tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hubs/oatp/user/Susanne_van_Rijn/atom 2026-02-02T13:49:07-05:00 TagTeam social RSS aggregrator tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17220880 2026-02-02T13:49:07-05:00 2026-02-02T13:49:07-05:00

<p>In a range of academic scholarship communities, the debate over the efficacy and impact of open access publishing has intensified. This discourse is strong in [language education and applied linguistics], where the divide between research and practical application (the “teaching-research nexus”) has gained increased attention in scholarly discussions. The prominent argument is that teachers do not engage with research due to its inaccessibility. This study builds on the existing literature by examining the potential effects of open access and accessible summaries (developed through the OASIS initiative) on engagement metrics and citation counts for the journal System. It partially replicates the earlier study by Shepperd et al. (2023. OASIS potential impact on journal article engagement. Report downloaded from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/651439a9c0bea335021ff64b/OASIS-summaries-impact-report-final-16-August-2023.pdf), which included 34 matched article pairs, by expanding the sample to 72 pairs and applying similar design and analysis procedures. Findings show that published research articles with open access plain language summaries have more downloads and citations, indicating increased engagement and scholarly impact. However, questions remain concerning the true mechanisms driving this relationship, and further research is needed to validate and explain these patterns.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18548637 2026-07-15T05:46:23-04:00 2026-07-16T14:34:59-04:00

<p>CWTS has developed a Scholarly Communication Policy that treats publishing as a collective responsibility rather than an individual choice. In this blog post, we introduce the policy, reflect on its co-creation, and invite other institutions to consider adopting a similar approach.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18530940 2026-07-07T09:32:15-04:00 2026-07-07T09:32:15-04:00

<p>What will happen to the university when knowledge is no longer scarce, but ubiquitously available and even produced by machines? In The University as a Mirror of Society, Paul van Geest, Emile Aarts, and Ronald de Jong show how artificial intelligence reaches into the very heart of academia, thus impacting education, research, governance, and our understanding of what it means to be human.</p> <p>This book is a journey taking the reader from the medieval university to the contemporary campus, demonstrating how universities have continuously been challenged to respond to major societal shifts. However, the current AI revolution is different. AI is not merely a tool; it is transforming the very conditions under which knowledge is created, evaluated, and trusted. In doing so, it places the university’s traditional role as gatekeeper under increasing existential pressure.</p> <p>The authors provide a clear analysis of AI as a system technology and discuss its implications for scientific integrity, the transformation of academia, and the future of work at large. At the same time, they pose a fundamental question: how will AI-technologies shape our conception of humankind and how does this inflict the university as a space for reflection and critical inquiry?</p> <p>This book is a powerful plea for a university that strives not only to be faster and more efficient, but above all wiser, more careful, and more humane.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521523 2026-07-02T16:27:36-04:00 2026-07-02T16:27:36-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Publishing and accessing scientific articles is very costly for research organisations. Is open access the perfect solution? Discover some real-life examples of publications that combine free access with high standards and rigour.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521522 2026-07-02T16:23:45-04:00 2026-07-02T16:23:45-04:00

<p>This article explores the hybrid figure of the ‘researcher-publisher’, who plays an essential but often overlooked role in scientific communication. It offers a critical examination of traditional publishing models that strictly separate scientific and editorial roles, highlighting instead the profound interdependence between content and form. Through examples such as Johan Rooryck and the mutiny of the journal Lingua, it illustrates how the reappropriation of editorial functions by researchers allows them to regain scientific sovereignty in the face of commercial logic. The article also analyses the emergence of scholar-led publishers, seeing in this commitment a promise of autonomy and renewal for research.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521521 2026-07-02T16:21:58-04:00 2026-07-02T16:21:58-04:00

<p>The article describes the highly collaborative process of the creation of policy recommendations for Open Access books within the EU-funded project PALOMERA (Policy Alignment of Open access Monographs in the European Research Area). Johan Rooryck played a leading role in this specific project task. Extensive stakeholder involvement and iterative validation exercises ensured greater recommendation alignment and created community engagement, which in their turn increase the recommendations’ chances for being implemented. The recommendations are an important stepping stone for the policy development of open and equitable academic book publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521518 2026-07-02T16:19:41-04:00 2026-07-02T16:19:41-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: References to studies that were never actually carried out are appearing with increasing frequency in scientific articles. AI is exacerbating problems that have long existed in the scientific community.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521517 2026-07-02T16:18:03-04:00 2026-07-02T16:18:03-04:00

<p>No description available</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521515 2026-07-02T16:15:10-04:00 2026-07-02T16:15:10-04:00

<p>This study analyzes the cognitive dissonance displayed by authors at research intensive institutions in the United States (U.S.) regarding the scholarly publishing of Open Access (OA) publications. A qualitative analysis of 154 open-ended responses was conducted. Eight codes were identified, then each response was analyzed for the codes. The codes themselves coalesce around a phenomenon the authors of this study term the article processing charge (APC) Trap, in which privileged and well-resourced researchers in the U.S. experience highly contradictory sentiments about OA publishing. The cognitive dissonance characteristic of the APC Trap result in strong feelings of conflict as well as powerlessness. The qualitative analysis reveals the APC Trap as a deeply layered phenomenon, with manifestation dependent on positionality, including demographic features and interactions between APC Trap codes. While much has been made of the failings of the APC model of OA publishing for under-resourced researchers, this study reveals the ways this publishing model is unsustainable even for privileged researchers most well-positioned to participate.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521513 2026-07-02T16:12:18-04:00 2026-07-02T16:12:18-04:00

<p>Diamond open access, where institutional publishers (typically universities and learned societies) make content immediately available at time of publication and no payment is asked from either readers or authors, is in stark contrast to the open access publishing models utilised by large commercial publishers. This paper presents a bibliometric mapping study focusing in particular on the current presence and characteristics of Diamond open access journals and book series in Finland. Utilising national data sources, the study identifies 201 active peer-reviewed journals in Finland, of which 146 (73%) are open access and the vast majority, 139 (69%), are more specifically Diamond open access. Additionally, 63 active peer-reviewed book series are identified, for which the open access share and Diamond open access share was 34 (54%) and 32 (51%) respectively. We find that a high share of all Finnish journals is published by learned societies, and are hosted on the Journal.fi national platform (62%), with a high proportion (75%) of all Diamond open access journals being hosted on the platform. The paper contributes with the first targeted study and openly available dataset on this particular segment of scholarly publishing channels.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521511 2026-07-02T16:09:58-04:00 2026-07-02T16:09:58-04:00

<p>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) is considered by many the authoritative database of scholarly open access journals. Still, many such journals are not found there. Based on rejection data from DOAJ this article tries to shed light on some of the major reasons journals have their applications rejected. Understanding why applications are rejected can inform us as to what can be done to improve the situation. The data point to lack of resources as a major problem. Many applications are from journals that do not meet the criteria or are predatory, but many are also from journals that could very well deserve a listing in DOAJ – they just are not able to complete an application with all relevant information in place.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18521015 2026-07-02T13:34:30-04:00 2026-07-02T13:34:30-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Earlier this year, it emerged that dozens of papers accepted at one of the world’s most prestigious AI conferences, NeurIPS, cited academic publications that did not exist at all. This was despite the fact that every manuscript undergoes a rigorous peer-review process and only a fraction of the submitted papers are accepted. In the months that followed, similar cases came to light at other academic conferences and in journals.</p> <p>This prompted *De Groene Amsterdammer* and Data School (Utrecht University) to take a closer look at Dutch academia. How often do scientific publications by researchers at Dutch universities contain such phantom references? And is that number increasing now that generative AI is finding its way into academia more and more frequently?</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18520779 2026-07-02T05:55:10-04:00 2026-07-02T05:55:10-04:00

<p>We are pleased to announce the upcoming, hybrid CoARA Conference that will take place on 7-8 September 2026 in Paris, France at the CNRS Auditorium (<a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/D7HSgzB3dqXiiiw57">3 rue Michel-Ange 75016</a>). Under the theme, “Shaping CoARA’s Future: Strengthened Communities Driving Systemic Change in Research Assessment,” the conference will bring together core members of the coalition and community leaders across the wider research ecosystem to showcase emerging practices shaping a fairer, more inclusive research culture and to collectively shape a shared vision for a future that drive systemic change.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18520475 2026-07-02T04:35:11-04:00 2026-07-02T04:35:11-04:00

<p>Head of the Leiden University Libraries' (UBL) Centre for Digital Scholarship, Alenka Prinčič, writes about the past and future of digital scholarship at the UBL.</p> <div> <p>When I started at the Leiden University Libraries (UBL) as Head of the Centre for Digital Scholarship about three years ago, I would sometimes get a question, a phone call usually, on what kind of scholarships we offer to support education. While explaining that we do not deal with financial support for learning or doing research, I realised that I too needed to find the right words to explain what ‘digital scholarship’ really means.</p> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516309 2026-06-30T08:23:51-04:00 2026-06-30T08:49:03-04:00

<p>The recent partial acquisition of a university press by Taylor and Francis</p> <p>provoked strong reaction from some quarters and walkouts by</p> <p>academic editors at the press. This case, however, fits into a much</p> <p>broader set of interrelated questions about the role, the marketable</p> <p>'brand', and the very identity of the university press in the 21st</p> <p>Century. In this article, we situate the case of this acquisition in these</p> <p>wider debates around university governance, the usefulness of the</p> <p>'commercial' vs 'non-profit' dichotomy, the flow of revenue from</p> <p>libraries to publishers, and the lack of awareness by many researchers</p> <p>around their rights as authors. We also elucidate the case for good,</p> <p>participatory governance and more transparency around governance</p> <p>as safeguards for the longevity, efficacy, and reputation of institutional</p> <p>publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516308 2026-06-30T08:22:03-04:00 2026-06-30T08:22:03-04:00

<p>2025 was a year of further development and transition for the ZBW. In an increasingly dynamic environment of digitalisation, artificial intelligence and Open Science, we have further refined our role as a central infrastructure institution for economics. Our mission remains unchanged: in times of digital transformation, we not only organise information, but we also create the conditions for reliable, transparent and increasingly digital science. The articles in this annual report demonstrate how we put this mission into practice. Our own research activities on and the use of artificial intelligence in libraries illustrate how closely research-led innovation and scholarly practice are intertwined at the ZBW. This also applies to our strong commitment to generating and providing high-quality metadata, as well as to our contribu�tions to the further development of Open Science, particularly in the areas of Open Access and open research data. At the same time, we are actively involved in science policy, where issues of data sovereignty and the sustainable and resilient availability of infrastructures – for example, for publications or research data – are becoming increasingly important. We do not merely organise information. We cre�ate the conditions for reliable, transparent and increasingly digital science.... </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516304 2026-06-30T05:50:22-04:00 2026-06-30T05:50:22-04:00

<p><span>Position paper by the Research Intelligence Network Netherlands (RINN) on the importance and use of Open Research Information for Research Intelligence.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516303 2026-06-30T05:48:07-04:00 2026-06-30T05:48:07-04:00

<p>Every infrastructure choice is also a values choice. The metadata standards we adopt, the repositories we federate, the data pipelines we build - these are not neutral technical decisions. They encode assumptions about who produces knowledge, how that knowledge is preserved, and who governs the systems that make it findable and usable over time.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516302 2026-06-30T05:46:54-04:00 2026-06-30T05:46:54-04:00

<p>Open research infrastructure is no longer a niche concern – it's a strategic priority for libraries, funders, and institutions worldwide. But building and sustaining that infrastructure is harder than it looks. Who pays? Who governs? And how do we ensure that openness doesn't just benefit well-resourced institutions? This talk offers a grounded look at the current landscape of open infrastructure – including nonprofit knowledge sources, persistent identifiers, and emerging data hubs – with an eye toward what's working, what's fragile, and what the Netherlands' own investments can learn from global experience.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18516300 2026-06-30T05:43:10-04:00 2026-06-30T05:43:10-04:00

<p>The workshop focuses on a practical question facing research-performing organisations: how can institutions move beyond using open infrastructures to actively sustaining them?</p> <p>Topics include:</p> <ul> <li>An overview of common sustainability and funding models used by infrastructures such as OpenAlex, OpenAIRE, Crossref, ORCID, ROR and DSpace.</li> <li>Different forms of institutional support, including financial contributions, governance participation and community contributions.</li> <li>Factors that influence institutional investment decisions and barriers to long-term support.</li> <li>Concrete examples of OpenAlex and OpenAIRE membership models and the value they provide.</li> <li>Discussion of sustainability at ecosystem level, including the potential roles of SURF, UKB, UNL, SHB and Open Science NL within the Dutch landscape.</li> <li>System-level initiatives such as SCOSS, Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI), POSI and COMET, with emphasis on governance, funding mechanisms and collective responsibility.</li> </ul>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18514853 2026-06-29T15:36:10-04:00 2026-06-29T15:36:10-04:00

<p>Following the <a href="https://publish-review-curate.org/2026/01/14/hello-world/">meeting </a>in December 2025 to discuss the Publish Review, Curate (PRC) model of publishing, we announced our ambition to establish a PRC Alliance. Its purpose is to help accelerate the adoption of PRC  and facilitate greater coordination across the diverse PRC community by acting as a mechanism for addressing shared issues and challenges. To help launch the PRC Alliance, an <a href="https://publish-review-curate.org/working-group/">interim working group</a> (IWG) was formed in January 2026. </p> <p>This post provides an overview of our activities to date and outlines our next steps.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18514852 2026-06-29T15:33:24-04:00 2026-06-29T15:33:24-04:00

<p>No description available</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18514851 2026-06-29T15:30:28-04:00 2026-06-29T15:30:28-04:00

<p>To kick off the 2026 Open Science Week, we look into how Open Science can enhance equitable collaborations through this Open Science NL funded workshop. We draw inspiration from the <a href="https://www.staff.universiteitleiden.nl/news/2025/12/leiden-delegation-expands-collaborations-with-the-university-of-ghana">partnership between the University of Ghana and Leiden University</a>. A recent Memorandum of Understanding between the two universities has offered an opportunity to investigate how Open Science can strengthen the partnership and future research collaborations. Duringthe workshop, research support staff from the University of Ghana Library and the Leiden University Libraries will reflect on this.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18503452 2026-06-24T11:06:00-04:00 2026-06-24T11:06:00-04:00

<p>For some, full Open Science practices are already a reality, whilst others are still struggling to grasp the full scope of what it entails. In any case, it is a fact that VU Amsterdam prioritises Open Science. The new Guidelines clarify how this can be integrated into academic career paths. Co-authors Elco van Burg and Jacco Ossenbruggen explain.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18503450 2026-06-24T11:03:06-04:00 2026-06-24T11:03:06-04:00

<p>The expertise center enouraged that Netherlands University Presses (NUPs) take the DOAS self-assessment developed by DIAMAS, and now part of the EDCH. The diamond open access standard (DOAS) is a benchmarking resource for institutional publishers and service providers (IPSPs) of diamond open access, providing 1) comprehensive guidelines to scholarly standards and 2) a self-assessment tool to evaluate publishing standards. The expertise center has made an overview of the key results of the self-assessment, including highlights of areas the NUPs perform well and areas for improvement. The main results show NUPs perform well and have scored high on most governance and policy aspects, especially in the components of Open Science and legal ownership. A number of items in two operational areas can be improved by these, mostly new presses based on results: 1) editorial management, editorial quality and research integrity and 2) visibility, communication, marketing, and impact.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18503397 2026-06-24T10:33:45-04:00 2026-06-24T10:33:45-04:00

<p>A first version of the dataset dedicated to the landscape of Belgian Open Access (OA) journals which do not charge author fees has been published with DOI <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20760253">10.5281/zenodo.20760254</a>.</p> <p>This overview, compiled by Laura Mesotten and Demmy Verbeke, provides a comprehensive list of Belgian Diamond OA journals – defined as journals that are published in OA without charging author fees and that are governed by the academic community. The dataset includes a range of bibliographical, editorial, and technical details, such as ISSNs, publishing software used, funding sources, and peer review status. In addition, the dataset documents the <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12721408">operational Diamond OA criteria for journals</a> as developed in the context of the DIAMAS and CRAFT-OA projects. As such, it serves as a practical tool for identifying journals that are eligible for inclusion in the <a href="https://ddh.edch.eu/en">Diamond Discovery Hub</a> maintained by the <a href="https://edch.eu/">European Diamond Capacity Hub</a>.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18503396 2026-06-24T10:31:30-04:00 2026-06-24T10:31:30-04:00

<p><span>This dataset of Belgian Diamond Open Access journals is produced and maintained by Laura Mesotten and Demmy Verbeke. It includes journals that meet the dataset’s defined criteria for both Diamond Open Access and Belgian (see the “About” section for terminology, scope, and methodology).</span></p> <p><span>The dataset reflects the state of the data as reviewed at a specific point in time, indicated in the “About” section. As journal policies, platforms, and indexing statuses may change over time, the dataset should be interpreted as a snapshot rather than a definitive or exhaustive list.</span></p> <p><span>While efforts were made to be as complete as possible (within the defined parameters), some journals may be missing, outdated, or require correction. Please contact the authors with any additions, corrections, or remarks.</span></p> <p><span>The dataset is intended to support research and analysis on scholarly communication and Diamond Open Access publishing in Belgium. It will be periodically updated, and users are encouraged to consult the most recent version.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18498563 2026-06-23T09:35:35-04:00 2026-06-23T09:35:35-04:00

<p>What if one of the biggest obstacle to scientific progress isn't a lack of ideas, but the way research itself is organized? In this thought-provoking talk, Heidi Seibold shares her journey from researcher to an Open Science advocate. After experiencing firsthand the pressures of academia's "publish or perish" culture, she began questioning a system that rewards publication quantity over research quality. Through personal stories and real-world examples, Heidi reveals how greater transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration can transform research and accelerate solutions to humanity's biggest challenges. This talk explores a compelling vision for the future: an Open Science ecosystem where knowledge is shared freely, research is trustworthy, and scientists are empowered to build on each other's work for the benefit of society Heidi Seibold is a statistician, researcher, and internationally recognized Open Science advocate. After a successful academic career in data science and medical research, she shifted her focus to improving the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of scientific research. She is the founder of the Digital Research Academy, where she trains researchers around the world in open and reproducible research practices. Through her work, Heidi helps scientists create more trustworthy, collaborative, and impactful research—bringing the vision of Open Science to life, one training at a time. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18498562 2026-06-23T09:01:02-04:00 2026-06-23T09:01:02-04:00

<p>On 6 May 2026, the Board of Deans approved new Open Access Regulations, which will take effect on 1 September 2026. Building on the university’s strong open access record, the regulations mark a shift towards fostering a more diverse, sustainable and community-driven scholarly publishing system. They draw on an earlier policy implemented at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, as well as on the new national Open Access Strategy.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18494953 2026-06-22T05:43:44-04:00 2026-06-22T05:43:44-04:00

<p>Scientific publication faces growing problems. It is too expensive. Fake and predatory journals abound. Paper mills and peer review cartels corrupt. Journal-based peer review fails to prevent publication of poor and unreliable research. AI is generating completely fabricated data sets and full manuscripts. Peer review is being overwhelmed.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18456379 2026-06-19T05:15:07-04:00 2026-06-19T05:15:07-04:00

<p><span>‘Open research’ broadly aims to enhance the openness, transparency, and robustness of research across disciplines. While existing efforts have largely focused on improving the quality of research outputs, we argue that certain open research tools can also offer strategic benefits for Teaching and Scholarship (T&amp;S) academics who engage primarily in educational or pedagogical research. Given the challenges in conducting high-quality pedagogical research, the adoption of open research tools may support T&amp;S academics, by increasing research visibility, informing and refining methodological decision-making, and enhancing the efficacy and impact of pedagogical research. In this paper, we outline three key open research tools that may strategically benefit T&amp;S academics: (1) preprints, (2) registered reports, and (3) sharing open educational resources. For each tool, we provide an overview, discuss how T&amp;S academics can integrate them to improve their practice, and offer illustrative case studies. This discussion draws on the conceptualisation of high-quality pedagogical research outlined by Evans et al. (2021). We end with a call to researchers to align open research efforts with pedagogical scholarship, which will, in turn, improve pedagogical practice.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422512 2026-06-17T05:19:23-04:00 2026-06-17T05:19:23-04:00

<p>Building sustainable, community-led infrastructure for scholarly communication is a key priority in the Netherlands. Within the framework of the Open Science NL funding programme, three complementary projects have been awarded to jointly develop a shared national infrastructure for scholarly publishing.</p> <p>In addition, a fourth project has been funded to establish a formal alliance of University Presses in the Netherlands (NUPs). Together, these initiatives aim to strengthen non-profit, Diamond Open Access publishing and to improve coordination, interoperability and efficiency across the Dutch scholarly publishing landscape.</p> <p>The project Scaling Small focuses on supporting the Netherlands University Presses by developing a national catalogue and a shared metadata management system for book publishing. This provides a scalable technical foundation that enables presses to professionalise workflows while retaining their local identity and autonomy.</p> <p>Enabling and Strengthening Open Institutional Publishing complements this technical work by reinforcing the NUPs network as a sustainable, inclusive and collaborative ecosystem for Diamond Open Access publishing. It does so by expanding partnerships, fostering knowledge exchange and increasing efficiency through shared editorial services, metadata practices and innovation support. At the same time, the Openjournals publication platform is expanding its activities with book publishing by building an installation of Open Monographs Press.</p> <p>Finally, the four-year project Infrastructures for Diamond Open Access in the Netherlands brings together universities, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), and SURF. This collaboration aims to integrate a range of existing publication platforms into a high-quality, flexible national infrastructure. The resulting infrastructure will be made available to university presses, research institutes, and other research organisations that wish to publish their own articles, journals, and (text)books. It will be embedded within the broader Dutch Open Research Information ecosystem.</p> <p>This poster showcases how these projects are technically and strategically connected, how they collectively contribute to a shared national infrastructure, and how their activities align with current national policy developments, including the Dutch National Open Access Strategy and the Strategic Plan for an Integrated Infrastructure for Open Science.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422510 2026-06-17T05:11:51-04:00 2026-06-17T05:11:51-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: This presentation provides an overview of the background, the parties involved and the objectives of the NiedersachsenPUBLISHING pilot project (duration: 1 August 2025 – 30 September 2026). The pilot project serves to prepare for the main NiedersachsenPUBLISHING initiative, which aims to establish an open, collaborative, digital infrastructure for Diamond Open Access publishing, supported by the academic libraries of the State of Lower Saxony.</p> <p>NiedersachsenPUBLISHING is part of Hochschule.digital Niedersachsen within the framework of zukunft.niedersachsen, a funding programme run by the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture and the Volkswagen Foundation.</p> <p>Further information:</p> <p>https://www.nds-bibliotheksbeirat.de/niedersachsenpublishing/</p> <p>https://hochschuledigital-niedersachsen.de/project/vorprojekt-niedersachsen-publishing-2/</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422506 2026-06-17T05:00:51-04:00 2026-06-17T05:00:51-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: The Diamond Open Access Service Centre (SeDOA) was launched in May 2025 and is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). SeDOA aims to increase the efficiency of Diamond Open Access publishing in Germany through better coordination and visibility of existing, decentralised publication infrastructures, to provide key information, and to promote innovation. The project aims to firmly establish Diamond Open Access publishing within academic communication and to strengthen it as an alternative to commercial OA publishing. SeDOA forms the German Diamond Capacity Centre and, as part of the European Diamond Capacity Hub (EDCH) network, thereby strengthens international cooperation.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18410237 2026-06-16T06:32:37-04:00 2026-06-16T06:32:37-04:00

