ‘cognitivists’) are likely to place greater value on the idea than those who think we learn through communication and collaboration (‘collectivists’ or ‘constructivists’). But formats might be tinkered to respond to what would be most beneficial here, and, in any case, does not the potential of the benefits outlined above suggest that it is worth a try?” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Four Berkeley professors launch new nonprofit to advance the publishing rights of authors in the digital age. “Four UC Berkeley professors united in a desire to support writers and other creators in spreading the reach of their work in the digital age – while better understanding their publishing rights – launched a new nonprofit Wednesday (May 21) at the Internet Archive in San Francisco. Founders of the organization, called the Authors Alliance, aim to realize the promise of digital technology, such as online journals and e-books, for the wide dissemination of knowledge and culture for the public good. Members also want to help authors and creators of work from photos to music overcome new challenges that they said “threaten to condemn works to obscurity, orphanhood and oblivion.” The Authors Alliance will provide educational tools, events and public interest advocacy to help authors understand their rights and “to better be read, seen and heard,” organizers said.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Authors Alliance launches on 21 May. “The Authors Alliance embraces the unprecedented potential digital networks have for the creation and distribution of knowledge and culture. We represent the interests of authors who want to harness this potential to share their creations more broadly in order to serve the public good. Unfortunately, authors face many barriers that prevent the full realization of this potential to enhance public access to knowledge and creativity. Authors who are eager to share their existing works may discover that those works are out of print, un-digitized, and subject to copyrights signed away long before the digital age. Authors who are eager to share new works may feel torn between publication outlets that maximize public access and others that restrict access but provide important value in terms of peer review, prestige, or monetary reward. Authors may also struggle to understand how to navigate fair use and the rights clearance process in order to lawfully build on existing works. The mission of Authors Alliance is to further the public interest in facilitating widespread access to works of authorship by assisting and representing authors who want to disseminate knowledge and products of the imagination broadly. We provide information and tools designed to help authors better understand and manage key legal, technological, and institutional aspects of authorship in the digital age. We are also a voice for authors in discussions about public and institutional policies that might promote or inhibit the broad dissemination they seek.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Bournemouth University Research Blog: Want to know how to publish a journal article and retain your rights? “The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement and allows you to keep key rights to your articles. The Author Addendum is a free resource developed by SPARC in partnership with Creative Commons and Science Commons, established non-profit organizations that offer a range of copyright options for many different creative endeavors.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Metropolitan Museum Initiative Provides Free Access to 400,000 Digital Images. ‘Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, announced today that more than 400,000 high-resolution digital images of public domain works in the Museum’s world-renowned collection may be downloaded directly from the Museum’s website for non-commercial use—including in scholarly publications in any media—without permission from the Museum and without a fee. The number of available images will increase as new digital files are added on a regular basis. In making the announcement, Mr. Campbell said: “Through this new, open-access policy, we join a growing number of museums that provide free access to images of art in the public domain. I am delighted that digital technology can open the doors to this trove of images from our encyclopedic collection.” ‘ More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Graduate Center at the City University of New York debuts new institutional repository, Academic Works. “Academic Works is a digital repository of the scholarly and creative works of Graduate Center faculty, students, and research centers. The Graduate Center Library administers this open access repository to preserve, showcase, and facilitate access to these works, which include articles, dissertations, and much more.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Summary Report. “A preliminary report summarising results of the first KU pilot is now available for download. The report provides information about: the pilot’s objectives, how the collection was created and marketed, as well as key pilot outcomes, including how books were licenced, who signed up, and challenges for next rounds. A more detailed report is also being prepared and will be released in the next few months.” View the report here.
Source: @RickyPo

DOAJ publishes lists of journals removed and added. View list here.
Source: @RickyPo

OASPA: Growth of Articles Published in Fully OA Journals Using a CC-BY License. “A total of 399,854 articles were published with the CC-BY license by members of OASPA during the period shown above, with 120,972 of those being published in 2013 alone. These numbers only include articles that were published in journals whose entire content is Open Access, so articles that were published in hybrid OA journals are not included.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

The Scholarly Kitchen: Open Access: Fundamentals to Fundamentalists, by Robert Harington. “Libraries have an advocacy role to play. Libraries could look at subscriptions to content outside of the big deal first and foremost. Let it be advantageous to the market to break up the big deals and receive competitive pricing from society publishers, whether they are independent or tied to a commercial publisher. We know there is money in the pool, but rather than having sales be driven by scale, let’s reach a more market led approach of real need, nuanced by the variance in academic communities from anthropologists, to mathematicians to cardiology. Publishers need to fully embrace the notion that while their content is in demand, both in terms of an author base and reader base, we need an effective business model that does not over tax the system. On the one hand this is not about open access; on the other we should accept open access as a part of the fabric of publishing. Let’s move on to developing sustainable business models that promote the communication of science more effectively across all stakeholders.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Times Higher Education: IOP launches ‘offsetting’ scheme to cut cost of open access. “A publisher has launched a pilot with 21 UK universities to reduce their subscription costs in proportion to the amount of open access fees they pay. The “offsetting” arrangement devised by the Institute of Physics’ publishing arm will allow universities that subscribe to its “hybrid” journals to publish more open access papers in them without incurring greater costs. The additional cost associated with the transition to open access publishing has been a major bone of contention among research-intensive universities since the UK government endorsed the Finch Group’s recommendation for the UK to set a “clear policy direction” towards journal-provided gold open access, which often requires payment of an article fee.” More here.
Source: @oatp

The world’s first open textbooks released in the same month but on different continents. “In 2012, British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education (Canada) announced plans to create open textbook for the 40 most popular (highest enrolment) courses in first and second year of the post-secondary education system. The first textbooks are now available online. They can be downloaded for free in epub and mobi formats. Learners can also purchase a print copy for a low cost. The textbooks are published under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license, meaning that they can be modified and republished non-commercially, as long as they are properly attributed and licensed under identical terms. […] Nine time zones away, Poland has been tracing a similar path.  In April 2012 the Polish Council of Ministers committed 43 million PLN to develop open textbooks for grades 4 to 6 in primary schools.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

MIT Libraries: Two million downloads — a new open access milestone. “This month the MIT Faculty Open Access Policy hit a new milestone: papers made openly available through the Open Access Articles Collection have been downloaded over 2 million times. Total downloads from the collection of just under 12,000 papers reached 2,012,312 by the end of April, 2014. This new watershed was reached just one year after celebrating the 1 millionth download — a new peak of one million downloads in one year. Those are not the only new high water marks: In March, at the fifth anniversary of the faculty’s establishment of the Policy,montly downloads reached over 100,000 for the first time” More here.
Source: @petersuber

Times Higher Education: Technology’s value to humanities must be made clearer. ‘Evidence of the value of technology in the humanities is “thin on the ground”, and more must be done to make clear the benefits of computerised methods within the discipline, a conference is set to hear. Melissa Terras, director of  the University College London Centre for Digital Humanities, will tell the UCL Festival of the Arts that although digital techniques are widely used by humanities scholars, the vital role of technology within the discipline is frequently overlooked. “Evidence for the value of digital humanities, or the use of digital tools and techniques of any sort in the humanities, seems to be hidden,” Professor Terras told Times Higher Education, ahead of her “Decade in Digital Humanities” lecture, which will place at UCL on Tuesday. “For example, when people consult digitised items of historical documents, they tend to cite the original document itself, rather than the digital file available on the website: it can be incredibly hard to see evidence of people using newer digital methods in the reporting mechanisms which exist for humanities work, which always requires returning to the primary historical evidence as source, not its digital intermediary.”’ More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Twitter Open Access Report – 14 May 2014

Case studies of OA implementation & Jisc APC Pilot from range of (UK) universities. “The case studies will seek to highlight issues and challenges inherent in an OA environment and to make the Gold OA workflows more efficient, and therefore more effective.  In turn, we envision that they will assist those who are managing OA within an academic environment, as well as those developing infrastructures for Gold OA with their own methodologies, as well as underscore what Jisc APC potentially has to offer the OA marketplace.” Case studies from University College London, University of Leeds, University of Edinburgh,  University of Liverpool, Oxford University and Royal Holloway. More here.
Source: @CameronNeylon

