A diamond mission | Research Information

“Diamond open access (OA), sometimes also referred to as platinum open access, is a form of gold open access – which means that there is permanent and unrestricted online access to an article in its final published form (or version of record). Diamond OA means there is no requirement for authors to pay article processing charges, writes May Copsey. 

The diamond model for open access has recently been in the spotlight, due to the publication of a report from Coalition S and Science Europe looking into the landscape of these journals that are free for readers and authors.1 Chemical Science, from the Royal Society of Chemistry, was one of the journals that fed into this report and as executive editor, I was interested to see the full picture of these journals across scientific publishing. 

The report shows that there are a huge number of relatively small diamond OA journals, run and managed by the scientific community themselves, usually on a volunteer basis. The costs of these journals are generally taken on by the institutions that run them, such as universities and societies. The study found there to be multiple scientific strengths with this model, however they face some key challenges, including indexing and archiving, governance and technical capabilities around editorial systems and publication platforms. …

So the conversation doesn’t always have to be about gold versus green or how much the APC will be. Societies, with the strong support of their communities, can help lead the way.”

The Scholcomm Chronicles #1. Rambling about Misconceptions of Open Access | Zenodo

Abstract:  This is a short essay/opinion-like article in comics form on some misconceptions of Open Access. “Rambling about Misconceptions of Open Access” is also the first installment of “The ScholComm Chronicles”, which will hopefully develop into an ongoing series.

 

 

Fee-free Open Access publishing in leading biological science journals now available to researchers in developing and transition economy countries

“From Albania to Zimbabwe, researchers in 30 developing and transition economy countries can benefit from immediate and fee-free Open Access publishing in The Company of Biologists’ subscription journals following a Read & Publish agreement with Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL).

This landmark agreement runs until 31 December 2023 and institutional members of EIFL-partner library consortia in eligible countries can participate free of charge.

Researchers in eligible countries will be able to publish an uncapped number of Open Access research articles in Development, Journal of Cell Science and Journal of Experimental Biology without paying an article processing charge (APC). They will also benefit from free and unlimited access to the journals and their archives dating back to 1853….”

cOAlition S endorsing Subscribe to Open is a great start. We need the same thinking about books from the beginning. | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing

This week, cOAlition S endorsed the Subscribe to Open (S2O) business model.

This group of international funders is committed to a complete transition to open-access publishing. To date, critics have claimed that the cOAlition has been too wedded to the (inflationary) Article Processing Charge business model, although Plan S is theoretically neutral on this matter. However, coupled with their recent publication on “Diamond” OA, this endorsement marks a milestone for open access without author-side payments.

[…]

The Open Library of Humanities merges with Birkbeck — Birkbeck, University of London

“Today, extending their existing partnership, and cementing the future of the platform, the Open Library of Humanities (OLH) has merged with Birkbeck. 

The merger allows OLH to maintain its charitable status, while ensuring its ongoing financial sustainability and reducing redundant administrative overhead….”

New Open Access Business Models – What’s Needed to Make Them Work? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The third CHORUS Forum meeting, held last week, is a relatively new entrant into the scholarly communication meeting calendar. The meeting has proven to be a rare opportunity to bring together publishers, researchers, librarians, and research funders. I helped organize and moderated a session during the Forum, on the theme of “Making the Future of Open Research Work.” You can watch my session, which looked at new models for sustainable and robust open access (OA) publishing, along with the rest of the meeting in the video below.

The session focuses on the operationalization of the move to open access and the details of what it takes to experiment with a new business model. The model the community has the most experience with, the individual author paying an article-processing-charge (APC), works really well for some authors, in some subject areas, in some geographies. But it is not a universal solution to making open access work and it creates new inequities as it resolves others….

Some of the key takeaways for me were found in the commonalities across all of the models. The biggest hurdle that each organization faced in executing its plans was gathering and analyzing author data. As Sara put it, “Data hygiene makes or breaks all of these models.” For PLOS and the ACM, what they’re asking libraries to support is authorship – the model essentially says “this many papers had authors from your institution and what you pay will largely be based on the volume of your output.” But disambiguating author identity, and especially identifying which institutions each represents, remains an enormous problem. While we do have persistent identifiers (PIDs) like ORCID, and the still-under-development ROR, their use is not universal, and we still lack a unifying mechanism to connect the various PIDs into a simple, functional tool to support this type of analysis.

One solution would be requiring authors to accurately identify their host institutions from a controlled vocabulary, but this runs up against most publishers’ desire to streamline the article submission process. There’s a balance to be struck, but probably one that’s going to ask authors to provide more accurate and detailed information….

[M]oving beyond the APC is essential to the long-term viability of open access, and there remains much experimentation to be done….”

Open Access Agreements with PLOS Biology and SAGE means no Article Processing Charges (APCs) for McMaster Authors | McMaster University Library

“The University Library is pleased to announce that McMaster has signed open access publishing agreements with PLOS Biology and SAGE through the Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN).  As of January 1, 2021, McMaster authors do not have to pay Article Processing Charges to cover the cost of open access publishing in PLOS Biology or in over 900 SAGE Choice journals….”

Wiley and Crue-CSIC Alliance Sign Transitional Agreement to Advance Open Access in Spain

This read and publish agreement, initially for one year, is part of a longer partnership between Wiley and Crue-CSIC. The agreement allows researchers at participating institutions to both access Wiley’s journals and to publish accepted articles open access in Wiley’s hybrid journals, which contain both subscription and open access content. As a result of the agreement, an estimated 70% of articles published by participating institutions in 2021 will be open access, enabling more research from leading Spanish institutions to be read, cited and built upon.

Criminology Open Association of Diamond Outlets (COADO)

“COADO increases the utility of criminology journals that are free to read and publish in. This involves increasing their impact, improving their production quality, and lowering the costs of publishing them. The association is a collaboration between Criminology Open and member journals. Through the sharing of expertise, commitment to shared quality standards, and comarketing, COADO is advancing the free and timely dissemination of criminological knowledge. This is to the benefit of all stakeholders—researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, journalists, and the general public.”

Thread by @petersuber on “Gold OA”

“I’d put this historically. “Gold OA” originally meant OA delivered by journals regardless of the journal’s business model. Both fee-based and no-fee OA journals were gold, as opposed to “green OA”, which meant OA delivered by repositories….”