<p>Presentation by Markus Reisenleitner,  Professor of Humanities at York University, during the "Advancing Diamond" event, organized by Coalition Publica on April 15 and 16, 2026.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18410236 2026-06-16T06:31:42-04:00 2026-06-16T06:31:42-04:00

<p>The presentation "Intersections between Diamond Open Access and Humanities and Social Sciences Digital Research Infrastructure in Canada" was delivered by Alyssa Arbuckle, from the Canadian Research Knowledge Network and Érudit, at Advancing Diamond organised by Coalition Publica on April 15-16, 2026.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18410235 2026-06-16T06:29:25-04:00 2026-06-16T06:29:25-04:00

<p>The presentation "How diamond OA is funded in Canada" was delivered by Jessica Dallaire-Clark and Jeanette Hatherill, from Érudit and Coalition Publica, at Advancing Diamond organised by Coalition Publica on April 15-16, 2026.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18410234 2026-06-16T06:28:02-04:00 2026-06-16T06:28:02-04:00

<p>Presentation by Mark Swartz, Scholarly Publishing Librarian at Queen’s University, at the “Advancing Diamond” event, organized by Coalition Publica on April 15 and 16, 2026.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422505 2026-06-17T04:58:28-04:00 2026-06-17T04:58:28-04:00

<p>This presentation provides an introduction to Open Science, its principles, challenges, infrastructures, and policy frameworks. It discusses barriers in the current research ecosystem, including paywalls, reproducibility challenges, peer review issues, and incentives in scholarly communication. The presentation introduces key Open Science practices such as Open Access, FAIR and Open Data, Open Research Software, Open Peer Review, Citizen Science, and Open Education. The presentation further highlights Open Science infrastructures, research data management, metadata standards, persistent identifiers, repositories, licensing, and research assessment reform initiatives such as CoARA. International, national, and institutional Open Science frameworks are discussed, including the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and the Croatian Open Science Plan. The material was prepared for an introductory lecture on Open Science and research data management.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18409311 2026-06-16T04:39:34-04:00 2026-06-16T04:39:34-04:00

<p>This guide is designed to help Diamond Open Access (OA) journals – journals that charge no fees to either readers or authors -– to establish and manage editorial workflows. It can be used by journals operating through a dedicated online journal management system, such as Open Journal Systems (OJS), as well as by journals that manage editorial processes manually via email.</p> <p>Along with workflow descriptions, the guide includes screenshots from OJS 3.5 to illustrate key procedures, an annex explaining essential editorial roles and responsibilities and a collection of OJS email templates that can be adapted for different publishing contexts.</p> <p>The guide was developed in response to needs identified by members of the No-Fee Open Access Publishing in Africa Community of Practice as part of the '<a href="https://www.eifl.net/eifl-in-action/collaboration-sustainable-open-access-publishing-africa">Collaboration for Sustainable Open Access Publishing in Africa</a>' project, funded by the Wellcome Trust.</p> <p>Cite this guide as: Kuchma, I., Smith, I., &amp; Ševkušić, M. (2026). Editorial Workflows in Diamond Open Access Journals: A Guide. Zenodo. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19569991">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19569991</a></p> <p>See also the recording and slides of the <a href="https://www.eifl.net/resources/eifl-webinar-optimizing-journal-processes-and-workflows">EIFL webinar, 'Optimizing journal processes and workflows'</a> in which editorial staff of Diamond open access journals share experiences and strategies for enhancing journal operations. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18398018 2026-06-15T08:33:56-04:00 2026-06-15T08:33:56-04:00

<p>CRISSP is extremely pleased and proud to present a symposium in honour of our colleague and friend Johan Rooryck on the occasion of his 65th birthday: The JohanFest.</p> <p><span>Johan is well known for both his achievements in (Romance) linguistics, his yearslong editorship of </span><em>Lingua</em><span> and subsequent foundation of the Open Access journal </span><em>Glossa</em><span>. and his strong advocacy for Open Access. With this symposium we hope to do justice to the full breadth of Johan’s work.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18397077 2026-06-15T06:34:54-04:00 2026-06-15T06:34:54-04:00

<p>This deliverable outlines the AEGIS-OA Dissemination, Outreach and Exploitation plan, including the Communication Kit, developed at the early stages of the project to guide communication, dissemination, outreach, engagement, and exploitation activities throughout the project lifecycle and ensure the project’s successful implementation. The plan is structured around three strategic pillars: Communication and dissemination, to increase visibility of the project and its results. Outreach and engagement, to foster impactful interaction, knowledge exchange, and co-creation with stakeholders. Exploitation, to support the uptake, reuse, and integration of project results into practice. The plan also outlines the activities and events that will support awareness raising, stakeholder engagement, community building, training, dissemination, and exploitation of project results. It also identifies the potential risks for the success of the plan and the project and offers mitigation measures to address them. Finally, this plan is intended to serve as a living document and will be updated by gathering input and feedback via monitoring mechanisms during the project in Deliverable 1.5 to reflect project developments, stakeholder feedback, and lessons learned.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18397076 2026-06-15T06:32:25-04:00 2026-06-15T06:32:25-04:00

<p>Maastricht University champions Open Science. With the signing of the Barcelona Declaration during the Open Science Festival Limburg, UM pushes for greater openness, autonomy, and collaboration to make research more accessible, trustworthy, and impactful. Dennie Hebels and Carien Hilvering explain why Open Science and research information are so important.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18397075 2026-06-15T06:14:24-04:00 2026-06-15T06:14:24-04:00

<p>eLife Pathways is now stewarding Kotahi, the open-source publishing platform designed to support innovative publishing workflows, from submission to publication.</p> <p>One of the first major steps for eLife Pathways is taking on the official stewardship of Kotahi from the Coko Foundation. Following the <a href="https://coko.foundation/">Coko Foundation’s sunset</a> at the start of this year, eLife Pathways stepped forward after learning that the foundation was seeking a new steward for the platform. Our history and shared mission made this transition a completely natural fit.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18397074 2026-06-15T06:12:31-04:00 2026-06-15T06:12:31-04:00

<p>This guide introduces key European research infrastructures and resources designed to support individual humanities scholars in data access, tool and workflow selection, training, and publishing. The guide focuses on infrastructures that align with the principles of openness, fairness, and non-commercial use. It was created by the Europeana Research Community Steering Group, which is part of the Europeana Network Association.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422507 2026-06-17T05:03:07-04:00 2026-06-17T05:03:07-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: In collaboration with the FLOAT project run by the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Library and the Historical Commission for Lower Saxony and Bremen, we are organising a two-part webinar series as part of the open-access.network project for anyone wishing to publish digitally on topics relating to state and regional history and who would like to learn more about open access and re-use options for their content.</p> <p>This is the presentation for the first part. In this session, we will address some fundamental questions: What CC licences are available? How do they differ? What role do they play in the context of copyright and open access? The second session will then focus on specific practical examples from your own publishing experience: Which licence should I choose? How do I correctly label my own content?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18387902 2026-06-14T14:52:31-04:00 2026-06-14T14:52:31-04:00

<h2>Nick Morley looks at real examples of hallucinated citations in published research, and explains what they mean for science</h2> <p>You’ve probably heard of academic publishing’s hottest new foe: fake references, or hallucinated citations. This demon comes in many forms and poses a major threat to quality and reputation. In this article we’ll explore a range of real examples that made it past peer review into published literature, to help you understand the risk and what you can do about it.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422509 2026-06-17T05:08:32-04:00 2026-06-17T05:08:32-04:00

<p>A poster based on the options available to researchers from the Geneva Graduate Institute. Prepared for International Open Access Week 2023, last updated after a new agreement with SpringerNature.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422508 2026-06-17T05:05:56-04:00 2026-06-17T05:05:56-04:00

<p>Diamond Open Access (DOA) -- where neither authors nor readers bear direct costs -- is attracting growing institutional attention as an alternative framework for equitable scholarly communication. Despite the recent efforts to formalise its defining criteria and develop a dedicated discovery infrastructure, a systematic comparative analysis of DOA at the European regional scale remains lacking. This paper addresses that gap by providing a quantitative analysis of DOA publishing across EU countries, leveraging the Diamond Discovery Hub (DDH) as a curated source of DOA journals and the OpenAIRE Graph -- a large-scale open Scientific Knowledge Graph -- for article metadata and citation data from 2000 to 2024. Our methodology distinguishes between an author-side perspective (i.e., papers produced by researchers affiliated with a given country) and a journal-side perspective (i.e., papers published in journals hosted by that country), enabling characterisation of each country as a research producer, a publishing hub, or both. Results reveal consistent growth in DOA journal counts, article output, and citation accumulation across Europe. Significant national variation emerges: Croatia and Slovenia lead in DOA share relative to overall output; Spain and Poland dominate in absolute volume; and France stands out for citation impact and international journal attractiveness. Germany presents a structural asymmetry -- hosting internationally visible DOA journals while domestic researchers engage comparatively little with the model. Notably, the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities predominate across all countries. These findings advance the scientometric understanding of open scholarly communication and highlight how shared digital infrastructures -- such as open Scientific Knowledge Graphs and journal registries -- enable large-scale monitoring of emerging publishing models.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18422511 2026-06-17T05:14:03-04:00 2026-06-17T05:14:03-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Diamond Open Access (DOA) is increasingly being discussed as a sustainable alternative to traditional, commercial publishing structures in academic publishing and is recommended by key stakeholders in science policy. This publication presents the results of a systematic literature review on DOA, which was carried out by the HIS Institute for Higher Education Development e. V. on behalf of the NiedersachsenPUBLISHING pilot project. Based on an analysis of 192 documents from the national and international discourse, key thematic areas are systematically categorised and presented: understanding of the concept and defining characteristics, the current state of the open access transformation, national and international recommendations, legal aspects, cost and funding models, quality assurance, requirements for the range of offerings and services provided by DOA infrastructures, and links to artificial intelligence in the publication process. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18322398 2026-06-05T17:12:55-04:00 2026-06-05T17:12:55-04:00

<p>When we (Camille Thomas and Romain Vaucher speaking) entered academia as graduate students in France and Switzerland, we were enthusiastic about the vast amount of research available with a simple click on our university computers. However, we also quickly felt disheartened by the significant amount of research work we couldn’t access when wrapping up our theses from home. Luckily, pirates existed. Empowered by Aaron Swartz’s Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, Alexandra Elbakyan created Sci-Hub in 2011, the greatest leak of scientific knowledge of the century. We felt right in the middle of an Open Access (OA) revolution that would finally make all scientific articles, old and new, accessible to everyone.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18319708 2026-06-04T06:11:53-04:00 2026-06-04T06:11:53-04:00

<h1>Reimagining Openness in Academic Libraries</h1> <div>Online on 24th June 2026 and in person on 6th July 2026 at the Dalton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University.</div> <div> </div> <div>Many thanks to all those who have submitted a proposal for our #ALN26 programme. The draft programme is now available, highlighting our speakers and titles of papers along with abstracts. Both the online and in person conference programme are available in this<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/12NsSf9culb__RR7fWuyFlDNQIQV7_lqNZuxRSfY-O9c/edit?usp=sharing"> one document</a>.</div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18316893 2026-06-02T05:23:25-04:00 2026-06-02T08:48:31-04:00

<p>The National Library of Sweden (Kungliga biblioteket, KB) compiles Swedish higher education institutions’ expenditures for scholarly publishing – that is, costs for subscriptions, publishing research articles, and purchasing scholarly literature. For 2025, these costs amounted to SEK 819 million, an increase of just approximately 1,6 per cent from the previous year.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18316895 2026-06-02T05:55:39-04:00 2026-06-02T05:55:39-04:00

<p>Differences between the impacts of Open Access (OA) and non-OA research have been observed over a range of citation and altmetric indicators, usually finding an Open Access Advantage (OAA). However, science-wide analyses covering multiple years, indicators, and disciplines are lacking. Using citations and six altmetrics for 33.3 million articles published during 2011–2021, we compare OA and non-OA papers. The results show that there is no universal OAA across all disciplines or impact indicators: The OAA for citations tends to be lower for recent papers, whereas the OAAs for news, blogs, and Twitter are consistent across years and unrelated to volume of OA publications. Wikipedia OAAs are consistently pronounced for all subjects except Humanities and Social Sciences. Patent OAAs for are strongest for Medical &amp; Health Sciences and Life Sciences. Uniquely, the OAAs for Policy citations are stronger for recently published research. These results support different hypotheses for different subjects and indicators. The evidence is consistent with OA accelerating research impact in Medical &amp; Health Sciences, Life Sciences, and Humanities; increased visibility/discoverability being a factor in promoting the socio-economic impact; and that OA is a factor in growing online engagement with research. OAAs are therefore complex, dynamic and multi-factorial, and require considerable analysis to understand.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18316894 2026-06-02T05:25:33-04:00 2026-06-02T05:25:33-04:00

<p>Join us for the RINN (Research Intelligence Network Netherlands) &amp; SURF ORI (Open Research Information) Community Summer Event 2026. This one-day symposium brings together professionals working in research intelligence, libraries, policy, data science, analytics, governance, and research administration across knowledge institutions.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18316892 2026-06-02T05:16:30-04:00 2026-06-02T05:16:30-04:00

<p>The citations to open access preprint and working paper versions of papers that are also formally published in journals are not regularly counted in global multidisciplinary proprietary citation index databases, nor are they considered in most bibliometric studies. They are, however, integrated into paper citation counts in other citation databases. It can be argued that open access preprint citations reflect a relevant part of scientific impact of a work as proxied by citation counts, particularly in scientific disciplines that make extensive use of preprints/working papers for rapid open communication. Here we present a large-scale study of these usually uncounted open access preprint citations for the Web of Science database to provide an exploratory overview of the magnitude of this phenomenon and its distribution across disciplines. To this end, we introduce a methodology to link cited reference strings referring to preprints/working papers to their matching published journal versions. We find that at least 390,000 WoS-indexed publications have 1.1 million preprint version citations which are not included in ordinary citation counts.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18316771 2026-06-02T03:53:55-04:00 2026-06-02T03:53:55-04:00

<p>PLOS journals allow authors of accepted articles to choose whether the peer review will be openly published alongside the article. This creates an observational study to examine the characteristics of authors and articles that more often choose open peer review, and whether open review is associated with measures of article quality. We examined over 115,000 PLOS articles and estimated what characteristics of the articles were associated with open peer review. We also examined if open peer review was associated with the subsequent retraction of the article and the number of citations. Forty percent of articles chose open peer review. Authors from the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Ethiopia were more likely to choose open peer review. In contrast, authors from Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Poland, and China were less likely to choose open review. Authors with an edu email were less likely to choose open review, whilst authors with a gmail were more likely. Articles with open peer review were less likely to be retracted (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93) and had more citations on average (adjusted rate ratio = 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.09). In this exploratory study, we found clear differences in participation in open reviews with strong differences between countries. Authors who have confidence in their article and who engage in other open science practices may be more likely to chose open peer review, making this choice an indicator of article quality.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18315445 2026-06-01T15:09:57-04:00 2026-06-01T15:09:57-04:00

<p>Universities of Applied Sciences (UASs) of the Netherlands, like many publicly funded institutions, wish to make their impact on society visible. Policy of the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (NAUAS) indicates that the NAUAS wish to make impact in specific themes. This article explores the overarching question of how the evaluation of the research impact of UAS research can be conducted within the themes of the NAUAS, in a meaningful way. To do so, this article will closely examine and explore how Dutch UAS researchers view their work within the initial 10 themes, the impact they wish to create in those themes, and the output created during this process using data gathered from a national questionnaire and focus groups. We will reflect on these results against the backdrop of the specific UAS policy aims around impacts, doorwerking (effect or influence), and the broader impact literature.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314881 2026-06-01T12:19:13-04:00 2026-06-01T12:19:13-04:00

<p>Public access ensures that publications from government-funded research are accessible to taxpayers through official channels. Between 2004 and 2022, public access policies in the US expanded significantly, starting with National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded research, extending to large federal granting agencies, and eventually covering all federal agencies, often through executive branch initiatives. These policies and their ensuing mandates aligned with American ideals, portraying public access as a public good that fosters scientific literacy, offering transparency in government spending, and demonstrating a strong return on investment. Public access policies could also bolster US leadership in scientific research, while broadening science’s reach beyond institutional barriers. This research examines the evolution of public access policy from NIH’s initial mandate to White House memoranda by John Holdren and Alondra Nelson. It highlights how these evolving policies and legislation reflected national values and expanded efforts toward public access.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314880 2026-06-01T12:15:21-04:00 2026-06-01T12:15:21-04:00

<p>This manuscript deepens the concept of Stockholm Science as an analytical framework for understanding the naturalization of editorial and evaluative domination in the contemporary scientific system. Building on Robert K. Merton’s Matthew effect and Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of scientific capital, it argues that scientific inequalities are reproduced not only through structural mechanisms but also through symbolic processes of internalization and legitimation by peripheral agents. The analysis centers on the APC-based open-access publishing model and its articulation with productivism evaluation systems, showing how the capacity to publish increasingly depends on financial resources and restricted editorial circuits. The manuscript further examines publishing agreements in which the state assumes responsibility for APC payments, interpreting this shift as the institutionalization of Stockholm Science, whereby scientific dependence becomes state based. Such policies may relieve individual researchers but ultimately reinforce market logics and persistent inequalities across regional, institutional, and epistemic dimensions.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314812 2026-06-01T11:26:41-04:00 2026-06-01T11:26:41-04:00

<p>The Circé Network's Journals Hub has entrusted a research team with the production of a detailed report on new practices for evaluating scientific articles. It draws on existing scientific literature and reports on the results of a survey conducted among scholarly journals in Canada and Quebec. This survey made it possible to learn about the practices in force in the Canadian and Quebec scholarly publishing ecosystem and to gather perceptions related to evaluation practices and their potential openness. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18308596 2026-05-29T04:27:13-04:00 2026-05-29T09:01:18-04:00

<h3>Scholarly communication is at an inflection point. Research is more collaborative, computational, international, and dependent on shared infrastructure than at any point in its history. Yet while open science policies have advanced, the systems of scholarly communication, research assessment, and funding have evolved more slowly.</h3> <p>PLOS's 18-month Redefining Publishing project explores how publishing can better support open science by moving beyond the article as the primary unit of value and beyond APC-based models as the dominant mechanism for funding open access.</p> <p>Developed with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the report brings together economic analysis, global convenings, stakeholder consultation, and user-centered design to identify practical pathways for change.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18305023 2026-05-27T14:26:05-04:00 2026-05-27T14:26:05-04:00

<p>This document is the result of a <a href="https://barcelona-declaration.org/news/20251023_community_roundtable/">roundtable workshop co-orga</a>n<a href="https://barcelona-declaration.org/news/20251023_community_roundtable/">ized</a> by the <a href="https://working-groups.barcelona-declaration.org/working_group_3/">Barcelona Declaration Working Group on Funding Metadata </a>and <a href="https://www.crossref.org/">Crossref</a> to discuss the challenges and opportunities for improving open funding metadata. Representatives from different stakeholder groups, including funders, publishers, and infrastructure providers, came together for a candid discussion about current barriers and opportunities for joint solutions. Improving the quality of open funding metadata requires improving how this information is captured, structured, and shared across the scholarly communication ecosystem.</p> <p>The recommendations presented here reflect the collective expertise and commitment of the participants to build a more transparent, interoperable, and efficient funding metadata ecosystem. This document provides an overview of what open funding metadata is, why it matters, the current barriers to quality and coverage, and concrete actions that each stakeholder group can take to achieve this shared goal.</p> <p>A concise summary of the Call to Action is available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20190156">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20190156</a></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18304436 2026-05-27T06:57:07-04:00 2026-05-28T13:26:00-04:00

<p>Learn how academic libraries are unifying workflows, strengthening metadata, and reducing complexity with practical, scalable approaches.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18304437 2026-05-27T07:01:41-04:00 2026-05-27T07:01:41-04:00

<p>When a student hits a paywall, the next step is often predictable. They look for an open access version. OCLC Research confirms this behaviour. Its Open Access Discovery study found that while users actively seek scholarly, peer-reviewed OA publications, they still find it not very easy to discover or access. The problem is not motivation. It is whether OA is operationalised as part of the same end-to-end pipeline as licensed content, so links, versions, and rights information stay consistent wherever users start. In a preview HELibTech Viewpoint, it was argued that metadata is now strategic infrastructure – an asset that requires attention at the highest levels of universities and research institutions. This second ViewPoint gets practical. If you want OA to work consistently, you have to make three things routine: version clarity, rights clarity, and link priority. A new report from OCLC, Unlocking the future of e-resource management, builds on earlier work in OCLC’s “Managing e-Resources” series and draws on the OCLC Research led by Ixchel Faniel on open access discovery. It sets out a playbook libraries can run now to reduce friction in discovery and access, especially in hybrid collections where open and licensed content sit side by side.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18319705 2026-06-04T04:39:34-04:00 2026-06-04T04:39:34-04:00