Imperial College Open Access Blog: Open Access News, March-April 2014. ‘HEFCE have released their Open Access policy. […] The Research Information Network have released a report on Monitoring Progress in the Transition to Open Access, including proposals for a framework of indicators to monitor progress towards open access. […] From April 2014 onwards, the National Institute for Health Research will expect peer-reviewed articles to be made available as Gold OA, expecting full compliance within four years. […] Wellcome and NIH are withholding grant payments when OA obligations are not met (Imperial scholars have not been affected by this). […] The University of Konstanz has broken off license negotiations with Elsevier and will no longer subscribe to any Elsevier content. […] The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association has suspended Springer’s membership because of systematic problems with the editorial process at Springer revealed by the so-called “Open Access sting”.’ Read here.
Source: @RickyPo

Slides: Improving the Transparency and Credibility of Open Access Publishing by Lars Bjørnshauge, DOAJ. “Presentation on how DOAJ is striving to increase the transparency and credibility of open access publishing throughout research communities.” View here.
Source: @RickyPo

The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: The variability of the open access article processing charge, by Heather Morrison. “The purpose of this post is to share an early observation from the open access article processing charges research I’m working on with colleagues. In brief, the purpose of this post is to suggest whether it might be counter-productive to look for a specific open access article processing fee for each journal using this approach, as for example the proposed new DOAJ form for publishers does.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Workshop Social Sciences and Humanities meet ORCID: Towards a fruitful collaboration. “Within the IMPACT-EV project, the workshop on Social Sciences and Humanities meet ORCID: Towards a fruitful collaborationwill be a space not only for sharing information and advice in order to achieve successful individual participation with this ID, but also to discuss and reflect collectively about what the involvement of SSH should be. For example, given the flexibility and openness of ORCID towards the demands of researchers, we will have the opportunity to propose how we want our different areas to be recognized.” More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

Theme for 2014 International Open Access Week to be “Generation Open”. “The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) announced today that the theme for this year’s International Open Access Week is “Generation Open”.  The theme will highlight the importance of students and early career researchers as advocates for change in the short-term, through institutional and governmental policy, and as the future of the Academy upon whom the ultimate success of the Open Access movement depends.  The theme will also explore how changes in scholarly publishing affect scholars and researchers at different stages of their careers.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_NA

Times Higher Education: Academia.edu founder on Open Access dreams. “Discoveries by laypeople are rare but free access to research results would increase the likelihood, says Richard Price” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

WHO commits to open access by joining Europe PubMed Central. “The World Health Organization (WHO) announced today [1 May] that it will become a member of the open access repository Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC), joining 25 other life sciences and biomedical research funders. The announcement is in preparation for the launch of the WHO open access policy on 1 July 2014.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

New paper estimates: At least 114m English-language ‘scholarly documents’ on internet, of which 24% freely available. More here.
Source: @Richvn

Seminar: Open Access and Society: Impact and Engagement. A Taylor & Francis Seminar, in association with ALPSP and the Academy of Social Sciences 19th May 2014 | Thomas Lord Suite, Lord’s Cricket Ground, London. Details here.
Source: @TandFOpen

PeerJ Partners with Publons – Reviewers Get More Credit. “[W]e are very pleased to announce that PeerJ is the first publisher to enter into a formal partnership with Publons to facilitate this process. Although all of our public peer-reviews are reproduced under a CC-BY license (and hence are open for anyone to reuse) we are happy to have a more formal arrangement with Publons to make this happen in an ‘official’ manner.” More here.
Source: @thePeerJ

Stevens Institute of Technology Professor Releases Book on Open Standards and the Digital Age. “Andrew Russell, a Stevens Institute of Technology professor of History and Director of the Program in Science and Technology Studies in the College of Arts and Letters, recently published a book explaining how “openness” was a deliberate result that predates the origins of the Internet. His book, Open Standards and the Digital Age, highlights the historical and political history of how the internet evolved into an open platform. From open source software to open access publishing, it’s clear that “openness” is a defining principle of the twenty-first century. In fact, to a considerable degree, anyone of power obstructing openness is perceived as questionable, and whistleblowers as largely heroes—as seen in the recent example of Edward Snowden and the National Security Agency. Yet the standard of openness is not simply the inevitable outcome of the globalization of technology; it was a strategy that engineers used to promote the Internet’s global adoption.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Deutsche Welle: Open access is revolutionizing science, and it’s a growing research market online. “More and more scientists are publishing their results online. And as a result, it’s becoming easier to link to new knowledge. A Berlin-based platform called ScienceOpen wants to tap into that.” More here.
Source: @OpenAccessMKD

The Scholarly Kitchen: A Modest Proposal for Scaled-up Open Access, by Rick Anderson. “In April, K|N Consultants (Rebecca Kennison of Columbia University Libraries and Lisa Norberg of the Barnard College Library) released a much-anticipated white paper titled “A Scalable and Sustainable Approach to Open Access Publishing and Archiving for Humanities and Social Sciences.” […] The basic structure of Kennison and Norberg’s proposal is a three-way partnership between higher-education (HE) institutions (as funding bodies), libraries (as archives and distribution nodes) and scholarly societies (as gatherers, editors, and presenters of content). The basic idea is that HE institutions themselves—drawing on centrally-administered campus funds rather than library budgets—will make an annual contribution to a central fund, which will be administered by a not-for-profit entity to be determined in the future (though K|N Consultants suggests itself as a candidate). This fund would be used to underwrite the editorial operations of partner societies, freeing them from the need to charge subscription fees for their journals. Participant libraries would reallocate staff time from tasks previously associated with traditional subscription management to tasks associated with journal hosting and archiving. In the early stages of the project, private granting agencies will be solicited for matching funds to make the resource pool deeper and to mitigate the risk of early failure, making participation more attractive to HE institutions.” More here.
Source: @scholarlykitchn

 

Twitter Open Access Report – 29 Apr 2014

JURN’s big expansion and ‘spring cleaning’ is complete. “The open access search tool Jurn.org has just completed a significant expansion, undertaken throughout March/April 2014. Jurn.org had previously only indexed its core collection of over 4,000 arts and humanities ejournals, all open access or otherwise free. The new Jurn.org expansion has now added a large intake of business, science, biomedical and ecology related open access ejournals. Also new to Jurn.org are full-text theses at selected academic repositories, with an initial focus on including the bulk of the larger UK repositories. Jurn.org has been built by hand, and highly curated, over a period of five years. Jurn is non profit and ad-free.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

In the Library with the Lead Pipe » Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals. “This article presents an analysis of 111 Library and Information Science journals based on measurements of “openness” including copyright policies, open access self-archiving policies and open access publishing options. We propose a new metric to rank journals, the J.O.I. Factor (Journal Openness Index), based on measures of openness rather than perceived rank or citation impact. Finally, the article calls for librarians and researchers in LIS to examine our scholarly literature and hold it to the principles and standards that we are asking of other disciplines. [Also available as an EPUB for reading on mobile devices, or as a PDF.]” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Open Access, Institutionalised?: Or, Another Reason Why International Relations Is Failing As An Intellectual Project. “It has been many times been suggested that Editors and Editorial Boards should abandon journals that maintain closed policies, especially where that work is voluntary and the publishers are particularly mercenary. But we cannot even manage a moratorium on starting new journals on the same tired models (and there are plenty of those new journals that celebrate their own supposed ‘criticality’). At this rate, that will come with a choice between high APCs or the old bargain of subscription-funded invisibility. When that choice begins to bite, some will no doubt express surprise that our learned societies had not acted sooner to guarantee our relevance, or impact, or value. This is all the more depressing if we want to insist, as we should, that IR is not just about politics, but also has a politics in the world. Right now that politics is to burn up cash whilst drifting away, disinterested, from new possibilities and new publics. Institutionalisation is no great rupture in the Western knowledge tradition, and no automatic boon to the general intellect, but it’s something. Maybe we should consider it.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Open Access Button project starts work on Version 2.0. “The Open Access Button, which enables people to log when they hit paywalls to scholarly content and to find alternative routes to that content, is seeking £20,000 of funding for Version 2.0 of the tool, which is planned for launch in this October’s Open Access Week. The Open Access Button was founded by Joseph McArthur and David Carroll and an early version, built by a team of volunteer developers, was launched in October 2013. The founders say on their fundraising page, ‘So far we’ve mapped over 6500 moments of this injustice, but we know that this is just the beginning. There are stories of patients looking for information on their condition and treatment, students trying to do their homework, and researchers trying to advance our knowledge of the world we live in.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

