Data Cartels: The Companies That Control and Monopolize Our Information – Sarah Lamdan

“In our digital world, data is power. Information hoarding businesses reign supreme, using intimidation, aggression, and force to maintain influence and control. Sarah Lamdan brings us into the unregulated underworld of these “data cartels”, demonstrating how the entities mining, commodifying, and selling our data and informational resources perpetuate social inequalities and threaten the democratic sharing of knowledge.

 

 

 

“Just a few companies dominate most of our critical informational resources. Often self-identifying as “data analytics” or “business solutions” operations, they supply the digital lifeblood that flows through the circulatory system of the internet. With their control over data, they can prevent the free flow of information, masterfully exploiting outdated information and privacy laws and curating online information in a way that amplifies digital racism and targets marginalized communities. They can also distribute private information to predatory entities. Alarmingly, everything they’re doing is perfectly legal.

 

 

 

In this book, Lamdan contends that privatization and tech exceptionalism have prevented us from creating effective legal regulation. This in turn has allowed oversized information oligopolies to coalesce. In addition to specific legal and market-based solutions, Lamdan calls for treating information like a public good and creating digital infrastructure that supports our democratic ideals….”

Speculation on the Most Likely OSTP Nelson Memo Implementation Scenario and the Resulting Publisher Strategies – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Unlike Plan S, this is not a policy intended to regulate (or radically reshape) an industry. That is beyond the goal or remit of the Nelson Memo, even if it will impact some business models. What it does is to regulate the conditions required for a researcher to receive federal research funding, and that is where implementation will focus. It will set requirements on funded researchers, not pick a business model that publishers must follow. On this point, the policies will be agnostic, even if they have impact. The difference is important. Implementation plans will specify an end state, and likely say little (if anything) about the route to that end state. That will be left up to the researcher and their service providers (e.g., publishers) to sort out.

Second, one must look at the policy implementations that are currently in place as a result of the Holdren Memo. Presently, funded authors must ensure that a copy of at least the Accepted Manuscript (AM) version of the paper (or better) is deposited in their funder’s designated repository and made publicly available at or before the time when the allowable embargo period, currently 12 months, expires. Funding agencies, particularly the large agencies covered by the Holdren Memo, are conservative organizations, and given that there is currently no additional funding available to support this new policy and that they already have successful infrastructure in place, Occam’s Razor points to the most likely solution as “more of the same, just sooner”….

Again, the Nelson Memo guidance is explicitly agnostic with regard to business models. An insistence on CC BY would most likely eliminate many potential routes to compliance and result in driving things toward the article processing charge (APC) Gold OA model. By leaving out licensing requirements, a broader slate of more equitable routes come into play….

This suggests that APC-driven Gold OA, with its many inequities, may well end up as the dominant route to compliance, largely by default if no other alternatives are sustainable. In some fields Green OA may not be an option for authors if most publishers decide that they have to flip to Gold OA in order to survive.”

 

FORCE11 and COPE Release Recommendations on Data Publishing Ethics for Publishers and Repositories: A Discussion with the Working Group Leadership – The Scholarly Kitchen

“FORCE11 was formed out of a community of researchers, publishers, librarians and software developers who found common cause in attempting to rethink the ecosystem of scholarly communications and get the community to leverage the benefits of electronic scholarship.  Over the years, the group has been at the forefront of initiatives such as data citation, the FAIR initiative, software citation and its use in scholarship, as well as researcher rights among others. Partnerships have also been core to FORCE11’s mission with many of these initiatives being joint efforts across the community including with the Research Data Alliance (RDA), Research Software Alliance (ReSA), UCLA, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  

Last fall, the joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publication Ethics Working Group published recommendations for the ethical handling of research data publication. The group has built on the recommendations and released policy templates for journals and publishers, as well as data repositories. Both are freely available via the FORCE11 website. The leaders of this group, Daniella Lowenberg and Iratxe Puebla, along with group member Matthew Cannon, shared their reflections on the project, its goals, and what the group has accomplished ….”

Frankfurt Book Fair 2022: A ‘Seismic Transformation’ in Scholarly Publishing

“On August 25, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a landmark new public access policy set to be in place by the end of 2025. Questions remain as to how the policy directive will translate in practice, particularly with regard to licensing and funding arrangements. But there can be little doubt it will accelerate the transition to open access business models among scientific and scholarly publishers.

“We don’t know enough about the funding situation to make plans in earnest, so we’ll have to wait and see how the bigger federal agencies put the memo’s requirements into practice,” observes Sybille Geisenheyer, Director of Open Access Strategy and Licensing at the American Chemical Society (ACS). Nevertheless, Geisenheyer sees the OSTP policy announcement as a positive step. “I honestly welcome it, because it means we have a clear understanding of the direction of travel.” 

With the OSTP making clear that it expects to see “business model innovation” from publishers, so-called transformative agreements are likely to play a key role. And while these agreements come in a range of flavors, including so called read-and-publish and publish-and-read and other models, the common goal is to transition the payments made by libraries away from subscription access toward open access publication….”