<p><span>Rejection of review invitations due to time constraints is putting pressure on the peer review system, showing that less time-consuming ways of reviewing are needed. This paper presents the results of a field experiment with a new format for grant peer review and answers the question of whether this new format is less time-consuming while still providing high-quality reviews. In the new approach, the Peer Circle (PC), a team of reviewers collectively evaluates several grant applications. The PC was applied to four fields and compared with four similar fields using conventional peer review. Qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to analyze heterogeneous data such as interviews with and a survey of the peer reviewers; text analysis of the review reports; and statistical analysis of bibliometric applicant data. The comparison suggests that the PC saves time and enlarges the reviewer population considerably. Most reviewers felt that the quality of the PC evaluations was at least as good as that of the conventional evaluations, if not better. Given these findings, the experiment is now continued on a much larger scale. Apart from that, the theoretical implication is that the way of organizing peer review has an important effect on the functioning of the system.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294467 2026-05-22T14:04:19-04:00 2026-05-22T14:04:19-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English</p> <p>BIBLIOVISION 2026 – DIAMOND OPEN ACCESS</p> <p>The OBVSG, in collaboration with the University Library of Vienna, invites you to the first event of 2026 in the BiblioVision series. The focus is on Diamond Open Access, with particular emphasis on international initiatives and best practices. Experts from various backgrounds will provide insights into effective models, infrastructures and organisational frameworks. In addition to short presentations in the morning, the afternoon session will provide an opportunity for exchange and interactive discussions.</p> <p>BiblioVision 2026 is aimed at managers and staff from open access departments at university libraries and other research institutions. Where: Auditorium on the University of Vienna campus | In-person &amp; online When: 9 June 2026 | 9.00 am – 3.30 pm</p> <p>Programme:</p> <p>Opening and welcome</p> <p>Keynote presentations The German Diamond Open Access Capacity Centre SeDOA Christina Riesenweber, Humboldt University of Berlin</p> <p>From Coordination to Commitment: Libraries Building a National Diamond OA Funding Scheme in Switzerland Daniela Hahn, Consortium of Swiss University Libraries</p> <p>Break The Swedish Node for Diamond Open Access – Collaboration &amp; Networking Sofie Wennström, Stockholm University Library The European Diamond Capacity Hub: a distributed infrastructure for Diamond OA. Johan Rooryck, Co-coordinator of the European Diamond Capacity Hub at OPERAS</p> <p>Fishbowl Part 1</p> <p>Presentation of survey results on the needs assessment for central Diamond Open Access publication offices in Austria as part of the ERA-NAP 2026–2028. Magdalena Andrae, Federal Ministry for Women, Science and Research</p> <p>Break</p> <p>Fishbowl Part 2</p> <p>Summary of the results</p> <p>Closing remarks</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294455 2026-05-22T13:39:17-04:00 2026-05-22T13:39:17-04:00

<p>This poster presents the Norwegian OPERAS National Node, a collaboration between erih+ (hosted by The Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills) and UiT – The Arctic University of Norway. The poster outlines OPERAS-NO's role in strengthening open and sustainable scholarly communication in the Social Sciences and Humanities. It highlights ongoing work related to Diamond Open Access, multilingual publishing, research infrastructure coordination, and the integration of Norwegian SSH communities within European initiatives and frameworks. It also presents the node’s strategic goals, planned activities, and long-term ambition to contribute to a more connected and sustainable SSH publishing ecosystem in Norway and Europe.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294454 2026-05-22T13:37:02-04:00 2026-05-22T13:37:02-04:00

<p>OPERAS France, the French national node of OPERAS, coordinated by OpenEdition, acts as an interface between the OPERAS EU and the national SSH community.</p> <p>Its objectives are threefold: • to disseminate information about OPERAS EU activities to the French community; • to promote and support the development of OPERAS services in French, strengthening their uptake at national level; • to transmit the needs and expectations of the French SSH community back to OPERAS EU.</p> <p>Beyond these operational objectives, OPERAS France pursues strategic goals: structuring a formal national consortium (currently in the process of signature), expanding the national node through the integration of new members each year, reinforcing France's strategic role within the European landscape, and preparing for OPERAS' transition to the status of OPERAS ERIC.</p> <p>To achieve these goals, OPERAS France organizes regular webinars in French presenting the latest developments of OPERAS EU, practical workshops on OPERAS services, and thematic sessions responding to community-driven needs. It also contributes to capacity building by coordinating the French translation of key resources produced by the European Diamond Capacity Hub, including the Diamond Open Access Standard (DOAS) and related documentation.</p> <p>Current and upcoming priorities include the formalization and expansion of the national consortium, the translation of training materials from the European Diamond Capacity Hub platform, the organization of training sessions on additional OPERAS services not yet covered, and the preparation of an in-person meeting gathering national members.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294453 2026-05-22T13:31:55-04:00 2026-05-22T13:33:26-04:00

<p>Presentation of Operas-PT - OPERAS Portuguese National Node, led by the University of Coimbra, its projects and activities. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294452 2026-05-22T13:30:33-04:00 2026-05-22T13:30:33-04:00

<p>OPERAS- PL is a Polish National node for the OPERAS Research Infrastructure. It aims to advance sustainable and equitable scholarly communication through four interconnected areas. 1. Infrastructure for Scholarly Communication. OPERAS-PL develops automated workflows for metadata management and publishing, using tools such as Thoth, Selenium‑based scripts, and Open Monograph Press. The new standards and workflows will support innovative publication formats, including digital monographs and critical digital editions, while promoting diamond open access and multilingual publishing. Complementary training programs build capacity among researchers, editors, librarians, and institutional leaders. 2. Research Assessment. In line with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and CoARA principles, OPERAS‑PL develops SSH-specific evaluation frameworks that move beyond narrow bibliometrics to recognise monographs, multilingual scholarship, and novel scholarly outputs, encouraging innovation and inclusivity and contributing to transparent, scholar-driven quality assurance models. 3. Innovation Management. The consortium will closely collaborate with the OPERAS Innovation Lab, which will be hosted by the Poznań Supercomputing and Networking Centre (PCSS). These efforts support community-driven innovation, bringing together academic, infrastructural, and industry stakeholders to co-create solutions tailored to the needs of SSH research and scholarly communication. 4. Integration with EOSC. Polish SSH infrastructures and outputs will be connected to the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) via services such as GoTriple, PRISM, and Pathfinder, enhancing international visibility, discoverability, and reuse. The poster presents the node's partners, mission and activities. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294451 2026-05-22T13:27:03-04:00 2026-05-22T13:27:03-04:00

<p>This poster presents OPERAS-HR, the Croatian OPERAS National node, with its main objectives and activities. Main objectives for the OPERAS-HR Node include: 1. communicating OPERAS ideas and services to the Croatian community; 2. strengthening collaboration with the established research infrastructures (ERICs) in Croatia: DARIAH-HR, CLARIN-HR, CROSSDA, OpenAIRE Nod and 3. identifying and including more members within the Croatian universities, university publishers, libraries, institutes, and learned societies in the OPERAS-HR community. OPERAS-HR is coordinated by the University of Zadar, and has established a website, mailing list, and LinkedIn account, but mainly operates via collaboration with Croatian ordinary members: SRCE, Library of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, and the National and University Library in Zagreb. The latest focus of our work is on establishing the Croatian Centre for Diamond Open Access. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294450 2026-05-22T13:24:26-04:00 2026-05-22T13:24:26-04:00

<p>This conference is jointly organised by the OPERAS Research Infrastructure and the SCIROS project, both of which have been actively exploring the above issues within the Open Science landscape. OPERAS, an infrastructure for scholarly communication in SSH, has been growing for almost a decade and is planning to become a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) in the upcoming years. SCIROS, launched in 2024, brings a fresh and ambitious perspective, building a vibrant and diverse network of researchers and research-performing organisations devoted to deepening the understanding of Open Science, fostering new approaches to its theory, and strengthening the OS practices and infrastructure ecosystem through collaboration. </p> <p>By bringing together the OPERAS ecosystem and the SCIROS research network, the conference creates a unique platform for the entire Open Science community to engage in reflection, dialogue, and knowledge exchange across theory, empirical study, and infrastructure development. In this way, the conference theme, “One network, many possibilities. Strengthening the OPERAS community,” comes to life, showing how a connected yet diverse network can expand opportunities for collaboration, innovation, and sustainable growth in Open Science.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294449 2026-05-22T13:22:02-04:00 2026-05-22T13:22:02-04:00

<p>This presentation was delivered at the OPERAS 2026 &amp; SCIROS Conference and presents the case of the University of Milan in developing a non-proprietary and open infrastructural ecosystem, building on the experience of the Milano University Press (MUP). Framed through the concept of infrastructures as boundary objects, the presentation discusses how open-source tools, open metadata, repositories, monitoring platforms, and community-governed services can connect heterogeneous actors and practices without enforcing standardisation. Particular attention is devoted to diamond open access publishing, FAIR data management and stewardship, interoperability and realibility of information on research, and the role of networks of practices in supporting collaborative and non-extractive models of scholarly communication. The presentation also reflects on the limits of institution-led approaches in fragmented national contexts and highlights the need for coordinated public investment and sustainable scholarly communities.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294448 2026-05-22T13:17:41-04:00 2026-05-22T13:17:41-04:00

<p>Presentation delivered at the OPERAS &amp; SciROS Conference, Warsaw, 20 May 2026. Article processing charges (APCs) are increasingly treated as indicators of journal quality, prestige, and visibility. This presentation discusses the methodological and political implications of a recent valuation framework (Halevi et al. 2024), now operational as the SCImago Journal Value tool, which estimates a journal's financial value by combining a citation-based indicator with publication volume. The talk identifies three methodological issues — model selection without out-of-sample validation, the pooling of journals with different business and mission models, and the conceptual ambiguity of treating listed APCs as effective prices — and illustrates them empirically with the case of Milan University Press, a diamond open access publisher whose catalogue is largely invisible to the metric and whose visible portion is assigned a substantial monetary value that corresponds to no actual transaction. The presentation argues that price-based indicators cannot adequately capture the value of non-commercial publishing infrastructures and warns against their use in the governance of Open Science. Conference URL: https://operasandsciros.sciencesconf.org</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18294447 2026-05-22T13:12:31-04:00 2026-05-22T13:12:31-04:00

<div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <h2> </h2> <p>PIDfest is a three-day international summit of talks, activities and workshops focussing on how persistent identifiers can deliver world-class research infrastructure.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <p> </p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p> </p> <h2> </h2> <div> <p> </p> <p>The goal of this event is to bring together PID advocates, users, and leaders from around the world to solve real world infrastructure challenges that will accelerate research and innovation.</p> </div> <p> </p> <h2> </h2> <div> <p> </p> <p>Attendees can expect energetic discussions focussed on solving real world challenges in delivering research infrastructure.</p> </div> <h3> </h3> <p>PIDfest 2026 will be hosted by <a href="https://www.surf.nl/">SURF</a> from 27 to 29 October in Leiden, the Netherlands.</p> <h2> </h2> <div> <p>Registration will open in May.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18290053 2026-05-20T07:25:38-04:00 2026-05-20T08:29:04-04:00

<p>This joint statement is issued by six major European organisations – ALLEA, EIFL, IFLA, LIBER, OPERAS, and SPARC Europe – representing thousands of European universities, research-performing organisations, libraries, scholarly infrastructures, and academies of sciences and humanities. In light of the consultation on the European Research Area (ERA) Act, it reflects on the current state of Open Science (OS).</p> <p>While significant policy progress has been made through the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021), European Council Conclusions in 2022 and 2023, national OS policies, and more, substantial challenges remain. Financial, linguistic, and geographic inequalities continue to limit equitable participation in and access to Open Science.</p> <p>This joint statement outlines what key remaining barriers require a coordinated approach. The ERA Act represents an important opportunity to accelerate progress through targeted legislative measures, but legislation alone will not be sufficient.</p> <p>Achieving Open Science will require the mobilisation of a diverse ecosystem of actors and complementary tools, including policy alignment, incentives, infrastructure, and community-led initiatives.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18284922 2026-05-18T15:46:18-04:00 2026-05-18T15:46:18-04:00

<p>Marx wrote that in full communism the state would just wither away, but he conveniently left out exactly how. A lot of writing on the future of scientific publishing is like that — pretty hand wavy when it comes to exactly how we transition into the glorious post-journal future.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18270347 2026-05-13T10:42:41-04:00 2026-05-14T09:11:13-04:00

<p>The goal of the Diamond Open Access Service Center (SeDOA) is to promote a free and sustainable scholarly publishing system. Diamond Open Access (DOA) refers to the free publication of quality-assured scholarly publications under an open access license, free of charge for both authors and readers. The journal or title rights or the book and series titles belong to the scholarly community  and are not intended for commercial purposes. To promote DOA publishing, the "SeDOA Innovation Lab" (SIL) was established within the Diamond Open Access Service Center. The SIL's mission is to identify researchers' current needs and develop and evaluate use cases. With your feedback, we aim to improve the SIL's work and develop targeted pilot projects. Completing the questionnaire takes approximately 10 minutes.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18270346 2026-05-13T10:40:16-04:00 2026-05-14T09:11:44-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: The following publication constitutes the second part of the previously published report ‘Results of the SeDOA 2025 Needs Assessment’. The findings were generated as part of the needs assessment carried out within the DFG-funded project ‘Servicestelle Diamond Open Access’ (SeDOA). The needs assessment was conducted in July/August 2025 as an online survey using the LimeSurvey software.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18254295 2026-05-07T06:56:59-04:00 2026-05-07T06:56:59-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: With the new Purchase-to-Open (P2O) platform, established intermediaries in the professional book trade, a publisher and an IT service provider aim to make the acquisition of academic open-access monographs (OA monographs) and anthologies simpler and less risky. P2O is an open model for the entire market.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18315471 2026-06-01T15:35:00-04:00 2026-06-01T15:35:00-04:00

<p>This study investigates faculty perspectives on Open Access (OA) publishing in Bangladeshi science and technology universities, focusing on awareness, confidence, and practices related to OA models, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and rights retention strategies. A survey of 175 faculty members across academic ranks assessed knowledge of Gold, Green, Hybrid, and Diamond OA, APC pricing and waivers, and licensing tools such as Creative Commons and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Author Addendum. Results indicate strong conceptual familiarity with OA models, particularly among senior and experienced faculty, but limited institutional support and gaps in understanding of APC waivers, transformative agreements, and rights retention mechanisms. Awareness of Diamond OA and independent APC resources remains low, with a reliance on publisher-provided information. OA literacy was significantly associated with academic designation, education, experience, and publication output. The study recommends targeted, career-stage-specific training, improved institutional guidance, and promotion of equitable OA models to support sustainable and inclusive scholarly communication.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18319707 2026-06-04T06:04:30-04:00 2026-06-04T06:04:30-04:00

<p>At Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH), library apprentices took part in a role-play designed to simulate the full publication process of a scholarly article, from data collection to repository deposit. The focus was on open access and open research data, conveyed through realistic scenarios and role exchanges. The library apprentices acted as a BFH research team, while library colleagues assumed roles such as publisher, peer reviewer and open access advisor. The format made open access licences, data archiving and publisher communication tangible. With a custom-designed workbook and situational elements such as simulated article processing charge payments, key challenges and procedural steps became accessible. By simulating scientific research work using known data and subsequently publishing the manuscript, as well as working with realistic roles and different people embodying these roles, the apprentices gained comprehensive insight into the topics of open access and open data within a single day. The role-play has proven to be a highly effective format, not only for teaching open access and open research data, but for experiencing them collaboratively and allowing sufficient scope for spontaneous discussions and suitable learning sessions that respond to the participants’ individual questions.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18284897 2026-05-18T15:07:30-04:00 2026-05-18T15:07:30-04:00

<p>As Open Access continues to gain importance in science policy, understanding the proportion of Open Access publications relative to the total research output of research-performing organizations, individual countries, or even globally has become increasingly relevant. In response, dashboards are being developed to capture and communicate progress in this area. To provide an overview of these dashboards and their characteristics, an extensive survey was conducted, resulting in the identification of over 60 dashboards. To support a detailed and structured description, a dedicated metadata schema was developed, and the identified dashboards were systematically indexed accordingly. We provide an openly reusable dataset and an interoperable metadata schema that enable comparative and longitudinal analyses of Open Access dashboards across regions and operator types, and we invite the community to reuse, extend, and refine them. The dataset is particularly relevant for researchers in Library and Information Science and Science and Technology Studies, supporting both empirical analyses of Open Access and the methodological refinement of indicators and policy instruments in the context of Open Science.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18242472 2026-04-29T09:52:10-04:00 2026-04-29T09:52:10-04:00

<p>Today we published the 2026-2028 strategic plan for the Information &amp; Openness focal area. This blogpost provides an overview of the plan, describing our vision and objectives for advancing the uptake of open research information in the coming years.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18242148 2026-04-29T04:16:18-04:00 2026-04-29T04:16:18-04:00

<p>Are our universities still fit for purpose? While academia struggles to meet expectations in times of rapid political and technological change, the “ivory tower” critique sadly still hits home. Also internally, universities are under immense strain: the publication model is cracking, the academic funding landscape has become a rat race that leads to more losers than winners, and systemic inequalities profoundly restrict access to higher education. Fixing Academia (VU University Press) is a timely and provocative collection of essays by ten young scholars. In a series of sharp, evidence-based, and constructive reflections on a selection of pressing themes, they diagnose some of the structural flaws in 21st-century Dutch universities. They also offer the tools for repair – tackling everything from the influence of Big Pharma on scientific integrity to the urgent need for better work-life balance for academic parents. Actionable yet visionary, this book hopes to stimulate conversations on how to “fix” academia and help universities strengthen their bonds with society.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18242147 2026-04-29T04:11:43-04:00 2026-04-29T04:11:43-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Dutch universities are too dependent on a handful of commercial publishers. Achieving greater ‘digital sovereignty’ is easier said than done. But there are some inspiring initiatives to be found.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18208413 2026-04-25T13:32:39-04:00 2026-04-25T13:32:39-04:00

<p>"As a researcher, I grew up in a very competitive field. I didn't feel like passing this on to a new generation" Turning the Tide: Stories of Open Science features seven people with different roles in academia. They talk about their journey to working more openly, and their personal turning points and motivation. This film aims to empower others to also start their journey, which might be feeling like going against the tide. But maybe you are riding a new wave, together with more and more of your peers?</p> <p>Feel free to share!</p> <p>A big thank you to all who shared their story: Iris Smal, Sander Bosch, Ana Martinovici, Thamyres Choji, Yunhai Yi-Twisk, Lukas Struck and Chris Hartgerink</p> <p>This short film was created during the Open Science Retreat in Schoorl, the Netherlands, March 2026. It was amazing to be able to create this in just three days! The team: Arthur Thives Mello, Jazelle Maira Carillo,Nami Sunami, Mathijs van Woerkum, Melanie Imming and Zafer Ozturk</p> <p>The Open Science Retreat was organised by the Open Science Communities NL, the Digital Research Academy and Imming Impact. We thank Open Science NL and Zon MW for funding this event!</p> <p>This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license: Turning the Tide Team</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18208410 2026-04-25T13:25:03-04:00 2026-04-25T13:25:03-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Documentation and data collected as part of the project ‘From baseline measurement to embedding: Recognising &amp; Valuing Open Science within Dutch religious universities’. The aim of the project is to produce policy advice and an implementation plan for incorporating Open Science (OS) into recruitment and development policy, whilst allowing scope for individual interpretation within the separate institutions. The project includes, amongst other things, an assessment of the current situation within these institutions and of proven practical examples. (16 April 2026).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18208402 2026-04-25T13:22:17-04:00 2026-04-25T13:22:17-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Presentation of the findings of the project ‘From baseline assessment to embedding: Recognising &amp; Valuing Open Science within the Dutch philosophical universities’ at the second Open Science afternoon organised by the Dutch philosophical universities (NLU) in Utrecht on 16 April 2026.</p> <p>The aim of the project was to develop policy advice and an implementation plan for incorporating Open Science (OS) into the recruitment and development policies of the four institutions. The presentation includes an assessment of the current situation within these institutions and a recommendation of five best practices. The project was funded by NWO, as part of the research programme ‘Recognising and Valuing Open Science’, file number 500.070.2410 and Grant ID https://doi.org/10.61686/RKZCN04980.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18254294 2026-05-07T05:35:58-04:00 2026-05-07T05:35:58-04:00

<p>Two research assessment frameworks in the Netherlands are moving towards open research information indicators in line with the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18130708 2026-04-21T04:52:47-04:00 2026-04-21T04:52:47-04:00

<p>Bixonimania doesn’t exist except in a clutch of obviously bogus academic papers. So why did AI chatbots warn people about this fictional illness?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18119747 2026-04-20T12:14:20-04:00 2026-04-20T12:14:20-04:00

<p>Generative AI in peer review raises ethical and environmental concerns and risks deepening existing inequities in scholarly publishing. Celebrated gains in speed often mask declines in quality and accountability. Training and deploying large models impose environmental costs. In editorial workflows, AI can privilege technical fixes over structural reform, and evidence shows it reproduces human biases while being cast as neutral. We call for a renewed commitment to open-science principles anchored in human oversight, deep sustainability, and broader justice. The paper concludes by interrogating sustainability’s absence from green-economy debates and mapping the values likely to shape the future of peer review.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17993186 2026-04-12T16:36:19-04:00 2026-04-12T16:36:19-04:00

<p><span>Academic libraries support the mission and vision of their institution; in the case of most universities, this means providing a variety of services and resources in support of the research enterprise. This case study documents one library’s support for open access publishing to explore how it directly supports the research mission of a Carnegie Research 2 university. By leveraging relationships and investing existing collections resources and workflows—the sequence of decisions and labor through which librarians make scholarly and artistic works discoverable, accessible, and support their preservation—in open access publishing, the library has materially increased the visibility of locally produced scholarship and become a more visible campus collaborator.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17993626 2026-04-12T16:48:05-04:00 2026-04-13T08:48:54-04:00

<p>This article is based on a keynote speech given at the OASPA conference in Leuven on 22 September 2025 critically analyzing the power relations surrounding open knowledge. The central thesis is that what matters is not who owns knowledge, but who can use, produce and evaluate it – depending on social, cultural and financial capital. Without these resources, open knowledge remains available but not equally usable. The core problems lie in knowledge production and evaluation: peer review processes, database indexing and ranking systems determine the visibility and recognition of knowledge. However, the effectiveness of these procedures is the subject of intense debate, as is the inadequate implementation of standards, the indexing of dubious journals and systematic distortions in favor of the Global North, renowned institutions and established publishers. It is therefore less a question of ownership and more a question of power: who can produce knowledge, and who decides on its credibility and dissemination? Political developments are manifesting themselves in cuts to open access budgets, restrictions on access to research data and even the suppression of undesirable knowledge production. In response, ‘dark archives’ (e. g., for arXiv at the TIB; Tobschall et al. 2025) or data backups (e. g., of PubMed by ZB MED) are being created to preserve scientific autonomy. AI also jeopardises open access principles by failing to cite sources when processing open content, which undermines copyright laws. One possible, albeit unrealistic, solution would be for publishers to voluntarily commit to only granting access to AI systems that cite sources correctly. Technical access restrictions for AI would run counter to the very idea of open knowledge. This reveals a fundamental dilemma between regulation and openness. Community-supported frameworks are proposed as a solution, such as a ‘Trusted Open Knowledge’ label that guarantees source references, establishes transparent evaluation and addresses structural inequalities. The central question remains: Who does science serve, and who determines what counts as knowledge?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17887791 2026-04-07T11:57:05-04:00 2026-04-07T11:57:05-04:00

