tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:/hubs/oatp/user/hmorris2/atom 2021-12-23T08:16:06-05:00 TagTeam social RSS aggregrator tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/3395098 2021-12-22T13:04:50-05:00 2021-12-23T08:16:06-05:00

<p>This post concludes the 7-year Sustaining the Knowledge Commons (SKC) research program for which I gratefully acknowledge generous support from Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) through an Insight Development Grant (2014 – 2016), and Insight Grant (2016 – 2021). I also gratefully acknowledge the hard work, team spirit and initiative of the many members of the SKC team over the years – their names are listed on the About the Team page; bios reflect statuses the last time they participated in the project. Following are my key recommendations for funders (including libraries &amp; policy-makers), takeways for future APC researchers, select portions of my final report to SSHRC, and my final thoughts and next directions.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/3162199 2021-08-03T10:20:50-04:00 2021-08-03T10:20:50-04:00

<p>The unique contribution of this chapter is critique of the underlying belief behind both traditional and alternative metrics-based approaches to assessing research and researchers, that is, the assumption that impact is good and an indicator of quality research and therefore it makes sense to measure impact, with the only questions being whether particular technical measures of impact are accurate or not. For example, if impact is necessarily good, then the retracted study by Wakefield et al. that falsely correlated vaccination with autism is good research by any metric – many academic citations both before and after publication, citations in popular and social media and arguably a factor in the real-world impact of the anti-vaccination movement and the subsequent return of preventable illnesses like measles and a factor in the challenge of fighting COVID through vaccination. An alternative approach is suggested, using the traditional University of Ottawa’s collective agreement with APUO (union of full-time professors) as a means of evaluation that considers many different types of publications and considers quantity of publication in a way that gives evaluators the flexibility to take into account the kind of research and research output.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/3089153 2021-06-24T12:58:36-04:00 2021-06-25T13:04:28-04:00

<p>by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou &amp; Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon &amp; Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average <em>per-journal</em> APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the <em>per-article</em> average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2876741 2021-02-10T14:38:02-05:00 2021-02-10T14:38:02-05:00

<p>by Xuan Zhaon, Luan Borges &amp; Heather Morrison</p> <p>Some of the limitations of DOAJ metadata that researchers need to be aware of are explained in this post. In brief, DOAJ metadata must be opened in Unicode to retain non-English characters. The metadata will sometimes appear in the wrong column; clean-up is needed to avoid errors in data analysis. Metadata may be inconsistent; anomalies in listing of publisher names is presented as an example. An open dataset has been released of the DOAJ metadata as of Jan. 5, 2021, with the non-English characters retained, information in the correct columns, and an additional column with standardized publisher names added; the link can be found in the post. DOAJ updating limitations are explained. As of Jan. 5, 2021, only 30% of records had been updated in the past year, and there is no way for researchers to know if the last update reflects a full review, i.e. the particular metadata of interest might not have been updated. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2868056 2021-01-29T12:38:17-05:00 2021-01-30T08:50:49-05:00

<p>The goal of this literature review was to gain an understanding of the current status of research on the topic of digital blog preservation. After conducting a series of searching within the database LISTA (Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts), one can determine that there are little to no recent developments in technology or research specifically for the access/preservation of digital blog posts. Unsurprisingly, much of the scholarly conversation about blog/microblog preservation took place between 2002 and 2010. </p> <p>by Katie Pelland</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2782797 2020-10-01T15:49:44-04:00 2020-10-01T15:49:44-04:00

<p>While many aspects of our lives and activities have slowed down during the COVID pandemic, this has not been the case with open access! The OA initiatives tracked through this series continue to show  strong growth on an annual and quarterly basis. Important milestones are being reached, and others will be coming soon. Highlights The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists over 15,000 fully open access, peer reviewed journals, having added 379 journals (&gt; 4 per day) in the past quarter, and now provides searching for over 5 million articles at the article level.   A PubMed search for "cancer" limited to literature from the past 5 years now links to full-text for over 50% of the articles. The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine now cross-searches over 8,000 repositories and will soon surpass the milestone of a quarter billion documents.  Anyone worried about running out of cultural materials during the pandemic will be relieved to note that the Internet Archive has exceeded a milestone of 6 million movies in addition to over 27 million texts (plus audio, concerts, TV, collections, webpages, and software).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2766914 2020-09-09T15:26:17-04:00 2020-09-09T15:26:17-04:00

<p>Notre Tanoh Laurent Kakou a créé un blog pour son propre projet de recherche en libre accès, C.A.S.A.D.: Centre d’Accès aux Savoirs d’Afrique et de sa Diaspora. Quelques articles seront familiers aux lecteurs de Soutenir les savoirs communs, le travail de l’équipe; d’autres sont nouveau recherche fait par Tanoh. La vidéo Qu’est-ce que la revue Afroscopie?, un entretien avec Benoit Awazi, est éclairante pour quiconque s’intéresse à la recherche en Afrique francophone. Merci et félicitations à notre Tanoh Laurent Kakou, candidat au doctorat en communication (et diplômé d’ÉSIS), qui a réussi son examen de synthèse cet été! Meilleurs voeux à Tanoh et sa recherche.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2766913 2020-09-09T15:24:57-04:00 2020-09-09T15:25:02-04:00

<p>Our Tanoh Laurent Kakou has created a blog for his own research project in open access, C.A.S.A.D.: Centre d’Accès aux Savoirs d’Afrique et de sa Diaspora. Some articles will be familiar to readers of Sustaining the knowledge commons, as the work of the team; others are new research projects by Tanoh. The video Qu’est-ce que la revue Afroscopie?, an interview with Benoit Awazi, is enlightening for anyone who is interested in research in francophone Africa. Thank you and congratulations to our Tanoh Laurent Kakou, a doctoral candidate in communication (and graduate of ÉSIS) on passing his comprehensive exam this summer! Best wishes to Tanoh and his research.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2700341 2020-06-03T17:59:39-04:00 2020-06-04T09:26:48-04:00

<p>A third of the journals published by Frontiers in 2019 and 2020 (20 / 61 journals) have increased in price by 18% or more (up to 55%). This is quite a contrast with the .4% Swiss inflation rate for 2019 according to Worlddata.info ; 18% is 45 times the inflation rate. This is an even more marked contrast with the current and anticipated economic impact of COVID; according to Le News, “A team of economic experts working for the Swiss government forecasts a 6.7% fall in GDP”. (Frontiers’ headquarters is in Switzerland).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2666961 2020-04-23T12:48:40-04:00 2020-12-01T12:11:32-05:00

<p>During the lockdown of the entire country, China is bravely fighting against COVID-19. Many database vendors, publishers, and Internet companies announced to offer free access to academic resources to help students and researchers get the resources they need from home. Most of the publishers offered free access to everyone for a limited time and to decide whether to extend the period or not depend on the COVID-19 situation while some publishers announced open access from the announcement date indefinitely.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2650793 2020-03-31T14:00:03-04:00 2020-03-31T14:00:03-04:00

<p>This is a suggestion for how to identify articles on coronavirus that are not yet open access. The majority of these articles will be in journals that allow author self-archiving, and some may be published by authors covered by open access policies. Communication with authors and/or journals may be helpful to improve the percentage of open access. A PubMed search for “coronavirus” limited to the past 10 years then limited again to free full-text yields results of 55% free full-text. With no date limit, it’s 46%. This search will get at research on COVID and the next most relevant research, all the other coronaviruses (mers, sars, common cold), and will be helpful for researchers and medical practitioners anywhere.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2649878 2020-03-30T13:34:31-04:00 2020-03-30T13:34:31-04:00

<p>Major publishers are making research and data directly related to COVID-19 freely available. This is good news, and may reflect progress towards open access over the past two decades, because the arguments for free sharing of information in the context of pandemic are so compelling, as I touched on in this post. A few examples, current best practices and gaps, will follow, but first, a few notes to explain why we need to move beyond open sharing of directly related resources to include all resources.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2600315 2020-01-20T14:33:19-05:00 2020-01-20T14:33:19-05:00

<p>Thank you to Heather Staines from MIT’s Knowledge Futures Group for initiating this discussion in response to an invitation to participate in an open peer review process of the OA Main 2019 dataset and its documentation on the SCHOLCOMM list (the invitation was also sent to GOAL and the Radical Open Access List) and for permission to post her e-mails on Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2588948 2020-01-03T16:51:27-05:00 2020-01-04T12:51:55-05:00

<p>2019 was another great year for open access! Of the 57 macro-level global OA indicators included in The Dramatic Growth of Open Access, 50 (88%) have growth rates that are higher than the long-term trend of background growth of scholarly journals an d articles of 3 – 3.5% (Price, 1963; Mabe &amp; Amin, 2001). More than half had growth rates of 10% or more, approximately triple the background growth rate, and 13 (nearly a quarter) had growth rates of over 20%.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564703 2019-11-27T13:34:47-05:00 2019-11-27T13:34:47-05:00