MIT seeks better compliance with open-access policy. “Since the implementation of the Institute’s open-access policy in 2009, more than 11,000 articles have been posted on DSpace, MIT’s online archive of research. These represent 37 percent of the total number of papers published by the MIT faculty in that period. “That number is less than the majority of papers — it may not sound impressive, but its actually among the highest of MIT’s peers,” said Faculty Chair Steven Hall, who reported on a five-year review of the policy at a faculty meeting on April 16. The policy mandates that faculty members let MIT openly publish the “fruits of their research.” Hall hopes to form a committee in the fall that will consider what incentives MIT can offer to encourage authors to comply with the policy more often. The committee will also consider whether to extend the policy to the thousands of postdoctoral researchers, and perhaps even MIT students.” More here.
Source: @RDBinns

Friend of Open Access, by Stevan Harnad. “Fred Friend died two days ago. He had been a dedicated, tireless and inspired advocate for OA ever since the idea was first baptized with a name (Budapest 2001, where he was one of the original co-drafters and signatories of the BOAI). Fred’s commitment to OA did not, I believe, originate only ex officio, as Director of Scholarly Communication at UCL, in the serials crisis with which he and all other library directors have had to struggle for decades. Fred also had a profound sense of justice (one that extended beyond local happenings sub specie aeternitatis). He simply felt that OA was right. And what he did on its behalf he did out of character and conviction. (He was also extremely forgiving, as I can humbly attest.) Fred was, in his own words, a Friend of Open Access. It is undeniable that OA has now lost a precious ally. But I think it is equally undeniable (and I am sure Fred knew it too) that OA is unstoppable now. That is in no small part true thanks to the efforts of this modest and faithful Friend. Heartfelt sympathy to Fred’s family; I hope that in their pain they will also find room for some pride.” View here.
Source: @openarchives

Slideshow: Open Access Initiatives on a Regional and Global Scale: EIFL, OASPA, COAR and NDLTD, by Iryna Kuchma. “The presentation covers EIFL’s open access programme, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR), Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and Open Access Publishers Association (OASPA).” View here.
Source: @oatp

Opening Access to Research, by Mark Armstrong. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. “Traditionally, the scholarly journal market operates so that research institutions are charged high prices and the wider public is often excluded altogether, while authors can usually publish for free and commercial publishers enjoy high profits. Two forms of open access regulation can mitigate these problems: (i) direct price regulation of the form whereby a journal must charge a price of zero to all readers, or (ii) mandating authors or publishers to make freely available an inferior substitute to the published paper. The former policy is likely to result in authors paying to publish, which may lead to a reduction in the quantity of published papers and may make authors less willing to publish in selective journals. Recent UK policy towards open access is discussed.” Read here.
Source: @oatp

OKFN: Green on the possibilities of open education.”I was recently invited to join the Advisory Board of Open Knowledge’s Open Education Working Group and I quickly accepted. The aim of the group, “to initiate global cross-sector and cross-domain activity that encompasses the various facets of open education,” is perfectly inline with the open education, policy, access, data, science, legal and government work we do at Creative Commons. I firmly believe that the world is shifting from closed to open and that we need all hands on deck and all open organizations and advocates fully connected and coordinated if we are to leverage this historic opportunity. The opportunity? For the first time in human history, most of the world’s knowledge, research, data, and educational resources are digital. Digital things cost almost nothing to store, distribute and copy…and we can share these digital things, at the marginal cost of $0, under Creative Commons licenses with the world. Further, governments and other funders are starting to require that publicly funded resources are openly licensed resources.” More here.
Source: @creativecommons

Chronicle: A Public Library of the Humanities? An Interview with Martin Paul Eve. “This is the tenth interview in a series, Digital Challenges to Academic Publishing, byAdeline Koh. Each article in this series features an interview with an academic publisher, press or journal editor on how their organization is changing in response to the digital world. The series has featured interviews with Duke University Press, Anvil Academic,NYU Press, MIT Press and the Penn State University Press. In this interview I speak with Martin Paul Eve (@martin_eve, Lecturer in English at the University of Lincoln, UK and co-founder of the Open Library of Humanities.” View here.
Source: @openlibhums

Research Information: The impact of impact, by Ernesto Priego. “Cultural change in scholarly communication is often imposed rather than encouraged and this has led to a series of negative sentiments associated with the word ‘impact’. There is an increasing polarisation, in both discourse and practice, between visions of the future  and the pragmatic limitations still experienced by many. So far the voices of funders have been heard (or mis-heard), as have the voices of some key players of the academic publishing industry. However, not all researchers, and particularly surprisingly to me, not all PhD students and early career researchers, are fully invested in the debates. The old dictum of ‘publish or perish’ has turned academic publishing into an empty signifier, a landmark to reach in order to get a stamp on the passport. You could say that publishing has become the process where content goes to die. Researchers move on after publishing an output as there’s pressure to publish more and more, and many publishers consider the job done once the content (or often rather just the URL, or the abstract) is online.” More here.
Source: @openlibhums

The Comics Grid: The Cost of Academic Publishing, by Michelle Brook. “What could the UK academic community do with £14.5 million? That is the same as the yearly tuition fees for over 1600 undergraduates paying £9,000 fees. And that is what just 19 Universities in the UK are spending in total during a single year on journal subscriptions to a single publisher. The act of publishing research has an intrinsic cost, and I don’t know anyone who claims otherwise. However, the key questions we as an academic community should be asking is how much this publishing process costs, and if we are receiving value for money. But we can’t answer these questions. Because we don’t know how much academic publishing costs. Historically, the costs of scientific research publication have been covered through subscriptions to academic journals in which the research has been published. Alternative business models are beginning to develop, but the majority of research around the world is still published in journals to which subscriptions are required. Individual academics are largely protected from the costs of access to these journals. Libraries at universities are largely responsible for managing institution wide access to journals, and through JISC negotiate these subscription costs.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Slideshow: Disciplinary Differences in Twitter Scholarly Communication, by Kim Holmberg and Mike Thelwall. “This paper investigates disciplinary differences in how researchers use the microblogging site Twitter. Tweets from researchers in five disciplines (astrophysics, biochemistry, digital humanities, economics, and history of science) were collected and analyzed both statistically and qualitatively. The results suggest that researchers tend to share more links and retweet more than the average Twitter users in earlier research. The results also suggest that there are clear disciplinary differences in how researchers use Twitter. Biochemists retweet substantially more than researchers in the other disciplines. Researchers in digital humanities use Twitter more for conversations, while researchers in economics share more links than other researchers. The results also suggest that researchers in biochemistry, astrophysics and digital humanities are using Twitter for scholarly communication, while scientific use of Twitter in economics and history of science is marginal.” View here.
Source: @KUnlatched

Imperial College London’s total spend on Elsevier journals in 2014 is £1,340,213 (excluding VAT). Details.
Source: @RickyPo

The Guardian: Is UK humanities research reaching the widest possible audience? by Martin Paul Eve. “Today marks the launch of another report on open access, a topic area that is rapidly becoming saturated. The latest document, funded by theHigher Education Funding Council of England (Hefce) and overseen by the British Academy, specifically focuses on the humanities and social sciences in an international environment. The conclusions are fairly clear:

• Hefce’s “green” open access recommendations (research accessed via digital repositories) – with up to 24 month embargoes and allowances for exemptions – meet with approval.

• Research Councils UK (RCUK) is unrealistic and its policies, we are told, “pose serious dangers for the international standing of UK research in the humanities”.

