Enquêter sur les pratiques numériques au sein des communautés scientifiques: regards sur les outils et les données au prisme de la science ouverte – Sciencesconf.org

From Google’s English:  “THE CALL FOR PARTICIPATION AWAITS PROPOSALS ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:

The epistemological and ethical issues of observation, analysis, representation and communication on the practices of scientific communities
Methodological issues depending on whether the approaches are quantitative, qualitative or mixed
The challenges of visualizing results
The issues of reproducibility and accessibility of results (data, source code) according to legal constraints
The challenges of recounting collective practices in the context of individual observation
The challenges of receiving these surveys in their evaluative, prescriptive or even performative nature
Prescription issues in the development of applications, or any other classification solution for software or other digital services intended for scientific communities…”

Open data, le désenchantement – Un blog pour l’information juridique

From Google’s English:  “The decree publishing the open data calendar for court decisions has just been published in the OJ  [ 1 ] . The French pro-open data movement can triumph, even if the calendar dates were predictable for a long time …

This step in the advance of open data  [ 2 ] in France inspires me with mixed feelings….”

Contracter à l’heure de la publication en accès ouvert. Une analyse systématique des accords transformants – HAL-SHS – Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société

Abstract:  Abstract : This study focuses on one of the contemporary innovations linked to the economy of academic publishing: the so-called transformative agreements, a relatively circumscribed object within the relations between library consortia and academic publishers, and temporally situated between 2015 and 2020. The stated objective of this type of agreement is to organise the transition from the traditional model of subscription to journals (often proposed by thematic groupings or collections) to that of open access by reallocating the budgets devoted to it. Our sociological analysis work constitutes a first systematic study of this object, based on a review of 197 agreements. The corpus thus constituted includes agreements characterised by the co-presence of a subscription component and an open access publication component, even minimal (publication “tokens” offered, reduction on APCs, etc.). As a result, agreements that only concern centralised funding for open access publishing were excluded from the analysis, whether with publishers that only offer journals with payment by the author (PLOS, Frontiers, MDPI, etc.) or publishers whose catalogue includes open access journals. The oldest agreement in our corpus was signed in 2010, the most recent ones in 2020 – agreements starting only in 2021, even announced during the study, were not retained. Several results emerge from our analysis. First of all, there is a great diversity of actors involved with 22 countries and 39 publishers, even if some consortia (Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Germany) and publishers (CUP, Elsevier, RSC, Springer) signed many more than others. Secondly, the duration of the agreements, ranging from one to six years, reveals a very unequal distribution, with more than half of the agreements (103) signed for 3 years, and a small proportion for 4 years or more (22 agreements). Finally, despite repeated calls for transparency, less than half of the agreements (96) have an accessible text at the time of this study, with no recent trend towards greater availability. The analysis also shows widely varying degrees of openness, ranging from simple information on the ESAC directory through the provision of an open format to the allocation of a DOI and a reuse licence (CC-BY), including details of monetary amounts. Of the 96 agreements available, 47 of which were signed in 2020, 62 have been analysed in depth. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis on this scale, on a type of material that was not only unpublished, but which was previously subject to confidentiality clauses. Based on a careful reading, the study describes in detail their properties, from the materiality of the document to the financial formulas, including their morphology and all the rights and duties of the parties. We therefore analysed the content of the agreements as a collection, looking for commonalities and variations through an explicit coding of their characteristics. The study also points out some uncertainties, in particular their “transitional” character, which remains strongly debated. From a morphological point of view, the agreements show a great diversity in size (from 7 to 488 pages) and structure. Nevertheless, by definition, they both articulate two essential objects: on the one hand, the conditions for carrying out a reading of journal articles, in the form of a subscription, combining concerns of access and security; on the other hand, the modalities of open access publication, articulating the management of a new type of workflow with a whole series of possible options. These options include the scope of the journals considered (hybrid and/or open access), the licences available, the degree of obligation to publish, the eligible authors or the volume of publishable articles. One of the most important results of this in-depth analysis is the discovery of an almost complete decoupling, within the agreements themselves, between the subscription object and the publication object. Of course, subscription is systematically configured in a closed world, subject to payment, which triggers series of identification of legitimate circulations of both information content and users. In particular, it insists on prohibitions on the reuse or even copying of academic articles. On the other hand, open access publishing is attached to a world governed by free access to content, which leads to concerns about workflow management and accessibility modalities. Moreover, the different elements that make up these contractual objects are not interconnected: on one side, the readers are all members of the subscribing institutions, on the other, only the corresponding authors are concerned; the lists of journals accessible to the reader and those reserved for open access publication are usually distinct; the workflows have totally different objectives and material organisations, etc. The articulation between the two contractual objects is solely a matter of a financial distribution formula which, in addition to particular combinations between one an