<p>De nos jours, les sites web constituent des supports importants pour la diffusion d’information. Les entreprises s’attèlent à donner une visibilité à leurs produits. Les plateformes sont les lieux où les compagnies proposent une variété de produits. L’industrie de l’information en Afrique dans leur conversion au numérique utilise des plateformes pour proposer des services. C’est l’exemple de Sabinet qui est une plateforme hybride qui publie des revues africaines en ligne depuis 2001 (Sabinet, 2019). Elle commercialise trois Produits:</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564544 2019-11-27T08:39:40-05:00 2019-11-27T10:40:08-05:00

<p>Abstract – Open access journals have been developing in India for several decades for promoting the visibility of research done in various streams. OA to science has been encouraged by government sponsored repositories of student and doctoral proposals, and numerous Indian journals are distributed with OA. There is a need to build mindfulness among Indian scholastics with respect to publication practices, including OA, and its potential advantages, and use this methodology of distribution at whatever point doable, as in openly supported research. This research also showed that a well doing publisher in India gets acquired by  European publisher Wolters Kluwer and becomes commercialised. The number of journals with “title not found” or “risky URL”, for example leading to a scam website, is surprising as one might assume that the motivation for this publisher’s society, university and commercial partners is that such partnership would result in high quality services. Most Medknow journals do not charge publication fees. The journals with publication fees are increasing the cost up to 50%. For documentation and a link to the underlying dataset, see Morrison et al. (2019).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564551 2019-11-27T08:46:21-05:00 2019-11-27T09:27:34-05:00

<p>This post presents results of the 2019 OA APC longitudinal survey and extends an invitation to participate in an open peer review process of the underlying data and its documentation. One thing that is not changing is that most OA journals in DOAJ do not charge APCs: 10,210 (73%) of the 14,007 journals in DOAJ as of Nov. 26, 2019 do not have APCs. The global average APC in 2019 is 908 USD. This figure has changed little since 2010, however this consistency masks considerably underlying variation. For example, the average APC in 2019 for the 2010 sample has increased by 50%, a rate three times the inflation rate for this time frame. The tendency to charge or not to charge, how much is charged and whether prices are increasing or decreasing varies considerably by journal, publisher, country of publication, language and currency. One surprise this year was the top 10 countries by number of OA journals in DOAJ. As usual, Europe, the US and Latin America are well represented, but Indonesia is now the second largest country in DOAJ and Poland, Iran, and Turkey are among the top 10, perhaps reflecting the work of the DOAJ ambassadors. Pricing per journal shows mixed trends; most journals did not change price between 2018 and 2019, but there were price decreases as well as increases. The UK’s Ubiquity Press as having a relatively low APC (a fraction of Oxford’s, another UK-based publisher) and no price increases.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564550 2019-11-27T08:45:21-05:00 2019-11-27T08:45:21-05:00

<p>This is an update of the 2010 study of Solomon &amp; Björk (2012) of a sample of 1,046 journals charging APCs listed in DOAJ at that time. 74% of these journals are still active and actively charging publication fees. The average APC reported by Solomon &amp; Björk was 906 USD; the average in 2019 for the 739 journals for which we have APC data for both years is 1,363 USD. This represents a 50% price increase during this time frame, an increase that is 3 times the inflation rate. Not all journals increased in price; some decreased or remained the same price. Nearly a quarter of the journals (23%) are ceased or not found. Most of this attrition rate can be attributed to new OA APC-based commercial publishers with a start-up strategy involving roll-out of a broad range of journals, with unsuccessful journals being retired.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564549 2019-11-27T08:44:43-05:00 2019-11-27T08:44:43-05:00

<p>Pricing trends for 2018 – 2019 were compared on a per-journal and per-publisher basis. In contrast to the relatively unchanging global average APC, per-journal and per-publisher shows a mixture of trends. Most journals did not change in price from 2018 to 2019; 13% increased in price, 25% decreased. Journals included in DOAJ showed a greater tendency to increase in price (37%). Average price changes per publisher ranged from 0 (no change) to a 34% average increase in price. In some cases, price increases and decreases cancel each other out resulting in an average of 0 (no change) masking considerable change at the per-journal level. Only 2 publishers have APPCs; these have similar average prices. Average APC price by publisher ranges from 246 to 2,851 USD. UK-based not-for-profit publisher Ubiquity Press stands out as having the second-lowest average APC of 536 USD with no price increases.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564548 2019-11-27T08:43:53-05:00 2019-11-27T08:43:53-05:00

<p>Fifty percent of the open access (OA) journals listed in DOAJ in 2019 are published in Europe, and the United Kingdom is the biggest publisher of OA journals in DOAJ. It is important to note that we do not know the extent to which OA journals are fully represented in DOAJ; we understand that there is a parallel service called Chinese Open Access Journals. There are a few surprises in the 10 largest countries in DOAJ. Latin America and the U.S. are well represented as usual, while Indonesia is now the second largest country in DOAJ, and Poland, Iran, and Turkey, are among the top 10. This may reflect the work of the DOAJ ambassadors program.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564547 2019-11-27T08:43:01-05:00 2019-11-27T08:43:01-05:00

<p>The analysis of Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) shows that open access journals were published in 85 different languages in 2019. English is the language used by more than 9,500 journals, while Spanish language comes second with more than 2,400 journals, followed by Portuguese (1,731), Indonesia (1,135) and French (897). We analyzed the tendency to charge and average APC by first language listed. The only language with a majority of journals charging APCs was Chinese (54%), followed by Persian (33%) and English (31%). Average APC ranged from 43 USD (Indonesian) to 1,096 USD (English). The second highest APC was Catalan at 331 USD, illustrating a correlation between language and APC, with English language journals at the high end of the range.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564546 2019-11-27T08:42:01-05:00 2019-11-27T08:42:01-05:00

<p>The original currency to charge article processing charge (APC) for more than 50 percent of world open access (OA) journals in 2019 recorded in our study is USD (for documentation of our procedures see Morrison et al (2019), while GBP and EUR are in the second and third place. 5 currencies (USD, GBP, EUR, CHF – Swiss Franc, INR – Indian Rupee) account for over 90% of the journals.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564545 2019-11-27T08:40:58-05:00 2019-11-27T08:40:58-05:00

<p>This post features 4 comparisons between publishers and sub-publishers of fully open access journals that are included in our longitudinal APC study. Traditional publisher Wolters Kluwer owns two sub-publishers (or imprints). Wolters Kluwer Medknow journals tend not to charge APCs, and have low prices when they do charge. Wolters Kluwer Lippincott journals tend to charge, and prices are high. Indonesian-based Universitas Negeri Semerang is now one of the world’s largest OA journal publishers by the number of journals and appears to be new to online publishing using open-source software. Very few of their journals have APCs. The traditional Oxford University Press tends to have APCs, and their APCs are more than twice as high as a new UK-based not-for-profit OA journal publisher, Ubiquity Press. MDPI and Hindawi are very similar, both are fairly new, APC based commercial OA journal publishers; but Hindawi’s average APC is 44% higher than MDPIs. To understand the economics of OA journal publishing, it is necessary to take into account the strategies of particular publishers and even sub-publishers.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2564543 2019-11-27T08:38:04-05:00 2019-11-27T08:38:04-05:00

<p>For the year 2019, we analyzed around 16000 journals that were fully open access in DOAJ (or whose publishers were listed in DOAJ) at some point from 2010 – 2019. More than half of these journals (58%) published had no publication charge.30% of the journals have publications fees. The most frequent model is APC (28% of total) followed by APPC (page charges), under 1%. In a few cases the cost was not specified or an unusual model such as charge per word was used. Of all the journals analyzed, the title of 4% of journals were not found and 3% of journals belonged to ceased publication. It was noted that 53 journals (less than 1%) also had hybrid charges (partially open access) in 2019. The global average APC was 908 USD. From 2010 the global average APC has ranged from 906 – 974 USD. The lack of change in the global average contrasts with variation in mode, reflecting change in the market, particularly ongoing entry of large numbers of new journals, gradually increasing maximum amounts for both APC and APPC, and substantial changes we sometimes observe when recording data for particular publishers. We conclude that continuing to calculate the global average is a less fruitful method of studying the transition to open access and plan to continue this longitudinal study by using the historical data gathered to focus on case studies.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2550377 2019-11-05T15:51:41-05:00 2019-11-05T15:51:41-05:00

<p>Posted by anqishi</p> <p>ABSTRACT: 481 Hindawi journals were analyzed. 226 (47%) journals published at some point from 2010 – 2019 have ceased publication, 7 cannot be found on the Hindawi website anymore and 1 has been transferred to another publisher. In 2019, there are 247 journals actively publishing on the Hindawi website. All the journals are charging APCs. The average price is 1186.44 USD, an increase of 14% over the 2018 APC (1040.30 USD). Compared to the US inflation rate for 2018 of 2.44%(“U.S. Inflation Rate 1960-2019” n.d.), the publication fee rises more than 5 times. Among active journals, 17% of the 217 journals did not change in price; 30% journals decreased their price while more than half (53%) of the journals increased price. The amount of price increase starts from 25 USD up to 1350 USD. 14 journals appear to have switched from “no fee” to “fee”, with different APCS from 750 USD to 1350 USD.</p> <p>Most journals that not found on the website in 2018 now been illustrated ceased on the web page with the specific ceased year and where to find previous publication articles which could be good practice for authors who are trying to find the latest information about specific journals. it also benefits other publishers to follow the lead.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2542993 2019-10-24T14:00:19-04:00 2019-10-24T14:00:19-04:00