<p>This position paper Vision on Publication Culture brings together ongoing initiatives aimed at promoting a new culture of scholarly publishing. The paper emphasises the importance of establishing institution-wide principles and guidelines as a foundation for a new publication culture, while allowing flexibility to account for contextual and disciplinary differences. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17885522 2026-04-07T09:33:59-04:00 2026-04-07T09:33:59-04:00

<p>English from Google Translate: In this blog post, we comment from the perspective of the Task Force on Financing of the Service Point Diamond Open Access (SeDOA) the concept Germany Fund for Diamond Open Access (DeFDOA), in which SeDOA is explicitly mentioned and intended for certain tasks. We will not go into all the details at this point, but rather on some points that we consider to be particularly important. The article does not represent an official statement of the project on DeFDOA. The concept of DeFDOA was originally developed by Bernhard Mittermaier and is being discussed in various contexts, including in the Task Force "Establishment of Science-Led Open Access Infrastructures" in the focus area "Digitality in science" of the Alliance of Science Organisations. SeDOA is involved in these discussions and contributes its statements there.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17882004 2026-04-07T05:14:42-04:00 2026-04-07T05:14:42-04:00

<p>Diamond Open Access (Diamond OA) has received much attention in recent years as a possible answer to some of the toughest questions in scholarly publishing. But what do researchers themselves actually think about it? As part of the <a href="https://ukb.nl/en/programmes/diamond-open-access/">Strengthening Diamond Open Access</a> in the Netherlands program, we found that while many researchers welcome the principle of Diamond OA, awareness remains uneven and actual publishing choices continue to be shaped by career incentives, reputation, and visibility rather than a deliberate commitment to community-owned infrastructures or long-term sustainability. This misalignment highlights the need for stronger institutional recognition of Diamond venues, clearer guidance for researchers, and incentives that meaningfully reward publishing in scholar-led, non-APC venues. Placing the findings into the context of what is sometimes called the ‘monograph crisis’ allows us to ask a sharper question: Can Diamond OA serve as a genuine lifeline for the scholarly monograph?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17881999 2026-04-07T05:07:51-04:00 2026-04-07T05:07:51-04:00

<p>Open licensing and copyright are important aspects of publishing research, but what do they mean in practice? Creative Commons (CC) licences offer a standardised framework for sharing research outputs, with open access being increasingly mandated by international funders. However, growing concern about research outputs being used to train generative AI tools has led some authors to seek more restrictive licences. Yet the question remains: Does a more restrictive licence stop AI from using your work, or does it simply limit the collaborations driving innovation? Europe PMC, partners of EMBL-EBI, and KR21 invite you to a joint webinar tackling this pressing question.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17881573 2026-04-07T04:46:07-04:00 2026-04-07T04:46:07-04:00

<p>Does open access mean accessible to all? This free webinar will delve into the essential but often challenging topic of accessibility, with a particular focus on how smaller publishers can make their open access books more accessible to users of assistive technology. Highlighting the practical resources available to inform and help publishers seeking to make their books more accessible for all readers, and featuring a publisher who will explain how they have taken on this challenge step by step, this webinar offers essential, practical advice to make accessibility more achievable, and ensure that open access truly means accessible to everyone.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17881572 2026-04-07T04:43:41-04:00 2026-04-07T04:43:41-04:00

<p>Join this free online webinar from OAPEN, in cooperation with the Open Access Books Network, to learn what it is like to publish an EU funded open access book. The session brings together EU funded researchers to share first hand experiences of OA book publishing, including the decisions they made, the routes they navigated, and the challenges involved.</p> <p>Speakers include: - Dr Jochen Hung, Associate Professor of Cultural History at Utrecht University and editor of The European Experience - Dr Imre Keserü, Associate Professor of Urban Mobility at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and editor of Strengthening European Mobility Policy.</p> <p>The webinar will also introduce the OAPEN‑EU project and explain how EU funded books and chapters can be deposited in the OAPEN Library to meet funding requirements. In addition, participants will hear a short overview of the European Open Research book collection on Zenodo, highlighting how it supports the open dissemination, discoverability, and long term preservation of scholarly books. There will be plenty of time for audience questions throughout.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17639715 2026-03-26T09:21:07-04:00 2026-03-26T10:14:41-04:00

<p>"<a href="https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/">Open Research Europe</a> (ORE) is the European Commission’s open access publishing platform for research funded by all EU programmes. Launched in 2021 to promote innovative, no-fee open access publishing, the platform is now preparing to enter a new phase.  </p> <p>Backed by a nearly €17 million budget for the period 2026-2031 and co-funded by the European Commission by up to €10 million, the new phase of ORE is set to begin operations as a collectively supported publishing service in the autumn of 2026, with CERN operating the platform. Leveraging on its success, the publishing service will be driven by national research organisations from 11 countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland). In addition to researchers benefiting from EU grants, collective funding will also enable researchers from participating countries to publish without fees, thus expanding significantly author eligibility. ORE was conceived within the European Research Area (ERA)’s policy framework with the objective of ensuring open access to high-quality EU-funded research results, strengthening the free circulation of knowledge and maximising the impact of publicly funded research. In the five years since its launch, the platform has seen a steady growth and uptake among the research community, with more than 1,200 articles published and over 6,300 authors from more than 3,000 institutions worldwide."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17639716 2026-03-26T09:23:52-04:00 2026-03-27T09:23:01-04:00

<p>In an important step for open science, CERN has been selected to host a new phase of Open Research Europe (ORE), an initiative supported by the European Commission and a new funding consortium of European national funding agencies and research organisations. Aligned with the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access (2022)[1], the initiative is a community-led alternative to traditional academic publishing. When the new ORE platform is launched later this year, authorship eligibility will be expanded to include researchers affiliated with institutions in the countries that participate in the consortium. Publishing will remain completely free for both European Commission-funded researchers and authors from participating countries. The aim is to promote equity, diversity and transparency in scholarly communication while maintaining high standards of quality and integrity.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17598514 2026-03-24T06:36:52-04:00 2026-03-24T06:36:52-04:00

<p>AEGIS-OA (Activate European Guidance and Incentives for Sustainable Open Access publishing), an EU-funded project under the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, kicked off on 19-20 March 2026 in Brussels. The project aims to establish a transparent, sustainable, and high-quality open access scholarly publishing ecosystem in Europe by leveraging and expanding the services of the European Diamond Capacity Hub (EDCH). It focuses on integrating open access books alongside journals, upskilling publishing professionals through training programs, and coordinating a network of National Capacity Centres to align national efforts and initiatives across disciplines and borders.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17598513 2026-03-24T06:33:59-04:00 2026-03-24T06:33:59-04:00

<p>Student-run academic journals represent an important but underexplored dimension of scholarly communication, offering early-career scholars opportunities to engage with editorial processes, peer review, and academic publishing. While existing research has documented the pedagogical and professional benefits of student publishing in North American and UK contexts, the landscape of student-led journals in European higher education remains largely unmapped. This thesis addresses this gap by providing the first systematic examination of student-run publications in the Netherlands. Drawing on desk research, institutional outreach, and twenty-five qualitative interviews with student editors and faculty supervisors, this study maps the ecosystem of Dutch student journals and analyses how they operate, what purposes they serve, and what challenges they face. The research reveals a highly diverse landscape in which publications range from rigorously peer-reviewed academic journals to hybrid formats combining scholarly and creative content, to student magazines focused on community engagement. Despite this heterogeneity, common patterns emerge: nearly all journals operate on volunteer student labour with minimal institutional support, creating shared vulnerabilities around funding, continuity, and technical capacity. The findings demonstrate that Dutch student journals serve multiple overlapping purposes (pedagogical, social, platform-related, and professional) simultaneously, with participants gaining valuable skills in editing, peer review, and scholarly communication. However, journals face continuous challenges including financial uncertainty, knowledge loss through editorial turnover, recruitment difficulties, and limited institutional recognition. This thesis contributes to scholarship on student publishing by documenting a national ecosystem previously absent from academic literature and developing a typology that captures diverse publication models. The research concludes that while student publishing in the Netherlands thrives through student enthusiasm and commitment, its long-term sustainability requires greater institutional recognition and support.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18284896 2026-05-18T15:02:49-04:00 2026-05-18T15:02:49-04:00

<p>Neuroscience is crucial for understanding human behaviour. Yet, its resource-intensive methods contribute to the climate crisis. We call on neuroscientists to align their research with ecological sustainability goals across the research cycle and propose three key steps: replace unfocused data collection, reduce excessive emissions and refine imprecise methods.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17579282 2026-03-23T06:28:19-04:00 2026-03-23T06:28:19-04:00

<p><span>A reading list that may interest the Copim community. It contains resources from the </span><a href="https://copim.pub/join-us-for-the-copim-conference-2026-exploring-the-future-of-community-led-open-access-books/">Copim Conference 2026</a><span>, either discussed in panel sessions, as well as presenter publications and information about the initiatives they support.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17566239 2026-03-22T15:35:17-04:00 2026-03-22T15:35:17-04:00

<p><span>The introductory responsible research assessment (RRA)  course aims to empower anyone to challenge existing assumptions around research quality and impact, by introducing them to the concept of </span><em>responsible</em><span> research assessment, its foundational principles, and how RRA aims to improve evaluation practices.</span></p> <p><span>This course is </span><strong>free</strong><span>, </span><strong>self-paced,</strong><span> and designed for you to </span><strong>pick and choose </strong><span>which lessons are most relevant and useful. Each lesson includes a glossary of key terms and an annotated bibliography to help guide you if you wish to dive more deeply into different topics touched on during the lesson.</span></p> <p><strong>Who is this course for?</strong><span> This is an introductory course open to anyone, regardless of career level or discipline, seeking to learn about RRA. This course is designed for anyone working in research, research administration or leadership, research funding or policy, scholarly publishing or communication, or metrics providers who seek to drive positive change in the research system</span><span>.</span><span> Given that this topic is focused on those in the academic space, a familiarity with academia or higher education, research policy, and/or academic publishing is highly recommended.</span></p> <p><strong>What will you gain? </strong><span>Build a foundational understanding of RRA, gain insights into innovative </span><span>tools and approaches such as Narrative CVs, and be inspired from real-world examples of successful RRA implementation from institutions worldwide.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18053209 2026-04-15T14:54:50-04:00 2026-04-15T14:54:50-04:00

<p>Quantitative approaches have proven highly effective in studying the structure and dynamics of science, but their success depends on the availability of reliable and comprehensive data. In the humanities, existing data sources remain fragmented and limited, hindering systematic research. In this paper, we introduce SOPHIS, an open-access database specifically designed for the quantitative study of contemporary philosophy of science. The current version of SOPHIS covers eight core journals in philosophy of science over the period 2005–2019. SOPHIS integrates information on epistemic contents, their material carriers, and the individual and collective actors involved in their production and dissemination, thereby offering a unified framework for mapping the epistemic and social landscape of the field. We illustrate its potential through three exploratory applications: (i) identifying key actors and analyzing the distribution of prestige, (ii) examining the factors of prestige accumulation, and (iii) uncovering the fine-grained community structure of the discipline. SOPHIS represents a step toward building a richer data infrastructure for the humanities, enabling transparent, large-scale, and evidence-based analyses of their social and epistemic dynamics.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18254293 2026-05-07T05:30:31-04:00 2026-05-07T05:30:31-04:00

<p>Over the past few decades, several reform movements have emerged across scholarly communication and academia. Open science, open access, efforts to reshape research culture, research assessment reform and growing discussions around trust in science are all trying to address genuine problems in how research is produced, evaluated, and communicated.</p> <p>Yet despite their shared goals, these movements operate in parallel rather than in concert. The result is fragmentation, confusion and growing frustration among the very researchers these efforts are supposed to help.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421928 2026-03-15T14:53:13-04:00 2026-03-15T14:55:05-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: This article provides insights into the work of the DFG-funded infrastructure project EthnOA – Open Access in the Ethnological Disciplines, which bridges the gap between the ethnological disciplines and library- and infrastructure-oriented open access. The article discusses subject-specific approaches to and challenges of open-access publishing and traces how these are reflected in the project work at the Subject Information Service for Social and Cultural Anthropology. Using three key examples, it highlights how specific research and publication cultures influence open-access publishing, and outlines the measures being taken within the project to address subject-specific perspectives and needs. Reservations regarding Creative Commons licences illustrate how access and openness must be viewed in relation to one another. Using the example of dealing with legal issues in the context of secondary publication and Green Open Access, the article addresses the increase and shift in tasks and activities within Open Access publishing as a challenge and a hurdle. Finally, it explains how the involvement of researchers in the assignment of metadata creates new scope for ethical publishing in Open Access whilst simultaneously exploring its limits.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18284895 2026-05-18T15:00:38-04:00 2026-05-18T15:00:38-04:00

<p>An open science culture in educational research requires consideration of the dimensions of Open Science in application and appointment procedures. By mentioning Open Science practices or products in relevant job advertisements, incentives are set and corresponding efforts are recognized and rewarded. The aim of this study is to assess the current situation. The question of which Open Science dimensions are considered and thus incentivized in educational research-related job advertisements is investigated. In order to investigate the question, a systematic data collection is carried out, which records all job advertisements in the field of educational research/educational science in the period September 2024 – February 2025 (six months) on the platform Academics (URL: <a href="http://www.academics.de/">www.academics.de</a>). During the survey period, the website is accessed weekly and searches are carried out using the terms “Bildungsforschung” (English translation: educational research), “Bildungswissenschaft” (English translation: educational science) and “Erziehungswissenschaft” (English translation: educational science). All search results are systematically documented, which means that both metadata (title of the vacancy, university advertising the vacancy, etc.) and the text content of the vacancies are recorded. The data evaluation analyzes the Open Science dimensions Open Access, Open Data, Open Methodology and Open Educational Resources (OER). The results indicate that Open Science appears in only about 5% of the analyzed job advertisements, revealing that it remains a largely untapped potential for fostering an Open Science culture in educational research.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18315438 2026-06-01T15:07:07-04:00 2026-06-01T15:07:07-04:00

<p>Scholarly publishing and communication are the foundation of evidence-based practices and innovation in society. However, this critical area of academia is facing sustainability challenges, both within and beyond academic institutions and research entities. This article critically examines the evolving landscape of scholarly communication in the digital age, highlighting the transformative roles of peer review and editorial functions amid technological advancements, such as AI. The article argues that insufficient institutional recognition of the production of academic knowledge, such as editorial and reviewing work, despite their significant role in research quality, ethical dilemmas in knowledge production, funding problems, and research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism and data fabrication) pose significant implications for the sustainability of the current model of scholarship communication. Other concerns include ensuring quality amid rapid scientific developments such as AI, balancing financial sustainability with open research, and reviewer fatigue. Going forward, strategies such as increasing the premium on contributions to knowledge production, rather than mainly focusing on the product (i.e. publications), to incentivise active uptake of editorial roles, and expanding availability and access to research resources can go a long way to ensuring a robust and sustainable scholarly communication ecosystem.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17284984 2026-02-26T09:04:19-05:00 2026-02-26T10:00:09-05:00

<h1>Oxford Forum of Open Scholarship (OxFOS)</h1> <h2>Theme: Who owns our knowledge?</h2> <p>Monday 2 March – Friday 6 March 2026</p> <p>Now in its fourth year, the Oxford Forum of Open Scholarship is a University-wide conference for researchers, students, staff, and anyone else interested in making research more open and trustworthy.</p> <p>OxFOS is a chance to share ideas, learn, showcase your work, and interact with others passionate about the importance of making research more open, transparent and accessible. It is organised by the Bodleian Libraries in partnership with the Research Practice team and the grassroots researcher group, Reproducible Research Oxford.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17279502 2026-02-24T08:32:23-05:00 2026-02-24T08:32:23-05:00

<p>In the first research seminar at CWTS of 2026, Samuel Moore argued that Open Access publishing took the wrong path and proposed alternatives with a new ‘commons’ approach. As PhD candidates studying scholarly communication, we expand his view to broader research infrastructure and culture.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17276348 2026-02-23T03:45:23-05:00 2026-02-23T08:58:30-05:00

<p>I discuss why diamond open access is necessary to reduce perverse incentives in science, and to improve the outputs of Gen AI.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421983 2026-03-15T15:05:06-04:00 2026-03-15T15:05:06-04:00

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421929 2026-03-15T15:01:58-04:00 2026-03-15T15:01:58-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Open-access publication formats are regarded as key building blocks of open science. Whilst many models are based on established publishing systems or rely on institutional repositories, little is known to date about collaborative, student-led publication projects. This article analyses the open-access journal kommunikation.medien, which has been published since 2011 as part of a master’s project in communication studies at the University of Salzburg. The journal combines editorial practice with academic training and offers early-career researchers in particular a platform for publishing their final theses as academic articles. Through its continuous development, kommunikation.medien has established itself as a distinct model within the open-access spectrum, fulfilling both educational and scientific communication functions. The article examines the development, structure and working methods of the project and employs the perspective of care ethics to theoretically conceptualise practices of coordination, shared responsibility and care. It becomes clear that academic publishing requires not only technical and institutional prerequisites, but also relational processes, situational negotiation and ongoing care work. kommunikation.medien thus emerges as an example of an alternative publishing practice that transcends market-driven and performance-oriented paradigms, and as an invitation to understand academic communication as a process that is both formative and collaborative.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421927 2026-03-15T14:51:26-04:00 2026-03-15T14:51:26-04:00

<p>This article examines the cultural shift in academic publishing practices towards open access. The aim of the study is to analyse the effectiveness of various newly implemented measures against the backdrop of the Collective Readiness for Change model. The measures implemented are intended to promote the transition to an open academic publishing culture at institutional, disciplinary and individual levels. To this end, a comparative analysis of German universities, a quantitative survey and various measures to raise awareness of Open Access were carried out. The survey initially identifies insufficient dissemination of information and a lack of a culture of debate within the university and between academic status groups. Furthermore, additional obstacles include disciplinary publication traditions, inadequate infrastructure, and the academic evaluation systems still prevalent in many disciplines, such as the use of impact factors of established closed-access journals as a criterion for assessing the value of academic work. Although awareness of Open Access has grown in recent decades thanks to funding bodies and academic progress, this study shows that a genuine cultural shift has not yet been achieved. Rather, a kind of hybrid culture can be observed, which has become established in the course of the ongoing transformation process, relying on existing publishing structures and mechanisms. To strive for a sustainable cultural shift, not only technical and information policy measures are required, but also a profound understanding of cultural changes within the academic system. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421926 2026-03-15T14:45:55-04:00 2026-03-15T14:45:55-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: The open-access transformation – the shift in academic publishing towards (as far as possible) barrier-free and open access on the internet – requires the commitment of a broad community. The open-access.network project offers various stakeholders the opportunity to exchange ideas and network, and supports researchers with specialist information. This practice report highlights, among other things, the role of professional societies and academic publishers in the transition of academic publishing to Open Access. Examples and lessons learnt are presented based on workshops that have been held. Drawing on the principle of ‘scaling small’ – a form of (self-)organisation that pools resources whilst taking diversity into account – the report outlines how collective action and the involvement of various stakeholders enable a cultural shift towards greater openness in academia. In this context, the open-access.network association will assume a central role once project funding has ended.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421483 2026-03-15T14:23:50-04:00 2026-03-15T14:23:50-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: This chapter examines the role of lay abstracts in the context of open science and science communication. It presents the ‘SciComOA – Science Communication for a Lay Audience’ project, which develops and tests lay abstracts as a strategic communication format in open-access journals. The authors analyse theoretical foundations (open access and science communication), define relevant lay target groups and describe the methodological approach using quantitative and qualitative surveys with editorial teams and authors. Results show a high level of motivation to participate in lay abstracts, but also structural barriers such as lack of time, lack of recognition and inconsistent editorial processes. The article discusses transdisciplinary collaboration, AI-supported tools and the institutional embedding of lay communication as potential solutions. Lay abstracts are not understood as trivial simplifications, but as a culturally and communicatively significant building block of an inclusive, participatory scientific culture.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421482 2026-03-15T14:18:50-04:00 2026-03-15T14:18:50-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Digital sovereignty is a conceptually open term in digital policy that addresses issues of regulation and control of digital data and infrastructures, whilst refocusing attention on the state as an actor. Within the academic system, digital sovereignty is being addressed, amongst other things, in the field of information and publication infrastructures. In light of rising costs, increasing publication numbers and the shift by major academic publishers towards data-driven business models, there is growing consideration of utilising publicly owned academic publication infrastructures to publish research findings in open access. This paper develops a hegemonic theory-based interpretation of digital sovereignty, which understands the associated debates not as purely technical or administrative-political processes, but as hegemonic struggles for control over academic public spheres. At its core is an analysis of the tension between academic autonomy and state control, which becomes apparent in the course of the reorganisation of digital publication infrastructures. The article advocates a power-critical perspective on digital sovereignty that takes questions of institutional embedding and political influence seriously and reflects on the conditions for a democratically legitimised, community-based infrastructure policy.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17421481 2026-03-15T14:12:34-04:00 2026-03-15T14:12:34-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: This text examines certain aspects of ‘science tracking’, understood as the systematic and widespread digital surveillance of science and scientists by former major publishers, who dominate the publishing market as an oligopoly. In the context of digitalisation and the open-access transformation, they have evolved into data analytics corporations with business models based on the continuous harvesting of data from their platforms and applications. In doing so, they are introducing tracking practices into science – under the guise of ‘improving their products’ and ‘legitimate interests’, with unnamed business partners and one-sided text-and-data-mining rules in open-access transformation contracts. In addition to direct risks of scientific espionage and concrete threats to researchers, these practices also pose more subtle problems for scientific integrity. At stake here is the relevance of privacy to scientific work. On the other hand, this takes the commodification of science to a new level, as the mechanisms of the web economy find their way into scientific institutions and processes, eroding the conditions for independent science. At the same time, as further applications from market-dominating corporations are implemented, so too does their influence on institutions grow. Through their presence in the research cycle, research management and with every ‘big deal’ in the publishing sector, they determine the evolution of Open Access and Open Science towards a lock-in of the scientific community. Following an examination of how tracking practices have become embedded in the ad tech industry, I discuss tracking specifically within the scientific sector as an inherent feature of products and platforms, one that also permeates the current implementation of Open Access in the form of transformation agreements. An analytical distinction between science tracking and Open Access requires a differentiation between commercial and non-commercial supporting organisations and the infrastructures they determine.</p> <p>  </p><p> </p> <p></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17221434 2026-02-02T16:16:29-05:00 2026-02-02T16:16:29-05:00

