tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hubs/oatp/user/CH/atom 2025-06-03T09:31:46-04:00 TagTeam social RSS aggregrator tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13954216 2025-06-03T07:04:55-04:00 2025-06-03T09:31:46-04:00

<p>This paper is based on the Open Scholarship and Bibliodiversity panel presented at the 2024 NISO Plus conference in Baltimore, Maryland on February 13, 2024, and brings together five perspectives on the interdependency of open scholarship and bibliodiversity. Bibliodiversity in the context of open scholarship refers to the diversity of publishing models, platforms, and formats that are available for scholarly communication. It emphasizes the importance of a varied and inclusive ecosystem for acquiring academic knowledge and for the dissemination of research. An important part of bibliodiversity is the inclusion and the promotion of a diversity of scholarly voices. The authors explore how to ensure that a scholarly infrastructure includes a multitude of voices, is accessible to everyone, and can be expressed in a variety of ways.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15216161 2025-08-12T05:08:27-04:00 2025-08-12T05:08:27-04:00

<p>This study compares open metadata from hoaddata, an openly available dataset based on Crossref, OpenAlex and the cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool, with proprietary bibliometric databases Scopus and Web of Science to estimate the impact of transformative agreements on hybrid open access publishing. Analysing over 13,000 hybrid journals between 2019 and 2023, the research found substantial growth in open access due to these agreements, although most articles remain paywalled. The results were consistent across all three data sources, showing strong correlations in country-level metrics despite differences in journal coverage and metadata availability. By 2023, transformative agreements enabled the majority of open access in hybrid journals, with particularly high adoption in European countries. The analysis revealed strong alignment between first and corresponding authorship when measuring agreement uptake by publisher and country. This comparative approach supports the use of open metadata for large-scale hybrid open access studies, while using multiple data sources together provides a more robust understanding of hybrid open access adoption than any single database can offer, overcoming individual limitations in coverage and metadata quality.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15215726 2025-08-12T04:10:21-04:00 2025-08-12T04:15:33-04:00

<p>We cordially invite you to the final workshop ‘Hurdles to open access publishing for researchers with weak institutional ties’ of the IDAHO project on <strong>August 28, 2025 from 3 PM to ca. 5:15 PM</strong>, in which we would like to present the results of our empirical work and the resulting recommendations for an inclusive open access culture and discuss them together with all participants.</p> <p>The workshop will be held virtually and in English. Free registration is now open.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13253470 2025-03-03T10:54:25-05:00 2025-03-03T10:54:25-05:00

<p>Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent, and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinised, and built-upon by researchers and others. To date, there has been no systematic synthesis of the extent to which Open Science reaches these aims. We use the PRISMA scoping review methodology to partially address this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We identify 485 studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Science (CS). Analysing and synthesising findings, we show that the majority of studies investigated effects of OA, CS, and OFD. Key areas of impact studied are citations, quality, efficiency, equity, reuse, ethics, and reproducibility, with most studies reporting positive or at least mixed impacts. However, we also identified significant unintended negative impacts, especially those regarding equity, diversity and inclusion. Overall, the main barrier to academic impact of OS is lack of skills, resources, and infrastructure to effectively reuse and build on existing research. Building on this synthesis we identify gaps within this literature and draw implications for future research and policy.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13253469 2025-03-03T10:51:18-05:00 2025-03-04T08:49:09-05:00

<p>Access to published, peer-reviewed articles in special education is important to researchers and practitioners alike. However, much of the published literature base lies behind paywalls, inaccessible to many potential consumers. Although researchers can make their published work openly accessible in multiple, there is limited information on the prevalence of open-access publishing, predictors of open-access publishing, and the costs of and options for accessing paywalled articles in special education. To address these gaps in the literature, we examined articles published in 2022 in 43 special education journals (n = 1,678) and found that 55% of articles were openly accessible; reporting funding for the research, non-U.S. corresponding authors, and journal impact factor were positively associated with open-access publishing; and the average cost to access a paywalled article was approximately $36. Implications for equity, scientific progress, and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13253475 2025-03-03T11:01:44-05:00 2025-03-04T08:47:58-05:00

