Wikipedia Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up | WIRED

“FROM THE START, Google and Wikipedia have been in a kind of unspoken partnership: Wikipedia produces the information Google serves up in response to user queries, and Google builds up Wikipedia’s reputation as a source of trustworthy information….

The two have grown in tandem over the past 20 years, each becoming its own household word. But whereas one mushroomed into a trillion-dollar company, the other has remained a midsize nonprofit, depending on the generosity of individual users, grant-giving foundations, and the Silicon Valley giants themselves to stay afloat. Now Wikipedia is seeking to rebalance its relationships with Google and other big tech firms like Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, whose platforms and virtual assistants lean on Wikipedia as a cost-free virtual crib sheet….

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates the Wikipedia project in more than 300 languages as well as other wiki-projects, is announcing the launch of a commercial product, Wikimedia Enterprise. The new service is designed for the sale and efficient delivery of Wikipedia’s content directly to these online behemoths (and eventually, to smaller companies too)….

The free, albeit clunky option will still be available to all users, including commercial ones. This means that Wikimedia Enterprise’s principal competition, in the words of Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, the foundation’s chief revenue officer, is Wikipedia itself….

But the formatting problems with the free version offer an obvious opportunity to create a product worth paying for, one tailored to the requirements of each company. For example, Enterprise will deliver the real-time changes and comprehensive data dumps in a compatible format. There will also be a level of customer service typical of business arrangements but unprecedented for the volunteer-directed project….

By offering more useful data, Enterprise will help ensure that commercial operators display the latest, most accurate version of articles and crack down on vandalism quicker. A contractual relationship will also more formally recognize that these companies are extracting value from a volunteer project, and therefore must “contribute back to the commons,” Seitz-Gruwell says. …”

The Big Ten Academic Alliance joins Direct to Open from the MIT Press | Big Ten Academic Alliance

“The MIT Press and the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) have entered a three-year collective action agreement that provides Direct to Open (D2O) access for all fifteen BTAA member libraries. An innovative, sustainable framework for open access monographs, D2O moves professional and scholarly books from a solely market-based, purchase model to a collaborative, library-supported open access model. 

Developed over two years with the generous support of the Arcadia Fund, D2O gives institutions the opportunity to harness collective action to support access to knowledge. As participating libraries, the Big Ten members will help open access to all new MIT Press scholarly monographs and edited collections from 2022. In addition, the member libraries will gain term access to an archive of gated titles, including classic works from Rosalind Krauss, Daniel Dennett, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Sherry Turkle, and many more. D2O libraries also gain the benefit of discounting on the MIT Press’s trade books collection on the MIT Press Direct platform….”

Academic research should benefit society and not shareholders | Jisc

Introduction:

“Shareholder value maximisation has been severely criticised in recent years, with a growing number of prominent business leaders recognising that companies have obligations to society as well as their shareholders.

This moral responsibility is also emerging in scholarly communications. Most academic research is still published behind paywalls, but researchers and funders are increasingly looking to make data and research outputs freely and openly available for the benefit of society.

The lion’s share of academic research is publicly funded, yet revenues derived from that research are distributed disproportionately, serving shareholders rather than researchers. Academic publishers and their shareholders have benefitted from an increasing proportion of library budgets. In the past, publishers routinely sought annual increases of journal subscription fees in addition to significant revenue from open access article processing charges. This is particularly hard for the smaller institutions that want to publish open access.”

Dudley | The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive? | Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Abstract:  Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of  sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.

 

SocArXiv Papers | Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science – A Scoping Review

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible, and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science’s agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of “cumulative advantage”. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: “What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?” Aiming to synthesise findings, identify gaps in the literature, and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as “reproducibility” becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

Should journals pay for peer review work? – Tania Lu, mi blog

“A few weeks ago, I received an invitation to be a peer reviewer of a Spanish journal in category Q1. This is owned by a commercial academic publisher and charges the authors 835€ for publishing, adducing that this is the cost of translation and layout of the article. My response to the invitation was my rate fee proposal for this type of assignment….