<div><span>We analyse focus group discussions and free-text survey responses from a multi-stakeholder consultation conducted after the October 2023 publication of the proposal <em>Towards Responsible Publishing</em> by cOAlition S. The proposal calls for a systemic reform of scholarly communication by reducing barriers to knowledge dissemination, promoting early sharing of outputs through preprints, and shifting peer review to an open, post-publication model. We focus on how different stakeholder groups </span><span>–</span><span>such as researchers, infrastructure providers, academic institutions, and publishers </span><span>–</span><span>perceive obstacles to the large-scale, coordinated reform envisioned in the proposal. We interpret these accounts as articulations of collective action problems, shaped by entrenchment of many actors in existing academic reward systems and established commercial revenue models that make transitions toward a more economically sustainable scholarly communication system difficult, even where many actors see the principal need for change. This approach highlights the extent to which stakeholder perspectives align or conflict. It also underscores the performative nature of discourse about collective action problems in scholarly communication: by articulating challenges to reform, participants simultaneously construct, reinforce, or contest their own roles within the system, which directly influences their collective capacity to act.</span>We analyse focus group discussions and free-text survey responses from a multi-stakeholder consultation conducted after the October 2023 publication of the proposal Towards Responsible Publishing by cOAlition S. The proposal calls for a systemic reform of scholarly communication by reducing barriers to knowledge dissemination, promoting early sharing of outputs through preprints, and shifting peer review to an open, post-publication model. We focus on how different stakeholder groups –such as researchers, infrastructure providers, academic institutions, and publishers –perceive obstacles to the large-scale, coordinated reform envisioned in the proposal. We interpret these accounts as articulations of collective action problems, shaped by entrenchment of many actors in existing academic reward systems and established commercial revenue models that make transitions toward a more economically sustainable scholarly communication system difficult, even where many actors see the principal need for change. This approach highlights the extent to which stakeholder perspectives align or conflict. It also underscores the performative nature of discourse about collective action problems in scholarly communication: by articulating challenges to reform, participants simultaneously construct, reinforce, or contest their own roles within the system, which directly influences their collective capacity to act.We analyse focus group discussions and free-text survey responses from a multi-stakeholder consultation conducted after</div> <div>the October 2023 publication of the proposal</div> <div>Towards Responsible Publishing</div> <div>by cOAlition S. The proposal calls for a</div> <div>systemic reform of scholarly communication by reducing barriers to knowledge dissemination, promoting early sharing of</div> <div>outputs through preprints, and shifting peer review to an open, post-publication model. We focus on how different</div> <div>stakeholder groups</div> <div>–</div> <div>such as researchers, infrastructure providers, academic institutions, and publishers</div> <div>–</div> <div>perceive</div> <div>obstacles to the large-scale, coordinated reform envisioned in the proposal. We interpret these accounts as articulations of</div> <div>collective action problems, shaped by entrenchment of many actors in existing academic reward systems and established</div> <div>commercial revenue models that make transitions toward a more economically sustainable scholarly communication</div> <div>system difficult, even where many actors see the principal neor contest their own roles within the system, which directly influences their collective capacity to act.We analyse focus group discussions and free-text survey responses from a multi-stakeholder consultation conducted after</div> <div>the October 2023 publication of the proposal</div> <div>Towards Responsible Publishing</div> <div>by cOAlition S. The proposal calls for a</div> <div>systemic reform of scholarly communication by reducing barriers to knowledge dissemination, promoting early sharing of</div> <div>outputs through preprints, and shifting peer review to an open, post-publication model. We focus on how different</div> <div>stakeholder groups</div> <div>–</div> <div>such as researchers, infrastructure providers, academic institutions, and publishers</div> <div>–</div> <div>perceive</div> <div>obstacles to the large-scale, coordinated reform envisioned in the proposal. We interpret these accounts as articulations of</div> <div>collective action problems, shaped by entrenchment of many actors in existing ac

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17220879 2026-02-02T13:39:37-05:00 2026-02-02T13:39:37-05:00

<p>We carried out research into nineteen century Dutch logbooks, especially a series of naval logbooks kept at the National Archive in the Hague. It is voluminous archive, with its 500 metres containing an enormous amount of data. Our initial concern was meteorological data recorded in logbooks. We have digitized part of the archive, for six ships with a duration of about one hundred months, in order to reconstruct the climate of the past. Also in the process of this archival research, we became gradually aware of much wider and various implications this archive has as historical material. We decided to make our preliminary digitization open-access at the JCDP (Japan-Asia Climate Database Program) website. We hope that this will be more widely used by those who have historical concerns about maritime history, the history of environment in Asia and around Japanese seas, Dutch-Japanese relationships, and Dutch overseas history.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314884 2026-06-01T12:29:53-04:00 2026-06-01T12:29:53-04:00

<p>Open Science programs are structured educational, research, and technical projects that support the application of Open Science practices in universities. Despite growing interest in monitoring Open Science practices, two key gaps remain: limited research on how the organizational design of Open Science is implemented in universities, and an overemphasis on output-based indicators that overlook processual and organizational aspects. To address these gaps, this study develops a responsive framework that universities can adapt to monitor the progress and ‘health’ of their Open Science programs. The framework, developed through a case study involving eleven semi-structured interviews and three participant observations, was rigorously validated during two focus groups involving thirteen Open Science experts. We describe the study’s results using the responsive evaluation method, which is suitable in complex social systems and is recognized as a learning process by the evaluation’s stakeholders. The proposed framework comprises seven key themes: Open Science as an ecosystem, Epistemic Cultures, Governance, Technical Infrastructure, Funding, Open Science as a Process, and Reflexivity. The developed framework advances theory by framing Open Science as an institutional practice embedded in organizational structures, and it supports practice by providing universities and policymakers with a more comprehensive tool for assessing and managing Open Science initiatives going beyond output-based indicators.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17220878 2026-02-02T13:33:46-05:00 2026-02-02T13:33:46-05:00

<p>A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free-response answers (n = 161). Analysis of the free-form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content. The trust-building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields. This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society. Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18304435 2026-05-27T06:49:51-04:00 2026-05-27T06:49:51-04:00

<p>This scoping report is designed to achieve two goals. First, it intends to establish common definitions and terminology that will be used consistently within the ALMASI project, providing a cohesive analysis and clearly defining what is within and outside the project's scope. In a project that comprises the publishing landscapes of three separate international regions (Africa, Europe, Latin America) it is essential that sufficient common ground and understanding is built before proceeding. Secondly, this report proposes a mapping component that leverages existing literature and bibliometric data sources to provide an overview of the current knowledge on Diamond OA publishing activities in these three regions.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17173411 2026-01-08T10:17:07-05:00 2026-01-08T10:17:07-05:00

<p> </p> <p>This talk will outline the argument in my new book <a href="https://press.umich.edu/Books/P/Publishing-Beyond-the-Market">Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and the Commons</a> (University of Michigan Press, 2025). The book explores the evolution of the open access landscape looking at commercial models, governmental policies and radical scholar-led publishing experiments, arguing that the move to open access should focus less on the free accessibility of research outputs and more on who controls the publications and infrastructures for scholarly communication. The talk will situate these ideas within debates on the commons and will argue for a route forward that nurtures an alternative, scholar-led open access landscape. </p> <p> </p> <p>About the speaker</p> <p>Dr. Samuel A. Moore is the Scholarly Communication Specialist at Cambridge University Library and Principal Investigator of Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (funded by Wellcome Trust, AHRC and the Research England Development Fund). He is also an Affiliated Lecturer at Cambridge Digital Humanities and a College Research Associate at King’s College Cambridge. </p> <p>Dr. Moore’s research sits within the digital humanities and focuses on topics relating to academic publishing, research practices in the humanities and social sciences, and critical issues relating to research communication. He has a Ph.D in Digital Humanities from King’s College London and is also one of the organisers of the <a href="https://radicaloa.postdigitalcultures.org/">Radical Open Access Collective</a>.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17174013 2026-01-08T15:41:44-05:00 2026-02-06T09:11:01-05:00

<p>Universities have been an instrumental part of the scholarly publishing landscape dating back several centuries, but comprehensive mapping of the presence of universities' involvement in publishing of journals is lacking. Using Ulrichsweb as the primary source and complementing it with data from Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ and OpenAlex, we compiled a dataset of 19,414 active, peer-reviewed university journals from 148 countries using a multilingual identification method. The results reveal significant disparities in coverage: nearly three-quarters of the journals are indexed in OpenAlex, almost half in DOAJ, fewer than a quarter in Scopus, and fewer than a fifth on the Web of Science Core Collection. From a global perspective, university journals are heavily clustered to a few countries, notably the United States, Indonesia and Brazil. University journals are characterized by strong linguistic diversity, with more than a third publishing exclusively in non-English languages. The social sciences and humanities dominate the disciplinary profile. This study establishes a baseline for further research into bibliodiversity, equity and the role of universities in scholarly communication.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17993185 2026-04-12T16:32:08-04:00 2026-04-12T16:32:08-04:00

<p>Open access (OA) has expanded scholarly publishing, yet concerns remain about the sustainability of journals indexed in selective databases. This study analyzes editorial predictors of discontinuation among 8730 journals simultaneously registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and indexed in Scopus, including 58 (0.66%) discontinued titles as of June 2025 (latest available update at the time of data extraction). The analyses revealed that a journal’s history of prior discontinuation was the strongest and most consistent predictor of future instability, confirming that discontinuation follows a path-dependent pattern rather than isolated events. Financial structure also played a decisive role: journals applying other editorial fees beyond standard article processing charges (APCs) were nearly four times more likely to experience discontinuation (IRR = 3.877, p = 0.048), while those following standardized APC models showed a protective but non-significant tendency (IRR = 0.378, p = 0.084). Journal age exhibited a modest yet significant positive effect (IRR = 1.032, p = 0.031), suggesting that older titles face a gradual accumulation of risk over time. By contrast, editorial practices such as plagiarism detection, waiver policies, and turnaround time showed no significant association. Overall, the findings indicate that discontinuation in Scopus-indexed OA journals is statistically associated with historical trajectories, financial transparency, and governance capacity, rather than by routine editorial procedures.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17244961 2026-02-10T10:48:24-05:00 2026-02-10T10:48:24-05:00

<p>From DeepLs English: Scientific publishing is in a disastrous state. Even those who have been eagerly promoting open access (OA) for years no longer dispute this. The key issues are well known: misguided incentives due to bibliometric rankings, a dramatic increase in the number of publications, fewer and fewer readers for individual papers, a collapse in quality assurance due to overworked reviewers, plagiarism, pseudo-forums (‘predatory journals’, ‘paper mills’) and even entire broker networks. And behind it all is an oligopoly of just a few publishers. They dictate terms and prices to the public sector. As data traders, they no longer primarily market the ‘content’ published by them, but rather data on scientific behaviour. Generative AI is further driving the degree of automation of over- and under-productivity, which is ruinous for the public science system, as well as the exploitation carousel. At the same time, science writers are losing their freedom to choose publication forms and formats or to influence contract terms at all.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18119748 2026-04-20T12:19:50-04:00 2026-04-20T12:19:50-04:00

<p>In this piece I draw on my experiences as a neuroqueer editor of the peer-reviewed, intersectional, and intermedia independent journal Feral Feminisms and on disability justice to hone a short manifestx on crip publishing. While peer-reviewed journals often demand free, invisible, and feminized labor along with high-speed efficiency, I imagine crip approaches to publishing as necessitating such principles as slowness, anti-fascism, recognition, care, failure, multiple mediums for knowledge-making, and community building. The piece begins with a reflection from the “Bed Sorbonne” or academic’s bed office, and moves into a consideration of how thinking sustainable publishing with lichen can enliven our publishing praxes. Finally, I outline the nine part manifestx as a starting point for imagining crip informed publication models. The hybrid and art-based piece engages with the theme of sustainable publishing by thinking about how to make publishing sustainable—as in doable, feasible, possible, limitless— both for crip authors/creators and crip journal editors.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18119746 2026-04-20T12:11:36-04:00 2026-04-20T12:11:36-04:00

<p>This issue began with the question of what constitutes sustainability within scholarly publishing. Looking back over the gestation of this special issue, we had to grapple with increasingly existential variants of this question. What does sustainability look like when forest fires are approaching your home? When your university is facing cutbacks and programs are at risk of being closed down? When government agents are arresting people in their homes and on college campuses? When political extremism is rising? When so-called generative artificial intelligence is intensifying water and energy usage, while pumping out fever-dream irrealities, endless affirmations, and race-to-the-average information? When…? When…? When…? How many crucial issues hang on this one concept, sustainability? What might it mean to reconsider this term in contemporary editing and publishing practice? In an effort to rethink our work as academics, editors, and readers of published material, we came together to collaborate on this experimental issue hosted by The Goose and Imaginations. The Goose is the official, open-access publication of the Association for Literature, Environment and Culture in Canada (ALECC). Straddling academic and creative genres, The Goose publishes long-form academic articles alongside creative nonfiction, poetry, multimedia, and visual arts. Imaginations is an online, open-access journal of cross-cultural image studies. The journal publishes work that thinks about, with, and through images broadly construed. Together, members of our editorial teams have been thinking collaboratively about what we call sustainable publishing. In this context, sustainability names the terrain of both its resonance as a social and ecological concept and its capture by corporate and institutional branding campaigns that paint a green façade over otherwise categorically damaging operations—including the defunding of education in the service of fiscal “sustainability” and fantasies of “green” AI. This special co-published issue represents a snapshot of some of those conversations as well as a place for others to join the discussion about publishing practices for the 21st century.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117618 2026-04-20T10:04:58-04:00 2026-04-20T10:04:58-04:00

<p>In this piece Anne Pasek and Aksel Biørn-Hansen interview each other on their respective experiments in zine-based experimental research exchange: DIY Methods, an annual conference-by-postal-mail, and Liminal Excavations, a zine-based intervention at ICT4S (Information and Communication Studies for Sustainability) 2024. They reflect on practical lessons they’ve learned in facilitating alternative publishing for academic research as well as some of the ways print helps make the environmental, cultural, and emotional character of scholarly norms both easier to analyze and contest.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117615 2026-04-20T10:00:31-04:00 2026-04-20T10:00:31-04:00

<p>As a librarian, I am on the frontlines of scholarship. I support the development of scholars by assisting and instructing undergraduate and graduate students at my mid-sized Canadian university, I support faculty research and conduct my own, and I disseminate scholarly outputs by building our collections and performing outreach to promote them. Additionally, I work as a co-editor for a journal in the library and information sciences (LIS). Scholarly communication underpins every aspect of my various roles, and I see how generative AI is impacting its sustainability every day.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117613 2026-04-20T09:57:33-04:00 2026-04-20T09:57:33-04:00

<p>As the director of a diamond open access press in the United States, I am constantly made aware of how relationships are key to the sustainability of our small and—at least in the US context—unique publishing model. Amherst College Press is not alone in this. As a community of publishers within the academy, we have at least begun the hard work of starting to grapple with longstanding power inequities in our field in order to work towards more equitable relational practices. One area we have yet to grapple with in any sort of systematic way is what constitutes ethical practices when publishing work by and about Native and Indigenous communities. We need to think more critically about those relationships in order to make them sustainable. Good work is being done in pockets of our field, but there hasn’t been a forum for people to contemplate, discuss, and share on this topic.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117612 2026-04-20T09:53:47-04:00 2026-04-20T09:53:47-04:00

<p>I originally joined the Network in Canadian History and Environment (NiCHE) in 2014. I was in the third year of my doctorate program, when I was offered the position of social media editor. Although I was excited about the opportunity, I had no idea at that time how much this chance moment would change the trajectory of my career. Over the past decade, I found my passion: public scholarship and digital knowledge dissemination. When I finished my PhD in 2019, I made the conscious choice to leave formal academia to better focus on this passion and work adjacent to the academic institutions that no longer served me. Today, I am a NiCHE executive member and editor-in-chief of our blog, The Otter, and the rest of our website where our team of over twenty editors publish nearly every weekday. Although I hold other contracts, NiCHE is, as Rachel Jekanowski describes in “Editing the Environmental Humanities” (this issue), my personal “labour of love.”</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117611 2026-04-20T09:50:00-04:00 2026-04-20T09:50:00-04:00

<p>Place-based university presses are committed to disseminating knowledge generated in, about, or of particular relevance to the lands and waters surrounding them. They invariably work in close and creative relation with adjacent academic and non-academic communities in order to cultivate and spread ideas. Despite their deep intellectual and ethical commitments, the vital work undertaken by place-based scholarly publishers is not always sufficiently acknowledged.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117610 2026-04-20T09:40:58-04:00 2026-04-20T09:40:58-04:00

<p>Margot Mellet and I are co-managing editors at Imaginations. We have both confessed a feeling of needing to do more in our work at the journal. In one of our regular Imaginations managing editor meetings, Margot uttered a truism that resonated: “We are doing enough.” This phrase made me laugh. It made Margot laugh. It hit a nerve in a good way. The sentiment draws on a kind of cognitive dissonance I have as an academic, as a colleague, as an editor: I think I’m not doing enough. To put it more precisely, I know I could be doing more and doing better with more attention, care, and time.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18117514 2026-04-20T09:37:06-04:00 2026-04-20T09:37:06-04:00

<p> The University of Alberta Library partners with Canadian organizations, editorial boards, and researchers to publish more than 70 fully open access scholarly journals.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17128705 2025-12-17T08:40:22-05:00 2025-12-17T08:40:22-05:00

<p>The UNL-programme Strengthening Diamond Open Access in the Netherlands is thrilled to announce it has been awarded a generous €1.5 million grant from NWO Open Science NL! </p> <p>This fund will enable us to set up a high-quality and future-ready national infrastructure for diamond open access publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17170143 2026-01-06T13:26:15-05:00 2026-01-06T13:26:15-05:00

<p>From DeepLs English: From mid-November 2024 to mid-February 2025, the state initiative openaccess.nrw conducted a survey on quality aspects of seven publishers (Elsevier, MDPI, Springer Nature, Wiley, Frontiers, Taylor and Francis, De Gruyter). This blog article highlights the results of the survey, key publications and the impact of the discussion of the survey results.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18304434 2026-05-27T06:40:29-04:00 2026-05-27T06:40:29-04:00

<p>This Conversation starter kit contains nine dilemma personas, and a slide of exercise instructions. This was used at the Open Science Festival 2025 Barcamp session (24 October 2025 - Groningen).  </p> <p>The dilemma personas are brief hypothetical (though practice-based) descriptions of researchers who experience an issue in pursuing open scholarly communication practices. They have to balance open science values, career strategies, and practicalities like policies and cost-models, in a reflections of value tensions that exist throughout academia. The dilemmas should be used in an exercise of perspective-taking and value-articulation: what does the persona find important, why is that, and how does their view align with other stakeholders' views?  This set of dilemmas is being developed at Leiden University Libraries - Centre for Digital Scholarship, to help initiate and deepen conversations on strategies and issues with scholarly communication at large. It is used in particular in the implementation of Leiden University's Strategic Publication Framework.  </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17183259 2026-01-14T04:14:21-05:00 2026-01-14T04:14:21-05:00

<h3>Will AI stop new curation-led publishing models thriving before they've even had a chance to grow? Scholarly Futures looks into the Publish, Read, Curate model and the potential impact of AI.</h3>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17147328 2025-12-26T15:31:15-05:00 2025-12-26T15:31:15-05:00

<p>On 14 November 2025, representatives from several organizations across the publishing reform and research assessment reform communities gathered in Pisa, Italy, for a workshop aimed at identifying and advancing joint actions to strengthen both movements.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17064562 2025-12-02T03:56:30-05:00 2025-12-02T03:56:30-05:00

<p>Universities are taking steps toward open access, but knowledge is still often seen as a commodity. Tilburg University shows that there is another way: the library is building a fairer, more accessible system for sharing knowledge.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17012765 2025-11-25T02:59:07-05:00 2025-11-25T02:59:07-05:00

<p>From DeepL's English: The following guide is based on an online workshop entitled Consortium Funding of Diamond Open Access. Opportunities for Participation for Specialised Information Services, which was organised by the Competence Centre for Licensing (KfL) project, the Licensing Sub-Working Group (U-AG) of the FID network and the KOALA-AV (Consortial Open Access Solutions Development – Expansion and Anchoring, 2023–2025) on 7 July 2025 for the specialist information services (FID).1 In this workshop, the satellite project EthnOA – Open Access in the Ethnological Subjects of the FID Social and Cultural Anthropology, the FID Communication and Media Studies (FID Media), the FID Sociology and the joint project edu_consort_oa of the FID Education and Educational Research opportunities for participation in the consortium financing of APC-free open access publications. In addition, there was an introduction to the KOALA model for consortium financing of quality-assured APC-free open access publications, developed by the Technical Information Library (TIB) in Hanover and the Communication, Information and Media Centre (KIM) at the University of Konstanz, which the Saxon State and University Library (SLUB) in Dresden since 2024. KOALA-SLUB provided its expertise to support the workshop. The guide compiles and answers questions from participants that were asked and discussed in breakout sessions during the workshop.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314882 2026-06-01T12:23:09-04:00 2026-06-01T12:23:09-04:00

<p>This study examines the use of evidence in policymaking by analysing a range of journal and article attributes, as well as online engagement metrics. It employs a large-scale citation analysis of nearly 150 000 articles covering diverse policy topics. The findings highlight that scholarly citations exert the strongest positive influence on policy citations. Articles from journals with a higher citation impact and larger Mendeley readership are cited more frequently in policy documents. Other online engagements, such as news and blog mentions, also boost policy citations, while mentions on social media X have a negative effect. The finding that highly cited and widely read papers are also frequently referenced in policy documents likely reflects the perception among policymakers that such research is more trustworthy. In contrast, papers that derive their influence primarily from social media tend to be cited less often in policy contexts.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16948850 2025-11-21T05:01:08-05:00 2025-11-21T05:01:08-05:00