While such work is welcome, it must be stressed that there are also some problems with the research here. The most notable problem is the fact that the researchers destroyed datasets in order to preserve commercial confidentiality. Nobody can, therefore, check these findings and they must be treated with caution.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Times Higher Education: British Academy fears for humanities in open access world. “Research Councils UK’s open access policy poses “serious dangers for the international standing of UK research in the humanities”, a report by the British Academy has warned. Open Access Journals in Humanities and Social Science, published on 17 April, examines the practical issues raised for these disciplines by the UK’s move to open access. Critics have said these fields will find the transition particularly difficult. The report, whose lead author is Chris Wickham, British Academy vice-president of publications and Chichele professor of medieval history at the University of Oxford, says the level of compliance with UK open access policy by non-UK journals in English and modern languages may be as low as 20 per cent. It suspects the same may be true for art history and music, where open access is hampered by copyright issues for images and scores. Only about half of non-UK journals in history, archaeology, philosophy, politics and drama are compliant.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Do you know the institutions around you that can help you to fund your Open Access articles? PLoS created a list detailed by country and even by university. View here.
Source: @OA_Button

Springer finally retracts (instead of removing) 18 fake conference proceeding papers discovered last month.
Source: @OA_Button

Research Information: New resource aims to provide quality insight into OA resources. “The ISSN team, with funding from UNESCO, saw an opportunity to help join up the dots. The result, which launched in beta in December 2013 as a subset of the ISSN Register, is ROAD – the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources. ROAD includes a range of OA resources, including journals, conferences proceedings, monographs, and institutional repositories. Content is chosen for inclusion in the directory based on the criteria that there is open access to the whole content of the resource (free registration is accepted); no moving wall; the resource comprises mainly research papers; and the audience is mostly researchers and scholars. Currently hybrid journals are not part of the project. Pelegrin said that this decision was made to limit the scope during the pilot phase of the project. However, he said that this is something that might be considered in the future if it is valuable to users. Similarly, he said that identifying predatory journals is not part of scope of the project, although sometimes ISSNs are not assigned for such titles. ‘Beall’s list is very good at this role but based on negative criteria. ROAD is based on positive criteria,’ he explained. The way that ROAD works is that ISSN records that describe OA resources are marked with a devoted code so that they can be published in ROAD. These ROAD codes are added by the ISSN National Centres when creating the records, or retrospectively by the ISSN International Centre. The ISSN records are then enriched with data taken from external sources such as journal indicators, indexing-abstracting services and registries.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Steven Harnad: The Only Way to Make Inflated Subscriptions Unsustainable: Mandate Green OA. “The only effective way to make inflated subscriptions unsustainable is for funders and institutions to mandate Green OA self-archiving. Tim Gowers is quite right that “the pace of change is slow, and the alternative system that is most strongly promoted — open access articles paid for by article processing charges [“Gold OA”] — is one that mathematicians tend to find unpalatable. (And not only mathematicians: they are extremely unpopular in the humanities.)… there is no sign that they will help to bring down costs any time soon and no convincing market mechanism by which one might expect them to.” This is all true as long as the other form of OA (“Green OA” self-archiving by authors of published articles in OA repsositories, mandated by funders and institutions) has not prevailed. Pre-Green Gold is “Fool’s-Gold.” Only Post-Green Gold is Fair-Gold.” More here.
Source: @AmSciForum

Scholarly Kitchen: Strategic Thinking Exercise — Who Is Positioned to Keep Gold Open Access Growing? by Kent Anderson. “Strategic thinking can force you to face uncomfortable realities. It often shakes up your assumptions — but it’s necessary in order to anticipate and plan, to play where the puck is going rather than where it’s been. Part of the role of publishers and business leaders is to look ahead, sense where how the business environment is developing, and make judgments accordingly — often on incomplete information. In this light, a question has been dogging the strategic thinking part of my brain recently — basically, who is going to keep Gold open access (OA) growing?” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Twitter Open Access Report – 8 Apr 2014

The Euroscientist interviews Stephen Curry on open access. “The Euroscientist asks 5 questions on open access to Stephen Curry, Professor of Structural Biology at Imperial College, London, UK, author of Reciprocal Space blog http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/ and blogger for the Guardian newspaper. Read our full report on open access published on http://euroscientist.com/open-access/” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

ORCID & CASRAI Kick-off New Standards Project on ‘Peer Review Services’. “In addition to integrating ORCID identifiers into manuscript submission and grant application workflows, publishers and funders have been adding the identifiers into reviewer workflows. From this, a question arose as to how to acknowledge review activities in ORCID. To address this need, ORCID has asked CASRAI to facilitate a new standards project focusing on Peer Review Services Contributions. The participant-funded project is the first in a new program of International Projects being launched by CASRAI. An international working group has been convened, with members representing associations, publishers, and funder organizations (see list below). The group is co-chaired by Rebecca Lawrence of F1000 Research and Laura Paglione of ORCID. Organizations serving on the working group are Autism Speaks, Denison University, Cambridge University Press, American Geophysical Union, Origin Editorial, University of Split, and Hypothes.is.” More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: Dramatic Growth of Open Access First Quarter 2014. “Highlights this quarter: three open access initiatives illustrating particularly strong growth this quarter are featured (Directory of Open Access Books, Highwire Press free sites, and PubMedCentral with 5 of the top 15 spots by quarterly growth rate). The number of journals in DOAJ has decreased this quarter; please note that this reflects a vigorous weeding process at DOAJ rather than a decrease in fully open access journals. For example, the number of articles searchable at the article level through DOAJ increased by over 21,000 this quarter. To download the full datasets or the most recent rationale and method, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Access dataverse at Morrison, Heather, 2014-03, “Dramatic Growth of Open Access”,http://hdl.handle.net/10864/10660 Morrison, Heather [Distributor] V1 [Version]” More here.
Source: @jeroenson

Mellon Foundation awards grant to the Open Library of Humanities. “We are delighted to be able to announce that the OLH is being funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, who have provided an initial planning grant to the University of Lincoln to build the technological platform, business model and prepare for launching both our megajournal and monograph pilot scheme. This is fantastic news and signals the significant international interest in the OLH. With the funds provided by the Foundation, we will spend the next 12 months undertaking three core tasks:

  1. building our business model to ensure the sustainability of the OLH
  2. soliciting articles and processing them through our rigorous peer reviewed system
  3. constructing the technological infrastructure (in partnership with Ubiquity Press)”

More here.
Source: @tmccormick

UK working group proposal for detailed study of #OA uptake released. Read report here.
Source: @ubiquitypress

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)  implements “Gold” approach to Open Access. “Any peer-reviewed research articles supported in whole or in part by NIHR funding, that are submitted for publication and published  from 1st April 2014 should be made available under the “Gold” approach to Open Access – which means the report is free at the time of publication. This includes review articles not commissioned by publishers, final reports or executive summaries.  The NIHR recognises that there will be progressive implementation, but expects full compliance in four years. NIHR Programmes will monitor compliance with this policy and will be providing further guidance on how to comply with the policy over the summer. Full details on the revised policy will be made available shortly, in the meantime, the existing policycan be found at [link]” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

LSE Blogs: Open access is not enough; we must learn how to communicate our research to make it truly accessible. “Open access debates have long been fostered by science disciplines but to make open access work truly powerful, we must make the same push for quality research presented in an accessible manner, writes Brant Moscovitch.” Read here.
Source: @LSEImpactBlog