Baromètre français de la Science Ouverte 2020

From Google’s English: “According to the 2020 edition of the Open Science Barometer (BSO), 56% of the 156,000 French scientific publications published in 2019 are available opened in December 2020. The rate observed in December 2019, relating to publications produced in 2018, was only 49%. The rate therefore increased by 7 points in one year. From one discipline to another, the proportion of open access varies greatly, from 75% for publications in Mathematics to 40% in Engineering Sciences. In addition, scientific publications published in 2018 or in previous years have an open rate increasing over time. In particular, those published in 2018 are now 54% open (+5 points compared to December 2019), and the increase, which concerns all disciplines, is greater in those less open….”

9500 euros pour publier dans «Nature», le séisme du plan S – Le Temps

From Google’s English:  “And in Switzerland? “The National Scientific Fund supports plan S but our strategy towards open access was decided before, in 2017, it’s a bit unfortunate,” explains Angelika Kalt, director of the SNSF. Our goal was to get 100% open access to the publications we funded by the end of 2020, we’ll probably get to 80%. The national objective is 100% free access by 2024. Where Switzerland differs from plan S is on the issue of immediate access; this big step did not seem possible to us, we accept a period of six months ”. The SNSF has been relaunched several times to join plan S, “this year we will position ourselves in consultation with SwissUniversities and researchers”….

In fact, like Germany in 2019, Switzerland in transition to open access signed “transformative” agreements in 2020 with two of the three largest publishers, Elsevier (up to 15 million francs) and  Springer (13 million francs). ) ; negotiations (led by SwissUniversities) continue with Wiley (the three publishers represent 60% of the articles consulted in Switzerland). These Read and Publish  agreements  allow unlimited access to journals and the possibility for researchers to publish in open access at no additional cost. That they include 80 to 100 pages of conditions clearly shows how complex and sensitive the subject is . Four others entered into force in early 2021 , adds Marie Fuselier, the director of the scientific information division at the University of Geneva.

But the devil is in the details: “We must not be naive, publishing houses know very well what is more and less read, recalls Angelika Kalt, they do not include their entire portfolio of newspapers in the Read agreements. and Publish, and the duration of agreements is often longer than desired. ” The contract with Elsevier, for example, runs for four years. Will the colossal sums of Read and Publish, which correspond to fixed prices, be amortized by a significant number of publications?”

 

9500 euros pour publier dans «Nature», le séisme du plan S – Le Temps

From Google’s English:  “And in Switzerland? “The National Scientific Fund supports plan S but our strategy towards open access was decided before, in 2017, it’s a bit unfortunate,” explains Angelika Kalt, director of the SNSF. Our goal was to get 100% open access to the publications we funded by the end of 2020, we’ll probably get to 80%. The national objective is 100% free access by 2024. Where Switzerland differs from plan S is on the issue of immediate access; this big step did not seem possible to us, we accept a period of six months ”. The SNSF has been relaunched several times to join plan S, “this year we will position ourselves in consultation with SwissUniversities and researchers”….

In fact, like Germany in 2019, Switzerland in transition to open access signed “transformative” agreements in 2020 with two of the three largest publishers, Elsevier (up to 15 million francs) and  Springer (13 million francs). ) ; negotiations (led by SwissUniversities) continue with Wiley (the three publishers represent 60% of the articles consulted in Switzerland). These Read and Publish  agreements  allow unlimited access to journals and the possibility for researchers to publish in open access at no additional cost. That they include 80 to 100 pages of conditions clearly shows how complex and sensitive the subject is . Four others entered into force in early 2021 , adds Marie Fuselier, the director of the scientific information division at the University of Geneva.