<p>The academic publishing system has arrived at an impasse. Our universities continue to funnel money towards profit-driven commercial publishers, that obtain revenues higher than any other sector, with profit margins sometimes exceeding 30%-40%. This is possible only because in academic publishing the bulk of the work is shouldered by researchers for free, so the costs of publishing are kept at a minimum while the prices for reading and publishing are stretched to the maximum. This impacts the quality of research, for example with some journals using special issues and sister journals as a growth strategy, and puts researchers from less wealthy universities at a clear disadvantage.</p> <p>Given this toxic landscape, it is time that we as researchers re-orient ourselves to more sustainable publishing models. Hence during the 2-day event "Towards new Horizons of Scholarly Publishing", happening on the 5th and 6th of February 2026, in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, we will explore together what Diamond Open Access (DOA) has to offer, which is a fully open publishing model where no fees are asked for publishing or reading. The purpose of this meeting will be to familiarize you with DOA and create a bridge between already existing publisher initiatives and researchers. Our speakers will address a breadth of topics concerning DOA, such as: the national and European infrastructure of DOA, challenges in transitioning to such a system, starting and managing a DOA journal or flipping a journal, and many more. At the end of the conference our goal is to form a national committee of scientists interested in continuing the work of making this transition towards DOA happen.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17027636 2025-11-26T03:04:45-05:00 2025-11-26T03:04:45-05:00

<div> <div> <p>With its second work programme, Open Science NL takes another major step towards making open science the norm in the Netherlands. On 14 November, the Steering Board approved the programme for 2026 and 2027. It outlines thirteen funding instruments covering the full spectrum of open science, ranging from citizen science hubs, AI, replication studies, to open science infrastructure.</p> </div> </div> <div> <div> <p>‘We are proud to have been able to translate input from many in the community into this new work programme. It is an ambitious package, but also achievable over the next two years. It gives a strong boost to our shared mission to strengthen open science, reflecting the Netherlands’ position as a frontrunner in open science,’ says Hans de Jonge, director of Open Science NL.</p> </div> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17012764 2025-11-25T02:50:39-05:00 2025-11-25T02:50:39-05:00

<p>From DeepL's English: The list of academic publishers that produce and distribute open access books was compiled at Bielefeld University Library as part of the joint project open-access.network. It formed the basis and prerequisite for expanding the oa.finder search tool to include the option of searching for academic publishers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region).</p> <p>Various sources were evaluated and the results compiled in this list. It contains 148 names of academic publishers that operate as independent publishing houses, publishing companies, or imprints/brands/editions, as well as 37 publishers sponsored by academic institutions.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16765820 2025-11-10T08:48:24-05:00 2025-11-10T08:48:24-05:00

<p><span>In the US, your taxes fund academic research at public universities. Why then do you need to pay expensive, for-profit journals for the results of that research? Erica Stone advocates for a new, open-access relationship between the public and scholars, making the case that academics should publish in more accessible media to help the public be well-educated and well-informed. [Directed by Jeff Le Bars, JetPropulsion.space, music by Salil Bhayani, cAMP Studio].</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16736665 2025-11-08T13:28:23-05:00 2025-11-08T13:28:23-05:00

<p>At the University of London Press, we have been reflecting on recent conversations in the sector about research culture, what this means for the humanities, the potential benefits of open access, the role of publishing and our own role as a publisher. In this series of blog posts, recent UoL Press authors share their own publishing experiences and words of advice and support for new authors, along with their views on open access and what more publishers can do to work with the research community to help build supportive, collaborative and open research and publishing cultures.</p> <p>In our next post in the series, we talk to Laura Carter and Freddy Foks, two of the editors of Democratising History: Modern British History Inside and Out. Laura Carter is an historian of modern Britain whose work focuses on histories of education, gender, and social change. Her first book, Histories of Everyday Life: The Making of Popular Social History in Britain, 1918-1979 (2021) was nominated for the Royal Historical Society Whitfield Book Prize, 2022. She is now working on a project about secondary education and social change in the United Kingdom since 1945. Freddy Foks is an historian of modern Britain and the British Empire with research interests in migration history and the history of the social sciences. His book Participant Observers: Anthropology, Colonial Development and the Reinvention of Society in Britain (2023) was awarded the Constance Blackwell Prize by the International Society for Intellectual History. He is currently working on a book about emigration and thinking about a new project about ships.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13955973 2025-06-03T08:54:26-04:00 2025-06-03T09:34:47-04:00

<p>Abstract: This study investigates the use of OA resources among faculty members and research scholars at IITs in North India and explores the factors influencing their engagement with OA resources. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to participants from selected departments across four IITs in North India, resulting in 814 respondents. The study’s conceptual framework is based on the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The findings indicate that while the majority of participants were aware of OA resources, their actual use was limited. Critical determinants for using OA resources were identified, including internet self-efficacy, awareness and attitude toward OA, accessibility, trustworthiness, professional recognition, academic reward, altruism, mandates and culture, and individual traits. Copyright concerns were found to negatively influence OA resource use, while additional time, effort and cost had no significant impact. The study emphasizes the importance of formulating OA policies, promoting awareness and understanding, and addressing copyright concerns to facilitate the effective use of OA resources, thereby benefiting knowledge dissemination and scholarly communication.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16724146 2025-11-07T15:25:11-05:00 2025-11-07T15:25:11-05:00

<p><span>The Diamond Open Access (OA) model—characterized by the absence of fees for both authors and readers—has gained increasing attention in recent years. A wide range of scholarly journals are using this model, as emerged while mapping the Diamond OA landscape worldwide; however, some still depend on hybrid revenue streams such as print sales, subscriptions, and marginal APCs. A number of recent initiatives underlined the need to increase quality assurance, sustainability, and cooperation within the Diamond OA ecosystem. Among them, the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS), a framework comprising detailed guidelines and a self-assessment tool to facilitate Diamond OA publishing practices, was created by the DIAMAS project, sponsored by the European Commission. </span><em>Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità</em><span>, the official journal of the Italian leading public health research institution, is a Diamond OA journal. To improve transparency and quality, the editorial team used the DOAS self-assessment tool to evaluate its compliance with the standards proposed by DIAMAS and to identify potential areas for improvement. This article presents the process and findings of the DOAS self-assessment tool conducted on </span><em>Annali ISS</em><span>, with the aim of sharing insights and support with other journals seeking to align with the DOAS framework.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16736663 2025-11-08T13:20:14-05:00 2025-11-08T13:20:14-05:00

<p>In this blog, we mark <a href="https://www.openaccessweek.org/">Open Access Week 2025</a> by speaking to LSE Press author Naila Kabeer. In this conversation with Professor Kabeer, the blog explores how the model of open access publishing maximises global impact, and how it has informed the reception of her research in the case study of her 2024 publication, <a href="https://doi.org/10.31389/lsepress.rpg">Renegotiating Patriarchy: Gender, Agency, and the Bangladesh Paradox</a>.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314811 2026-06-01T11:10:42-04:00 2026-06-01T11:10:42-04:00

<p>Open infrastructures are facing uncertain times, as they navigate tensions rooted in changes around artificial intelligence, openness, and dominant political ideologies. How are “open infrastructures” working to ensure their sustainability - and that of their content - in times of significant and multiple change? This panel brings together researchers, practitioners, and experts in open infrastructure to discuss and compare tensions involved in sustaining open infrastructure and to develop a framework to guide future research and areas for intervention.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/18314883 2026-06-01T12:26:31-04:00 2026-06-01T12:26:31-04:00

<p>Scientific publishing faces a credibility crisis driven to a very large extent by predatory journals, paper mills, and exploitative open-access (OA) practices. Structural pressures—publish-or-perish culture, mandatory OA policies, and author publication charges-driven business models—fuel the proliferation of low-quality or fraudulent research, now exacerbated by artificial intelligence-generated content. This opinion, which aligns with a growing clamour from the research community—calls for an international journal accreditation system, guided by a transparent code of conduct and enforced by funding agencies, to restore integrity, prioritize quality over quantity for professional progression, and safeguard trust in scientific communication.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16269579 2025-10-07T05:13:31-04:00 2025-10-07T05:13:31-04:00

<p>Translated with Deepl: The blueprint for scientific publishing developed as part of the ELADOAH project focuses on a collaborative and value-orientated vision of Diamond Open Access. It shows how Diamond Open Access can be designed as a joint project involving six different stakeholder groups and what specific expertise each of these groups brings to the table.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16588833 2025-10-30T03:03:55-04:00 2025-10-30T03:03:55-04:00

<p>Five scientific journals have received a grant from NWO to switch from a subscription model. They will adopt the diamond open access model: a form of open access in which not only is the content freely available to readers, but authors also do not have to pay to publish their articles. The NWO executive board has allocated a total of over 187,000 euros for this.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16736667 2025-11-08T13:32:34-05:00 2025-11-08T13:32:34-05:00

<p>At the University of London Press, we have been reflecting on recent conversations in the sector about research culture, what this means for the humanities, the potential benefits of open access, the role of publishing and our own role as a publisher. In this series of blog posts, recent UoL Press authors share their own publishing experiences and words of advice and support for new authors, along with their views on open access and what more publishers can do to work with the research community to help build supportive, collaborative and open research and publishing cultures. In our next post in the series, we talk to Devyani Prabhat, author of Migrating Borders and Citizenship in Law: Scales, Locales, Themes and Practices. Devyani Prabhat is Professor in Law at University of Bristol Law School, UK, with legal practice experience in Constitutional law. She has an LLM and a PhD from New York University and is an enrolled Attorney at Law, NY. She researches and teaches Migration, Citizenship and Nationality from a socio-legal and comparative perspective. Her first monograph Unleashing the Force of Law (Palgrave/Springer) won the Society of Legal Scholars (UK and Ireland) best book award in 2017.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16736666 2025-11-08T13:30:43-05:00 2025-11-08T13:30:43-05:00

<p>At the University of London Press, we have been reflecting on recent conversations in the sector about research culture, what this means for the humanities, the potential benefits of open access, the role of publishing and our own role as a publisher. In this series of blog posts, recent UoL Press authors share their own publishing experiences and words of advice and support for new authors, along with their views on open access and what more publishers can do to work with the research community to help build supportive, collaborative and open research and publishing cultures.</p> <p>In our next post in the series, we talk to Nicholas Maple, author of Refugee Reception in Southern Africa: National and Local Policies in Zambia and South Africa. Nicholas Maple is a Lecturer in Refugee Studies at the Refugee Law Initiative, School of Advanced Study. Prior to taking on this position, he undertook a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow position at the African Centre for Migration &amp; Society (ACMS), University of the Witwatersrand. He is also the Co-Editor in Chief at the Refugee Survey Quarterly journal (Oxford University Press).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16736664 2025-11-08T13:25:42-05:00 2025-11-08T13:25:42-05:00

<p>At the University of London Press, we have been reflecting on recent conversations in the sector about research culture, what this means for the humanities, the potential benefits of open access, the role of publishing and our own role as a publisher.</p> <p>In this series of blog posts, recent UoL Press authors share their own publishing experiences and words of advice and support for new authors, along with their views on open access and what more publishers can do to work with the research community to help build supportive, collaborative and open research and publishing cultures.</p> <p> </p> <div> </div> <p>In our next post in the series, we talk to Karen Attar, co-editor of <a href="https://uolpress.co.uk/book/books-readers-and-libraries-in-fiction/">Books, Readers and Libraries in Fiction</a>. Karen Attar is the <a href="https://research.london.ac.uk/search/fellow/516/dr-karen-attar/">Curator of Rare Books and University Art at Senate House Library, University of London</a>, and a former Research Fellow at the Institute of English Studies, University of London. She edited among other works the third edition of the Directory of Rare Book and Special Collections in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland (Facet, 2016). She has published widely on aspects of library history.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15827398 2025-09-11T15:22:03-04:00 2025-09-11T15:22:03-04:00

<p><span>Community Feedback Needed</span> <span>How do we make research infrastructure work for creative practice, multimodal research, and community-engaged scholarship?</span> <span>The</span><span> </span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/rda-europe/"><span>Research Data Alliance Europe</span></a><span> </span><span>is reviewing our (</span><span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/evansjenny/">Jenny Evans</a></span><span>,</span><span> </span><span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/inter-apero-bility/">Andrew S. Hoffman 🟥🍉</a></span><span>, Robin Burgess, myself) proposal for an "Infrastructure for Non-Traditional Research Outputs" Interest Group, and we need your input.</span> <span>Traditional research infrastructure was built around journal articles and datasets. But what about performance documentation, practice research portfolios, community-engaged scholarship, creative installations, and collaborative knowledge products? These outputs often fall through infrastructure gaps or get forced into categories that don't reflect their actual nature.</span> <span>We've been working on this challenge through research and RDA community engagement over many years. Now we're seeking feedback on our response to technical review before final submission.</span> <span>Why this matters:</span><span> </span> <span>→ Researchers in creative fields deserve infrastructure that reflects their ways of working</span><span> </span> <span>→ Repository managers need guidance for complex, multimodal outputs</span> <span>→ Current citation and attribution models don't handle collaborative creative processes well</span><span> </span> <span>→ FAIR principles need adaptation for outputs that can't always be "open" but should be findable and reusable</span> <span>We want to hear from:</span> <span>-Repository developers and managers</span> <span>-Researchers working with practice-based methodologies</span> <span>-Digital preservation specialists</span> <span>-Anyone interested in inclusive research infrastructure</span> <span>-Standards and policy communities</span> <span>Read our draft response and add comments:</span><span> </span><a href="https://lnkd.in/ehckwsmM">https://lnkd.in/ehckwsmM</a> <span>This is about more than just supporting creative research - it's about building infrastructure that recognizes the full spectrum of how knowledge is created and shared globally.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15827397 2025-09-11T15:15:20-04:00 2025-09-12T08:55:42-04:00

<p>The CoDOA project is an initiative led by the Consortium of Swiss Academic Libraries with ten partner institutions (EPFL, ETH Zurich, Lib4RI, Graduate Institute Geneva, University of Basel, Université de Fribourg, Université de Genève, University of Lucerne, Université de Neuchâtel, University of Zurich/Zentralbibliothek Zürich), co-funded by swissuniversities.</p> <p>Its objective is to devise a collaborative process to establish a sustainable, consortial funding scheme for Diamond Open Access through institutional collaboration in Switzerland – with the aim to support scholar-led journals in maintaining high-quality operations.</p> <p>During this event, we will present the aims and structure of the CoDOA project and invite feedback and input from the broader community.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15807478 2025-09-10T16:20:35-04:00 2025-09-11T08:45:06-04:00

<p>In alignment with Open Science principles, OpenAIRE is launching a call for Institutional Publishing Service Providers and community-driven Diamond Open Access platforms to participate as pilot users of the new Publisher Dashboard, a dedicated service developed under the CRAFT-OA project and embedded in the OpenAIRE MONITOR platform.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15622860 2025-09-01T13:56:22-04:00 2025-09-01T13:56:22-04:00

<p>After an exhaustive, international search, the openRxiv Board of Directors has appointed Dr. Tracy Teal as the organization’s inaugural CEO. Dr Teal has served as interim COO of openRxiv since its launch as an independent non-profit in March of this year, playing a central role in launching the organization and establishing its stewardship of bioRxiv and medRxiv, two of the world’s most widely used preprint servers. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15622858 2025-09-01T13:53:34-04:00 2025-09-01T13:53:34-04:00

<p>Let’s pause and consider what’s best for human understanding, learning, and the progress of knowledge. When search just leads to AI summaries and users do not click through to original sources, and when the simple act of reading for pleasure is declining precipitously, how do we avoid a future in which we author and publish content for machine consumption only?   </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15380411 2025-08-20T05:47:56-04:00 2025-08-20T05:47:56-04:00

<p>This criteria catalogue and the accompanying assessment questions were developed by a working group of KEMÖ (Kooperation E-Medien Österreich, the Austrian Academic Library Consortium). They are intended to support research institutions and organisations in the evaluation of Open Science Infrastructures. The 20 criteria outlined in the catalogue provide a structured basis for making informed decisions regarding the financial support of these infrastructures. The assessment questions are intended to be completed by Open Science Infrastructures and can be shared with them accordingly.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850549 2025-05-27T03:26:32-04:00 2025-05-27T04:08:50-04:00

<p>We are pleased to announce a significant milestone in the development of European Heart Journal—Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy (EHJ-CVP): the Journal's transition to an open access publication model. Since the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy launched EHJ-CVP in 2015, its editors, reviewers, and authors have worked together to bring the latest developments in clinical cardiovascular pharmacotherapy to clinicians, physicians, researchers, and policy makers worldwide. Moving to fully open access publishing will help us further this mission.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15116791 2025-08-07T07:31:15-04:00 2025-08-07T07:31:15-04:00

<p>This poster showcases the development and implementation of a new collection development strategy for the Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences (TSHD), with a particular focus on fostering open scholarship and supporting the shift from traditional publishing models to open access. This assumes collection development as an integral part of scholarly communication, recognizing that investing in open access is central to library collections and contributing to a more inclusive and equitable publishing landscape. The collection strategy aims to gradually shifting funding away from ‘closed’ content towards open access models. This is aligned with the newly adopted Tilburg University Open Science Framework, which expects publications to be open and encourages academics to participate in publishing activities not driven by profit motives. In the short term, the strategy focuses on open access book publishing, due to the collection needs of TSHD, an institution rooted in humanities and social science research, but also where there has been an underrepresentation of open access publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14906938 2025-07-28T04:25:52-04:00 2025-08-16T04:40:04-04:00

<p>"From 16 to 18 October 2025, the 4th United Nations Open Science and Open Scholarship Conference will convene policymakers, IGO representatives, researchers, scholars, librarians, publishers, and civil society, both online and in person at the United Nations University (UNU) in Tokyo, Japan. The Conference will serve as an urgent call to accelerate transformations in science and scholarship in alignment with the Pact for the Future, to map progress in national and international efforts towards opening the record of science, and to inspire collaborative actions and coalitions to expedite progress ensuring no country, community, or individual is left behind...."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14805294 2025-07-21T16:31:05-04:00 2025-07-21T16:31:05-04:00

<p>We live in interesting times with significant challenges, the unpredictable geopolitical landscape, declining trust in science and the fast rise of AI are all impacting our research. The world of academic publishing is no exception. And we see now some worrying trends, with significant challenges for academic autonomy if we do not act quickly.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15117238 2025-08-07T07:55:21-04:00 2025-08-07T07:55:21-04:00

<p> </p> <p>LIBER Annual Conference 2025 - Opening Ceremony and Keynote Speech </p> <p>Speaker: Frédéric Kaplan</p> <p>Video: https://youtu.be/74NpKhx_mbg?si=81hhMkJlqkSPFvlL</p> <div>For practical and legal reasons, Large Language Models are primarily trained on contemporary, web-based texts and not on the vast array of content found in published books. As a consequence, their competence does not capture the rich diversity of knowledge that libraries have worked to preserve and make accessible. Because of this epistemic gap, libraries can potentially play a crucial role in the development of future versions of these models. In this presentation, I will discuss a computational strategy designed to effectively quantify and utilize the knowledge contained within books, addressing the opportunities and challenges for libraries in this process.</div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15116790 2025-08-07T07:26:07-04:00 2025-08-07T07:26:07-04:00

<p>Open Access (OA) has become the standard model for academic publishing, yet many researchers still face challenges in accessing comprehensive, up-to-date and reliable information on their OA options. Disparities in OA conditions across publishers, journals and article types, along with changes over time, such as quota applications or journal flipping, complicate the discovery process. While libraries have implemented new systems to address these issues, they often create additional channels of information, which can confuse rather than streamline access for researchers. The Lib4RI Search Tool tackles this issue by integrating OA-related information directly into the library’s discovery system, providing a centralised and user-friendly interface. This tool aggregates search results from multiple scholarly sources and additionally provides researchers with institution-specific information on OA publishing options. A key feature of the Lib4RI Search Tool is its dedicated journal tab, which not only displays journal accessibility but also provides detailed, up-to-date OA publishing information for individual journals. This includes (a) customized data on institutional Read&amp;Publish agreements, (b) information on Gold OA journals, including APCs and possible funding options and (c) filtered options for Green OA relevant to our local institutional repository. The tool strives for a balance between showing the most relevant information directly while also providing links to further details.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15116789 2025-08-07T07:18:25-04:00 2025-08-07T07:18:25-04:00

<p>There are a number of initiatives aimed at addressing the issue of accessibility to research literature, particularly targeting researchers from disadvantaged socio-economic settings. However, fewer mechanisms exist to support these researchers in publishing their contributions, effectively positioning them as consumers rather than creators of knowledge. This lack of diversity in scholarly publishing serves as a clear manifestation of epistemic injustice.</p> <p>In October 2024, the TIB - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology launched the IDAHO project, a groundbreaking effort to identify and describe barriers to open access publishing faced by researchers with weak institutional ties. In the frame of the IDAHO project, the term “weakly affiliated” encompasses a diverse group of researchers that may not have strong ties to academia but still engages in research and produces publications.</p> <p>The project adopts a comprehensive, multi-part exploratory methodology, combining both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain deeper insights into the research problem and focuses specifically on: independent researchers, citizens science, retired researchers, refugee scientists, researchers working for civil societies, industry enterprises, hospitals, non-profit and governmental organizations.</p> <p>In our presentation, we will share synthesized findings from ten qualitative interviews with targeted researchers, complemented by a global quantitative survey, uncovering the unique challenges researchers with weak institutional ties face in disseminating their research OA. We will also present the findings from 13 qualitative interviews with academic publishers and journal editors, highlighting their awareness of identified obstacles, as well as the initiatives and strategies they employ to promote equality, inclusion, and the diversification of authors within their venues.</p> <p>Finally, as the ultimate goal of the IDAHO project is to design evidence-based recommendations to eliminate or mitigate identified obstacles, audience participation and feedback will be encouraged to inform the development of these recommendations.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15116788 2025-08-07T07:09:12-04:00 2025-08-07T07:09:12-04:00

