tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hubs/oatp/user/leo_waaijers/atomItems tagged by leo_waaijers in Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)2021-12-12T13:57:11-05:00TagTeam social RSS aggregratortag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/28974092021-03-02T16:23:21-05:002021-12-12T13:57:11-05:00Bona Fide Journals – Creating a predatory-free academic publishing environment - Leiden Madtrics<p>Predatory journals pose a significant problem to academic publishing. In the past, a number of attempts have been made to identify them. This blog post presents a novel approach towards a predatory-free academic publishing landscape: Bona Fide Journals.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/27616002020-09-01T04:59:47-04:002020-09-01T09:54:39-04:00Systematize information on journal policies and practices - A call to action - Leiden Madtrics<p>In most research fields, journals play a dominant role in the scholarly communication system. However, the availability of systematic information on the policies and practices of journals, for instance with respect to peer review and open access publishing, is surprisingly limited and scattered. Of course we have the journal impact factor, as well as a range of other citation-based journal metrics (e.g., CiteScore, SNIP, SJR, and Eigenfactor), but these metrics provide information only on one very specific aspect of a journal. As is widely recognized, there is a strong need for a wider range of information on journals (see for instance here and here). Such information is for instance needed to facilitate responsible evaluation practices, to promote open access publishing, and to improve journal peer review.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/26879182020-05-20T03:44:00-04:002020-05-20T03:44:00-04:00“Open Science” Deal between Elevier and Dutch Research Institutions. <p>New contract between Elsevier and Dutch Research Institutions for the years 2020-2024. Total amount M€ 80. Unlimited number of articles from Dutch authors published in OA. </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/26865362020-05-18T08:40:30-04:002020-12-09T09:46:52-05:00cOAlition S announces price transparency requirements | Plan S<p>Adhering to Plan’s S key principle of transparent pricing, cOAlition S publishes today its guidance on implementing price transparency when Open Access (OA) publication fees are applied. Specifically, cOAlition S announces that from July 1st, 2022 only publishers who provide data in line with one of the two endorsed price and service transparency frameworks will be eligible to receive OA publications funds from cOAlition S members. This covers funder contributions to any model of financing open access publications including, but not limited to, non-APC journals or platforms, article processing charges (APCs), transformative agreements, and transformative journals.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/26211432020-02-20T08:29:03-05:002022-04-07T08:54:47-04:00The "Pure Publish" Agreement - The Scholarly Kitchen<p>Whether subscription publishers flip their journals to open access by 2024, at which point “Coalition S funders will contribute to financing such deals,” or not, libraries are already pursuing pure publish agreements that enable scholars to publish in fully open access journals. Whether through full author subvention (as is the case with Stockholm University) or though a multi-payer model (as implemented by the University of California), pure publish agreements provide library support for publishing in fully open access journals and with fully open access publishers. How these pure publish agreements evolve in the coming years will be an important component of the development of sustainable business models for open access.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/26118572020-02-07T14:55:39-05:002020-02-09T16:34:49-05:00An online tool to determine Plan S aligned publishing venues: an invitation to tender.<p>cOAlition S members are seeking to procure a “journal checker tool” to enable their researchers to identify publishing venues which offer a route to comply with the Plan S Principles. We envision a simple web interface that will provide an author with concise information regarding their ability to publish in a journal while complying with Plan S.</p>
<p>The user should be able to type in the name of their preferred journal, pick their institution, choose their funder, and easily see if that journal enables compliance with their funder’s OA policy and if so, via which route.</p>
<p>The focus of the tool is to provide an answer as to whether the journal:</p>
<p>• Offers a route to compliance, as set out in the Implementation Guidance of Plan S</p>
<p>• Offers a CC BY option to all researchers working under a Plan S policy</p>
<p>• Allows the author to retain copyright</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/26108762020-02-06T08:53:29-05:002020-02-06T12:31:50-05:00Revisiting - Transformative Agreements: A Primer - The Scholarly Kitchen<p>Is it every day or just every week that we see an announcement of a new “transformative agreement” between a publisher and a library or library consortium? Or, if not a press release announcing such an agreement, a statement that such is the goal of a newly opened — or perhaps faltering — set of negotiations? Almost as quickly, the questions start. What’s read-and-publish? Is this contract Plan S compliant? What makes an agreement transformative anyway?</p>