Transition to Open Access: Tackling Complexity and Building Trust – Publishing Perspectives

“This spring, Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) presented a special “OA Innovation Seminar Series.” On behalf of Publishing Perspectives, Christopher Kenneally revisited comments from two guests who appeared in this series and are seeing positive outcomes in their transitions to open access….”

How the OA Switchboard fits into the ecosystem (PART 3/THE PUBLISHER)

“Academic publishers vary greatly in origin and purpose: learned societies, university presses, not-for-profit institutions, scholar-led initiatives, family-owned businesses, large (public) companies and more. A historical overview worth a read is here.

 

Publishers’ open access strategies and business models become more prevalent, increasingly complex and diverse (subscriptions, APC-based, diamond, through collective, community or institutional funding, for example). What do publishers do to navigate the open access research and publishing maze and how does OA Switchboard practically support them in this?…”

The past, present and future of publishing: Observations to celebrate ALPSP’s 50th year – Smart – 2022 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Sally Morris: Facilitated by online access, the rise of freely available preprint databases, and (partly as a publisher response to these) author-side funded free-to-read journals, has been a massive shift. According to one researcher I quizzed recently, he values both—preprints in order to get hold of the latest findings, and the published journal (whether or not free-to-read) for the fact that the article has been peer-reviewed. He does, however, resent the high author charges for publication in some of the top journals.

Josh Nicholson: Let me caveat this by saying that I have only really ever interacted with research when it was already online. I think scholarly publishing didn’t actually change so much when transitioning from print to online. I often compare Einstein’s 1916 paper predicting gravitational waves to the 2016 paper from CERN detecting gravitational waves to make this point. Despite 100?years in between publications and the transition from print to online, they look remarkably the same….

Niamh O’Connor: There are a quite a few worth noting! Enabled by the move online, we saw emergence of the Open Access (OA) movement. The initial aim of this was to ‘open’ the literature and allow everyone to access research outputs—at the time primarily articles. With the move to OA came a change in business models where instead of paying for a product (‘the journal’), payment was made for a publishing service—so aligned with the move to ‘servitization’ seen in the wider economy. Building on this, the megajournal (PLOS ONE being the first) fundamentally changed perception and practice around publication criteria. Both in terms of focus on work being ‘correct’ in the initial iteration, now on methodological and ethical rigor, and in terms of removing scope boundaries and allowing research in all fields of research to be published in a single journal. This is particularly important for interdisciplinary research.

And now we are seeing a transition to an Open Science ecosystem, explicitly acknowledging the interdependence of contributions to research and discovery. The 2021 UNESCO recommendation on Open Science ‘outlines a common definition, shared values, principles and standards for open science at the international level and proposes a set of actions conducive to a fair and equitable operationalization of open science for all’. Open Science allows and encourages us to rethink how we share and consume research to make that move from the constraints of the physical format and take advantage of the opportunities provided by a digital world—and there is a long way to go yet! …”

The past, present and future of publishing: Observations to celebrate ALPSP’s 50th year – Smart – 2022 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Sally Morris: Facilitated by online access, the rise of freely available preprint databases, and (partly as a publisher response to these) author-side funded free-to-read journals, has been a massive shift. According to one researcher I quizzed recently, he values both—preprints in order to get hold of the latest findings, and the published journal (whether or not free-to-read) for the fact that the article has been peer-reviewed. He does, however, resent the high author charges for publication in some of the top journals.

Josh Nicholson: Let me caveat this by saying that I have only really ever interacted with research when it was already online. I think scholarly publishing didn’t actually change so much when transitioning from print to online. I often compare Einstein’s 1916 paper predicting gravitational waves to the 2016 paper from CERN detecting gravitational waves to make this point. Despite 100?years in between publications and the transition from print to online, they look remarkably the same….

Niamh O’Connor: There are a quite a few worth noting! Enabled by the move online, we saw emergence of the Open Access (OA) movement. The initial aim of this was to ‘open’ the literature and allow everyone to access research outputs—at the time primarily articles. With the move to OA came a change in business models where instead of paying for a product (‘the journal’), payment was made for a publishing service—so aligned with the move to ‘servitization’ seen in the wider economy. Building on this, the megajournal (PLOS ONE being the first) fundamentally changed perception and practice around publication criteria. Both in terms of focus on work being ‘correct’ in the initial iteration, now on methodological and ethical rigor, and in terms of removing scope boundaries and allowing research in all fields of research to be published in a single journal. This is particularly important for interdisciplinary research.