<p>At Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, research support is offered in researchers’ faculties, that is, the research-performing units, and at a central level across different divisions, such as the University Library, IT, financial services , grants advice, and the legal department. For researchers, it is often unclear where they should go with questions, who, or what resources, can help them to comply with various requirements, or even why a step is necessary, useful, or good for Open Science.</p> <p>This is why, in 2021, the University Library took the initiative to create an overview of each research-support-related step that a researcher can take throughout the research process. The University Library is uniquely positioned to create this overview, because it coordinates the university-wide support network for Research Data Management (RDM) and Open Science, it hosts and supports several research applications, and it is the host of the Research Data Management Support Desk, the central helpdesk for all the university’s researchers. The Library therefore plays a central role in engaging researchers and research support staff with RDM, Open Science and other research policies, and fostering collaboration between these colleagues.</p> <p>The research process overview divides the research process into steps, starting before a grant proposal is written, and ending after the research has been published and data have been deposited in a repository. For each step, the overview shows why, how, where and when a particular step can or must be taken and where a researcher can find support for that step. The steps range from asking for grants advice to publishing data, and from arranging insurance for research participants to setting up a version control system for writing research software; some steps also refer users to other steps. For these reasons, the resulting document is overwhelming, fear-inducing and hard to navigate.</p> <p>Yet, it is useful. For as far as we know, it is the only document in the university that systematically describes all the research steps and the available support. It is not only helpful for researchers, but also for research support staff who may not be familiar with all the services in the institution. Since 2021, the document has also seen several updates to reflect changes in the support infrastructure, and was used as a source for a project that aims to connect several ‘moments’ of research support, to ease the researcher’s path.</p> <p>In this presentation, I will show not only the document itself, but also how I went about building it, how I applied Open Science principles to both the creation process and the eventual result, the projects for which the overview was used, how we tried to communicate about the existence of the overview, and what plans we have to work it out more towards a resource that is easier to use. All in all, this document is also a testimony to the unique position of the University Library and the crucial role that it can occupy in (shaping) the research support process.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14597818 2025-07-10T05:13:23-04:00 2025-07-10T05:13:23-04:00

<p>The Steering Board of Open Science NL has decided to award a €300,000 grant to the network of institutional open access publishers in the Netherlands, known as the Netherlands University Presses (NUPs). The aim of this funding is to strengthen collaboration, coordination, and knowledge-sharing within the network.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14535181 2025-07-05T13:36:36-04:00 2025-07-05T13:36:36-04:00

<p>The academic publishing system today has three major problems that render it increasingly untenable for modern academic research. First, the metric problem: the lack of accurate metrics on scientific contributions causes nepotistic citations and marginalization of certain demographics from career advancement opportunities. Second, the curation problem: the lack of well-designed incentives for peer review leads to poor quality peer review, which reinforces academia’s dependency on proxy signals of quality like journal prestige. Third, the replication crisis: the lack of any incentives for replicating a study causes most scientific findings to have only a single study backing them.</p> <p>As a result, retraction rates have been steadily on the rise. This leads to mistrust of scientific literature by academia and the general public. Creative solutions are needed in order to improve fairness, equity and trustworthiness in the academic publishing system. <a href="https://liberata.info/">Liberata</a> aims to simultaneously solve these three issues using game-theory-designed incentive structures inspired by the most successful financial instruments and marketplaces devised in human history.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14637344 2025-07-12T05:04:34-04:00 2025-07-12T05:04:34-04:00

<p>A major scientific publisher, Taylor &amp; Francis, said yesterday it <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21655979.2025.2525650">has paused submissions to its journal Bioengineered</a> so editors there can investigate some 1000 of its papers that bear signs they contain manipulated results or came from shady enterprises known as paper mills</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14512226 2025-07-04T09:23:23-04:00 2025-07-04T09:23:23-04:00

<p>Would you pay $169 for an introductory ebook on machine learning with citations that appear to be made up?</p> <p>If not, you might want to pass on purchasing <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-97-9914-5">Mastering Machine Learning: From Basics to Advanced</a>, published by Springer Nature in April. </p> <p>Based on a tip from a reader, we checked 18 of the 46 citations in the book. Two-thirds of them either did not exist or had substantial errors. And three researchers cited in the book confirmed the works they supposedly authored were fake or the citation contained substantial errors.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14376753 2025-06-27T13:23:13-04:00 2025-06-27T13:23:13-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: In 2022, MDPI became the fourth largest publisher by total number of articles indexed and the largest publisher by number of open access articles indexed per year. This analysis looks at the distribution of MDPI articles in Web of Science and Scopus by country and year. Scientists from Romania and Poland preferred to publish in MDPI journals to a greater extent than those from other countries. The contribution of publications in MDPI journals was also abnormally high in the other former Eastern bloc countries, while authors from the United States and England showed a moderate interest in MDPI publications. The proportion of MDPI articles per year in all countries increased linearly in recent years, but the patterns in certain countries were very different. In Germany, France and Japan, a ‘saturation’ was observed; the number of MDPI articles in 2022 was only slightly higher than in 2021, while in South Korea, Spain and Poland the trend was reversed in 2022, i.e. fewer MDPI articles were published in 2022 than in 2021.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14359858 2025-06-26T16:50:10-04:00 2025-06-27T09:05:46-04:00

<p>Annual Reviews today announced that it has signed an agreement with Wiley that enables Knowledge Unlatched (KU) – most recently owned and operated by Wiley – to move to a new home within the Annual Reviews organization. The move supports one of the most recognized initiatives in open access publishing and marks KU’s return to nonprofit stewardship.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14448077 2025-07-01T03:33:56-04:00 2025-07-01T03:33:56-04:00

<p>On Monday, court documents revealed that AI company Anthropic spent millions of dollars physically scanning print books to build <a href="https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/05/anthropic-calls-new-claude-4-worlds-best-ai-coding-model/">Claude</a>, an AI assistant similar to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/11/chatgpt-was-the-spark-that-lit-the-fire-under-generative-ai-one-year-ago-today/">ChatGPT</a>. In the process, the company cut millions of print books from their bindings, scanned them into digital files, and threw away the originals solely for the purpose of training AI—details buried in a copyright ruling on fair use whose broader fair use implications we <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/key-fair-use-ruling-clarifies-when-books-can-be-used-for-ai-training/">reported</a> yesterday.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15298862 2025-08-16T04:48:46-04:00 2025-08-16T04:48:46-04:00

<p>The introduction of workflow management systems (WFMS) can make a significant contribution to the professionalisation of publication processes in open access university presses. This report describes a procedure for developing a generic specification sheet that serves university publishers as a practical basis for system selection and implementation. Based on theoretical principles for creating an individual workflow model and analysing processes and requirements, a methodological framework is developed that systematically records the specific requirements of open access publishers. The focus is on linking actual processes with a structured, generically applicable catalogue of requirements. The resulting requirements specification is divided into a static part with constant information about the publisher and a generic part that can be adapted to individual publishing situations. The approach is supplemented by a collection of work aids and templates that support the analysis and documentation process. An exemplary application example, the fictitious university publisher OAUNI-PRESS, illustrates the practical implementation and validation of the developed procedure. The results show that a modular specification sheet can make a key contribution to the structured introduction of WFMS, and at the same time offers a transferable standard for different publishing situations.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14359920 2025-06-26T17:05:02-04:00 2025-06-26T17:05:02-04:00

<p>From DeepL English: Researchers are working on a just, “Dutch ChatGPT”, and that requires a lot of data. They don't want to pluck that from the internet without permission, but obtain it in a decent way.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14086152 2025-06-13T06:15:55-04:00 2025-06-13T06:15:55-04:00

<p>This book is the tenth full study of serious gold open access: open access articles in open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. This and previous editions are available as free PDF ebooks or paperbacks priced to cover production costs. Thanks to SPARC’s continued support, I was able to update the database to include all journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of very early January 1, 2025 (UMT) and to add 2024 counts and earlier counts as needed. Diamond OA 2025: The World of No-Fee Open Access Journals should appear in July or very late June 2025 </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14291301 2025-06-23T08:09:47-04:00 2025-06-23T08:09:47-04:00

<p>Ambiguous one-word journal titles are a Multi-Disciplinary Publishing Institute (MDPI) trademark (“<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods">Foods</a>”, “<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/journal/plants">Plants</a>”). In the spirit of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”, Springer Nature has launched a series of journals, the “Discover” series, with near-identical names (<a href="https://link.springer.com/journal/44187">Discover Food</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/journal/44372">Discover Plants</a>). if you don’t believe us, you can try it yourself in our “Guess Who Is Who” mini-game. </p> <div> <div> <div> <p>Why? How? And let’s ask the most important question of all: who will this benefit? It’s certinly not the authors.</p> </div> </div> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14053555 2025-06-08T13:24:40-04:00 2025-06-08T13:24:40-04:00

<p>This poster shows how open infrastructures interoperate to support Diamond OA book publishing.</p> <p>Scholarly book publishing has seen an accelerated transformation towards open access publishing and business models over the past couple of years, and particularly to Diamond OA publishing. Some presses have swiftly adapted and adopted the models of this new reality, while most have been wondering or even questioning how to get started.</p> <p>Existing revenue streams, systems, and workflows don’t translate well to Diamond OA book publishing which is a roadblock to emerging initiatives. New solutions are needed for funding, editorial and metadata management, distribution, archiving, and usage monitoring of open access books. In the era of open scholarship, publishers must change their workflows and practices which can be difficult and challenging. The good news is, that robust, efficient, and Diamond open infrastructure solutions exist that support publishers throughout the publishing process and that these solutions are collaborating to ensure interoperability and provide a smooth and coherent workflow to meet individual publisher needs:</p> <ul> <li>For funding (Open Book Collective),</li> <li>For editorial and peer-review management (Public Knowledge Project – OMP),</li> <li>For metadata management and dissemination (Thoth Open Metadata),</li> <li>For file hosting and distribution (OAPEN)</li> <li>For discoverability (DOAB – Directory of Open Access Books), </li> <li>For archiving (CLOCKSS and Portico via OAPEN; Thoth Open Archiving Network via Thoth Open Metadata),</li> <li>For usage monitoring (OPERAS &amp;  COKI).</li> </ul> <p>The poster visualises how the above infrastructures connect and support Diamond OA book publishing. It exemplifies this support through a concrete use case: Netherlands University Presses (<a href="https://nups.nl/">https://nups.nl/</a>). These Dutch university presses are jointly developing workflows and practices based on support from the Diamond open infrastructures. The use case may inspire other publishers or publishing partnerships in Diamond OA book publishing.</p> <p>To learn more, scan the QR code in the poster or visit <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/linktr.ee/oapenbooks">linktr.ee/oapenbooks</a>.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14053554 2025-06-08T13:17:52-04:00 2025-06-08T13:17:52-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Many university publishers and institutional publication services offer journal services to enable researchers to publish quality-assured scientific journals. In order to gain an overview of the journals operated by the members of the University Presses Working Group, the OJS Journals Working Group conducted a survey among all members of the Working Group between 28 June 2023 and 19 September 2023. In addition to the number of journals in operation, the survey is intended to determine the services provided by university publishers and the conditions under which they operate. The results are analysed in this publication. The survey data on which it is based is provided in anonymised form.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14053441 2025-06-08T12:41:17-04:00 2025-06-08T12:41:17-04:00

<p>Poster for the DIAMAS converence 'The Future of Diamond OA Publishing in Europe and Beyond' on the 3rd of June 2025 giving an overview of the current developments in the Dutch project Strenghtening Diamond Open Access and future programmes to support diamond open access as a sustainable publishing model. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13957299 2025-06-03T10:21:21-04:00 2025-06-03T10:21:21-04:00

<p>Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Jordy Findanis and Niels Stern. Jordy is Project Manager at OAPEN and the Directory of Open Access Books and also works on the Copim Open Book Futures Project. Niels is Managing Director of the OAPEN Foundation and has worked in scholarly publishing for more than 20 years. Part 2 of the post will be available tomorrow.</p> <div> <p>While awareness of predatory journals is growing, the risks posed by untrustworthy book publishers remain less well known. Some open access (OA) book publishers charge authors a Book Processing Charge (BPC), which — when handled by a reputable publisher — covers vital services such as peer review, editorial oversight, and wide dissemination.</p> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13957298 2025-06-03T10:16:13-04:00 2025-06-03T10:16:13-04:00

<p>This is a time of upheaval for many libraries: budgets are shrinking amid a financial crisis in HE while large commercial vendors are unilaterally changing the terms on which content can be purchased, putting libraries in the position of continually paying for resources they will never own. In an unstable time, what are the opportunities for libraries to respond? Does open access offer an alternative to closed content, and can we sustain and develop equitable models to achieve it?</p> <p>This webinar is a much-needed opportunity to explore open access for books by asking whether—and how—it might be possible to start transitioning library spend from ‘acquiring’ content (a closed-access system) to ‘enabling’ access for all by supporting Diamond open access (OA) models for books. These are models whereby a publisher makes books OA without charging the reader and without charging the author, instead supporting their operations with other funding streams e.g. small payments from a large number of libraries to open the books for everyone.</p> <p>In conversation with the developers of Diamond OA programmes for books such as Opening the Future and the Open Book Collective, librarians from a range of institutions will explore issues including:</p> <ul> <li>What do Diamond models for books (as opposed to journals) actually look like, and do they work?</li> <li>Can OA interlink with other priorities for the library, e.g. providing access to textbooks?</li> <li>What are the connections between problems caused by closed-access content and potential OA solutions? Can we articulate them meaningfully?</li> <li>Given all the other pressures on library budgets, what arguments might be used to justify spend on OA that will persuade senior management?</li> <li>What are the practical steps we can take now?</li> </ul> <p>We will explore these questions from the perspectives of different institutions, acknowledging that there is no single solution that will fit all libraries. Attendees will come away with a better understanding of how Diamond OA for books can work, how OA can be more than either a ‘nice-to-have’ or an additional financial burden, and how they might begin making changes at their institution to move from expensive and opaque fees for closed-access content, to greater levels of sustainable support for equitable Diamond OA.</p> <p>Speakers:</p> <p>Andrew Knight, Imperial Matt Cox, Anglia Ruskin University Sharon Stevens, University of Worcester with Kevin Sanders (OBC/Copim)</p> <p>This webinar is free of charge for everyone to join and a recording will be available afterwards open access on the NAG website.  You do not need to sign up to the webinar to gain access to the recording.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13853636 2025-05-28T07:18:23-04:00 2025-05-28T12:05:24-04:00

<p>Join us for a timely discussion on the future of Open Access. While the movement has seen remarkable growth over the past decade, recent financial, political, and global challenges are threatening its progress. How can we keep the momentum going?</p> <p>Hear from two leading voices in the OA space as they share insights and strategies for navigating these turbulent times. Don’t miss this essential conversation for anyone invested in the future of open knowledge.</p> <p>This webinar belongs to the series "Challenging the Status Quo: Taking Libraries into the Future".</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13851533 2025-05-27T11:21:04-04:00 2025-05-28T13:22:07-04:00

<p>Introduction: In this article, we discuss the results of our research over the spring and summer of 2023. During this study, we conducted an environmental scan of 377 journals in the field of librarianship to gather information on open access publishing practices.</p> <p>Methods: We used a mixed methods framework as a starting point for our research, collecting data on selected journals’ publishing practices. We selected journals based on the following criteria: 1) peer reviewed, 2) written in English or abstracted in English, 3) actively published at the time of analysis, and 4) scoped to librarianship. Data we collected included the journals’ open access policies, peer review processes, and data sharing policies.</p> <p>Results: With a dataset of 133 of the initial 377 journals meeting our criteria, we observed variations in the journals’ open access practices, peer review processes, and data sharing policies. We noted more journals allowed diamond open access than any other publishing option, and a low number of journals are toll access.</p> <p>Discussion: Within our study sample, open access policies are varied and in flux. Ascertaining the openness of individual peer-reviewed journals was challenging. Within the 133 journals examined, the state of open publishing practice is clearly evolving quickly, but with varying levels of transparency and consistency.</p> <p>Conclusion: Even though there are myriad challenges associated with open access publishing, the field of librarianship must continue moving toward an open access model. Academic librarians can advocate for scholars to critically analyze and challenge the scholarly communication system. In addition, journals should provide publishing transparency and guidance for those looking to publish.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13835811 2025-05-23T04:48:09-04:00 2025-05-23T09:20:35-04:00

<p>On 5 June, the European University Association will publish a new briefing on ‘Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system: Challenges and opportunities for universities’.</p> <p>During this launch event from 15.00-16.00 CEST, speakers will present insights and key considerations from the briefing, setting the stage for an open discussion with the audience to explore pathways toward a just scholarly publishing ecosystem, as envisioned in the EUA Open Science Agenda 2025.</p> <p>Sharing and publishing research results is a fundamental part of the research process and knowledge production, and it relies on the critical examination and discussion of each other's findings. Historically, the primary goals of scholarly communication were to disseminate, exchange and preserve knowledge, through the publication of academic journals and books.</p> <p>However, today’s scholarly communication system has increasingly diverged from these original purposes. It now presents significant flaws and inefficiencies. It imposes high costs for researchers and research performing organisations, restricts the rapid and wide dissemination of research results and, through its structure and operation, threatens core academic values such as trust and integrity.</p> <p>To support institutional leaders in navigating these complex dynamics, EUA’s forthcoming briefing describes the current status of academic publishing, highlighting the main factors shaping the system and the key challenges faced by the academic community. It will also identify the opportunities for universities to play a leading role in shaping the future of scholarly communication.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13855840 2025-05-29T06:01:08-04:00 2025-05-29T06:01:08-04:00

<p>The data from the <a href="https://www.bibliotheksstatistik.de/">German Library Statistics (DBS)</a> reveals a clear trend: while spending on Closed Access content in university libraries in Germany has remained relatively stable, investments in Open Access have surged dramatically. Please note that not all universities reported all values consistently, making it impossible to quantify the trends with complete precision. However, clear trends can still be identified.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13835812 2025-05-23T04:55:40-04:00 2025-05-23T04:55:40-04:00

<p>Under <a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/reforming-and-enhancing-european-research-and-innovation-system_en">Horizon Europe</a>, the European Commission will support efforts to reform the EU R&amp;I system by implementing structural changes, improving access to excellence and deepening the <a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/european-research-area_en">European Research Area</a><span>.</span></p> <p>The successful proposal will deliver on the following impacts: “Sustainable high quality institutional non-profit open access publishing services indexed in research information systems adhering to national research assessment standards” and “Increased capacity in the EU R&amp;I system to conduct open science and establishing it as the prevailing approach in modern research approaches”.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13835810 2025-05-23T04:38:23-04:00 2025-05-23T04:38:23-04:00

<p>Following a public call to tender, Science Europe has selected CWTS (Leiden, the Netherlands) and the Know Center (Graz, Austria) for a study into the links between open science and research cultures.</p> <p>Science Europe's Working Groups on <a href="https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/open-science/working-group/" title="Working Group">Open Science</a> and <a href="https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-culture/working-group/" title="Working Group">Research Culture</a> work together to investigate strategic approaches to, and research assessment of, open science. Their goal is to provide foresight for policy discussions and enhance mutual learning between Science Europe's Member Organisations. This will lay a foundation for the development of strategic recommendations on open science and the evolution of research cultures.</p> <p>In October 2024, during International Open Access Week, they presented the outcomes of a survey among Science Europe members. They will explore the key findings in a three-part series of internal workshops during 2025, covering topics from ‘open access to research outputs’ to ‘opening the research process’, and from ‘open science policy orientations’ to ‘levers for research culture change’.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13835809 2025-05-23T04:30:26-04:00 2025-05-23T04:30:26-04:00

<p>The Diamond Open Access Workshop Day is an event for the community of institutional publishing service providers and scholar-led journals in Switzerland to share knowledge and experiences on the latest developments as well as technical and non-technical standards in Diamond Open Access publishing.</p> <p>This event will feature eleven practice-oriented workshops and a poster session, dedicated to tools and services for Diamond Open Access publishing. This workshop day is all about implementation, providing practical insights, strategies, and solutions for those working in the field.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14376754 2025-06-27T13:30:36-04:00 2025-06-28T10:05:55-04:00

<p>This study investigates the awareness and perceptions of Diamond Open Access (DOA) among library professionals in Pakistan, addressing a critical gap in scholarly communication practices within developing countries. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected through a structured questionnaire distributed to library professionals. The perceived benefits of DOA included enhanced dissemination of research, reduced financial barriers for developing countries, and increased citations. Concerns over sustainability and visibility emerged as significant issues. These findings emphasize the role of libraries in promoting equitable access to research and highlight the need for ongoing discussions on the adoption of DOA in Pakistan.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13828137 2025-05-21T06:51:34-04:00 2025-05-21T06:51:34-04:00

<p>Abstract: As new areas of academic research proliferate (and cross-pollinate), scholarly digital publishing makes it possible to grow online networks around research interests without relying on the slow, gate-keeping procedures of traditional print publishing. In this way, advances in digital technology continue to offer scholars a wider readership and more meaningful peer networks, but these benefits come at a cost. Without a reliable economic model, the labor of peer-reviewing, editing, formatting, distributing and marketing scholarly writing and research is, in many cases, taken on by the scholars themselves. Digital tools make publishing workflows considerably more efficient and faster, but the unpaid labor involved is still a hindrance to any sustainable models for publishing scholarly work.   </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13827747 2025-05-21T04:15:57-04:00 2025-05-21T04:15:57-04:00

<p>"<span>Last October, we circulated an</span><span> </span><a href="https://scipost.org/blog/post/2024-10-07/diamond-sustainability-requires-sustenance">Open letter to academic organizations</a><span> </span><span>in the hope of stabilizing our fundraising.</span></p> <p>Unfortunately, this has not been successful. Our financial situation has not improved. In fact, it has <a href="https://scipost.org/finances/">deteriorated</a>."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13827700 2025-05-21T03:05:03-04:00 2025-05-21T03:05:03-04:00

<p>The UKB working group Open Access provides an knowledge hub for open access specialists from all over the Netherlands. In its bimonthly meetings, this group discusses the major developments in the field of open access all over the country, hence playing an important role in shaping the open access publishing policies for all Dutch universities. This poster provides an overview of activities. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13826107 2025-05-20T15:17:39-04:00 2025-05-20T15:17:39-04:00

<p>The increasingly hostile attitude of the new U.S. government towards science and academia leaves many of us deeply concerned— if not outright alarmed. In an effort to better understand the unfolding situation and navigate its potential impacts, we provide an overview of five types of threats, each supported by links to documented sources. We also propose a simple resilience framework and use it to interpret the multitude of actions of many different stakeholders that help to counter the threats and attacks. Finally, we explore the particular case of open science: does its openness make it more susceptible to these threats, or could it, in fact, be a source of greater resilience?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843649 2025-11-14T11:10:03-05:00 2025-11-14T11:10:03-05:00