<p>What follows is a basic primer on transformative agreements and their characteristics and components.</p>tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25951502020-01-13T04:29:00-05:002020-01-13T04:29:00-05:00The insanity (and probably illegality) of transformative agreements (including Plan S and Project Deal) - An Open Letter to Libraries and Coalition S | Gunther Eysenbach's random research rants<p><span>So-called </span><a href="https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/23/transformative-agreements/">"transformative agreements"</a><span> (which seems to be central to </span><a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/">Coalition S/Plan S</a><span>) are done with the best intentions to increase the number of OA journals, but pose a mortal threat to existing smaller/medium and society open access journals, directing manuscripts to the large publishers who have a prepaid APC deal with libraries or consortia under such transformative agreements, away from existing OA journals.</span>
<span>In essence, public funds are used to help large commercial companies to switch to a business model they have long resisted, instead of positively directing funds to existing OA publishers who did not have the luxury to make billions with the business model of reselling academic content in toll-access journals.</span></p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25946472020-01-12T08:58:42-05:002020-01-12T08:58:42-05:00Open letter of Association for Computing Machinery to Office of Science and Technology Policy <p>ACM was one of 135 scientific publishers and organizations that endorsed a letter to President Trump addressing this topic on December 18, 2019. The content and tone of that letter did not really address our rationale for opposing the changes, however, nor our longstanding commitment to Open Access. We regret having signed with the coalition, since the final letter did not adequately represent the views of our membership and the computing community. </p>
<p>Rather than mandating an immediate change to the current one-year embargo on federally-funded research, we encourage OSTP to engage with a broad array of stakeholders to collaboratively discuss models for publishing, curating, and archiving scientific results that will achieve complete openness in scientific research. To that end, ACM looks forward to engaging with you and with all interested parties in a forward-looking and constructive manner. </p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25946332020-01-12T08:42:05-05:002020-01-12T08:42:05-05:00"HOW COULD AN OPEN ACCESS SCHOLARLY JOURNAL SYSTEM LOOK? A SCENARIO ANA" by Maurits van der Graaf and Leo Waaijers<p><span>Ralf Schimmer’s blog “Making the moves for large scale transition toward Open Access” makes the case to achieve such a transition by means of offsetting deals. The urgency for such a transition is emphasized by the recently announced ambition of the EU to have “Open Access to scientific publications as the best option by default by 2020”i. This should be done “in a cost-effective way, without embargoes, or with as short as possible embargoes”. In this blog, we explore and analyse the scenario whereby this transition will be brought about by successful offsetting deals, meaning that ultimately all articles in the hybrid journals will become Open Access by changing the business models of these journals into APC-based Open Access journals. Success means also that the offsetting deals will be transformed in pay-as-you-publish pre-finance-agreements. What effect would such a success have on the scholarly journal system. How would it look like in terms of numbers and type of journals? Which preconditions and drivers would be needed to achieve such a success? And finally, we speculate about possible next steps and their cost-effectiveness.</span></p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25925732020-01-09T08:25:42-05:002020-01-12T08:06:32-05:00Key elements of the DEAL- Springer Nature-Agreement<p><span>On 8 January 2020 Projekt DEAL entered into an agreement with Springer Nature for open access publishing. The second such agreement negotiated by Projekt DEAL is regarded as the world’s largest transformative Open Access agreement at the time of signing. With more than 13,000 scholarly articles by authors affiliated with German institutions accepted for publication each year in Springer Nature journals, the publisher disseminates a significant portion of Germany‘s research output. The DEAL-Springer Nature agreement enables Open Access publishing of articles in approximately 2,500 Springer Nature journals and offers participating institutions extensive access to the publisher’s journal portfolio.</span></p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25918692020-01-08T11:51:50-05:002020-01-12T07:58:26-05:00Emerald news - An HSS perspective on the mandatory criteria for transformative journals<p>"Dear cOAlition S,</p>
<p>This is an open letter to the funders, government bodies and institutions that support Plan S and will be submitted to the open consultation of cOAlition S draft framework for transformative journals.</p>