And now we are seeing a transition to an Open Science ecosystem, explicitly acknowledging the interdependence of contributions to research and discovery. The 2021 UNESCO recommendation on Open Science ‘outlines a common definition, shared values, principles and standards for open science at the international level and proposes a set of actions conducive to a fair and equitable operationalization of open science for all’. Open Science allows and encourages us to rethink how we share and consume research to make that move from the constraints of the physical format and take advantage of the opportunities provided by a digital world—and there is a long way to go yet! …”

C4DISC Webinar: From Recognition to Action: Strategies for Developing Diversity Training for Editors | Oct 26, 2022

Summary: “Editors play a crucial role in the publication process and are keystones to promoting an inclusive and respectful environment for their contributors. Recognizing that editors are the key to improving equity, diversity, and inclusivity in their journals and books, several publishers have developed formal diversity trainings or written resources for their editors. In this webinar, we will hear from publishers and subject matter experts as they recount their experiences and lessons learned in developing diversity and anti-bias training specifically for editors. ”

Moderator: Ana Heredia

Speakers:

Stephanie Pollack, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Lead, American Psychological Association
Annie Hill, Editorial Director. American Psychological Association
Shaina Lange, Manager, Publication Ethics, American Chemical Society
Dr. Joseph Willaims, Associate Professor, University of Virginia, Affirm Consulting LLC, CEO

Plan S’ Journal Comparison Service – guidance and practical input – OASPA | October 10, 2022

“The end-user portal of cOAlition S’ Journal Comparison Service (JCS) launched on 28th September and is now live.  Publishers are being invited by Plan S to populate their transparency data* into the JCS. The JCS is a secure, free, online service aiming to enable those who procure publishing services to better understand what they are paying for. It also represents a way for publishers to achieve greater transparency on their services and related pricing….”

Pratt and Punctum: A Program on Open Access and Climate Justice Tickets, Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:00 PM | Eventbrite

“Speakers include: Eileen Fradenburg Joy, Founder and Director of Punctum Books; Marina Zurkow, Multimedia Artist and Instructor at Tisch School of the Arts; Moderated by Matthew Garklavs, Electronic Resources Librarian at Pratt Institute Libraries. In observance of International Open Access Week, Pratt Institute Libraries is hosting a virtual event to showcase its partnership with Punctum Books. Since the theme for Open Access Week this year is “Climate Justice”, the program will explore how Open Access publishers like Punctum serve as good platforms for sharing knowledge and expressing ideas on this timely topic….”

Thriving in an OA future: A Conversation with Wiley’s Jay Flynn | Charleston Conference 2022 | November 2 (In Person) and November 16 (Online)

“Presented by Heather Staines, Senior Strategy Consultant, Delta Think; Jay Flynn, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Wiley. The publishing industry has seen many transitions, but the shift to OA disrupts conventional business models in a way that earlier shifts, like print to digital, did not. The world is moving ahead at different paces with Europe quietly making a major pivot, while the landscape in the US and beyond is significantly more fragmented. Publishers, and in particular society publishers, may find themselves struggling to navigate these developments. Transformative agreements are changing the publication landscape, but their impact on global research production and consumption is uneven. Adding services to content and developing new revenue streams may be one way to navigate this shift, but new models require new infrastructure and new capabilties. This conversation will address the wider trends in the scholarly communication ecosystem, but with a focus on-the-ground experience and practical steps that are being taken now to ensure future sustainability. The session will be an interview format with Heather Staines asking some starter questions then opening up to audience input….”

Towards climate justice: the role of cross-disciplinary Open Access research | OUPblog

“Climate change is a global problem requiring global solutions. To find ways to mitigate for the huge environmental and societal impacts we are facing across the world, scientists and scholars, policy makers, governments, and industry leaders need to connect and collaborate effectively.   Open access publishing has a role to play in facilitating the discourse needed, by ensuring that the most up-to-date research is accessible, re-usable, and available to a wide audience quickly. At OUP, our flagship open access series, Oxford Open, includes several journals which connect researchers working in fields relevant to climate justice and which foster wider, more interdisciplinary collaboration. Below we hear from several of our Oxford Open Editors who elaborate on what this year’s Open Access Week theme “Open for Climate Justice” means to them….”

IOP Publishing expands open access offer to Latin America through unlimited transformative agreement  – IOP Publishing

“IOP Publishing (IOPP) has reached an unlimited transformative agreement with the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) allowing affiliated researchers to publish their work open access (OA) at no cost to them. The fees for publishing their work openly will be covered centrally by UNAM, a public research university ranked as one of the best and biggest universities in Latin America….”

The Bookseller – News – Springer Nature revenues up as profit climbed 12% in 2021

“Springer Nature’s revenue grew 4.5% to €1.7bn (£1.5bn) in 2021 while adjusted operating profit climbed 12%, the company has revealed in its first ever annual progress report.

Revenue rose from €1.63bn (£1.4bn) in 2020, but was marginally down on 2019’s €1.72bn (£1.5bn). Adjusted operating profit increased to €443m (£387m) from €396m (£346m) the year before and €411m (£360m) in 2019, attributed to “strong revenue growth and careful cost management adopted in response to the economic uncertainties caused by the pandemic”. …”