<p>OpenEdition and French language African scholarly journals Posted by Heather Morrison Original: Kakou, T.L. (2019).  OpenEdition et les revues savantes d’Afrique. Soutenir les savoirs commun. https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/10/23/openedition-et-les-revues-savantes-dafrique/ English synopsis by Heather Morrison OpenEdition (formerly Revues.org) publishes 21 African journals. Only one of these journals is published in an African country (Kenya). In this post Kakou illustrates a gap in dissemination of African scholarship, particularly francophone African scholarship. For example, of the 524 journals included in African Journals Online (AJOL), 465 (89%) are published in English speaking countries and only 39 (7%) in French speaking countries. Only 12 of the 24 African countries where French is an official or co-official languages are represented in AJOL. This research illustrates the African and particularly Francophone African knowledge gap that is the focus of Kakou’s doctoral research</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2542992 2019-10-24T13:59:38-04:00 2022-05-06T15:54:22-04:00

Kakou, T.L. (2019). Arima, une revue africaine dans Hal archives. Soutenir les savoirs communs. https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/10/23/arima-une-revue-africaine-dans-hal-archives/ English synopsis by Heather Morrison African journals seek to create a space for themselves by disseminating their journals through online platforms and archives. There are multiple possibilities for preservation and publishing on line. One of these is electronic archiving. In this research post Kakou presents the HAL archive and explores the representation of African document. Developed and administered by the Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (CCSD), the platform HAL is an open archive in Social Sciences. In this post, Kakou presents an overview of the services offered by HAL, including  Episciences.org and Sciencesconf.org. Episciences.org offers journal publishing within the archive and supports the innovative peer-review overlay approach to journal publishing. Arima, a journal that has been supported by the North-South coalition Colloque africain pour la Recherche en Informatique et mathématiques appliquées (CARI) for twenty years, is among the 15 Episciences journals. This is « our » platform too ; Morrison’s 2018 ELPUB OA APC survey can be found in Episciences.

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2542429 2019-10-23T19:01:38-04:00 2022-06-23T08:16:59-04:00

Parmi les revues que OpenEdition publie, 21 revues sont africaines. Elles sont localisées dans 5 pays. Seul un pays africain (Kenya) y figure. Ce sont : Nederland (1), Portugal (2), Kenya (1), France (17), Italie (1). Les universités africaines adoptent les stratégies à suivre pour se développer au numérique. Selon Murray et Clobridge (2014), de plus en plus de revues en ligne sont diffusées sur les plateformes africaines telles AJOL, Sabinet, etc. La plateforme AJOL (African journals online) par exemple, se veut promotrice de la revue africaine en général. Cependant, l’on dénombre sur ce site, 39 revues en français (7%) sur 524 (Ajol, 2019). Ces revues sont reparties entre 12 états sur 24 (voir tableaux ci-dessous) dont le français est une langue officielle ou co-officielle (Université Laval, 2019).

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2542430 2019-10-23T19:05:19-04:00 2022-05-06T15:54:23-04:00

Nous présentons dans cette recherche :Hal archives. Hal est une plateforme d’archives ouvertes. Elle conserve des revues sur sa plateforme Episciences.org sur laquelle l’on trouve une revue africaine Arima. Hal anime sur une seconde plateforme: Sciencesconf.org  le programme des organisateurs de colloques ou réunions scientifiques.

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2536798 2019-10-16T16:08:57-04:00 2019-10-16T16:08:57-04:00

<p>Posted by angieshi</p> <p>According to the Asian Network for Scientific Information (ANSInet) website, the article processing charges (APCs) for almost all the listed journals dropped from 625 USD in 2018 to 325 USD in 2019 which is 48 percent decrease. Only the ‘International Journal of Pharmacology’ dropped from 1000 USD to 625 USD, about a 38 percent decrease. On the contrary, two journals experienced a slight increase for their article processing charges (APCs) from 250 USD to 275 USD. This is good news for authors who do not have enough funding but try to publish through Asian Network for Scientific Information (ANSInet). From the journal number perspective, 3 new journals have been added in the Asian Network for Scientific Information (ANSInet).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2536797 2019-10-16T16:08:09-04:00 2019-10-16T16:08:09-04:00

<p>by Hamid Pashaei and Heather Morrison Abstract De Gruyter is a well-known traditional academic publisher with 270 years of experience. We first noted the dramatic expansion of De Gruyter into open access publishing in 2016 (French: Dumais-DesRosiers, M. &amp; Brutus, W. (2016); English: Morrison (2016). In 2014, there were no De Gruyter titles listed in DOAJ; by the end of 2015, De Gruyter was the third largest publisher in DOAJ. In 2019, De Gruyter’s expansion into open access is even more remarkable, primarily through De Gruyter’s new imprint Sciendo, which has added more than 300 OA journals in 2019. The majority of De Gruyter / Sciendo journals (57%) do not charge APCs. In many cases we were not able to ascertain whether or not there is a fee.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2525818 2019-10-01T17:26:37-04:00 2019-10-01T17:26:37-04:00

<p>The October 1, 2019 open data version of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. This series includes macro level data on open access growth such as number of OA repositories, journals, and books globally, on a quarterly basis from 2004 to the present. The dataset is in excel format and it is fairly easy to manipulate to create charts or assess growth numbers. For example, OpenDOAR lists 1,234 repositories in the Americas as of Oct. 1 compared to 1,129 as of June 30, a growth of 105 repositories. That's more than the number of days in this quarter, so you could say that every day in the Americas another open access repository launches. If you use this dataset please cite: <span>Morrison, Heather, 2019, "Dramatic Growth of Open Access October 1, 2019", </span><a href="https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/EZQ1OK">https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/EZQ1OK</a><span>, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2520199 2019-09-24T15:00:54-04:00 2019-09-24T15:00:54-04:00

<p>Highlights “Science” is only one type of knowledge. There are nine faculties at the University of Ottawa; only one is named “science”, and this is typical at a large university. I strongly recommend replacing “science”, “scientists” and “open science” with more inclusive terminology such as “open scholarship” or “open knowledge”, “scholar” or “researcher” in the title and throughout the document. The Pubfair framework is an excellent beginning for a needed profound transformation in how scholars work together and disseminate research. This is the kind of approach most likely to achieve significant savings based on current spend on scholarly publishing, and these savings will be needed to support innovation in scholarly production and dissemination. My recommendation is to proceed with an iterative approach and an initial focus on helping scholarly communities with unmet needs for new forms of review and publishing, such as scholars who create and share datasets or tools using artificial intelligence, digital humanists, and scholarly bloggers. The specific needs for community input whether through review or collaboration in the planning process will vary by discipline and type of product. The work of defining needs and identifying potential solutions should be led by the scholarly community in consultation with repository managers. This is a reversal of the proposed leadership / consultation approach in the framework document. Finally, while I recommend an immediate start to this approach, my advice is to see this as a long-term radical transformation that will likely take decades to complete.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2498879 2019-08-27T11:14:03-04:00 2019-08-27T13:22:55-04:00

<p>The purpose of this post is to encourage sharing of knowledge and ideas on the topic of modifying informed consent when working with human subjects to accommodate open licensing. Examples of questions for discussion: COPE has provided guidance for the protection of journals in the case of one particularly sensitive type of material, medical case reports. Is anyone providing guidance for authors and their institution? What about other types of sensitive material that are common in disciplines such as education, health and social sciences? Has any research ethics board or similar body updated their guidance on informed consent in light of open licensing?</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2488531 2019-08-13T16:03:37-04:00 2019-08-16T12:26:03-04:00

<p><em>by Heather Morrison</em></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>270 SpringerOpen journals were studied. 33 (12%) have ceased publication, 15 have been transferred to another publisher, and 7 are now hybrid. Of the 215 active journals published by SpringerOpen, 54% charge APCs. The average APC was 1,212 EUR, an increase of 8% over the 2018 average, 6 times the EU inflation rate for June 2019 of 1.3%. 58% of the 96 journals for which we have 2018 and 2018 data did not change in price; 5% decreased in price; and 36% increased in price. Price increases for journals that increased in price ranged from 3% to 109% (double the inflation rate to double in price). Journals with the highest volume of publishing were the most likely to have increased in price. This will amplify the effective percentage of articles with price increases for APC payers. 40% of the journals are sponsored by a university, society, government, or other not-for-profit partner, and have no publication fee. The sustainability of these sponsorships is not clear. 12 journals appear to have recently switched from “no APC” to “now APC”, with APCs only slightly below the SpringerOpen average. The affordability of the SpringerOpen partnership approach is called into question. SpringerOpen’s average APC does not compare favorably either to average academic salaries in a low to middle income country (with Egypt as an example) or to OJS Premium journal hosting services (the break-even point is 2 articles per year, i.e. a journal that publishes 3 articles per year saves money with OJS Premium as compared to SpringerOpen). Even a sponsor based in Germany only pays half the APC, raising a question about whether SpringerOpen sponsorships are sustainable anywhere.</p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2488474 2019-08-13T08:44:49-04:00 2019-08-13T08:44:49-04:00