LSE Blogs: Impact Round-Up 5th April: Open access mandates, academic freedom, and homo academicus.”Managing Editor Sierra Williams presents a round-up of popular stories from around the web on higher education, academic impact, and trends in scholarly communication.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Wellcome Trust: The cost of open access publishing: a progress report. “We expect every publisher who levies on open access fee to provide a first class service to our researchers and their institutions. We recognise that subscription-based publishers are actively developing their systems (see this article) to accommodate the open access business model and we urge them to makes these changes as quickly as possible. Even though there are only a small number of articles that the Wellcome Trust has paid to be open access that have remained behind a pay-wall, this is not an acceptable situation in any instance. The bigger issue concerns the high cost of hybrid open access publishing, which we have found to be nearly twice that of born-digital fully open access journals. We need to find ways of balancing this by working with others to encourage the development of a transparent, competitive and reasonably priced APC market. Finally we would like to extend many thanks to all those who have enriched our data and highlighted the problems. Crowdsourcing analysis of this data has proved to be highly effective and truly in the spirit of the open access thinking of the Wellcome Trust. With you, we will continue to monitor this space to ensure that our open access requirements are fully adhered to.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Information Today: Open Access: Progress, Possibilities, and the Changing Scholarly Communications Ecosystem. “Passing a mandate is step one; getting researchers to deposit their articles into the repository in compliance with university policies and funding agency policies can be an ongoing battle. The University of Minho in Portugal had one of the first open access mandates, and it still has one of the highest compliance rates among universities with such mandates. In 2013, approximately 70% of the university’s research outputs was deposited into the repository in compliance with the policy. Eloy Rodrigues, director, Documentation Services, University of Minho, was succinct when asked about the critical elements for the University of Minho’s success in this area: “To have a strong and clear mandate, with monitoring tools and procedures, and connect [the OA mandate] with individual and institutional repository and evaluation.” As we approach the 10th anniversary of the earliest university OA policies—University of Minho passed its mandate in 2004—best practices for content recruitment from universities of all shapes, sizes, and locations are starting to emerge. In 2013, COAR published the report “Incentives, Integration, and Mediation: Sustainable Practices for Populating Repositories” (coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-content/sustainable-practices-for-populating-repositories-report). ” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Impacstory makes case for open access peer review journals.”The scholarly open access journal movement seems to be getting quite a bit of momentum behind it, and one instance of this is Impactstory, “a nonprofit, open-source webapp that helps scientists discover and share the full impact of their research.” Now Impactstory has just shared a detailed breakdown of the case in favor of the “online-only, open access journals that cover many subjects and publish content based only on whether it is scientifically sound” – megajournals, in Impacstory’s terminology. However, while all for the argument that megajournals “offer a path to a more efficient, faster, more open scholarly publishing world,” Impactstory admits that they do “carry some potential career liabilities.” And their introduction is a guide to how to avoid those. Much of the guide, admittedly, is devoted to advice on how to dispel those liabilities by evangelizing skeptical peers and co-authors with the arguments for megajournals: they publish prestigious science, they boost citation and readership impact, they promote real-world use, they publish fast, and they save money (in the case of the curious academic practice of paying for publication – not exactly vanity publishing, but still …). There’s also arguments – and data – to foster wider readership of megajournals; and to blunt the impact of megajournal publication on a researcher’s CV by showing their reach. Because, as the authors also admit, “it’s a sad fact that reviewers for tenure and promotion often judge the quality of articles by the journal of publication when skimming CVs. Most megajournal titles won’t ring any bells (yet).” So they demonstrate ways – including of course, Impactstory itself – to prove the impact of megajournal publication.” More here.
Source: @researchremix

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) announces its new open access policy for after the 2014 Research Excellence Framework. “The policy describes new eligibility requirements for outputs submitted to the post-2014 REF. These requirements apply to all journal articles and conference proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016. They do not apply to monographs, other long-form publications, creative or non-text outputs, or data. The requirements state that peer-reviewed manuscripts must be deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication. The title and author of these deposits, and other descriptive information, [Note 1] must be discoverable straight away by anyone with a search engine. The manuscripts must then be accessible for anyone to read and download once any embargo period has elapsed. There are limited exceptions to the policy, where depositing and arranging access to the manuscript is not achievable. This policy was developed following an extensive two-stage consultation during 2013, to which we received over 460 written responses.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

The New York Public Library has announced that over 20,000 maps and cartographic works will be open access. The maps are being distributed under a Creative Commons Public Domain dedication and are available for high resolution downloads.
Source: @OA_Button

Open Library of Humanities explains how it plans to host overlay journals. “One of the unique features that will help us break into the publishing space is a curation mechanism of overlay journals. These are, in essence, co-branded journals that run on top of the OLH platform. Editors within that journal put together content through two routes:

  1. Through direct submission to that overlay journal (in exactly the same way as a conventional academic journal). This material, therefore, will appear in that overlay journal but also in the base OLH platform (across which all users can search). Review is overseen by the editors of the overlay journal and the process is then vetted by OLH section editors and made transparently available.
  2. Through curation of material that has been pre-published elsewhere in the OLH platform.”

More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Open Library of Humanities elaborates on business model that will allow it to provide APC-free publishing. “Our proposed alternative is a system of Library Partnership Subsidy (LPS). arXiv, the repository for electronic preprints in maths, physics, computer science and astronomy held at Cornell University, has shown that it is possible for libraries to support an infrastructure instead of simply purchasing journals. The economies of scale that are achieved here can be staggering. To fund an operation publishing 250 articles and 12 books in partnership with reputable presses per year, we need a banded average of just $700 from 500 libraries. If 1000 libraries participated, this cost is lowered to $350. On the $700 rate that’s a cost to each library of $2.80 per article. And you get 12 books per year (as part of our monograph pilot study). This becomes cheaper with every library that joins. In this way there will be no Article Processing Charges for authorsThis is the way to end the serials crisis, not by transitioning to a straight supply-side rate at the cost levied by many commercial publishers.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

ALPSP Webinar: Implementing Creative Commons licences. “Thursday 22 May 2014, online, 3:00 – 4:30 GMT UK, 10:00 – 11:30 EST USA, 4:00 – 5:30 CET * Speakers: Lucie Guibault, University of Amsterdam, Rhodri Jackson, Oxford University Press and Verity Warne, Wiley. Overview: With RCUK’s adoption of its new Open Access policy, and with similar policy moves being considered by other research funding bodies around the world, Creative Commons licences are becoming routine business for scholarly publishing. Not all publishers will have the resources and expertise to easily accommodate CC licences into their workflows, and many publishers will be wondering what implications the adoption of CC licences has for the relationship with their authors. This webinar is intended to provide a brief, practical overview of what CC licences are, how they can be implemented by publishers, and how authors are likely to respond to them. It will draw on the experience of publishers who have already implemented CC licences into their systems and workflows, and on a recent large-scale author survey. It will also look at how CC licences can be used with third-party material, such as images and figures that the author is reusing from another source.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Knowledge Unlatched tests new open-access model. “Non-profit group Knowledge Unlatched has launched an open-access model in which participating libraries pool money to pay educational publishers title fees for chosen books, which are then made into PDFs available for free download through the Open Access Publishing in European Networks (OAPEN), the HathiTrust digital repository, and eventually the British Library. A list of 28 books has been selected for a pilot program, in which the University of Melbourne, the Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Western Australia have joined as “founding libraries.” Roughly 300 libraries have since signed up for the pilot. “We exceeded our target by 50%,” says the project’s Deputy Director Lucy Montgomery. “That’s reduced the title-fee cost to about $43 per library per book.” Montgomery adds that publishers will receive an average of $12,000 for making a book open access.Chronicle of Higher Education
Source: @KUnlatched

The Scholarly Kitchen: In (Digital) Scholarly Communications We Trust?, by Alice Meadows. “At industry conferences, seminars, and board meetings around the world, the digital revolution in scholarly communications dominates the conversation. From open access journals to new approaches to peer review, from altmetrics to plagiarism-detecting software, our community has seen a decade or more of rapid change, with no end in sight. You might think that all these changes would affect perceptions of trustworthiness and authority in scholarly communications, but a recent study by the University of Tennessee and the CIBER Research Group* found that – with a few exceptions – that is not the case. Or at least not yet.” More here.
Source: @scholarlykitchn

On Scribd: Science Dissemination Using Open Acess. a Compendium of Selected Literatura on Open Access. View/download here.
Source: @RickyPo

