Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in OA agreements – information power

“An independent report released today by Information Power measures progress during 2020 and 2021 on Open Access agreements between consortia/libraries and publishers. OA agreements are now used around the world in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. During 2020 there was a clear uptick in the number of OA articles published in hybrid journals, which reverses a downward trend in the proportion of total articles published as OA in hybrid journals between 2016 and 2019. There is potential for further growth.

Smaller independent publishers – for example society publishers without a larger publishing partner, university presses, library presses, and small independent commercial presses – face some special challenges due to their scale. A number of practical task-and-finish groups are needed to align on shared principles, license language, data exchange, and workflows followed by engagement with standards bodies, intermediaries, and platform providers to ensure these can become embedded in practice.

The transition to OA requires change on the part of all stakeholders, and the report argues it is particularly crucial that there is active cross-stakeholder alignment focused on enabling smaller independent publishers to transition successfully. Amongst other things, the authors strongly recommend funders take steps to enable universities to aggregate all their expenditure with publishers via the library. They also encourage publishers who closely link the price of OA agreements to article volume to think carefully about more equitable models.”

Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS)

“AIMOS (the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science) seeks to advance the interdisciplinary field of meta-research by bringing together and supporting researchers in that field.

Science aims to produce robust knowledge and the concept of reproducible experiments is central to this. However the past decade has seen a ‘reproducibility crisis’ in science.

Across a number of scientific fields, such as psychology and preclinical medicine, large-scale replication projects have failed to produce evidence supporting the findings of many original studies. Meta-research will address this challenge head on….”

Publishers Support Open Science and Sustainable Public Access

[The statement is undated.]

“We believe any policy aimed at promoting public access to publications and research data should: • Promote equity through author choice by ensuring that all researchers—regardless of funding, discipline, career stage, or institution—are allowed to publish in their journals of choice, including those that ensure their publishing is economically sustainable through appropriate embargoes for free public access, such as the one-year embargo in existing policy. • Provide sufficient funding to researchers to enable cutting-edge research and discovery and to support investments in sharing their results, ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly communication. • Protect academic freedom by empowering authors to publish in the outlets they feel have greatest potential to reach target audiences and advance the impact of their research. • Protect intellectual property—which is critical to safeguarding the integrity of authors’ work and provides essential incentives for market investment and innovation—and avoid compulsory license mandates that undermine IP and ignore the needs and preferences of researchers and differences between disciplines. • Support innovation in scholarly communication by fostering a competitive marketplace and a diverse range of business models to meet the needs of a wide variety of researchers and institutions. • Leverage existing initiatives that reduce compliance burdens and the need for taxpayer funding, building on existing infrastructures and voluntary open science practices for data, preprints, and publications. • Include publishers as stakeholders to advance broader priorities for the research ecosystem—including promoting equity and diversity in research and addressing critical public health and scientific challenges—and build partnerships between publishers, scientific societies, funders, libraries, and the academic community to advance a collaborative open science agenda….”

Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, the flagship journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists, will transition to Open Access starting in 2022

“Starting with Volume 30, Berghahn Journals will be the new publisher of Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, the journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists. The journal will be leaving Wiley to embark on becoming a fully open access journal as a part of the Berghahn Open Anthro – Subscribe to Open (S2O) initiative, which will enter its third year in 2022….”

Statement on the Scholarly Merit and Evaluation of Open Scholarship in Linguistics | Linguistic Society of America

“Open Scholarship can be a key component for a scholar’s portfolio in a number of situations, including but not limited to hiring, review, promotion, and awards. Because Open Scholarship can take many forms, evaluation of this work may need different tools and approaches from publications like journal articles and books.  In particular, citation counts, a common tool for evaluating publications, are not available for some kinds of Open Scholarship in the same form or from the same providers as they are from publications. Here we share recommendations on how to assess the use of Open Scholarship materials including and beyond citations, including materials that both have formal peer review and those that do not not.

For tenure & promotion committees, program managers, department chairs, hiring committees, and others tasked with evaluating Open Scholarship, NASEM has prepared a discipline-agnostic rubric that can be used as part of hiring, review, or promotion processes. Outside letters of evaluation can also provide insight into the significance and impact of Open Scholarship work. Psychologist Brian Nosek (2017) provides some insight into how a letter writer can evaluate Open Scholarship, and includes several ways that evaluation committees can ask for input specifically about contributions to Open Scholarship. Nosek suggests that letter writers and evaluators comment on ways that individuals have contributed to Open Scholarship through “infrastructure, service, metascience, social media leadership, and their own research practices.” We add that using Open Scholarship in the classroom, whether through open educational materials, open pedagogy, or teaching of Open Scholarship principles, should be included in this list. Evaluators can explicitly ask for these insights in requests to letter writers, for example by including the request to “Please describe the impact that [scholar name]’s openly available research outputs have had from the research, public policy, pedagogic, and/or societal perspectives.” These evaluations can be particularly important when research outputs are not formally peer reviewed.