<p><span>SpringerOpen is currently publishing 13 journals sponsored by the Government of Egypt. This is an opportunity to discuss some issues of relevance to the goals and sustainability of open access, starting with academic freedom. As described by Holmes and Aziz (2019) there are very serious problems with academic freedom in Egypt, ranging from tight government control over what is studied and published to extrajudicial killings of 21 students in the last few years. The University of Liverpool considered, then rejected, a lucrative offer to set up a campus in Egypt due to concerns about reputational damage. This raises some interesting questions. Academic freedom is critical to any kind of meaningful open access. Nothing could possibly be more in opposition to open access than a dead student whose research was destroyed because of what was studied. Why is SpringerOpen partnering with the Government of Egypt? Should academics boycott SpringerOpen because of this partnership? What, if anything, can academics do to support academic freedom in a country like Egypt? Some believe that the Creative Commons license CC-BY (attribution only) is the best for open access (I don’t agree, but this is a separate topic). If your research could get you killed, attribution might not be a good idea. Today, some of us might assume that these kinds of problems would never happen in our own countries; but times change, and it has happened that places that enjoyed freedom at one point in time came under the control of a dictator.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2486421 2019-07-15T16:24:34-04:00 2019-07-15T16:24:34-04:00

<p>This post links to a preliminary review of Debat &amp; Babini’s preprint PlanS in Latin America: a precautionary note (citation details below) – in brief, Latin America has long been a leader and role model, and these authors have no peers; an open offer to conduct a full peer review (with conditions), and a link to a post highlighting my current perspective on open peer review and an invitation to participate in experimentation with, and discussion about, open peer review. A link to this post as an offer for a full open peer review will be sent to Debat, Babini, and the editor of PeerJ.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2486420 2019-07-15T16:14:40-04:00 2019-07-15T16:14:40-04:00

<p>This post is a preliminary review of Debat &amp; Babini’s preprint PlanS in Latin America: a precautionary note (citation details and links below). Preliminary review:  Latin America has long been a leader in open access, and had achieved substantially the goals of PlanS more than a decade ago. In 2007, I wrote: “Scielo is an excellent example of what can be accomplished through a nationally subsidized open access program. While the Scielo portal encompasses the scholarly work of many latin countries, Brazil alone, in 2005, brought 160 fully open access journals to the world at a very modest cost of only $1 million dollars” (republished here). This article is written by experts without peers, and does not really require peer review. This perspective is every bit as worthy of consideration by policy-makers everywhere as anything written by the EU-based OA2020 initiative. This post will be accompanied by an open offer to conduct a full peer review (with conditions), and some observations on open peer review that are meant to stimulate discussion, however this affirmation of the leadership of Debat, Babini, Scielo &amp; Redalyc warrants a unique post.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2485601 2019-07-03T13:42:35-04:00 2019-07-03T13:42:35-04:00

<p>The June 30, 2019 Dramatic Growth of Open Access dataset is now available for download (excel format). No commentary this quarter. For previous issues and commentary, see the series here: https://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2006/08/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-series.html</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2484682 2019-06-20T15:10:04-04:00 2019-06-20T15:10:04-04:00

<p>WHENCE THE VIRTUE OF OPEN The word 'whence' means "from what place, source, or cause", and that is the question I would like to address with respect to the virtue of 'open'. The question is raised in the context of Heather Morrison's recent comments on The Dialectic of Open...author Stephen Downes goes on to present substantive and original comments and critique on the dialectic of open.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2483988 2019-06-12T13:22:00-04:00 2022-06-23T06:28:57-04:00

In contemporary Western society the word open is used as if the concept were essentially good. This is a logical fallacy; the only concept that is in essence good is the concept good itself. In this paper I will argue that this is a dangerous fallacy that opens the door to misdirection and co-optation of genuine advocates of the public good accidentally through misconception and deliberately by actors whose motives are far from open, that a critical dialectic approach is useful to unravel and counter such fallacies, and present a simple pedagogical technique that I have found to be effective to teach critical thinking to university students in this area. The province of Ontario under the Ford government describes itself as open for business. In this context, open means open for exploitation, and closure is protection for the environment and vulnerable people. This is one example of openwashing, taking advantage of the use of the term by large numbers of “open” advocates whose work is based on very different motives. Open access, according to the Budapest Open Access Initiative, is a potential unprecedented public good, a collective global sharing of the scholarly knowledge of humankind. A sizable portion of the open access movement is adamant that open access requires nothing less than all of the world’s scholars making their work not only free of charge, but free for downstream manipulation and re-use for commercial purposes. This frees up knowledge for creative new approaches to more rapidly advance our knowledge; it is also a new area for capitalist expansion and can be seen as selling out scholarship. Is this necessary, sufficient, or even desirable to achieve the vision of global sharing of open access? Open education can be seen as the next phase in the democratization of education, a new field for capitalist expansion, a tool for authoritarian control and/or a tool for further control of the next generation proletariat or precariat. Open government can facilitate an expansion of democracy, to further engage citizens in decision-making, a means of enhancing and improving government services, and/or another means of transitioning public services to the private sector that is typical of the (perhaps post) neoliberal era. Proactive open government can mean more transparent, accountable government; it can also mean open access to the documents and data that those in power choose to share. This paper will analyze the rhetoric of key documents from the open movements, evidence presented to support these beliefs, and explore whether these belief systems reflect myth based on misconception and/or misdirection by actors with ulterior motives using a theoretical lens drawn from the political economics, particularly Hegelian dialectics in the tradition of the Frankfurt School and contemporary Marxist analysis. Link to full presentation: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/39300

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2482237 2019-05-22T12:42:17-04:00 2019-05-22T12:42:17-04:00

<p>One of the long-term challenges to transitioning scholarly communication to open access is reliance on bibliometrics. Many authors and organizations are working to address this challenge. The purpose of this post is to share some highlights of my work in progress, a book chapter (preprint) designed to explain the current state of bibliometrics in the context of a critique of global university rankings. Some reflections in brief that are new and relevant to advocates of open access and changes in evaluation of scholarly work follow.</p> <p><strong>Impact:it is not logical to equate impact with quality, and further, it is dangerous to do so.</strong></p> <p><strong>New metrics (or altmetrics) serve many purposes and should be developed and used, but should be avoided in the context of evaluating the quality of scholarship.</strong></p> <p><strong>New metrics are likely to change scholarship, but not necessarily in the ways anticipated by the open access movement</strong>.</p> <p><strong>It is possible to evaluate scholarly research without recourse to metrics. The University of Ottawa’s collective agreement with full-time faculty reflects a model that not only avoids the problems of metrics, but is an excellent model for change in scholarly communication as it is recognized that scholarly works may take many forms.</strong></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2482167 2019-05-21T15:22:56-04:00 2020-04-14T10:06:33-04:00

<p>This data collection aims to provide an overview of the Open Access journal portfolios of academic publishers. In particular, Elsevier, SAGE, Springer Nature, Taylor &amp; Francis, and Wiley, beginning with the launch of their respective first fully Open Access journals until now (May 2019). These lists contain fully Open Access as well as hybrid Open Access titles, and include the following information: ISSN Journal Title Open Access Mode Article Processing Charge (in USD, excluding taxes) Year</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2480549 2019-04-30T18:21:41-04:00 2020-06-25T20:12:53-04:00

<p>The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging models for developing a global knowledge commons. The concept of a ‘global knowledge commons’ builds on the vision of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) for the potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature, thus laying the foundation for an unprecedented public good, uniting humanity in a common quest for knowledge. The global knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the knowledge of humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect individual privacy), and free for everyone qualified to contribute to. The three models are Plan S / cOAlition S, an EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to an open access model on a short timeline; the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a recent initiative that builds on Ostrom’s study of the commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on the preservation and access to the medical research literature provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to support other national repositories of funded research and exchange of materials between regions</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2480548 2019-04-30T18:20:45-04:00 2019-05-01T15:50:30-04:00

<p>Our recent analysis of BioMed Central publishing company journals reveals a sharp increase both in number of open access journals and also article processing fees. BMC currently publishes 330 open access journals that comparing to 2018 data shows an increase of 11% in number of journals. While 25 journals have no article processing fee for authors to publish their articles, there has been a 57% increase in average article processing charge comparing to the last year, as the average processing fee was $1402 in 2018 and now it is $2200. Comparing to the last year, 264 journals have increased and 5 journals have decreased in APC (article processing charge). The average APC increase for journals is $917 and the average decrease is $124.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2479895 2019-04-23T16:26:25-04:00 2019-04-28T14:47:46-04:00

<p>Abstract The concept of open access is complementary to, and in opposition to the commons. The similarities and overlap appear to be taken for granted; for example, many people assume that open access and Creative Commons just go together. The purpose of this post is to explore the essential opposition of the two concepts. The so-called “tragedy of the commons” is actually the tragedy of unmanaged open access. Understanding this opposition is helpful to analyze the potential of commons analysis to develop and sustain actual commons (cool pool resources) to support open access works. Ostrom’s design principles for common pool resources are listed with comments and examples of open access supports that illustrate the principles and a proposed modified list design to meet the needs of open access infrastructure is presented. </p> <p>by Heather Morrison</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478775 2019-04-09T17:56:48-04:00 2019-04-09T17:56:48-04:00