<p>"<span>Publishers need to cover costs, of course. But the shift from pay-for-reading to pay-for-publishing risks broadening the existing divide in scientific publishing and further isolating researchers from underfunded regions...."</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13253483 2025-03-03T11:05:49-05:00 2025-03-04T08:44:18-05:00

<p>Despite the positive effects of the open access (OA) movement on academic publishing, commercial publishers' profit-driven policies continue to prevail, making the publishing process increasingly difficult for many researchers, particularly those from developing countries. This study critically examines open-access Q1 and Q2 journals listed in the Scimago Journal &amp; Country Rank (SJR) within the field of Media and Communication Studies. Despite the OA movement’s goal of increasing access to information, the capitalist academic publishing model transforms knowledge production into a commercial activity through article processing charges (APCs). The research reveals that high APCs demanded by high-impact journals represent a significant barrier, especially for researchers with limited financial and institutional support. This situation underscores the urgent need for institutional reform in the structure of academic publishing, particularly within the field of Media and Communication Studies. The proposed reforms should focus on critical areas such as increased support for OA models, freeing journals and editorial boards from Western monopolies, fairly compensating the labour of reviewers and editors, and offering greater language support. Steps taken in this direction will contribute to the creation of a more transparent, fair, and inclusive structure for academic production and sharing processes.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13198746 2025-02-10T14:59:39-05:00 2025-06-03T07:00:26-04:00

<p>Abstract:  Over the past two decades, numerous widespread efforts and individual contributions to shift scientific publishing to open access (OA) faced a number of obstacles. Due to the complexity of knowledge production dimension and knowledge dissemination, the challenges encountered by researchers, publishers, and readers differ. While examples of such barriers exist across multiple parties, no attempt has been made to synthesize these for active researchers. Thus, this scoping review explores the barriers documented in the scientific literature that researchers encounter in their pursuit of publishing open access. After screening 1,280 relevant sources, 113 papers were included in the review. A total of 82 distinct barriers were identified and grouped into four subclusters: Practical Barriers, Lack of Competency, Sentiment, and Policy &amp;amp; Governance. The largest cluster in terms of barriers assigned was Sentiment, accounting for 51.2% (n=42) of all barriers identified, suggesting that perceived barriers are the strongest determinants of publishing OA, while the most frequently occurring barrier was “high article processing charges”, reported in 88 papers. Furthermore, burdens faced specifically due to the location of the researcher were identified. Understanding and acknowledging these barriers is essential for their effective elimination or mitigation.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/12693362 2024-11-28T04:54:31-05:00 2024-11-28T04:54:31-05:00

<p>Purpose For a set of 1,561 Open Access (OA) and non-OA journals in business and economics, this study evaluates the relationships between four citation metrics—five-year Impact Factor (5IF), CiteScore, Article Influence (AI) score, and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)—and the journal ratings assigned by expert reviewers. We expect that the OA journals will have especially high citation impact relative to their perceived quality (reputation).</p> <p>Design/methodology/approach Regression is used to estimate the ratings assigned by expert reviewers for the 2021 CABS (Chartered Association of Business Schools) journal assessment exercise. The independent variables are the four citation metrics, evaluated separately, and a dummy variable representing the OA/non-OA status of each journal. Findings Regardless of the citation metric used, OA journals in business and economics have especially high citation impact relative to their perceived quality (reputation). That is, they have especially low perceived quality (reputation) relative to their citation impact. Research limitations These results are specific to the CABS journal ratings and the four citation metrics. However, there is strong evidence that CABS is closely related to several other expert ratings, and that 5IF, CiteScore, AI, and SJR are representative of the other citation metrics that might have been chosen. Practical implications There are at least two possible explanations for these results: (1) expert evaluators are biased against OA journals, and (2) OA journals have especially high citation impact due to their increased accessibility. Although this study does not allow us to determine which of these explanations are supported, the results suggest that authors should consider publishing in OA journals whenever overall readership and citation impact are more important than journal reputation within a particular field. Moreover, the OA coefficients provide a useful indicator of the extent to which anti-OA bias (or the citation advantage of OA journals) is diminishing over time. Originality/value This is apparently the first study to investigate the impact of OA status on the relationships between expert journal ratings and journal citation metrics.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/12669363 2024-11-19T05:54:03-05:00 2024-11-19T05:54:03-05:00