Twitter Open Access Report – 25 Mar 2014

Wellcome Trust Report: Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges. “This report was commissioned by a consortium of European research funding organizations led by the Wellcome Trust. The study was undertaken to stimulate thinking among research funders who have set up, or are considering setting up, mechanisms for direct “earmarked” funding of article processing charges (APCs) in open access (OA) journals. The report covers both full OA journals (referred to in the report as “full OA”, such as those published by Biomed Central and PLOS) and subscription journals which offer authors the possibility of making their individual articles OA by paying an APC. This latter category is known as “hybrid OA”. There are many full OA journals that are funded by means other than APCs and the term “gold OA” also includes these journals. When they are included in the discussion this will be make clear, the focus of the report is however on the segment of gold OA funded by APCs.” Full report here.
Source: @alpsp

Quantumplations: Wiley-Blackwell open access licenses – clarity needed. “Alongside the awesome Theo Andrew, I’ve been leading the crowd sourcing effort to explore the Wellcome Trust Article Processing Charge data (Original data found here). This effort is still on-going, so please do have a look if you have even a few minutes to spare. I’ve found an interesting case when looking at the licenses of work published in Wiley-Blackwell journals. Every Wiley-Blackwell article I’ve looked at so far makes the statement: “Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.” This isn’t my understanding of ‘Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5′ at all. CC BY (as it is otherwise known), allows for any use, including commercial use, as long as you “give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.” (Text taken from Creative Commons CC BY 2.5 human readable summary). Creative Commons have spent a lot of time ensuring that the licenses are incredibly easy to understand, but it seems the license statement here from the publishers is deliberately difficult to understand and contradicting the actual meaning of CC BY licenses. Have I gotten confused about Creative Commons licenses? Or have Wiley-Blackwell?” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Data Pub – Feedback Wanted: Publishers & Data Access. “We have generated a set of recommendations for publishers to help increase access to data in partnership with libraries, funders, information technologists, and other stakeholders. Please read and comment on the report (Google Doc), and help us to identify concrete action items for each of the recommendations here (EtherPad).” More here.
Source: @openscience

LSE Blogs: Wellcome Trust’s Open Access spend 2012-13: Are fees charged by major publishers creating a new serials crisis? “Publishers have reacted to open access mandates by offering hybrid “Open” options through Article Processing Charges. Ernesto Priego digs into the data released by the Wellcome Trust on the highest and lowest article processing charge expenditures in 2012-2013 and finds these figures reveal a mere inversion of the business model. Enabling Open Access costs money. But does it cost as much as reflected by the APCs in the Wellcome Trust dataset?” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Access Working Group: The sheer scale of hybrid journal publishing. “The last few years have seen a significant rise in what are termed ‘hybrid open access journals’, where only some of the articles are freely available to read and a subscription is still required to read the remainder. As many journals require payment from authors to publish in this fashion, then university libraries need to pay subscriptions to read the remaining articles, publishers are in effect being paid twice for the same work. With recently published data from the Wellcome Trust, the scale of this double charging has become much more clear. In Oct 2012 – Sept 2013, academics spent £3.88 million to publish articles in journals with immediate online access – of which £3.17 million (82 % of costs, 74 % of papers) was paying for publications that Universities would then be charged again for. For perspective, this is a figure slightly larger than the Wellcome Trust paid in 2012/2013 on their Society & Ethics portfolio. Only £0.70 million of the charity’s £3.88m didn’t have any form of double charging (ie, was published in a “Pure Open Access” journal) – with this total being dominated by articles published in PLOS and BioMed Central journals (68 % of total ‘pure’ hybrid journal costs, 80 % of paper total).” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Access Archivangelism: The Wellcome Trust’s Deep Pockets. “There’s no “Fools Green” just foolish OA policy (or non-policy). Green OA works perfectly well when it is effectively mandated (as it is by FRS in Belgium, U Liège, U Minho and others; see ROARMAP). FWF, for example, fails to (1) mandate immediate institutional deposit, irrespective of publisher embargo on OA, and fails to (2) make research evaluation and funding contingent on immediate institutional deposit, as the effective Green OA mandates do. This effectively makes compliance with the FWF “mandate” completely contingent on publisher policy. OeAW does much the same. It may seem more sensible to pay for Fools Gold than to think, pay attention to the empirical evidence, and design an effective policy, but in fact it’s a regrettable and needless waste of time and money.” More here.
Source: @domchalono

Richard Poynder – The State of Open Access. Final list of Q&As here.
Source: @alpsp

SPARC: Webcast: Libraries Leading the Way on Open Educational Resources. “In celebration of Open Education Week (March 10-15, 2014), SPARC brings you this free webcast to showcase how academic and research libraries are leading the way on campus for Open Educational Resources.” View here.
Source: @alpsp

OAPEN news: explaining the differences between DOAB and the OAPEN Library. View newsletter here.
Source: @DOABooks

Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Collection to become Open Access – Availability Status Online. “We have now begun the process of making the Pilot Collection available, discoverable and accessible on a Creative Commons licence via OAPEN, HathiTrust and the British Library. PDFs of 17 books have already become available via the OAPEN digital library and we are loading content onto the HathiTrust and British Library systems. We have added a new page to our website which provides access KU titles. This page also makes it possible to follow the progress of each book in the Pilot Collection as it becomes available: http://collections.knowledgeunlatched.org/collection-availability-1/ ” More here.
Source: @oatp

Hugh Rundle: Creative Commons, Open Access, and hypocrisy. “Rcently I had an experience that prompted me to change the Creative Commons licensing on this blog. I was contacted by a representative of McGraw-Hill seeking permission to include one of my blog posts in some school assessment software in the States. The request included a long and convoluted US tax form, and a draft contract with a space for me to name my price. I rapidly progressed from confusion to incredulity. Why would they think I wanted money so US state schools could use my publicly available blog post to test students’ comprehension skills? I’d licensed it CC-BY …oh. NC. This episode illustrated perfectly the criticisms that I’ve read recently of CC-BY-NC licenses. ‘Non Commercial’ is a fairly fuzzy concept. On the face of it, a consortium of US state schoolstesting their students seems obviously ‘non commercial’. Except they’ve contracted CTB/McGraw-Hill to handle copyright releases, and they are most certainly a for-profit outfit. Perhaps the Consortium charges schools to use their system, I don’t know. I do know that signing release forms and “fax or scan back to us” is a pain the arse that I don’t need when I’m on holidays and near neither a fax machine nor a scanner. Not that I’m near a fax machine at any time, except perhaps when I’m near a technology museum. ” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Elsevier Still Charging For Open Access Copies, Two Years After It Was Told Of The Problem. “For some reason, Elsevier seems to take delight in being hated by the academic world. Its support for the awful Research Works Act back in 2012 led to a massive boycott of the company by researchers. More recently, it has cracked down on academics posting PDFs of their own research. Now Peter Murray-Rust, one of the leading campaigners for open access, has caught Elsevier at it again. Here’s a good summary of what happened from Mike Taylor, whose post “If Harry Potter Was An Academic Work” appeared on Techdirt recently:

1. Two years ago, I wrote about how you have to pay to download Elsevier’s “open access” articles. I showed how their open-access articles claimed “all rights reserved”, and how when you use the site’s facilities to ask about giving one electronic copy to a student, the price is £10.88. As I summarised at the time: “Free” means “we take the author’s copyright, all rights are reserved, but you can buy downloads at a 45% discount from what they would otherwise cost.” No-one from Elsevier commented.

2. Eight months ago, Peter Murray-Rust explained that Elsevier charges to read #openaccess articles. He showed how all three of the randomly selected open-access articles he looked at had download fees of $31.50. No-one from Elsevier commented (although see below).

3. A couple of days ago, Peter revisited this issue, and found that Elsevier are still charging THOUSANDS of pounds for CC-BY articles. IMMORAL, UNETHICAL , maybe even ILLEGAL. This time he picked another Elsevier OA article at random, and was quoted £8000 for permission to print 100 copies.”