<p>In brief, my reasons for opposing conflation of open access and open licensing is that open licenses are not sufficient, necessary, or always desirable for open access.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478774 2019-04-09T17:46:40-04:00 2019-04-09T17:46:40-04:00

<p>MDPI’s journal is experimenting with open peer review. Reviewers can choose to make their reviews openly accessible. This recent article that I reviewed has just been published. To read my reviews, click on “review reports” – I am Reviewer 1. If you prefer to skip the details of work that was needed and subsequently done, skip to round 3 for the final review. Following is the citation and abstract of the article and a portion of my final review that focuses on the work per se, and an update based on subsequent conversation with Frantsvåg. I will publish the copyright statement separately. Frantsvåg, J.E.; Strømme, T.E. Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S.  Publications 2019, 7, 26. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/26</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478773 2019-04-09T17:44:46-04:00 2019-04-09T17:44:46-04:00

<p>Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll-access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S-compliant. We suspected this was not so and set out to explore this using Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) metadata. We conclude that a large majority of open access journals are not Plan S-compliant, and that it is small publishers in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) not charging article processing charges (APC) that will face the largest challenge with becoming compliant. Plan S needs to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC based journals.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478743 2019-04-09T13:53:17-04:00 2019-04-10T12:36:10-04:00

<p>Key points to highlight: U.S. federal government data is released into the public domain. This raises concerns about:</p> <ul> <li>privacy and security of data about individuals</li> <li>the potential for enclosure if the U.S. government does not maintain human readable interfaces, i.e. if the open data is used by commercial companies to create toll access services and the government does not provide free end user services, this would be an instance of open commercial use effectively creating enclosure (or privatizing what is currently free government services)</li> </ul> <p>Abstract</p> <p>Public domain and open data policies and how they are made. Current status of open data policies in the Federal government are changing with new laws. What is HR4174/S4047 and what does it say and mean? What are trends in government data policies regarding access to that statistical data? This article will give the reader an understanding of federal policies and laws regarding data.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478732 2019-04-09T12:28:20-04:00 2019-04-09T13:46:18-04:00

<p>The purpose of the Sustaining the Knowledge Commons research program is to help in the process of transitioning to a stable global knowledge commons, through which everyone can access all of our collective knowledge free-of-charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions and to which all who are qualified are welcome to contribute. One common problem that I see in the open access movement and in the scientific community (OA or not) is a tendency to conflate knowledge and science. I argue that this is a serious problem not only for other forms of knowledge, but a potential immanent existential threat to science itself. At a recent talk I presented a brief explanation of the argument. Following is the abstract and a link to the full presentation.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2478404 2019-04-04T16:31:43-04:00 2019-04-04T16:31:43-04:00

<p>Brainard (2019) in an April 3, 2019 article in Science, reports that a U.S. judge has ruled that a “deceptive” publisher [OMICS] should pay $50 million in damages. This is a timely opportunity to acknowledge a downside of the APC business model, that is, opening up scholarship to further commercial exploitation, including exploitation by publishers that do not or may not meet reasonable standards for academic quality and ethics in publishing, and to make recommendations to limit this potential for exploitation.</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>The SKC team often focuses on the article processing charges (APC) business model for OA journal publishing, in order to observe and analyze trends. However, this focus is not an endorsement of either OA publishing (as opposed to OA archiving), or the APC business model that is used by a minority of fully OA journals. This post acknowledges a major downside to the APC model. APC "opens up" scholars and scholarly works for further commercial exploitation by traditional and new publishers that offers a wide range of quality in academic terms, ranging from excellent to mediocre and including a few with unethical practices that are not compatible with advancing our collective knowledge.This judge's ruling provides an opportune moment to acknowledge this flaw in the APC business model, and to discuss potential remedies. I argue that it is essential for scholarly publishing to be scholar-led so that advancing scholarship is the primary priority. One model that I recommend as one to build on and expand is the SSHRC <em><a href="http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx">Aid to Scholarly Journals</a></em> program. This program provides modest funding to scholarly journals that are under the direction of qualified Canadian academics. This funding is awarded through a competitive process that in effect serves as a journal-level academic peer review process. OA initiatives where key decisions are made by the research community (directly or through librarian representatives) are more likely to ensure high quality and ethical services than policies favouring and/or providing support for OA publishing with no clear vetting process of publication venues.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2477999 2019-03-31T14:09:57-04:00 2019-04-03T17:08:53-04:00

<p>Review of Sage Open access database in 2019 shows that the number of their open access journals is growing, they are still following article processing charge model and their payment model is still pricey. Sage currently publishes 1,200 journals. Of these, 200 journals (about 17%) are fully open access. Compared to the last year’s data, there is a net increase of 41 open access journals (26% increase) published by Sage. Out of all open access journals, 185 journals (92 percent) have publication fees, 14 journals have no publication charges and 1 journal lacks the information whether it has processing fee or not.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2474055 2019-02-13T16:38:36-05:00 2019-02-14T10:04:20-05:00

<p>n brief: MDPI has increased prices, in many cases quite substantially (some prices have more than tripled). Even more price increases are anticipated in July 2019, which will have the effect of doubling the average APC and tripling the most common APC. Unlike other publishers’ practices, there are no price decreases. Comment and recommendation: open access advocates, along with policy makers and research funders, and keen to support a transition to open access. In my opinion, the enthusiasm of payers to support APC journals is causing an unhealthy and unsustainable distortion in the market. My advice: stick with green OA policy. Require deposit of funded works in an open access repository. This is a better means to ensure ongoing preservation and open access, and exerts market pressure in a way that is more suited to the development of an economically sustainable open access system.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2470518 2018-12-19T10:47:08-05:00 2018-12-19T10:47:08-05:00

<p>From December 2017 to December 2018, APC prices for all PLOS journals were increased by $100 USD, resulting in percentage increases from 3% – 7%. All price increase percentages are higher than the U.S. Department of Labour Statistic’s 2.2% Consumer Price Index increase from November 2017 – December 2018. The majority of percentage price increases (4/8) are higher than the average increase in a U.S. faculty member’s salary according to the American Association of University Professors of 3% (from April 2018). The most surprising increase from my perspective is the 7% increase to the APC of PLOS ONE (twice the increase of faculty salaries, thrice the US CIP increase), because as PLOS’ pioneering megajournal, PLOS ONE’s practice is peer review limited to assessing whether the science is sound. Peer review is done by volunteers and coordinated by PLOS using a highly automated approach; it is difficult to understand how PLOS’ contribution to PLOS ONE articles justifies an APC of approximately $1,600 USD.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2470084 2018-12-13T14:36:05-05:00 2018-12-13T14:36:05-05:00

<p>Highlights: in 2017, we found that Elsevier was publishing a large number of fully open access journals with no article processing charges due to society or university sponsorships. In 2018, 88 of these titles have been transferred back to the society or university. There has been a drop in the number of fully OA journals published by Elsevier, from 416 to 328 journals. The majority of Elsevier’s fully OA journals are still non-charging. The average APC for Elsevier fully OA journals in 2018 is $1,470 USD, up 6% from 2017.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2470097 2018-12-13T17:03:47-05:00 2018-12-14T13:37:23-05:00

<p>"Medknow is a commercial scholarly journal publisher based in India, which was acquired by Wolters Kluwer in 2011. The analysis of Medknow’s journals in 2018 shows that there has been a significant increase in number oftheir journals, with 23% increase comparing to 2017. It appears that most of Medknow’s journals are published in collaboration with different universities and societies in the filed of medical research...."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2469792 2018-12-10T15:58:28-05:00 2018-12-10T15:58:28-05:00

<p>Open access and open research form a substantive basis for fair dealing exceptions in this individual submission to Canada's statutory copyright act review by Dr. Heather Morrison. Noteworthy: both faculty and students are net creators; the more than 10,000 open access theses deposited by University of Ottawa students in the institutional repository so far this decade is presented as evidence, along with student-created and led open access journals. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2464152 2018-10-05T14:51:24-04:00 2018-10-05T14:51:24-04:00

<p>A few years ago the Directory of Open Access Journals underwent a major weeding process. Many journals and entire publishers were removed from the directory. Does this mean that they are low quality? Based on this year’s collection of data from the Asian Network for Scientific Information (ANSInet), my advice is not to be too quick to judge. According to the ANSI website, this publisher is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Both organizations list ANSInet as a member. Looking at the list of ANSInet journals, I noticed that at least one is not that active; DOAJ will de-list journals that are not active regardless of the quality of publishing. As an aside, I wish DOAJ would stop doing this; there are good journals that publish less frequently and deserve to be listed. For example, there is a tradition of journal publishing associated with conferences, and some conferences are held every other year.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2454592 2018-07-31T15:35:44-04:00 2018-07-31T15:35:44-04:00