<h2> </h2> <div>This article expands on the Miles Conrad Award lecture delivered at the NISO Plus 2024 conference. Drawing from over three decades in scholarly publishing, including twenty-four years at Crossref, Edward Pentz, the Executive Director of Crossref, explores the critical role of collaboration and diplomacy in developing open scholarly infrastructure. The piece examines key inflection points in scholarly communication, lessons learned from collaborative initiatives, and future challenges and opportunities in the field. It also reflects on the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in shaping the future of open scholarly infrastructure.</div> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/12669362 2024-11-19T05:50:59-05:00 2024-11-19T05:50:59-05:00

<p>This paper is based on the Open Scholarship and Bibliodiversity panel presented at the 2024 NISO Plus conference in Baltimore, Maryland on February 13, 2024, and brings together five perspectives on the interdependency of open scholarship and bibliodiversity. Bibliodiversity in the context of open scholarship refers to the diversity of publishing models, platforms, and formats that are available for scholarly communication. It emphasizes the importance of a varied and inclusive ecosystem for acquiring academic knowledge and for the dissemination of research. An important part of bibliodiversity is the inclusion and the promotion of a diversity of scholarly voices. The authors explore how to ensure that a scholarly infrastructure includes a multitude of voices, is accessible to everyone, and can be expressed in a variety of ways.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/12669034 2024-11-19T05:45:32-05:00 2024-11-19T05:45:32-05:00

<p>The IDAHO project team is inviting participants to help identify challenges and obstacles that confront authors that may not have strong ties to academia but still engage in research and produce open access publications.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9037360 2023-11-17T09:15:49-05:00 2023-11-17T09:15:49-05:00

<p>Open Access (OA) bezeichnet die freie Verfügbarkeit von wissenschaftlichen Publikationen mit Nachnutzungsrechten für alle weltweit, z.B. durch die Verwendung von Creative Commons Lizenzen. Im Vortrag soll ausgeführt werden, dass es mittlerweile möglich ist mit etwas Ressourcen (Zeit, Geld, Infrastruktur) so gut wie alle Forschungspublikationen in Open Access zu veröffentlichen. Dabei werden die verschiedenen Wege Green, Gold und Diamond OA kurz vorgestellt. Weiterhin wird gezeigt, wie Bibliotheken die einzelnen Wissenschaftler*innen dabei unterstützen. Mit zunehmendem Maße an frei verfügbaren Publikationen wird das Identifizieren und Bewerten von inhaltlich geprüften Informationen, beispielsweise durch einen Begutachtungsprozess in OA-Zeitschriften, auch für die Literaturrecherche bei studentischen Haus- oder Abschlussarbeiten immer wichtiger. Preprints sind dahingegen meist noch nicht geprüft, geben dafür aber einen sehr frühen Einblick in die aktuelle Forschung. Abgerundet wird der Vortrag mit einem kritischen Blick auf die Publikationslandschaft insgesamt und auf die aktuellen Entwicklungen. Das Erkennen von offensichtlichen Predatory Publishers ist wichtig, aber sollte nicht dazu führen, dass man nur noch Zeitschriften von großen Verlagen oder mit einer langen Historie (und damit verbundenen Kennzahlen wie dem Impact Factor) vertraut. Vielmehr ist eine Bibliodiversität wünschenswert. Aktuelle Entwicklungen zu immer kürzer werdenden Begutachtungsfristen sind vor dem Hintergrund von artikel-basierten Open-Access-Finanzierungsmodellen erklärbar, aber nicht unbedingt wünschenswert.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9037358 2023-11-17T09:10:55-05:00 2023-11-17T09:11:07-05:00

<p>Mehr-OA – Benefits of Open Access for Data-Driven Research and Development</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9037340 2023-11-17T09:00:21-05:00 2023-11-17T09:00:21-05:00