More here.
Source: @OpenAccessMKD

Scholarly Kitchen: Wellcome Money — In This Example of Open Access Funding, the Matthew Effect Dominates. “The Matthew Effect derives its name from a Biblical parable in the Book of Matthew. The parable is best stated in modern language as, “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” Recently, the Wellcome Trust published files showing where and how much it paid for article processing charges (APCs) for open access (OA) publication. The Matthew Effect seems to be present throughout the list. In the year covered (2012-13, as their fiscal year is not a calendar year), Wellcome spent over US$6.5 million on OA publication fees covering a set of 2,127 articles, for an average of US$3,055 per article. The minimum spent by Wellcome on an APC was US$75, while the maximum APC was nearly US$22,000, which was the APC for an OA book published by Macmillan, the parent of Nature Publishing Group. The highest article APC was US$10,000, which was for a publication called Public Service Review, a magazine apparently geared to policymakers in the UK. The publication may not be available any longer, as its web site is turning up missing. This was noted as well in Research Information, which states that, “it is difficult to find details of this journal and the URL listed for this journal in the Wellcome Trust’s document now appears to be available for sale.” Does Wellcome deserve a refund?The next most-expensive APC (US$9,500) is for Lancet Neurology, an Elsevier journal. In fact, Elsevier dominates the top APCs, as does Nature Publishing Group. PLOS varies, with high APCs for its selective journals and low APCs for PLOS ONE.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Footnote1: The Exploitative Economics Of Academic Publishing. “Taxpayers in the United States spend $139 billion a year on scientific research, yet much of this research is inaccessible not only to the public, but also to other scientists. This is the consequence of an exploitative scientific journal system that rewards academic publishers while punishing taxpayers, scientists, and universities. Fortunately, cheap open-access alternatives are not only possible, but already beginning to take root, suggesting a way forward to a more open and equitable system for sharing research.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Free UKSG webinar – Funding Body Open Access Requirements. “This Webinar will provide delegates with an overview of the Wellcome Trust and RCUK OA policies. It will discuss current levels of compliance, and key issues which need to be addressed if full OA is going to be realised. The Webinar will also discuss the recent study, led by the Wellcome Trust, which looked at what levers funders could pull to help encourage the development of an effective OA market for article processing charges. Date: Wednesday 26 March 2014. Time: 1500 GMT. Duration: 45 minutes including Q&A” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Academic Journals Index. “Open Academic Journals Index (OAJI) is a full-text database of open-access scientific journals. Our mission lies in putting together an international platform for indexing open-access scientific journals. In a short-term perspective, we are considering calculating the journal Impact Factor. When it comes to calculating the impact factor, of great significance is how full the archive has gotten over the previous two years. For instance, the Impact Factor for 2012 is calculated based on the indicators for 2012—2013. The maximum value of the impact-factor is 1.000.” More here.
Source: @oatp

The Zoteroist: Invisible & Exciting: What’s New in Zotero 4.0.19. “Zotero just released version 4.0.18 and 4.0.19, with some major, mainly under the hood improvements. These changes aren’t obvious at first sight, but are a major improvement. There are three major improvements, as well as a couple of minor ones.” Updates include better metadata from PDFs, faster indexing and links in notes. More here.
Source: @martin_eve

Wiley introduces Altmetrics to its Open Access journals. “In May of last year, Wiley partnered with Altmetric to pilot alternative metrics across a number of subscription and open access journals. While more traditional measurements – such as citations and usage – assess the scholarly visibility of a paper, alternative metrics are emerging to measure social visibility by tracking online conversations around scientific articles. The results of the pilot weAltmetricre positive. Across the 6 journals included in the initial 6 month trial, 2,183 articles received an Altmetric score, indicating that a high proportion of articles were receiving attention and making an immediate impact. To date, around 40% of articles from the trial journals have achieved a score of 10 or above – remember, the Altmetric score is based on the number of individuals mentioning a paper, where the mentions occurred (e.g. a newspaper, a tweet) and how often the author of each mention talks about the article. So, the score reflects both the quantity of attention received, and the quality of that attention: a news story counts for more than a Facebook post; attention from a researcher counts more than attention from an automated Twitter bot.” More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

 

Twitter Open Access Report – 18 Mar 2014

German libraries start to assign CC0 to allow unrestricted reuse of their holdings records in Zeitschriftendatenbank. View list here.
Source: @xbib

The Scholarly Kitchen: Everybody Wants a Netflix for Books, by Joseph Esposito. “Some things seem self-evident–until they are not. One self-evident notion is that just as we have a Spotify and a Pandora for music, just as we have a Netflix for video, we should indeed have something akin to these services for books. It seems obvious to many people that only the sluggishness if not outright stupidity of publishers would get in the way of the inevitable. Of course, (this argument goes) no one should ever underestimate how stupid publishers can be. With some notable exceptions (e.g., HarperCollins) they remain skeptical about putting all their titles into aggregations controlled by third parties–which set the prices for the services and pay the publishers out of their meager revenue. Personally, I marvel at Pandora. I am a subscriber–for a whopping $36 a year–and stream Pandora approximately 8-10 hours a day, every day. I am listening to it now as I write this post (the Cold War Kids station). I don’t know how many songs I listen to in a year, but it must be in the thousands. How much does that come to per song? On the other hand, Pandora’s listeners are encouraged to purchase music they like. I have not purchased any music in years, and there is not a chance in the world that I will ever go to a CWK concert. I will enjoy Pandora while it lasts, but it does get at the point that record labels, movie studios, and publishers do not exist to make their users happy but to make their shareholders happy.  What may appear to be sluggishness or lack of vision on the part of publishers may in fact be a shrewd understanding of their own interests.” More here.
Source: @scholarlykitchn

Peter Murray-Rust: Elsevier admits it has been mis-selling Open Access and will be contacting mis-sold customers. “Elsevier’s Director of Access and Policy (was “Universal Access”) has commented on my blog posts… This confirms that Elsevier has been mis-selling Open Access products. The DoAP does not give sufficient detail to say exactly what so I don’t regard this reply as satisfactory. Given also that part of the problem appears to be a seriously broken IT infrastructure it cannot be accurate to use it to find problems. It is unclear whether the 11 customers were authors with mispublished articles or purchasers of rights through Rightslink.” More here.
Source: @rmounce

‘Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour’ , by Matteo Migheli and Giovanni B. Ramello. “The rising star of scholarly publishing is Open Access. Even some traditional journals now offer this option on author payment, and many full freely accessible journals are now available to scholars, providing relief to research institutions increasingly unable to afford the escalating subscription rates of serials. However, proper recognition of full Open Access journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative for scholarly communication. Through a survey, this work investigates economics scholars’ attitudes to OA, and attempts to outline the state of practices and norms governing individuals’ publication choices.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Palgrave Macmillan: Access all Areas. “In March 2014 we are offering FREE online access to our entire portfolio of journals for one month, spanning across Business, the Social Sciences and the Humanities.” More here.
Source: @alpsp

SPARC: Libraries Leading the Way on Open Educational Resources. “In celebration of Open Education Week (March 10-15, 2014), SPARC was pleased to present this webcast on March 13, about how academic and research libraries are leading the way on Open Educational Resources. Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching, learning, and research resources that either reside in the public domain or carry a license that permits their free use, sharing and adaptation by all users. From textbooks to course materials, videos to software, journals to digital collections, the creation and sharing of open materials can reduce the cost of textbooks, expand access to knowledge, and support student success. This webcast features three librarians who have been leading OER projects on their campuses. Each provides an overview of the project, discusses the impact achieved for students, and provides practical tips and advice for other campuses exploring OER initiatives.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_NA

Research Information: Wellcome Trust releases details of APC spend. “The Wellcome Trust has released on figshare the details of article-processing charge (APC) payments that the funder made in 2012-13. The majority of the payments were in the late hundreds or low thousands. However, sums ranged from a low of £45.94 to a high of £13,200 for an open-access book. The £45.94 was for a paper entitled ‘The association between breastfeeding and HIV on postpartum maternal weight changes over 24 months in rural South Africa’, published with the American Society for Nutrition. The high of £13,200 was for ‘Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States 1850-2000,’ a book published with Palgrave MacMillan. The highest APC payment for an article was £6000 for a paper called ‘Laboratory Science in Tropical Medicine’, in a journal called Public Service Review. However, it is difficult to find details of this journal and the URL listed for this journal in the Wellcome Trust’s document now appears to be available for sale.” More here.
Source: @pennyb