<p>The first Efficiencies and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) workshop in 2016 produced a “Joint understanding of offsetting” drafted by workshop participants which prescribed that offsetting pilots should lead to pay-as-you-publish models. The aim was to achieve a scenario in which institutions would pay for their actual article output instead of purchasing fixed article packages, which, along with persisting access-based fees, characterize most of the current agreements. It was posited that as offsetting deals unbundled article charges, APC price levels would subsequently be differentiated to reflect production costs, impact and services offered by a given journal. Two years on, more evidence is available: Data provided by the Open APC initiative allows for benchmarking of hybrid price points against expenditures for pure open access publishing, showing that the latter operate on substantially lower APC levels. At the same time, it is not yet fully clear how a journal’s APC actually relates to its impact, brand or popularity within a community. Institutions and consortia who manage publication charges on behalf of their authors need to gain a clearer understanding of pricing mechanisms as well as develop their own goals in this respect, in order to progress towards a sustainable and transparent APC market. To this end, the 3rd ESAC workshop in Munich was especially dedicated to this topic. Presentations on bibliometric and publication data analyses stimulated the dialogue among institutions and consortia negotiating open access based agreements.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2452476 2018-07-05T14:22:00-04:00 2018-07-06T16:38:23-04:00

<p>Highlights</p> <p>The purpose of this post is to highlight some good practices when journals cease, some situations to avoid, and room for improvement in current practice. In brief, my advice is that when you cease to publish a journal, it is a good practice to continue to list the journal on your website, continue to provide access to content (archived on your website or another such as CLOCKSS, a LOCKKS network, or other archiving services such as national libraries that may be available to you), and link the reader interested in the journal to where the content can be found.</p> <p> </p> <p>This is an area where even the best practices to date leave some room for improvement. CLOCKSS archiving is a great example of state-of-the-art but CLOCKSS’ statements and practice indicate some common misunderstandings about copyright and Creative Commons licenses. In brief, author copyright and CC licenses and journal-level CC licensing are not compatible. Third parties such as CLOCKSS should not add CC licenses as these are waivers of copyright. CC licenses may be useful tools for archives, however archiving requires archives; the licenses on their own are not sufficient for this purpose.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2452444 2018-07-04T21:13:36-04:00 2018-07-07T13:36:22-04:00

<p>Congratulations to DOAJ for recently surpassing a milestone of over 3 million articles searchable at the article level! The outstanding growth story by percentage for the second quarter of 2018 was bioRxiv. From March 31 - June 30, bioRxiv grew by 5,290 articles for a total of 28,070 articles, a growth rate of 23% for this quarter and 129% (more than doubled) over the past year. 38 of the limited set of indicators that I track had growth rates this quarter of 2% or more, equivalent of 8% annual growth, more than double the base rate of growth of scholarly journals and articles of 3 - 3.5% (de Solla Price, 1963; Mabe &amp; Amin, 2001). My best guesstimates of "how much open access there is" are based on the meta-search tool BASE (the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine). BASE harvests metadata from repositories and open access journals using OAI-PMH. BASE now contains over 130 million documents from 6,444 sources. About 60% are open access; collectively, the OA movement now makes available about 78 million open access documents. This quarter, BASE grew by over 13 million documents for a quarterly growth rate of 11%.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2445257 2018-05-16T15:55:09-04:00 2018-05-16T15:55:09-04:00

<p>3-slide powerpoint on Tag Team and the Open Access Tracking Project, May 2018, in the context of media evolution, developed by Heather Morrison as a demonstration for a graduate class in social media at the University of Ottawa. Conclusion: OATP is in the early adopter stage and the presenter is confident in its growth as a necessary service for the still expanding open access movement. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2445238 2018-05-16T15:48:06-04:00 2018-05-17T09:39:26-04:00

<p>Thanks to MDPI CEO Franck Vazquez, PhD, for permission to re-post his contributions to a discussion on APC pricing on the SCHOLCOMM listserv and my replies. This is useful information and a good model of how transparency can help to advance our understanding of how to move toward sustainability in open access.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Highlights</strong>: this post presents data on MDPI’s APCs and an explanation of MDPI’s business practice: new journals are free to publish in, later APCs and APC increases are based on market value. It is important for publishers and funders to understand that there is an essential conflict with funders of scholarly communication, that is, universities and their libraries, and research organizations. For these organizations,  budgets tend to be based on cost with little or no flexibility to accommodate pricing and price increases based on market value. This incompatibility of organizational strategy is equally relevant whether the revenue model is subscriptions, APC, or other production-based support.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2420224 2018-04-13T12:10:52-04:00 2018-04-14T11:08:02-04:00

<p>Following is a summary of recent APC changes for 4 publishers, prepared on request but posted in case this might be of interest to anyone else. In brief, each publisher appears to be following a different pricing strategy ranging from flat pricing over many years with one rare exception, to a tenfold increase from 2016 – 2017.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2419605 2018-04-12T17:38:58-04:00 2018-04-13T09:44:51-04:00

<p>"Of the 56 active titles listed on the Frontiers website as of April 11, 2018, 22 or close to 40% have increased pricing for type A articles by 18 – 31% from a year earlier. These high percentage increases come on top of already high prices. For example, <em>Frontiers in Psychology</em> has increased from $2,490 USD to $2,950 USD, an increase of $460 USD or 18%, while <em>Frontiers in Pediatrics</em> has increased from $1,900 USD to $2,490 USD, an increase of $590 or 31%. One journal, <em>Frontiers in Digital Humanities</em>, has decreased in price, the others have not changed and there is one new title. The following table shows titles, APC pricing copied from the Frontiers website April 11, 2017 and April 11, 2018, and the change in pricing in $ and percentage. <em>Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems</em> is new."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2411167 2018-04-02T18:14:33-04:00 2018-04-02T18:14:33-04:00

<p><span>As usual open access is showing strong growth in many directions; more open access archives, documents, journals, articles, and books. This quarter focuses on the large number of indicators of growth beyond the usual background growth of scholarly journals and articles of 3 - 3.5% per year. Newcomer </span><a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/">bioRxiv,</a><span>with 21% growth this quarter (equivalent to 84% annual growth) is far above this background growth. This quarter,</span><a href="http://www.doaj.org/"> DOAJ</a><span>added a net total of 378 journals, or more than 4 journals per day, for a total of 11,105 journals. The number of journals searchable at the article level has increased by 236 for a total of 8,045 journals. The number of articles searchable at the article level is just under 3 million.  The number of documents searchable through </span><a href="https://www.base-search.net/">BASE</a><span> grew by 3.5 million for a total of just under 24 million (about 60% of these, over 14 million, are open access). BASE added 121 content providers for a total of over 600 content providers. The percentage of PubMed records for a search for "cancer" that retrieve full-text is 27% overall, with a high of 45% for records published in the last 5 years. The percentage of full-text retrieval is rising at a steady rate. </span> <span>The overall growth rate for scholarly articles and journals has been fairly steady over the past few centuries, in the range of 3 - 3.5% growth annually (Price, 1963; Mabe &amp; Amin, 2001). As noted in the following chart, in the past quarter alone there have been 43 indicators of growth above that level, at least 1% in the quarter (equivalent of 4% annually).  </span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379818 2018-02-22T16:47:56-05:00 2018-02-22T16:47:56-05:00

<p>"Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property charts the rise of the access to knowledge movement, a movement in which Open Society Foundations have played a key role. It maps the vast terrain of legal, cultural, and technical issues that activists and thinkers aligned to the movement negotiate every day". (2010)</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379816 2018-02-22T16:43:22-05:00 2018-02-22T16:43:22-05:00

<p>"Highlights • New recording technologies generating massive, complex data sets. • Analysis workflows are complex, diverse, and fundamentally exploratory. • Rich open-source ecosystem for distributed computing, machine learning, and interactive visualization. • Cultural shifts required to embrace collaborative, open-source development."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379815 2018-02-22T16:41:58-05:00 2018-02-22T16:41:58-05:00

<p>by Michael Sinatra - 2015 </p> <p>"Abstract This article discusses the relationship between digital humanities and disciplinary boundaries in the last decade, primarily in the context of the national project Synergies. It offers first an overview of Synergies as a concrete example of the way technological change impacts the very notion of disciplines by trying to create a platform that was interdisciplinary by nature, then discusses the creation of a new Digital Humanities centre in Québec—Le Centre de recherche interuniversitaire sur les humanités numériques – and the ways it was conceived as encompassing a range of disciplinary approach."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379814 2018-02-22T16:39:24-05:00 2018-02-22T16:39:24-05:00

<p>by Audrey Watters...2012</p> <p>A new crowdfunding site, Unglue.it launches today. It hopes to raise money for e-books, not to have them written but so that the funding goes towards paying authors or publishers for existing works, giving them a one-time licensing fee in exchange for their releasing their e-books for free, under a Creative Commons license and without DRM.  </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379810 2018-02-22T16:37:40-05:00 2018-02-22T16:37:40-05:00