But the devil is in the details: “We must not be naive, publishing houses know very well what is more and less read, recalls Angelika Kalt, they do not include their entire portfolio of newspapers in the Read agreements. and Publish, and the duration of agreements is often longer than desired. ” The contract with Elsevier, for example, runs for four years. Will the colossal sums of Read and Publish, which correspond to fixed prices, be amortized by a significant number of publications?”

 

Le Plan S et l’Open Access : soutien ou perversion ? | Ouvertures immédiates / Immediate openings

From Google’s English:  “Open access is enjoying increasing success . Since 2017, the majority of new articles in all academic disciplines, especially in science, have been published in open access. In 2020, at the request of UNESCO , most publishers removed toll barriers from articles on the COVID-19 pandemic in order to quickly understand the characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and accelerate the development of vaccines and treatments. In this regard, the COVID-19 pandemic will have made many understand the usefulness, even the absolute necessity, of instant and open communication in the face of a large-scale collective challenge….

Another danger is that, by its binding nature (which is also its strength and its chance to operate), Plan S offers traditional publishers a tempting opportunity to demand publication rights (called APCs, article processing charges) excessively. high, in order not to cover costs, but to compensate for the shortfall in the cancellation of subscriptions….

Coalition S seeks to exert downward pressure on publishing prices by seeking transparency. When a grant recipient’s research is published, Plan S requires publishers to disclose their rates to funders, including the cost of services such as screening, organizing peer review. , improved writing and proofreading. The coalition is committed to sharing this information openly with authors and institutions, in the hope of ensuring some level of price control….

Some authors are also hesitant because of the requirement that they publish in prestigious and high-impact journals to obtain tenure, promotion or the means to carry out their work. In addition, they may fall victim to the misconception that journals which only offer open access articles lack rigor.

 

In addition, paying to publish in journals which benefit from the prestige of their publishing house creates a flagrant inequality between researchers according to the financial means at their disposal….”

 

Prairial, plateforme de revues en accès ouvert

“The Prairial platform was created in April 2017 to initially meet the needs of the human and social sciences (SHS) journals at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University. Since 2019, Prairial has broadened its field of action beyond initial scope, providing support for reviews of the Lyon – Saint-Étienne site but also on a larger scale. Prairial currently hosts 11 journals and several projects are underway for 2020.

Prairial has chosen to offer strong editorial support in order to enable the hosted journals to improve their editorial quality by relying on international standards ( DOAJ , Latindex ) and by meeting the quality criteria of the National Plan for Open Science and the S Plan ….”

Les revues en libre accès ne sont pas éternelles

From Google’s English:  “Non-commercial open access journals face a veritable “tragedy of common “: from the moment they are priceless and they cost nothing, it there is no incentive to archive them in the current publication distribution system scientists. In contrast, journals sold by subscription or by license represent a significant investment. Libraries cannot afford to lose irreparably part of the funds, at the risk of having to acquire them again. Archiving is not only an ethical choice: it is a motivated investment, which justifies costs incurred….”

Ouvrir la Science – Activités de Knowledge Exchange | Partenaires pour améliorer le service à l’ESR

Knowledge Exchange (KE) brings together six organizations from six countries. Their common objective is to examine the issues related to research support and infrastructure and service development.

Members:

CNRS (France),
CSC (Finland),
DEIC (Denmark),
DFG   (Germany),
JISC (United Kingdom),
SURF (Netherlands).

Recent results:

About monographs;

A landscape study on open access and monographs –  DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.815932
Knowledge Exchange Survey on Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.1475446
Towards a Roadmap for Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3238545

Preprints

Accelerating scholarly communication – The transformative role of preprints – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3357727

Economy of Open Science

Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship: A Collection of Interviews – DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2840171
Open Scholarship and the need for collective action – DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3454688