Mozilla Science Lab, GitHub and Figshare team up to fix the citation of code in academia. “Academia has a problem. Research is becoming increasingly computational and data-driven, but the traditional paper and scientific journal has barely changed to accommodate this growing form of analysis. The current referencing structure makes it difficult for anyone to reproduce the results in a paper, either to check findings or build upon their results. In addition, scientists that generate code for middle-author contributions struggle to get the credit they deserve. The Mozilla Science LabGitHub and Figshare – a repository where academics can upload, share and cite their research materials – is starting to tackle the problem. The trio have developed a system so researchers can easily sync their GitHub releases with a Figshare account. It creates a Digital Object Identifier(DOI) automatically, which can then be referenced and checked by other people. The advantages over simply linking to GitHub are twofold. For one, the DOI points to the synced release on Figshare, so the data won’t be affected if the original GitHub repository is updated. The page on GitHub is still accessible for anyone who wants to review the project’s development, but this approach ensures the code referenced in a paper can be easily reviewed. For another, the DOI is a persistent link. Broken links are a growing problem for academia, as link structures are changed and online content is edited. “If your persistent link is pointing to something on Figshare, which is ‘this GitHub repository at that version, at that release,’ then even if the GitHub repository changes or Figshare changes its link structure, that DOI will always point to that object,” Mark Hahnel, founder of Figshare said.” More here.
Source: @digitalsci

PLOS Blogs: We can’t live with anything less than Open, by David Carroll. “The Open Access Button has mapped over 6,000 paywalls since it launched four months ago. We know this is just the tip of a very large restricted access iceberg and there is still so much work to do. Currently we are recruiting new student team members and a steering committee. We’ve also started developing Button 2.0 and will have exciting announcements in the upcoming weeks. To make sure you’re up to date on these follow us on Facebook and Twitter. The Open Access Button seeks to make the often invisible problem of paywalls visible, but paywalls aren’t the only open access problems that need to be made more visible. The last few days alone have highlighted problems with publishers and governments that need to be made visible. There’s the unethical and possibly illegal actions from the publisher Elsevier. Two years ago Dr. Mike Taylor blogged about Elsevier charging to download open access articles and last August Dr. Peter Murray-Rust called attention toElsevier charging to read open access CC-BY articles. On Sunday, Murray-Rust revisited the topic in “Elsevier are still charging THOUSANDS of pounds for CC-BY articles.” Murray-Rust found that many open access CC-BY articles were labeled as “All rights reserved” and users would be charged hefty sums for permission to reprint the articles. One example that Murray-Rust noted was Elsevier charging 8000 GBP for just the permission for 100 reprints of a CC-BY article that was incorrectly labeled as “All rights reserved.” No one should have to ask permission to re-use a CC-BY paper in any way.” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

Slides: Open Access – why should you care? (Europic 2014), by Stephen Curry. View here.
Source: @KUnlatched

The Disorder of Things: What Does It Mean To Start An Open Access Journal? “Following earlier interviews with Editors at Ethics & Global Politics and the newly open Cultural Anthropology, we present yet another insight into how to do open access, this time with Professor Kim Weeden of Cornell, a Deputy Editor of the new open access journal Sociological Science, which launched earlier this year. As the name suggests, this is a sociology journal (and a ‘general interest’ one at that), indicating yet another field in which open access is being taken seriously whilst International Relations languishes (not withstanding para-IR examples like Ethics & Global Politics and our friends at the Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies). So what can we learn from the Sociological Science model? As usual, I’ve stuck some thoughts on at the end.” More here.
Source: @OpenAccessMKD

Impact of Openness on Institutions. “A collection of interviews with administrators and faculty on the impact that open education projects and practice has had on their institutions. Additional interviews and studies will be added.” View here.
Source: @OpenExpl

Times Higher Education: PeerJ’s $99 open access model one year on. “When, in 2012, a new open access biomedical journal with a peculiar name and a smirking blue monkey for a mascot announced that it would let academics publish a paper a year for a one-off fee of just $99 (£59), some observers checked that it was not April Fool’s Day. One goal of the open access movement had always been to slash the amount of money universities transferred to publishers’ coffers. Yet evenPlos One, the previous “darling” of open access advocates, felt the need to charge authors $1,350 per article. Yet here was that journal’s former publisher, Peter Binfield, proclaiming that PeerJ could do even more for vastly less. Kent Anderson, chief executive and publisher of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgerywrote in a Scholarly Kitchen blog soon after the announcement that “after scooping my brain back into my skull once I’d absorbed this apparently foolhardy approach to cash flow and sustainability…it began to dawn on me that perhaps what PeerJ is headed toward is more akin to a freemium model, like WordPress, where you can publish for free if you accept limited functionality and some Google ads, or you can pay premium fees to get rid of the ads and get more robust functionality”. PeerJ did announce higher fees of $199 for the right to publish two papers a year and $299 for unlimited publishing rights. And the fact that the papers it publishes average four and a half authors also pushes up the average cost of publishing a first paper to nearly $450, even on the cheapest plan. But Mr Anderson’s expectation that the journal would charge extra fees for everything from peer review to search engine optimisation has not been realised.”” More here.
Source: @OA_Button

LSE Blogs: Institutional repositories provide an ideal medium for scholars to move beyond the journal article. “Institutional repositories (IRs) should actively collect the full range of work produced by scholars and researchers — not just “green” versions of peer-reviewed journal articles but student theses, data, working papers, blog posts, and more. In doing so, IRs become vital platforms that leverage the potential of the Web to reach a broader audience, bring new voices to scholarly discourse, and create opportunities for collaboration. Peer review is the gold standard for scholarly publishing, and IRs do not require that materials be peer reviewed. Yet scholarly communication has always encompassed far more than peer-reviewed journal articles or monographs. Many of the materials in Academic Commons, our institutional repository at Columbia — such as conference videos, presentations, and technical reports and other “grey literature” — are not supported by the same access and preservation infrastructure enjoyed by more formal modes of scholarly publication. The IR may be the only viable long-term access and preservation option for such items. We hear from depositors ranging from undergraduates to full professors that repository features such as stable storage, permanent URLs, a means for attribution, and search engine optimization are of great benefit to their work.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

LSE Blogs: The ‘avalanche of change’ in higher education must be contextualised in terms of the government’s broader neoliberal policies. “A recent report from the Institute for Public Policy Research has made headlines calling for urgent transformation of British universities if they are to survive sweeping technological change. From massive open online courses (MOOCs) to open access, John Holmwood argues these changes are less about transformative technology and more about privatised commercialisation and must be understood as part of the wider neo-liberal context in which they have emerged.” More here.
Source: @oatp

Google docs now has an add-on (EasyBib) that supports citations. Details here.
Source: @PLOSLabs

The Scholarly Kitchen: Rick Anderson at the Smithsonian: “Is a Rational Discussion of Open Access Possible?” by Rick Anderson. “I was recently invited to give a talk as part of a lecture series titled The Open Access Future, sponsored by the Smithsonian Libraries, the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and the Smithsonian’s Office of the Chief Information Officer. I decided to focus on the issue that has been troubling me most lately: why is it so hard to have conversations about OA that don’t devolve into shouting matches and accusations of bad faith? What has led to this state of affairs, how bad is the problem now, and what can we do to create a more open, inclusive, and reasonable environment for discussion of the complex issues surrounding OA and the economics of scholarly communication generally? I came up with a provocative title (“Is a Rational Discussion of Open Access Possible?”) and delivered the lecture on March 10, 2014. Here’s the archived video of the lecture and of the discussion that followed. (The full text and accompanying slides are also available; comments are welcome both there and here. However, I will not be monitoring or responding to any related Twitter traffic, having learned from experience how difficult and frustrating it is to carry on meaningful discussion of complicated topics in 140-character bursts.)” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

New Website Brings Innovative Dimension to Open Access Research Articles.”Journal Click have incorporated an innovative new algorithm that notes the current research document topic and offers a listing of what other users have viewed. This approach promises to save time and help those writing papers or studying access highly relevant research in a much more efficient and comprehensive manner.” More here.
Source: @RickyPo