<p>"Teachers and ed tech developers across the country tell us they are unable to access the research they need to help students learn. Often, scholarly research articles are expensive to purchase; for example, a single article from a top education journal on Google Scholar costs an average of $30. Articles are also frequently written in jargon or highly technical language that is difficult to translate into actual practice. However, when research is widely available and effectively communicated, people can put it to use in their everyday lives..."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379795 2018-02-22T16:36:14-05:00 2018-02-22T16:36:14-05:00

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379789 2018-02-22T16:34:27-05:00 2018-02-22T16:34:27-05:00

<p>Welcome to the world of Open Educational Resources (OER). This handbook is designed to help educators find, use, develop and share OER to enhance their effectiveness online and in the classroom. Although no prior knowledge of OER is required, some experience using a computer and browsing the Internet will be helpful. For example, it is preferable that you have experience using a word processor (e.g. Open Office or Microsoft Word) and basic media production software, such as an image editor (e.g. Gimp, Inkscape or Photoshop). The handbook works best when there is some sort of OER you would like to create or make available to others, but it is also useful for the curious reader.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379787 2018-02-22T16:32:57-05:00 2018-02-22T16:32:57-05:00

<p>"This study introduces the concept and characteristics of open access (OA), analyses the status quo and development of OA in foreign countries, and discusses its inspiration to its future development in China".</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379786 2018-02-22T16:31:53-05:00 2018-02-22T16:31:53-05:00

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379785 2018-02-22T16:30:18-05:00 2018-02-22T16:30:18-05:00

<p>"We’re proud to present Series Two of Team Open, our ongoing project to tell the stories of people who use Creative Commons. In Series Two, you’ll meet a musician who used Creative Commons licensing to score a sponsorship deal with Toyota, a filmmaker who convinced his funders to give his film away, a professor who saved students a million dollars, and one of the minds behind the best-selling game on Amazon..."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379783 2018-02-22T16:29:02-05:00 2018-02-22T16:29:02-05:00

<p>"At the COSL Open Education Conference this year, Susan Dean, along with others, presented on Sustainability Models for Community College Open Textbooks. Her presentation was based on her own path towards open textbook publishing. She and Dr. Barbara Illowsky developed, over a number of years, the textbook Collaborative Statistics. Today, it is freely available for access and derivation via CC BY on the Connexions platform, but for Susan and Barbara, obtaining the rights to the book and cementing a publisher and platform were far from easy..."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379781 2018-02-22T16:27:00-05:00 2018-02-22T16:27:00-05:00

<p>Introduction In a survey for OpenDOAR in early 2006, Peter Millington discovered that about two thirds of Open Access repositories did not have publicly stated policies for the permitted re-use of deposited items or for such things as submission of items, long term preservation, etc. This complicates matters for organisations wishing to provide search services, which in turn reduces the visibility and impact of these repositories. Reference Peter Millington (2006) Moving Forward with the OpenDOAR Directory, 8th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems, Bergen, 11th-13th May 2006 Purpose of this Tool To improve the situation, OpenDOAR has created this simple tool to help repository adminstrators to formulate and/or present their repository's policies. It provides a series of check boxes and pick lists for all the key policy options, which can be very quickly selected.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379780 2018-02-22T16:25:55-05:00 2018-02-22T16:25:55-05:00

<p>The role of distance education is shifting. Traditionally distance education was limited in the number of people served because of production, reproduction, and distribution costs. Today, while it still costs the university time and money to produce a course, technology has made it such that reproduction costs are almost non-existent. This shift has significant implications, and allows distance educators to play an important role in the fulfillment of the promise of the right to universal education. At little or no cost, universities can make their content available to millions. This content has the potential to substantially improve the quality of life of learners around the world. New distance education technologies, such as OpenCourseWares, act as enablers to achieving the universal right to education. These technologies, and the associated changes in the cost of providing access to education, change distance education's role from one of classroom alternative to one of social transformer. (Contains 2 figures.) [This paper, published in "The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning," is a part of a collaborative project sponsored by UNESCO. Six journals participated in this joint publishing initiative.]</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379779 2018-02-22T16:24:12-05:00 2018-02-22T16:24:12-05:00

<p>To this end, we, the signatories of this Statement, urge universities to adopt the following recommendations. As owners of intellectual property, universities have the ability to promote widespread availability of their technologies in the developing world. When university-owned intellectual property is necessary for the development of a health-related end product— including but not limited to drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, monitoring tools, know-how and technical expertise—universities should: PROMOTE EQUAL ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY RESEARCH...</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2379817 2018-02-22T16:46:07-05:00 2018-07-25T10:29:13-04:00

<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Vincent_Lamarre_P/0/1/0/all/0/1">Philippe Vincent-Lamarre</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Boivin_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jade Boivin</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Gargouri_Y/0/1/0/all/0/1">Yassine Gargouri</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Lariviere_V/0/1/0/all/0/1">Vincent Lariviere</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Harnad_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Stevan Harnad</a></p> <p>Abstract MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2370457 2018-02-08T18:18:07-05:00 2018-02-09T09:39:22-05:00

<p>A year ago (February 7, 2017) we were able to screen scrape pricing details for all Taylor and Francis fully open access open select journals, in multiple currencies. Today, to find the price one has to select a journal, type of article, and country to find the open access article publishing charge (APC) list price.  This is a useful service - and a barrier to pricing transparency. </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2368836 2018-02-06T18:29:55-05:00 2018-02-07T15:12:33-05:00

<p>Abstract: "...<span>Selected findings: </span><span>71% of the 11,001 journals listed in DOAJ do not charge APCs [emphasis added to avoid adding to conflation of OA with APC]. For most journals, a URL as to where this information can be found is provided, indicating that DOAJ staff have verified that there are no publication charges. 28% do charge APCs, and the remainder have no information on APCs. The average price converted to USD is nearly identical in 2014 and 2018, however the reader is advised to read the details and limitations, as this must be interpreted with caution. Of the 3,131 journals with APCs, 37 different currencies are listed. A few currencies dominate, particularly USD at nearly half of the journals. A breakdown of average prices and range of prices by currency are presented. The most remarkable finding is the range; on average the highest APC for a given currency is close to 4,000 times higher than the lowest APC. This tends to support our 2014 conclusion of a volatile APC market. In conclusion, DOAJ metadata is very useful for the OA APC study, and in particular can be considered a reliable source for journals with no publication charges."</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2353136 2018-01-12T16:25:49-05:00 2018-01-14T11:15:05-05:00

<p>"The <a href="http://oa-cooperative.org/">Open Access Publishing Cooperative Study</a> was a two-year investigation, undertaken under the auspices of the Public Knowledge Project with the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The intent of this initiative was to examine whether scholarly publishing models, involving cooperation between the relevant stakeholder, might provide a means of moving subscription journals to a sustainable form of open access publishing. The study explored potential cooperative associations involving disciplines, national initiatives, and regional models. It utilized a series of (a) three case studies, (b) a publishing industry/library survey and interviews, (c) a publishing internship, and (d) a number of related technical developments with Open Journal Systems.</p> <p>By way of an executive summary, what was found in the course of this investigation was that the organizations involved, including research libraries, scholarly publishers, learned societies, and research funding agencies, generally recognized the value of cooperation and cooperatives in principle. However, while the vast majority of the research libraries surveyed were prepared to explore the setting up of an open access cooperative with publishers that would initially be based on providing a subscription-equivalent level of support for the journals converting to open access, the journal editors and publishers were not nearly as inclined or prepared to consider such an strategy...."</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2345948 2017-12-31T16:06:50-05:00 2017-12-31T16:06:50-05:00

<p>Highlights As usual the open access movement has much to celebrate as 2017 draws to a close, and the whole world has much to look forward to from open access in 2018. As of today there are 4.6 million articles in PubMedCentral, thanks in large measure to constantly increasing participation by scholarly journals; sometime in 2018 this is likely to exceed 5 million. DOAJ added a net 1,272 journals (3.5 / day) and showed even stronger growth in article searchability; a DOAJ milestone of 3 million searchable articles in likely to come in 2018. The Directory of Open Access Books nearly doubled in size and now has more than 10,000 books from 247 publishers. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, the best surrogate for overall growth, continues to amaze with over 120 million documents, growth of 17.3 million in 2017, a 17% growth rate on a very substantial base; a 20% growth in content providers is an indication of the overall growth of the repository movement. arXiv's growth rate was 10% while newcomer arXiv clones socRxiv grew by 187% and bioRxiv by 151%. REPEC grew by 13%, SCOAP3 by 32%. Internet Archive grew by 31 billion web pages, 4 million texts, 2.4 million images, 800,000 movies, and 600,000 audio recordings. Following are selected details indicating the content numbers at the end of 2017, 2017 growth by number, percentage, and where warranted, by day. Full data can be downloaded from here: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2339116 2017-12-18T18:45:56-05:00 2017-12-18T18:45:56-05:00