I did not expect a response from the editor of this journal, however, it came, stating that this was the first time they had received such a response and that they would remove me from their database of possible peer reviewers since they did not have the policy of pay for this work. To this message I replied that although it could be the first time (although, I doubt it), I was sure they would continue to receive responses like mine and with a fee proposal. This given that they charged APC to the authors, and that per policy I was to no longer donate my time to journals that were profiting from my work as a reviewer without me receiving a payment for it….

As a final reflection, although it is true that as a reviewer these payments in kind mentioned by Mudditt are stimulating, I also maintain my desire to receive payment for my peer review work when requested by journals that belong to for-profit academic publishers.  I do not consider it to be something nefarious or unethical, on the contrary, fair, and enforceable, as well as something that should be normalized. In the meantime, I will continue to refuse to do this work for free. Academic altruism is only applicable when the journal is authentic open access.”

White Paper · Quartz OA

“We are excited to share with you our vision for a more fair and sustainable future for independent open access publishing. In our white paper, we describe our learnings about the challenges of Open Access publishing and propose a new, cooperative, route to OA: Quartz Open Access….

We did our research and found the answers to our questions in many discussions and research pieces produced by our fellow academics as well as journalists. As we researched our way through the intricacies of the scholarly communication ecosystem, we became avid supporters of the open science movement and open access publishing. We also found that open access is not the same experience for everyone and some of the questions we asked above are more relevant for early-career researchers, those in the humanities and social sciences and those coming from less well-funded institutions as well as low- and lower-middle-income countries. We became increasingly aware of the existence of unintended consequences of the various OA policies resulting in increasing inequalities or perpetuating the same systems that have led to creating these inequalities in the first place. Independently, we came up with similar ideas to address these issues and then came together as a team to try and develop a solution to some of the barriers hampering the transition towards just, fair and sustainable open access publishing.

As newcomers, we looked into the different successful – and less so – initiatives, we explored the values associated with scholarly communication and academic research, we dug into the related publishing fields and found inspiration in some of the business models now applied in journalism and creative industries. We explored new technologies such as peer-to-peer networks and blockchain to see how these can help solve some of the problems in the transition towards open access academic publishing. We also drew inspiration from the proposed solutions to the crisis of accountability in big tech and the responsible innovation and value-sensitive design approaches to developing technological systems.

Our proposal to face these challenges is powered by three key components: 1) a platform cooperative allowing exchanges within the OA ecosystem, 2) a browser extension allowing readers to support open access content and communities, and 3) a crowdfunding infrastructure for OA….”

The time for open science is now

“UNESCO is developing a Recommendation on Open Science which will be submitted to member states for approval in November 2021….

This calls for new types of funding arrangement between universities and publishers or funding agencies and publishers that are in a position to offer sustainable alternatives to either the ‘author-pays’ or ‘reader-pays’ models….

There is a growing number of viable alternatives to the author-pays system. These range from national or regional funding agreements to membership-based systems or co-operatives grouping multiple institutions. Among the latter is SciELO. This network now encompasses 16 countries in Latin America and Europe, along with South Africa. Similarly, AmeliCA and Latindex have been designed as regional networks composed of public institutions and research agencies from different countries….

With UNESCO being the sole United Nations agency with a mandate for science, it was logical that it should take up the question of open science. In 2019, UNESCO’s 193 member states tasked the Secretariat with developing an international standard-setting instrument in the form of a Recommendation on Open Science, to be adopted in November 2021. These instructions emanated from the Organization’s supreme governing body, the General Conference, which meets every two years….

As we move towards a global consensus on the issue, the first draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science has defined open science as an umbrella concept combining various movements and practices aiming to:l make scientific knowledge, methods, data and evidence freely available and accessible to everyone;l increase scientific collaboration and the sharing of information for the benefit of both science and society; andl open the process of scientific knowledge creation and circulation to societal actors situated beyond the institutionalized scientific community….”

As we move towards a global consensus on the issue, the first draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science has defined open science as an umbrella concept combining various movements and practices aiming to:l make scientific knowledge, methods, data and evidence freely available and accessible to everyone;l increase scientific collaboration and the sharing of information for the benefit of both science and society; andl open the process of scientific knowledge creation and circulation to societal actors situated beyond the institutionalized scientific community.