For scholars preparing hiring, review, promotion, or other portfolios that include Open Scholarship, we recommend not only discussing the Open Scholarship itself, but also its documented and potential impacts on both the academic community as well as broader society. Many repositories housing Open Scholarship materials provide additional metrics such as views, downloads, comments, and forks (or reuse cases) alongside citations in published literature. The use and mention of material with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) can be tracked using tools such as ImpactStory, Altmetric.com, and other alternative metrics. To aid with evaluation of this work, the creator should share these metrics where available, along with any other qualitative indicators (such as personal thank-yous, reuse stories, or online write-ups) that can give evaluators a sense of the impact of their work. The Metrics Toolkit provides examples and use cases for these kinds of metrics. This is of potential value when peer review of these materials may not take the same form as with published journals or books; thoughtful use and interpretation of metrics can help evaluators understand the impact and importance of the work.

The Linguistic Society of America reaffirms its commitment to fair review of Open Scholarship in hiring, tenure, and promotion, endorses all of these approaches to peer review and evaluation of Open Scholarship, and encourages scholars, departments, and personnel committees to take them into careful consideration and implement language about Open Scholarship in their evaluation processes.”

Intersections: Library Publishing and Scholarly Societies | Library Publishing Coalition

“Beyond acquiring new publications and getting hands-on experience with scholars who do the work of publishing, this work also provides an opportunity for me to help a discipline with knowledge and resources that may be unique to our field of Library Publishing and Scholarly Communication broadly – and the capacity and resources to do that work. One such opportunity has led to one of the most meaningful projects in my career so far. I was delighted to have the opportunity to provide feedback on and early draft of the LSA’s 2018 Statement on the Evaluation of Language Documentation for Hiring, Tenure, and Promotion. This Statement cited the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) in an argument that the intense data management work involved in Language Documentation projects should be viewed on par with other scholarly outputs when evaluating hiring and promotion portfolios, and gives practical advice for doing so. Based on the findings of the RPT Project from the ScholComm Lab at Simon Fraser University, open publishing and open scholarship generally are not mentioned often in Review, Promotion, or Tenure documents, and that this is a very practical barrier for scholars to engage in more open practices. After the LSA’s Statement about Language Documentation was adopted, I heard use cases where scholars and department chairs were able to effectively use this Statement to advocate for hiring and promoting linguists who devote incredible amounts of energy to the careful documentation and sharing of language data.

At this same time, some chairs of linguistics departments had become involved in a project from NASEM’s Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science to identify ways to encourage open scholarship in review documents. Since I had volunteered to be the Chair of the Committee on Scholarly Communication in Linguistics, I was invited to introduce representatives from the Roundtable, Greg Tananbaum and Chris Bourg, at the Department Chairs Meeting in 2020 to talk about this initiative. After their presentation, multiple linguistics department chairs mentioned the usefulness of the 2018 Statement on Language Documentation. As I sat on the sidelines and listened, I sensed the opportunity to create a Statement on the Scholarly Merit and Evaluation of Open Scholarship in Linguistics that would extend the utility of the Language Documentation Statement for all linguists who engage in Open Scholarship. I brought the idea to the committee, and members were enthusiastic about the opportunity. We worked over the next year and a half to draft a statement, conduct an open asynchronous review, make multiple rounds of edits, present at an open meeting at the 2021 Annual Meeting, and finally submit the Statement for approval of the LSA’s Executive Committee. I am proud to say that this Statement was adopted by the LSA on April 29, 2021, and you can now read it published officially on the Linguistic Society of America’s website. When you read it, you will no doubt see resources familiar to Library Publishers – including DORA, the Metrics Toolkit, NASEM’s Roundtable, and the RPT Project. These resources, although familiar to us in the Library Publishing world, are brand new to many linguists reading this Statement. And for Library Publishers, open scholarship products are often the kinds of materials we publish, whether in the form of journals, books, educational resources, datasets, or digital projects; yet our authors are often actively disincentivized from producing this kind of work by evaluation systems that privilege closed-access, traditional forms of scholarship. If we want to enrich and expand our publishing ecosystem, we must lower the barriers that scholars face when they do this work….”

College & Research Libraries News to Move to Online-Only Publishing Model – ACRL Insider

“College & Research Libraries News (C&RL News), the official newsmagazine and publication of record of ACRL, will adopt an online-only publication model beginning in January 2022. The December 2021 issue will be the final print issue of the magazine. C&RL News is freely available as an open access online publication….”

ACM Joins Initiative for Open Abstracts

“ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, has joined the Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA), a collaboration between publishers, infrastructure organizations, librarians, and researchers to promote the open availability of abstracts.

By joining I4OA, ACM commits to making abstracts of articles published by ACM available in an open and machine-readable way. Abstracts will be submitted to Crossref, initially for journal articles published by ACM and in a next stage also for conference papers. Bringing abstracts together in a common format in a global cross-disciplinary database offers important opportunities for text mining, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence….”

COAPI Community Call: Making Green Open Access Work for Society Publishers: A Panel Discussion – Jun 16, 2021 – SPARC

“Policy-driven author rights retention has been around for some time; many academic institutions have implemented rights-retention policies over the past decade. 

 

More recently, the Rights Retention Strategy proposed by cOAlition S has sparked a healthy debate about the impact of this strategy on academic publishers and about its utility as a pathway to Green Open Access more generally. This panel presentation will bring together representatives from two academic libraries and three society publishers to discuss rights retention strategies in the spirit of fostering open dialogue, sharing perspectives, and increasing understanding across these two communities. Specifically, the panelists will discuss the following questions:

What are your concerns about rights retention policies adopted by institutions or funders? 
How can we work together to enact policies that at a minimum don’t harm society publishers, and that ideally benefit them? 
How can librarians help society publishers in their efforts to transition to Open Access? …”