<p>Modelling A Cooperative Approach to Open Access Scholarly Publishing: A Demonstration in the Canadian Context John Willinsky Abstract Background  In light of increasing interest in open access publishing, this Research in Brief proposes and presents a financial analysis of a cooperative approach to moving subscription journals to open access. Analysis  The article utilizes a 2014 survey of Canadian scholarly journals as well as an earlier 2004 survey to demonstrate the ways in which a cooperative model can mitigate publisher risk and sustain open access. Conclusions and implications  The study sets out the financial details of moving the “average” Canadian subscription journal to open access with the support of its previously subscribing libraries, in ways that need not involve a publisher revenue loss or a library expense increase. Keywords  Journals; Open access; Financial modelling; Canada Contexte  Vu l’intérêt croissant pour l’édition à libre accès, cette Recherche en bref propose et présente une analyse financière d’une approche coopérative à bouger les revues d’abonnement à l’accès libre. Analyse  Cet article utilise un sondage de 2014 des revues scolaires canadiennes ainsi qu’un sondage auparavant de 2004 à décrire les façons dont un modèle coopératif peut réduire le risque d’éditeur et maintenir l’accès libre. Conclusion et implications  L’étude expose les détails financiers de bouger la « moyenne » revue d’abonnement canadienne à l’accès libre avec le soutien de ses bibliothèques qui lui s’abonnent précédemment, dans des façons qui n’impliquent pas une perte du chiffre d’affaires d’éditeur ou une augmentation de la dépense de bibliothèque. Mots clés  Revues; Accès libre; Modélisation financière; Canada Keywords Journals, Open Access, Financial Modeling, Canada</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2339115 2017-12-18T18:43:57-05:00 2017-12-18T18:43:57-05:00

<p>21 journals formerly published by Libertas Academica (acquired by Sage in 2016) are no longer being published and have been triggered for ongoing OA through CLOCKSS by the CLOCKSS Board of Director. The triggered journals are:</p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Advances in Tumor Virology</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Cell &amp; Tissue Transplantation &amp; Therapy</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>        </span><span>Cell Communication Insights</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Clinical Medicine Insights: Geriatrics</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>        </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Cardiology</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Oncology</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Patient Care</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Therapeutics</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Vascular Health</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>        </span><span>Clinical Medicine Reviews in Women's Health</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Gene Expression to Genetical Genomics</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Glycobiology Insights</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>        </span><span>Healthy Aging &amp; Clinical Care in the Elderly</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>       </span><span>Human Parasitic Diseases</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Journal of Genomes and Exomes</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemias</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>        </span><span>Organic Chemistry Insights</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Primary Prevention Insights</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Reproductive Biology Insights</span></p> <p><span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Retrovirology: Research and Treatment</span></p> <p> p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 15.0px Calibri; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} span.s1 {font: 15.0px Symbol; font-kerning: none} span.s2 {font: 9.0px 'Times New Roman'; font-kerning: none} span.s3 {font-kerning: none} <span>·</span><span>         </span><span>Translational Oncogenomics</span></p> <p><span>Thanks to Society for Scholarly Publishers list.</span></p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2336336 2017-12-13T17:55:26-05:00 2017-12-14T14:00:03-05:00

<p>"‘Predatory’ Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of ‘Legitimate’ Academic Publishing Kirsten Bell Abstract The concept of the ‘predatory’ publisher has today become a standard way of characterizing a new breed of open access journals that seem to be more concerned with making a profit than disseminating academic knowledge. This essay presents an alternative view of such publishers, arguing that if we treat them as parody instead of predator, a far more nuanced reading emerges. Viewed in this light, such journals destabilize the prevailing discourse on what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ journal, and, indeed, the nature of scholarly knowledge production itself. Instead of condemning them outright, their growth should therefore encourage us to ask difficult but necessary questions about the commercial context of knowledge production, prevailing conceptions of quality and value, and the ways in which they privilege scholarship from the ‘centre’ and exclude that from the ‘periphery’...."</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2300806 2017-10-23T19:49:07-04:00 2017-10-23T19:49:07-04:00

<p>In brief:  best guesstimate - there are approximately 70 million OA documents today (subset of BASE's 115 million, about 60% OA), with OA documents at BASE growing at a rate of about 1,800 OA documents per day. Where do these come from? Thousands of OA archives - with PubMedCentral the largest by far at 4.5 million articles and active participation by thousands of journals. This quarter by the numbers the DOAJ team set a new record with a net growth of 689 journals of 7.7 titles per day. However, percentage wise the most remarkable quarterly growth was all about archives, with BioRxiv and SocRXiv topping the growth list by percentage, and as usual several sections of Internet Archive well up on the growth list. On an annual basis, Directory of Open Access Books was the fastest growing in terms of both # of books and # of publishers.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2271829 2017-08-31T14:56:11-04:00 2017-11-01T15:10:57-04:00

<p>This is the last Module of the course on Open Access for researchers. So far you have studied about Open Access, its history, advantages, initiatives, copyrights and licensing, evaluation matrix for research – all in the context of scholarly communication. In this Module with just two units, we would like to help you share your work in Open Access though repositories and journals. At the end of this module, you are expected to be able to: - Understand the publication process involved in dissemination of scholarly works; - Choose appropriate Open Access journals and repositories for sharing research results; - Use social media to promote personal research work and build reputation. In Unit 1, we discuss the research publication process at five stages – planning stage, preparing stage, pre-publication stage, publication stage and postpublication stage. We emphasize the importance of social media in sharing and making your work visible to the target groups. In Unit 2, we focus on sharing your research through OA repositories and Journals. First we discussed the different types of repositories to select and highlighted the steps that you may consider including deposit in your own institutional repositories or in global open repositories. We then discuss the sources of finding and deciding on OA journals. This unit also provides guidance on choosing the right OA journals, as the quality of OA journals is often questioned.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2271828 2017-08-31T14:54:46-04:00 2017-08-31T14:54:46-04:00

<p>2008 slide show by Paul Uhlir.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2266860 2017-08-22T21:34:54-04:00 2017-08-22T21:34:54-04:00

<p>Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016) Wei Quan, Bikun Chen, Fei Shu (Submitted on 4 Jul 2017) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to present the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China and reveal its trend since the late 1990s. Design/methodology/approach: This study is based on the analysis of 168 university documents regarding the cash-per-publication reward policy at 100 Chinese universities. Findings: Chinese universities offer cash rewards from 30 to 165,000 USD for papers published in journals indexed by Web of Science (WoS), and the average reward amount has been increasing for the past 10 years. Originality/value: The cash-per-publication reward policy in China has never been systematically studied and investigated before except for in some case studies. This is the first paper that reveals the landscape of the cash-per-publication reward policy in China.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2262788 2017-08-15T16:09:54-04:00 2017-08-15T16:13:26-04:00

<p>Newspaper article highlighting érudit, a Québec-based primarily french scholarly journal platform. 95% of content is open access, with some journals fully OA on publication and others with rolling walls. The reach of érudit is worldwide according to its statistics, increasing impact for authors of journals that participate. Thanks to a major grant érudit now serves as a "big data" platform for researchers. Currently érudit returns some money to participating journals, but this is not sufficient, grant funding is necessary as well. In order for these journals to survive and thrive into the future, not to have to transfer to commercial publishers and to enjoy the benefits of open access, what is needed is secure funding for the operations of the journals.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2262770 2017-08-15T15:52:38-04:00 2017-08-15T15:52:38-04:00

<p>In non-English-speaking countries the measurement of research output in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using standard bibliographic databases suffers from a major drawback: the underrepresentation of articles published in local, non-English, journals. Using papers indexed (1) in a local database of periodicals (Érudit) and (2) in the Web of Science, assigned to the population of university professors in the province of Québec, this paper quantifies, for individual researchers and departments, the importance of papers published in local journals. It also analyzes differences across disciplines and between French-speaking and Englishspeaking universities. The results show that, while the addition of papers published in local journals to bibliometric measures has little effect when all disciplines are considered and for anglophone universities, it increases the output of researchers from francophone universities in the social sciences and humanities by almost a third. It also shows that there is very little relation, at the level of individual researchers or departments, between the output indexed in the Web of Science and the output retrieved from the Érudit database; a clear demonstration that the Web of Science cannot be used as a proxy for the “overall” production of SSH researchers in Québec. The paper concludes with a discussion on these disciplinary and language differences, as well as on their implications for rankings of universities.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2262768 2017-08-15T15:44:54-04:00 2017-08-15T15:44:54-04:00

<p>Sustaining the Knowledge Commons (SKC) is pleased to offer 1 – 2 open access research oriented 2018 summer internships for international undergraduate students through the competitive Mitacs Globalinks Research Internship program. The call for 2018 applications is now open. Following is a brief description of the Mitacs Globalink Research Internship and the SKC internship project.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2262767 2017-08-15T15:43:51-04:00 2017-08-15T15:43:51-04:00

<p>Soutenir les Savoirs Communs (SSC) offre avec plaisir 1 – 2 stages d’été de recherche en libre accès pour les étudiants internationaux, grâce a la competition &lt;&gt;. L’appel d’offre destiné aux étudiants est maintenant ouvert. Une description du programme et du stage de SSC suivent.</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2261496 2017-08-13T13:59:33-04:00 2017-08-13T13:59:33-04:00

<p>Summary Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6).</p>

tag:tagteam.harvard.edu,2005:FeedItem/2260498 2017-08-11T09:56:53-04:00 2018-10-05T14:49:19-04:00

<p>Abstract: Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle.</p>