Ouvrir la Science – Deuxième Plan national pour la science ouverte

From Google’s English:  “The National Open Science Plan announced in 2018 by the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, Frédérique Vidal, has enabled France to adopt a coherent and dynamic policy in the field of open science, coordinated by the Committee for Open Science, which brings together the ministry, research and higher education institutions and the scientific community. After three years of implementation, the progress made is notable. The rate of French scientific publications in open access rose from 41% to 56%. The National Open Science Fund was created, it launched two calls for projects in favor of open scientific publication and it supported structuring international initiatives. The National Research Agency and other funding agencies now require open access to publications and the drafting of data management plans for the projects they fund. The function of ministerial research data administrator has been created and a network is being deployed in the establishments. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published.

The steps already taken and the evolution of the international context invite us to extend, renew and strengthen our commitments by adopting a second National Plan for Open Science, the effects of which will be deployed until 2024. With this new plan, France is continuing the ambitious trajectory initiated by the law for a digital republic of 2016 and confirmed by the research programming law of 2020, which includes open science in the missions of researchers and teacher-researchers.

This second National Plan extends its scope to source codes resulting from research, it structures actions in favor of the opening or sharing of data through the creation of the Research Data Gouv platform, it multiplies the levers of transformation in order to generalize open science practices and it presents disciplinary and thematic variations. It is firmly in line with a European ambition and proposes, within the framework of the French Presidency of the European Union, to act to take effective account of open science practices in individual and collective research evaluations. It is about initiating a process of sustainable transformation in order to make open science a common and shared practice…”

Plan S Archives – iRights.info – Kreativität und Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt (Open skimming: How scientific publishing changes in the transition to open access)

From Google’s English:

“Access to scientific texts free of charge and freely – this should soon become the standard. Scientific publishers are also trying to take advantage of the transition to Open Access, for example with fees for authors and data tracking. Tilman Reitz analyzes what the open access transformation means for science and what design options there are.”

Practical Idealism: UC’s Approach to Open Access

MacKenzie Smith, University Librarian and Vice Provost of Digital Scholarship at the University of California, Davis, provides the following commentary on UC’s recent transformative agreements with Elsevier and other publishers.

Report on the OPERAS-P Workshop “The Future of Scholarly Communication”

The Future of Scholarly Communication

“The Future of Scholarly Communication” workshop was organised as a part of OPERAS Innovation Lab, which aims to facilitate communication and knowledge exchange within a field of digital humanities. The OPERAS Innovation Lab is led by IBL PAN, a partner in the OPERAS-P consortium and Executive Assembly member.

The main task of OPERAS Innovation Lab is to conduct user research in order to define the actual needs of the community with regards to open scholarly communication. Another important task is also analysing the existing innovative solutions in this field. These activities allow to improve, prepare – and sometimes prototype – services that respond to the needs of the community. 

The activities of the OPERAS Innovation Lab officially started within the WP6 “Innovation” in the OPERAS-P project. See the main findings and recommendations for stakeholders involved in scholarly communication in the final report “Future of Scholarly Communication. Forging an inclusive and innovative research infrastructure for scholarly communication in Social Sciences and Humanities” (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4922512) and in detailed task reports openly published on Zenodo

To further discuss and develop the future of scholarly communication, the OPERAS-P virtual workshop, “The Future of Scholarly Communication,” was held on February 24th–26th. During the three days of seminars, 341 participants discussed digital transformation challenges in humanities and social sciences (SSH).

The seminars were linked to a question: How can we effectively develop digital tools in order to apply novel research approaches, build interdisciplinary collaboration, raise the prestige of Open Access contributions and disseminate them outside academia? 

On each day two seminars were held. The two workshops on the first day were devoted to governance and business models. The panelists and participants discussed how new models of governance should embrace cultural and language diversity of research teams in SSH. They brought up the issue of institutional hierarchy within academia as opposed to more horizontal models specific for projects in digital humanities. The second panel concerned business models and publishing practices for academic books and monographs – an underdeveloped area of Open Access. 

