Dr Hylke Koers appointed as CIO for new STM Solutions initiative

“STM today announced the appointment of Dr Hylke Koers as Chief Information Officer of its new initiative STM Solutions. STM Solutions has been established to develop and manage forwardthinking shared infrastructures and collaborative services to support the scholarly communications community. Its establishment represents a significant milestone in the collective management of the integrity of the scholarly record for future generations. The initiative will formally launch in April 2021 when Dr Koers commences his new role….”

cOAlition S response to the STM statement: the Rights Retention Strategy restores long-standing academic freedoms | Plan S

The statement published earlier today (3rd February) by the STM Association and signed by a number of its members, continues to perpetuate a number of myths and errors relating to the Rights Retention Strategy.

Signatories publish statement on Rights Retention Strategy

“The undersigned share with cOAlition S the goal to expand Open Research and are committed to supporting cOAlition S-funded researchers through the various paths provided for Open Access. However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S, the “Rights Retention Strategy”, in its current form. The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process, a process that is of fundamental value and is essential to the verification of results.  

The Rights Retention Strategy ignores long-standing academic freedoms and will work against the shared objective of a more open and equitable scholarly ecosystem. It provides an immediate free substitute that eliminates the ability to charge for the services that publishers provide, whether via subscriptions or Article Publishing Charges. As such, the Rights Retention Strategy is not financially sustainable and undermines potential support for open access journals. Additionally, it will undermine the integrity of the Version of Record, which is the foundation of the scientific record, and its associated codified mechanisms for corrections, retractions and data disclosure. 

While many publishers, including some of the undersigned, are able to provide options that allow authors to post versions of articles to repositories with broad reuse license, to be sustainable this is a decision that needs to be applied at the level of individual journals, not through blanket policies. The signatory publishers therefore oppose the approach of the Rights Retention Strategy in its current form and urge authors to consult with their journals of choice as to what is allowed. …”

Towards a Shared Peer-Review Taxonomy: An interview with Joris van Rossum and Lois Jones – The Scholarly Kitchen

“There are several reasons why STM started this initiative. The last few decades have seen the emergence of new review models which are loosely labelled as ‘open peer review’. But the creation of clear definitions has lagged behind, with the result being that open review means different things to different people. For example, it can refer to the model where the identities of authors, reviewers and editors are open during the review process; the publication of review reports and identities alongside the article; or the ability to comment on the article post-publication. So one reason for launching this initiative is to ensure we have a shared and consistent language. The working group, consisting of representatives from eight publishing organizations, created a terminology describing the process of four elements: identify transparency and who interacts with who during the process; what information about the process is published, and whether post-publication review (which we relabeled ‘post publication commenting’) is enabled. With this taxonomy we hope to cover the vast majority of models being used, both traditional and innovative….”

Towards a Shared Peer-Review Taxonomy: An interview with Joris van Rossum and Lois Jones – The Scholarly Kitchen

“There are several reasons why STM started this initiative. The last few decades have seen the emergence of new review models which are loosely labelled as ‘open peer review’. But the creation of clear definitions has lagged behind, with the result being that open review means different things to different people. For example, it can refer to the model where the identities of authors, reviewers and editors are open during the review process; the publication of review reports and identities alongside the article; or the ability to comment on the article post-publication. So one reason for launching this initiative is to ensure we have a shared and consistent language. The working group, consisting of representatives from eight publishing organizations, created a terminology describing the process of four elements: identify transparency and who interacts with who during the process; what information about the process is published, and whether post-publication review (which we relabeled ‘post publication commenting’) is enabled. With this taxonomy we hope to cover the vast majority of models being used, both traditional and innovative….”

Achieving an Equitable Transition to Open Access for Researchers in Lower and Middle-Income Countries

“The origins of this White Paper can be traced to a discussion started in mid-2019 between a number of scholarly publishers and the Publisher Coordinator for Research4Life (a role that is supported financially by the STM Association). These interlocutors voiced concern that while the publishing and research communities in the developed world were making steady and positive progress towards universal Open Access based on a ‘pay to publish’ model, those same communities in the less developed lower and middle-income countries (often referred to as the “Global South”) were being excluded from these discussions. Following discussions at the STM Board in the summer of 2019, an informal Task Force of publishers and other interested parties was set up to explore ways in which a transition to Open Access could be made more equitable, avoiding a situation in which the new model would simply shift the barrier from one place to another. Crucially, a research communication process based on Open Access to all outputs should not be less inclusive than the current model….”

Publishers ‘swift to release Covid-19 research’ – STM Association | Research Information

“The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) has been swift to respond to the thirst for knowledge and as early as February this year, was co-ordinating the efforts of the academic publishing  community to make all research papers on Covid-19 freely available. Within weeks, publishers had responded emphatically, making more than 50,000 Covid-19 related papers freely available. To date, almost 150 million people have read or downloaded this research, making it one of the most sought-after topics of all time. …”

Publishers ‘swift to release Covid-19 research’ – STM Association | Research Information

“The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) has been swift to respond to the thirst for knowledge and as early as February this year, was co-ordinating the efforts of the academic publishing  community to make all research papers on Covid-19 freely available. Within weeks, publishers had responded emphatically, making more than 50,000 Covid-19 related papers freely available. To date, almost 150 million people have read or downloaded this research, making it one of the most sought-after topics of all time. …”