<p>Since the 1990s, global academic publishing has been transformed by digitisation, consolidation and the rise of the internet. The data produced by commercially owned citation indexes increasingly defines legitimate academic knowledge. Publication in prestigious ‘high impact’ journals can be traded for academic promotion, tenure and job-security. African researchers and publishers labour in the shadows of a global knowledge system dominated by ‘Northern’ journals and by global publishing conglomerates. This book goes beyond the numbers. It tells the story of how the Ghanaian academy is being transformed by this bibliometric economy. It offers a rich account of the voices and perspectives of Ghanaian academics and African journal publishers. How, where and when are Ghana’s researchers disseminating their work, and what do these experiences reveal about an unequal global science system? Is there pressure to publish in ‘reputable’ international journals, what role do supervisors, collaborators and mentors play, and how do academics manage in conditions of scarcity? Putting the insights of more than 40 Ghanaian academics into dialogue with journal editors and publishers from across the continent, the book highlights creative responses, along with the emergence of new regional research ecosystems. This is an important Africa-centred analysis of Anglophone academic publishing on the continent and its relationship to global science.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9037231 2023-11-17T06:37:14-05:00 2023-11-17T06:37:14-05:00

<p>This study investigates development of open access (OA) to publications produced by authors affiliated with Ukrainian universities and research organisations in the period 2012-2021. In order to get a comprehensive overview we assembled data from three popular databases: Dimensions, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Our final dataset consisted of 187,135 records. To determine the OA status of each article, this study utilised Unpaywall data which was obtained via API. It was determined that 71.5% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that gold OA was the most prevalent type of OA through a 10 years studied period. We also took a look at how OA varies by research fields, how dominant large commercial publishers are in disseminating national research and the preferences of authors regarding where to self-archive articles versions. We concluded that Ukraine needs to be thoughtful with engagement with large publishers and make sure academics control publishing, not for profit companies, which would monopolise research output distribution, leaving national publishers behind. Beyond that we put a special emphasis on the importance of FAIRness of national scholarly communication infrastructure in monitoring OA uptake.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/8383453 2023-08-31T06:27:13-04:00 2023-11-16T05:32:48-05:00

<p>The KOMET project aims to support the professionalisation of the metadata processes of independent, scholar-led OA journals and thus increase their visibility in academia and their importance as a publication venue. To this end, the most widely used open source software for OA journals worldwide - <a href="https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/">Open Journal Systems</a> (OJS) - will be supplemented with functions that enable the entry, curation and enrichment of article-related metadata by authors and editors and the export of this metadata to open data sources such as Wikidata. Using persistent identifiers and geometric data, KOMET thus connects related articles across journals and scientific disciplines and supports novel evaluation methods for science and an open publishing culture and practice.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9034658 2023-11-16T05:30:23-05:00 2023-11-16T05:30:23-05:00

<p>Wie können offene Metadaten zu einer inklusiveren Open-Access-Kultur beitragen? Welche Voraussetzungen müssen geschaffen werden, damit von kommerziellen Verlagen unabhängige Zeitschriften in diesem Bereich konkurrenzfähig bleiben oder werden, um für Autor:innen attraktiv zu sein?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9034657 2023-11-16T05:26:36-05:00 2023-11-16T05:26:36-05:00

<p>Open Access für öffentliche Forschung und Kultur: Zwei Jahrzehnte ist es schon her, dass sich zahlreiche Organisationen in der <em>Berliner Erklärung</em> dafür aussprachen. Wie weit ist die Öffnung tatsächlich gekommen? Und was gilt es weiterhin zu tun? Spannende Fragen, die Berliner und Brandenburger Vertreter*innen aus Wissenschaft und Kultur letzte Woche diskutierten.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/9034656 2023-11-16T05:23:28-05:00 2023-11-16T08:15:08-05:00

<p>In Spanien werden künftig alle öffentlich finanzierten Forschungsergebnisse ohne Bezahlschranke veröffentlicht. Das kostet die Regierung Millionen.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/8383454 2023-08-31T06:30:45-04:00 2025-06-03T06:59:47-04:00

<p>The IDAHO project is a research project that aims at contributing to an inclusive, equitable and diverse open access publishing culture. For this purpose it investigates the difficulties and hurdles that researchers with weak institutional ties face in OA publishing. It will particularly focus on refugee researchers, researchers form small and private universities, researchers from non-governmental institutions (NGO), independent researchers, or those in the citizen science domain without sufficient institutional backing. In addition, it will examine the awareness of scientific publishers on existing burdens these researchers face in the pursuit of open access publishing. The ultimate objective of IDAHO is to derive a set of evidence-based recommendations for science policies and publishers, which could eliminate or mitigate identified burdens.</p>