On the second day, participants delved into bibliodiversity and multilingualism in SSH. In SSH disciplines, language is not only a tool but also an object of research. Using native languages is often crucial for these disciplines to achieve meaningful impact in local communities. Panelists debated  how digital tools should address this need and facilitate multilingual research and collaboration. The next panel was dedicated to processing academic publications as research data according to the FAIR principles (making them findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable). 

On the last day, panelists discussed the future of scholarly writing: publishing practices and scholars’ needs in the time of Open Access development. The starting point was a case study analysis of tools, services and digital projects enriched with interviews with researchers, librarians and publishers. The last panel was devoted to evaluation and assessment of academic writing. Its purpose was to exchange ideas for new models of evaluation that will take into account various types of academic achievements, such as monographs or digital editions and projects. 

“The Future of Scholarly Communication” workshop was organised as a part of OPERAS Innovation Lab, which aims to facilitate communication and knowledge exchange within a field of digital humanities. The OPERAS Innovation Lab is led by IBL PAN, a partner in the OPERAS Consortium.

You may find presentations from the seminars published here and the results were summed up in the report.


A short overview on the OPERAS Innovation Lab is given in this video presentation:

Maciej Maryl, Director, Digital Humanities Centre, IBL PAN” and Marta Blaszczynska, Coordinator, Digital Humanities Centre, IBL PAN” present the OPERAS Innovation Lab coordinated by the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IBL PAN)! #OPERASLab


Funding OPERAS-P

VIDEO RECORDING and Slides: LIBER 2021 Session #2: Powering Sustainable Open Publishing Platforms

Slides are available here:

https://zenodo.org/record/5036195#.YONQY-gzY2w

Description

Vanessa Proudman presents the results of ‘The Diamond Open Access Study’, a research study commissioned by cOAlition S. In her presentation, a new understanding of the OA Diamond sector and its maturity with respect to editorial quality assurance practices and Plan S technical requirements will be shared. Additionally, she will discuss key perceived challenges of OA Diamond journal editors and the current financial sustainability of the sector. Most importantly, she will be presenting the new OA publishing Commons, which seeks to bring together the world’s community-driven/governed journals and platforms, connect them and technically support them in a new, increasingly coordinated and sustainable way.

Next, Natalia Grygierczyk discusses an innovative model for Diamond Open Access scientific publishing, explaining not just its theoretical foundations, but also how it is actually implemented in the newly started OA Radboud University Press (OA RUP). Within the new cooperative model, the OA RUP aims to enable, guide, and support academic editorial boards in the transition process to Diamond Open Access. This presentation provides an overview of the new publishing model, its operational activities, and financial aspects. It concretely describes the collaborative process with various service providers, how the OA RUP is financially sustainable in the long term and how cost-effectiveness is achieved in the transition to Open Access.

Finally, Rebecca Wojturska provides insight into the world of launching a library-based Open Access book-hosting service. The presentation will reflect on the timeline, successes and learning points of the current University of Edinburgh library project and provide recommendations and conclusions to attendees. It will also discuss how to grow a book-hosting service and how it is useful in supporting teaching and learning. Finally, it will consider the technical requirements of such a project and share anecdotal evidence from academic and student users to document the successes of the University of Edinburgh library project and launch. As such, the primary audience for this presentation is the librarian who is beginning their own book-hosting service, or who is considering it, as well as those interested in Open Access publishing.

 

 

 

EOSC-Pillar Business Model Workshop | EOSC-Pillar

“The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) initiative aims to support data-driven research and innovation through shared services and digital facilities enabling archiving, management, access, reuse and further analysis of publicly funded research data and advanced digital objects. Services and digital facilities should operate in accordance with the FAIR principles and policies across disciplines and borders to better deliver scientific and societal benefits. 

Such a vision requires a science-driven shaping strategy, built on a proper understanding of the needs and practices of research communities and organizations and the way these needs are currently satisfied. It also requires understanding of the various challenges and barriers to the development of sustainable business models….

The main objective of this webinar, co-organised by EOSC-Pillar and NI4OS-Europe, is to discuss current practices in business models. The topics cover open data portals, research and e-infrastructures, digital infrastructures, etc. (funding, procurement strategies, service procurement, data access policy, etc.). …”