<p>We thank you for the provision of a draft framework for transformative journals and appreciate the opportunity to consult on the guidance. We are responding from the perspective of publishers working across the humanities and social sciences (HSS) who typically publish a large proportion of unfunded authors, be that by region, discipline or organisational setting. We remain committed to realising the benefits of full and immediate open access for our authors and their stakeholders and we appreciate the efforts of cOAlition S to date to engage with the wider discussion and assist smaller publishers to transition to open publishing models. Given that scholarship remains a global and collaborative endeavour, we urge cOAlition S to continue to be mindful of the unintended consequences for academic colleagues and disciplines that do not have the luxury of direct funding, or access to money for APCs from their organisation or institution.</p>
<p>The issues as previously stated in our open letter of 8th February 2019 remain a reality. Transformative agreements – and thus funding for APCs - are not available to all of the many varied publishers within the ecosystem. Globally there remain mixed approaches to achieving open access with many customers, including within Europe, preferring non-APC routes to open publishing. This includes green open access. Other models, such as subscribe-to-open, remain interesting but un-tested with respect to long-term sustainability...."</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25810562019-12-19T09:05:37-05:002020-01-12T08:00:33-05:00Will the Hybrid Journal Be Transformed by Plan S? - The Scholarly Kitchen<p>"In the <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/">“Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S”</a>, cOAlition S committed to “consider developing a potential framework for ‘transformative journals’ where the share of open access content is gradually increased, where subscription costs are offset by income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments), and where the journal has a clear commitment to transition to full open access in an agreed timeframe.” In late November, cOAlition S released a draft framework for transformative journals and began a <a href="https://jisc.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/coalition-s-transformative-journals-feedback">consultation</a> (open for comment until 9:00 CET on January 6, 2020). </p>
<p>The concept of “transformative journals” was <a href="https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/blog/blogposts/a-faster-path-to-an-open-future/16705466">initially proposed by Springer Nature</a> in May 2019 in a response to the draft of the Plan S implementation guidelines. At the time, I <a href="https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/05/08/another-response-to-coalition-s/">expressed skepticism</a> that the idea would find a receptive audience given the coaition’s position on hybrid journals. As such, I will admit that I was rather surprised to see that cOAlition S incorporated the notion of transformative journals into the final guidelines and signaled the possibility of re-thinking the acceptability of hybrid journals and expanding the conditions under which they would be considered Plan S compliant. ..."</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25808972019-12-19T04:04:33-05:002019-12-19T04:04:33-05:00A Coalition of 125 Scientific Research and Publishing Organizations Express Opposition to Proposed Policy of Immediate Free Distribution of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles Reporting on Federally Funded Research | LJ infoDOCKET<p>A Coalition of 125 Scientific Research and Publishing Organizations Express Opposition to Proposed Policy of Immediate Free Distribution of Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles Reporting on Federally Funded Research</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25806232019-12-18T17:09:02-05:002019-12-18T17:09:02-05:00cOAlition S response to Springer Nature’s Open Letter on Transformative Journals<p>cOAlition S response to Springer Nature’s Open Letter on Transformative Journals.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25806002019-12-18T17:00:22-05:002019-12-18T17:00:22-05:00Principles and Implementation | Plan S<p>Principles and Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S</p>
<p>“With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25805842019-12-18T16:52:05-05:002019-12-19T08:58:39-05:00Making full and immediate Open Access a reality<p>Plan S aims for full and immediate Open Access to publications from publicly funded research. The coalition of research funders that have committed to implement Plan S, known as cOAlition S, therefore calls for a definitive shift towards new models of academic publishing.</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25795312019-12-17T13:42:20-05:002020-01-12T08:20:55-05:00cOAlition S reaction to Springer Nature’s Open Letter on Transformative Journals | Plan S<p>"Thank you for sharing your <a href="https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/alternative-conditions-needed/17508260">open letter</a> outlining your concerns about Transformative Journals.</p>