<p>The European Commission (EC), governments, and funders have been pushing researchers to publish Open Access (OA). The EC, for instance, has made open access mandatory for all Horizon projects, which includes making any peer-reviewed journal article openly accessible and free of charge, and is conducting a pilot on OA for research data.<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1023263X251338075#fn1-1023263X251338075">1</a> In parallel, or perhaps because of such developments, discussions about OA publishing have been ongoing in academic circles. Understanding the empirical effects, both positive and negative, of OA publishing can aid decision-making at various levels, from editorial policies to individual author choices.<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1023263X251338075#fn2-1023263X251338075">2</a> This editorial explores the types, trends, and effects of OA publishing. Unlike other editorials, this editorial is not very opinionated. Instead, it primarily aims to provide information to form an opinion and assist in making informed decisions regarding becoming or remaining OA journals and whether to publish OA.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13955972 2025-06-03T08:47:06-04:00 2025-06-03T08:47:06-04:00

<p>The European Commission (EC), governments, and funders have been pushing researchers to publish Open Access (OA). The EC, for instance, has made open access mandatory for all Horizon projects, which includes making any peer-reviewed journal article openly accessible and free of charge, and is conducting a pilot on OA for research data. In parallel, or perhaps because of such developments, discussions about OA publishing have been ongoing in academic circles. Understanding the empirical effects, both positive and negative, of OA publishing can aid decision-making at various levels, from editorial policies to individual author choices. This editorial explores the types, trends, and effects of OA publishing. Unlike other editorials, this editorial is not very opinionated. Instead, it primarily aims to provide information to form an opinion and assist in making informed decisions regarding becoming or remaining OA journals and whether to publish OA.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14053556 2025-06-08T13:29:13-04:00 2025-06-08T13:29:13-04:00

<p>When you publish a preprint or article, you generally remain the copyright holder of your research and can decide how to license it. This guide explores the benefits of the CC BY license for research publications.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14053561 2025-06-08T13:32:38-04:00 2025-06-08T13:32:38-04:00

<p>Diamond Open Access (OA) is a publishing model that eliminates fees for both authors and readers, promoting equitable access to scholarly content. In Europe, Diamond OA is gaining attention as a sustainable approach to Open Access publishing. Various initiatives support its growth, including EC-funded projects like CRAFT-OA and DIAMAS, national and institutional commitments, and international efforts such as the Global Diamond Open Access Alliance launched by UNESCO. Despite its potential, Diamond OA faces challenges like under-funding, technological gaps, and undervaluation in research assessments.</p> <p>The CRAFT-OA project and OpenAIRE, a non-profit European partnership, are developing services to advance Diamond OA publishers technologically. These include:</p> <ul> <li>Open Journal Systems (OJS) Plugin for OpenAIRE Guidelines: This plugin helps integrate diamond journals into the OpenAIRE Graph, ensuring compliance with metadata standards and improving discoverability and interoperability.</li> <li>OJS Plugin for the OpenAIRE Broker: The Broker notifies journals about enrichments that OpenAIRE added to their metadata records - such as funding information or related datasets - enhancing the quality and completeness of bibliographic records.</li> <li>MONITOR Dashboard for Diamond OA Publishers: This platform offers analytics and reporting capabilities, tracking key performance indicators like citation metrics, FAIRness indicators, impact on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.</li> </ul> <p>The MONITOR dashboard is also available to research-performing organizations like universities and university alliances. Combined with the OpenAIRE CONNECT service, RPOs enhance the visibility and discoverability of their various research outputs, including theses, reports, datasets, and software.</p> <p>These innovations collectively enhance the visibility, robustness, and inclusivity of the Diamond OA and grey literature publishing landscape.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/15134963 2025-08-08T06:32:31-04:00 2025-08-08T06:32:31-04:00

<p>Open access (OA) publishing has transformed the dissemination of scientific knowledge by removing paywalls and increasing access to research outputs globally. This proposal has the potential to induce research equity, particularly benefiting researchers from low- and middle-income countries who often suffer from financial and infrastructural disadvantages. The real question is whether OA has a real impact on reducing the disparity of access to knowledge production and participation in it. Otolaryngology serves as a useful framework to investigate these dynamics by its worldwide clinical significance and heterogeneous input (1-5).</p> <p>This study investigates whether OA publishing is associated with greater global representation and equity in research output, authorship characteristics, and citation impact by comparing articles authored from high- and low-income countries published in the top otolaryngology journals.</p> <p><span><span>Open access (OA)</span><span> </span><span>publishing</span><span> </span><span>has</span><span> </span><span>transformed</span><span> </span><span>the</span><span> </span><span>dissemination</span><span> </span><span>of scientific</span><span> </span><span>knowledge</span><span> </span><span>by</span><span> </span><span>removing</span><span> </span><span>paywalls and increasing access to research</span><span> </span><span>outputs</span><span> </span><span>globally</span><span>.</span><span> </span><span>This</span><span> </span><span>proposal has the potential to</span><span> </span><span>induce</span><span> </span><span>research</span><span> </span><span>equity,</span> <span>particularly</span><span> </span><span>benefiting</span><span> </span><span>researchers</span><span> </span><span>from</span><span> </span><span>low- and</span><span> </span><span>middle</span><span>-</span><span>income</span><span> </span><span>countries</span><span> </span><span>who often</span><span> </span><span>suffer</span><span> </span><span>from</span><span> </span><span>financial and</span><span> </span><span>infrastructural</span><span> </span><span>disadvantages.</span><span> </span><span>The</span><span> </span><span>real</span><span> </span><span>question</span><span> </span><span>is whether OA has a real</span><span> </span><span>impact</span><span> </span><span>on</span><span> </span><span>reducing</span><span> </span><span>the disparity of</span> <span>access to</span><span> </span><span>knowledge</span><span> </span><span>production</span><span> </span><span>and participation in it. Otolaryngology serves as a</span><span> </span><span>useful</span><span> </span><span>framework</span><span> </span><span>to investigate these</span><span> </span><span>dynamics</span><span> </span><span>by</span><span> </span><span>its worldwide clinical significance and</span><span> </span><span>heterogeneous</span><span> </span><span>input</span><span> </span><span>(1-5).</span></span> <span><span>This</span><span> </span><span>study</span><span> </span><span>investigates whether OA</span><span> </span><span>publishing</span><span> </span><span>is associated with greater</span><span> </span><span>global</span><span> </span><span>representation and</span><span> </span><span>equity</span><span> </span><span>in research</span><span> </span><span>output,</span><span> </span><span>authorship</span><span> </span><span>characteristics, and citation</span><span> </span><span>impact</span><span> </span><span>by</span><span> </span><span>comparing</span><span> </span><span>articles</span><span> </span><span>authored</span><span> </span><span>from</span><span> </span><span>high- and</span> <span>low-</span><span>income</span><span> </span><span>countries</span><span> </span><span>published</span><span> </span><span>in the top otolaryngology</span><span> </span><span>journals</span></span></p> <div> </div>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850487 2025-05-27T02:45:04-04:00 2025-05-27T02:45:04-04:00

<p>"OA is intended to democratize access to knowledge, but the burden of APCs, often unaffordable for many, creates insurmountable barriers that hinder the equitable access OA aims to achieve."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14360304 2025-06-26T17:24:29-04:00 2025-06-26T17:24:29-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: Through the Dutch UKB consortium deals, over 16,000 articles have become open access in 2024. The attached analysis details a number of trends, including the number of publications in hybrid and full open access journals, cost trends and the use of Creative Commons licences.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14376808 2025-06-27T13:37:36-04:00 2025-06-27T13:37:36-04:00

<p>The development of open access (OA) journals in mainland China, like other non-English-speaking countries, have been studied extensively in recent years. Existing studies may have failed to strictly differentiate between OA journals and free access journals, resulting in a much larger number of OA journals surveyed than the number of China’s OA journals included in DOAJ. This study investigates and analyzes the current status of OA publishing of academic journals indexed by CSCD and CSSCI in mainland China. The results revealed that academic journals in mainland China have a high degree of complexity in OA publishing, with a small number of strict OA journals that make a clear OA statement coexisting with a large number of free-access journals that “doing without saying”, indicating that most journals remain hesitant to fully embrace OA publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16049834 2025-09-24T15:40:34-04:00 2025-09-25T09:12:16-04:00

<p>As we launch Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, it is essential to outline our vision and goals for the future. We draw inspiration from recently launched diamond open access (DOA) journals established by the geoscience community, which have introduced a new, inclusive, and community-driven publishing model (<a href="https://journals.uu.se/AGC/article/view/770/654">Farquharson &amp; Wadsworth, 2018</a>; <a href="https://journals.uu.se/AGC/article/view/770/654">Rowe et al., 2022</a>; <a href="https://journals.uu.se/AGC/article/view/770/654">Thomas et al., 2023</a>; <a href="https://journals.uu.se/AGC/article/view/770/654">Fernández-Blanco et al., 2023</a>). Here, we detail the ethos of Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, and how we aim to provide an alternative to the dominance of commercial publishers by fostering open access without financial barriers to authors.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13849482 2025-05-26T17:25:55-04:00 2025-05-26T17:32:23-04:00

<p>"Since moving to an open access model, the popularity of NAR [Nucleic Acids Research] has increased over the years and the quality of the journal has steadily risen. Today, we are considered one of the very best journals in which to publish research findings in the molecular and cellular life sciences with a focus on nucleic acids."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13955975 2025-06-03T09:01:10-04:00 2025-06-03T09:02:06-04:00

<p>Background: As open-access (OA) publishing continues to reshape scholarly communication, two primary models—gold and diamond OA—have gained prominence. While the gold model charges authors through Article Processing Charges (APCs), the diamond model offers free access for both authors and readers. Understanding global researchers' perceptions of these models is essential to addressing issues of equity, accessibility, and sustainability. Purpose: This study investigates researchers' perceptions of gold and diamond OA models, particularly in terms of visibility, financial implications, institutional support, and equity, with a comparative lens on developed and developing country contexts. Research Design: A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to capture researchers' experiences and attitudes toward OA publishing. Study Sample: The study targeted authors who had published in MDPI gold open-access journals with an impact factor of 5 or higher during 2022–2023. A random sample of 1,000 researchers was contacted, yielding 152 completed responses. Data Collection and/or Analysis: Data were collected via structured questionnaires administered through Google Forms. Descriptive statistics were applied using SPSS v29 to analyze demographic data and Likert-scale responses concerning perceptions of OA models. Results: Respondents from developed countries favored gold OA for its visibility and citation potential, but concerns over APC affordability and institutional support were evident, especially among those from developing regions. Diamond OA was perceived as more equitable and inclusive due to its no-fee structure, although sustainability concerns persisted. Institutional support for OA publishing was limited, with few institutions offering financial backing or APC subsidies. Conclusions: While gold OA offers benefits in visibility and impact, its cost structure poses barriers for underfunded researchers. Diamond OA aligns more closely with equitable publishing ideals but requires sustainable funding mechanisms. Strengthened institutional support and adaptive funding policies are critical to advancing inclusive and sustainable OA publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14312186 2025-06-24T09:15:05-04:00 2025-06-25T09:45:49-04:00

<p>The editors and managing editors of MLQ reported that the attitudes and procedures of Wiley have changed considerably in the last few years and that commercial and profit-oriented interests are now influencing the editorial process negatively. On the basis of this changed situation, the members of DVMLG decided not to continue the publishing agreement with Wiley after it ends on 31 December 2025</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13534354 2025-04-03T13:12:47-04:00 2025-05-20T15:07:19-04:00

<p>"Join us for “<strong>Developing a Diamond Open Access Discovery Kit</strong>”, a one-day event organized by the <a href="https://www.openaccess.nl/en/diamond-open-access/about">Diamond Open Access Expertise Centre</a> in collaboration with Utrecht University Library, Erasmus University Library and Vrije Universiteit Library.</p> <p>The event aims to bring together librarians and researchers to co-create and develop a national kit that librarians and faculty liaisons, policy advisors, and research support officers can adapt and use to promote awareness of Diamond Open Access options locally. During the day, we will discuss and develop the Diamond OA Discovery Kit elements, such as, for instance, training and information materials for librarians and faculty, tips and tricks on how to evaluate and support Diamond Open Access initiatives, case studies and success stories, strategies to engage with researchers and their needs, tools for advocacy and policy development, Diamond OA journal lists, and templates for institutional use."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850488 2025-05-27T02:52:26-04:00 2025-05-27T02:52:26-04:00

<p>"Unsurprisingly, an increasing number of predatory journals now seek to exploit unknowing researchers and researchers seeing no other way out. The logical question, then, appears: ‘Is there an excess of OA?’"</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850489 2025-05-27T03:00:09-04:00 2025-05-27T03:00:09-04:00

<p>Abstract: In this paper, we introduce a special issue of Q Open on open access and open science that presents papers from a session at the 2023 European Association of Agricultural Economists Congress. We briefly discuss some of the emerging issues confronting applied economists regarding open access and open science. We also consider how the growth in open access is changing the publication landscape, as well as ongoing efforts to promote open science. As the papers published in the special issue show, there remain unresolved questions regarding the costs and benefits associated with implementing open access and open science.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/14802822 2025-07-21T04:45:06-04:00 2025-07-21T09:19:23-04:00

<p>A growing movement of researcher-driven publishing projects has emerged in response to several challenges and shifts within the academic publishing landscape. One publishing initiative in this area are what we term community-led publishing projects (CPPs), which are produced entirely by academics, librarians and students without any involvement of the commercial publishing industry. CPPs are part of a growing global movement but their values and practices remain underexplored. This article presents findings on the landscape of CPPs at the University of Cambridge. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843647 2025-11-14T11:04:47-05:00 2025-11-14T11:04:47-05:00

<p><span>As we mark the end of our third year as editors of European Societies, we witness a significant transition: the journal has now changed publishers, moving from Taylor &amp; Francis to MIT Press. This moment of change provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on the journal’s development and achievements over the past three years, considering both the progress made and the direction we envision for the future.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17540953 2026-03-21T09:16:31-04:00 2026-03-21T09:16:31-04:00

<p>Access to scientific knowledge should have become easier and more affordable thanks to the digital revolution. This chapter explains why this hasn’t happened yet and provides guidance for the future.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13849368 2025-05-26T16:56:29-04:00 2025-05-26T17:31:28-04:00

<p>Open Access (OA) model in scientific journals has brought about a range of benefits in terms of information accessibility. However, the high costs associated with Article Processing Charges (APCs) have posed a significant challenge for many scientists, leaving them in a ‘limbo’, where their ability to publish in reputable journals is contingent upon their financial capacity. Here, we intend to highlight the challenges faced by Latin American scientists that have arisen as a direct consequence of the implementation of the OA, specifically: (i) difficulties in disseminating our scientific work due to the impossibility of covering the high APCs imposed by journals, and (ii) the strong emergence and consolidation in our region of publishers with predatory practices. We urge the scientific community to establish policies that contribute to equity in OA models and to defend the right of Latin American scientists not only to read science freely but also to be read.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13859625 2025-05-29T16:02:36-04:00 2025-05-29T16:02:36-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: "The library Open Access community in the German-speaking world is very well established and offers a regular exchange of ideas with the Open Access Days as well as the open-access.network, a productive platform for information, training and services, including on the subject of infrastructures. Nevertheless, it can be difficult for those at the beginning of their careers or external researchers to quickly gain an overview. In addition, the funding programmes of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) have initiated a number of new infrastructure projects, some of which have yet to become established."</p> <p>Chapter in: Johannsen, Jochen, Mittermaier, Bernhard, Schäffler, Hildegard and Söllner, Konstanze. <em>Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement</em>, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur, 2026. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341">https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341</a></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13859624 2025-05-29T15:56:35-04:00 2025-05-29T15:56:35-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: "...This makes it clear that repositories are currently developing into comprehensive research-supporting platforms for science. The functional expansion of repositories from a sustainable, distributing presentation platform to a starting point for extended and comprehensive services that enable the qualitative and quantitative re-utilisation of publications and their management offers great potential. It creates a smooth transition to university presses and comparable self-publishing activities as well as institutional and specialist services and advisory services similar to those offered by publishers. It is important to take a close look at the strengths and weaknesses of this development. The loss of selectivity means that there is an increasing need to differentiate, redefine or reorganise services in order to create the best solutions for science. This also includes continuing to be guided by digital openness (open access, open science) and leaving responsibility in the hands of scientific institutions."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13859623 2025-05-29T15:52:57-04:00 2025-05-29T15:52:57-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: "Thanks to numerous initiatives and great commitment, especially from libraries but also from research itself, open access to books has developed into a dynamic field in recent years. Gaps in the supply of information can be prevented by shifting publication structures to public institutions, improved funding opportunities and the decoupling of publication and assumed reputation. A cost spiral in the acquisition of books can also be counteracted by reallocating budgets in favour of science's own publication services (cf. chapter 4.5). If the idea of free access also becomes more established for monographs, open access could indeed be the surprising way out of the much-vaunted monograph crisis. However, in order to further strengthen the acceptance of open access for books as well as the academic and non-profit publication infrastructures and services, non-transparent publication costs and the still strongly represented reputational logic as well as the brand-dependent leap of faith must be overcome, and important synergies can be generated through cooperation between publishers that do not primarily pursue a profit-oriented business model and academic publication services. Since university publishers are usually as much a part of the information facilities of the respective research institution as publication funds, it can be assumed that many of the important impulses for the Open Access movement will continue to come from the libraries in the future."</p> <p>Chapter in: Johannsen, Jochen, Mittermaier, Bernhard, Schäffler, Hildegard and Söllner, Konstanze. <em>Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement</em>, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur, 2026. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341">https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341</a></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13855832 2025-05-29T05:54:54-04:00 2025-05-29T05:54:54-04:00 CC BY 4.0

<p>From DeepL's English: The publication of journals in the OA paradigm affects the operation of academic libraries in many ways. Some libraries have already taken an active role in shaping the publication system by operating their own publication infrastructures. In addition, the acquisition and associated management of APCs as well as the participation and co-design of consortia in the field of OA are central fields of activity for libraries in the area of academic journals. As a cross-cutting topic, OA affects diverse aspects of library management beyond the journal sector. It is desirable for libraries to further expand their activities in this area. The Science Council's recommendations on OA transformation and those from 2023 identify some of the diverse fields of action. It is also important to expand advisory activities and support the formulation of policies at academic institutions. In all of these areas, where cooperation between institutions, also in close dialogue with funding organisations, is of central importance, there are options for action for libraries to further develop the publication system.</p> <p>This is a chapter in: Johannsen, Jochen, Mittermaier, Bernhard, Schäffler, Hildegard and Söllner, Konstanze. <em>Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement</em>, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur, 2026. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341">https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341</a></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13855831 2025-05-29T05:42:23-04:00 2025-05-29T05:42:23-04:00

<p>From DeepL's English: "In the current debate, the open access transformation is often abbreviated as a requirement for libraries and universities to cover the new demand for publication to cover the new demand for publication costs by adapting processes and distribution mechanisms. It is sometimes forgotten that the goal of the open access transformation is not to finance the publishing of researchers; rather, this is only a means of realising it. The actual goal is is to create free access to scientific literature - and this goal the core function of libraries, namely the provision of literature."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850491 2025-05-27T03:06:21-04:00 2025-05-27T03:06:21-04:00

<p>"My views on the proliferation and quality of open-access medical journals are informed by 2 investigations I made in preparation, the presentations I heard at the forum, and further reading since. It is a complex question with no easy answers."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850490 2025-05-27T03:06:05-04:00 2025-05-27T03:06:05-04:00

<p>"My views on the proliferation and quality of open-access medical journals are informed by 2 investigations I made in preparation, the presentations I heard at the forum, and further reading since. It is a complex question with no easy answers."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17135002 2025-12-20T15:30:55-05:00 2025-12-20T15:30:55-05:00

<p>In this response to <a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a scientist's best friend</a>, Ron Oostdam argues that diamond open access is morally worth striving for, but may be difficult to achieve. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17134933 2025-12-20T15:29:16-05:00 2025-12-20T15:29:16-05:00

<p>In this response to <a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a scientist's best friend</a>, Peeters discusses how quantification of research quality and dataism negatively affect the uptake of DOA-publishing in particular and academia in general. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843668 2025-11-14T11:28:33-05:00 2025-11-14T11:28:33-05:00

<p>In this response to Andringa et al. (2024), Mirjam Broersma discusses two pitfalls of the current system of academic publishing: ‘openwashing’ and ‘greenwashing’.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843666 2025-11-14T11:25:19-05:00 2025-11-14T11:25:19-05:00

<p><span>In this response to </span><a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a scientist's best friend</a><span>, Plonsky extends the call for DOA-Journals to the context of book publishing in academia.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843665 2025-11-14T11:22:54-05:00 2025-11-14T11:22:54-05:00

<p>In this response to <a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a scientist's best friend</a>, Pascal Braak discusses open science practices from a bibliographic perspective and among other things, sketches how a fully open and transparent knowledge generation process may break the power of commercial publishers.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843657 2025-11-14T11:14:30-05:00 2025-11-14T11:14:30-05:00

<p><span>Response to the article '</span><a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a Scientist's Best Friend</a><span>,' from the perspective of applied sciences.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/17134206 2025-12-20T05:40:56-05:00 2025-12-20T05:40:56-05:00

<p>In this response to <a href="https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal18802">Diamond is a scientist's best friend</a>, Emma Marsden reflects on her past roles as author and editor. She discusses the challenges for flipping journals to diamond models and for publishing in diamond journals and offers ways forward. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843664 2025-11-14T11:19:41-05:00 2025-11-15T09:44:04-05:00

<p>As the chair of Anéla (Dutch Society for Applied Linguistics) and chair of VIOT (Vereniging Interuniversitair Overleg Taalbeheersing) we respond to the position paper by Andringa, Mos, van Beuningen, Gonzalez, Hornikx and Steinkraus (2024) titled ‘Diamond is a scientist’s best friend. Counteracting systemic inequality in open-access publishing.’ We suggest some additional actions we can undertake as associations within the fields of applied linguistics and language and communication to achieve the goal set out by the authors: making Diamond Open Access publishing the standard in publishing. We conclude by adding two more benefits when doing so. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/16843670 2025-11-14T11:30:38-05:00 2025-11-15T09:20:29-05:00

<p>In this contribution, Ali Al-Hoorie considers open science from a global South perspective and proposes a three-stage roadmap towards scholarship that is truly equitable.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/13850924 2025-05-27T03:32:56-04:00 2025-05-27T04:07:23-04:00

<p>"The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing."</p>