<p>cOAlition S has now reviewed your letter and would like to make the following points.</p>
<p>1- As we made clear when we <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/">published</a> the Transformative Journals (TJ) framework, we consider this a draft and we look forward to receiving the views from all actors and stakeholders who respond to the consultation. Once the consultation closes (6th January 2020) we will then assess how the concept of TJs can best be implemented.</p>
<p>2- TJs have been developed to help the transitioning of journals that are committing to full OA, outside of Transformative Agreements. We expect this option may be useful to journals which have high costs – which may make it more difficult to include these titles in Transformative Agreements, at least in the short term – or where publishers (like scholarly societies) wish to offer a global OA option, but are not yet able to flip to full OA without some support during a transition period to reduce risks.</p>
<p>3- The SN letter argues that year on year growth can only increase at the rate in which funders mandate gold OA publishing and provide the necessary funding. However, data from SN’s own journal Nature Communications provides clear evidence that the volume of published papers can increase year on year, even without a corresponding increase in the number of funder mandates....</p>
<p>4- The SN letter also suggests that journals can only flip to full OA, once 90% of publications are OA. However, publication data from Nature Communications – which started publishing as a hybrid journal – shows that the decision to flip this title was taken when slightly less than 50% of the content was OA (see Table 2).Considering this finding it is difficult to give much credence to Springer Nature’s statement that “we cannot place authors in a situation where they could be unable to publish in the most suitable journal, purely for financial reasons”....</p>
<p>5- No data is presented to support the assertion that “international collaboration will be negatively impacted”. As funders we are keen to encourage collaboration between researchers, recognising the benefits which can arise. We are working with our partners to encourage other funders from around the world to join cOAlition S. We anticipate that support will continue to grow and that funders will increasingly adopt consistent approaches. Many international groups will still want to work with the world-class researchers we fund. The desire to join forces to address shared research questions should supersede any considerations over where the resulting work can be published. We have also established a Task Force to monitor the <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/monitoring-the-effects-of-plan-s-on-research-and-scholarly-communication/">effects</a> of Plan S, including its impact on early career researchers and international collaborations.</p>
<p>6- The alternative model for TJ that is proposed in the Springer-Nature letter provides no clearly defined timeframe for transitioning journals to full Open Access, other than when a threshold of 90% OA uptake has been reached. For all intents and purposes, this proposal is nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the hybrid model, which less and less funders are willing to support. The hybrid model has clearly failed to achieve the transition to OA and there are absolutely no reasons to believe that things will be any different in the future. This is a tactic to stall progress. For cOAlition S, TJs are considered as a means for publishers to really deliver on their promise of transitioning their journals to full OA in a smooth way, but within a defined timeframe. Our proposed deadline is the 31st December 2024 – 5 years from now. We are not aware of any other area of economic activity where businesses are given 5 years to change their models to meet demands (with support from funders). Native OA publishers (who are competing with Springer-Nature in the market) do not claim that they can only run full OA journals under the condition that all funders worldwide must commit to fund Gold OA. The line of argumentation that the transition to OA can only happen at the rate that funders commit to finance Gold OA is futile. We could as well argue that funders will only commit to fund OA at the rate that publishers transition to OA. But there should be no mistake: we prefer zero-embargo Green OA over hybrid journals.</p>
<p>7- In conclusion, we hope journals and publishers will see this as an opportunity to take the bold step of changing their business model, and we are looking forward to receiving more inputs to our open consultation on Transformative Journals by January 6th 2020."</p>
tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25765652019-12-13T13:15:53-05:002019-12-13T13:26:12-05:00TagTeam :: Quality Open Access Markettag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/25805582019-12-18T16:24:36-05:002019-12-19T09:00:05-05:00QOAM: information about quality OA journals<p>Quality Open Access Market. QOAM is a market place for scientific and scholarly journals which publish articles in open access. Quality scoring of the journals in QOAM is based on academic crowd sourcing; price information includes institutional licensed pricing.</p>