Here’s another important reason why academics should publish in open access titles: self interest – Walled Culture

“What this means in practice is that for the general public open access articles are even more beneficial than those published in traditional titles, since they frequently turn up as Wikipedia sources that can be consulted directly. They are also advantageous for the researchers who write them, since their work is more likely to be cited on the widely-read and influential Wikipedia than if the papers were not open access. As the research notes, this effect is even more pronounced for “articles with low citation counts” – basically, academic work that may be important but is rather obscure. This new paper provides yet another compelling reason why researchers should be publishing their work as open access as a matter of course: out of pure self interest.”

Why preprint? | Zavarka

“Preprints have been around and used extensively (particularly in maths and physics) for over 30 years at this point (arXiv was founded in 1991). Most major funders and journals recognise preprints, probably the majority of funders now have open access requirements that can be fulfilled with preprints, and a few are even mandating their use. It’s actually not much younger than the widespread use of peer review, which didn’t become a de facto standard until the 1960s-1970s (Nature didn’t use it until 1973 for example).

Preprinting papers is a huge advantage to authors, and the data is stark. Papers in biology which originally appeared as preprints get 36% more citations and the advantage is immediate and long lasting.

To make the argument clearer, let’s break it down into the different roles that preprints can have….”

Open Access Publishing in CMI – Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract:  Open access is a publishing model for academic texts that makes articles freely and permanently available to readers, and assigns the copyright to the author. This differs from the traditional subscription model in which readers must pay a subscription in order to have access to scholarly information. Articles that are published open access benefit by having greater visibility and impact, including access in developing countries.


Working towards an open, collaborative and reproducible data culture in archaeology | Zenodo

Abstract:  Data sharing is part of the recent developments in opening up scientific research (a movement also known as Open Science/Scholarship). By opening up more aspects of research than just the final output in the form of a publication, the transparency of scientific research increases and reproducibility of results improves. Opening up the scientific process also promotes equitable access to resources, facilitates collaborations, and allows for the recognition of outputs other than the traditional scientific publication, such as data, code and analysis protocols. Many funders (for example, the European Commission and Wellcome) and publishers (such as the American Journal of Biological Anthropology) now also require researchers to share the data underlying publications whenever possible. This talk will go deeper into ethical considerations of data sharing and why data sharing is beneficial. You will be introduced to tools that facilitate data sharing, as well as communities where you can find support throughout your journey towards a more open, collaborative, and reproducible data culture.


Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Korean Journal of Internal Medicine perspectives

Abstract:  Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint’s content and authors’ list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.


David Eaves: ‘The open data battle now is to demonstrate value, and that’s hard to do’ – Open Knowledge Foundation blog

“Starting January 2023, we are meeting 100+ people to discuss the future of open knowledge, shaped by a diverse set of visions from artists, activists, academics, archivists, thinkers, policymakers, data scientists, educators and community leaders from all over the world. 

The Open Knowledge Foundation’s team wants to identify and debate issues sensitive to our movement and use this effort to constantly shape our actions and business strategies to deliver in the best possible way what the community expects from us and from our Network, a pioneering organization that has been defining the standards of the open movement for two decades.

Another objective is to include the perspectives of people from diverse backgrounds, especially those from marginalised communities, from dissident identities, and whose geographic location is outside the world’s major financial powers.

How openness can speed up and strengthen the fights against the complex challenges of our times? This is the key question behind conversations like the one you can read below….”

The chasm between the scholarly record and grey literature | Research Information

“In January, nine organisations timed the release of new research with the specific aim of impacting the discussions of political and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Three of the nine, sharing findings about global risks, tax, and trust, attracted significant media attention. None of the reports are available via a publisher. They matter not just because of their impact but because they are but the tip of a growing mountain of valuable research that is being posted, not published. And, because it is posted, not published, it’s a growing mountain of vital research that’s missing from the scholarly record….”

The benefits of journal-independent open peer review | Research Information

“I launched PeerRef in late 2021 to address some of the problems with peer review. At PeerRef, we organise open peer review of preprints and publish reviewer reports on our platform. We aim to make peer review open, provide researchers with more choice in how their research is shared and evaluated, and eliminate the need for repeated peer review in successive journals….

A benefit of journal-independent peer review is that a reviewer does not consider whether a piece of research is suitable for a specific journal, nor do they act as a journal gatekeeper. This puts the rigour and validity of the research at the centre of the assessment and allows the reviewer to focus on constructive feedback. I believe this will increase the quality of feedback, making peer review more useful to authors….

Momentum is growing around journal-independent peer review of preprints. eLife has created Sciety, which aggregates peer reviewed preprints and allows anyone to curate lists of reviewed preprints. JMIR is also supporting journal-independent peer review with their Plan P initiative. Funders are in support of journal-independent peer review. In 2022 cOAlition S made the statement that they consider peer reviewed preprints to have equivalent merit to peer-reviewed journal publications. HHMI, ASAPbio and EMBO recently organised a meeting between funders, publishers, researchers, and peer review platforms with the aim of creating funder, institutional, and journal policies for the peer review of preprints. Several resources have resulted from that meeting, which ASAPbio have posted on their website. All funders and publishers can help drive this change by establishing policies that recognise and encourage journal-independent peer review….”

Benefits of open access (OA) to researchers from lower-income countries: Tracing evidence through an analysis of reference patterns

Abstract:  Making scientific literature freely available to everyone is a main objective of the open access (OA) movement. This may be of particular importance to researchers in lower-income countries, where access to literature is often hindered by high subscription costs. This study addresses this issue by analyzing reference lists of the world’s output of scientific publications over time. The core issues addressed include whether researchers from lower-income countries refer to fewer previous publications when they publish and how this pattern develops over time. Moreover, whether researchers from lower-income countries rely more on literature that is openly available through different OA routes than other researchers is explored. The study shows that the proportion of OA references increases over time for all publications and country groups. However, the main finding is that publications from lower-income countries have a higher growth rate of OA references. This suggests that an increase in OA publishing has been particularly beneficial to researchers in lower-income countries.

Adoption of a rights retention policy by academic and research institutions in India: a door to open science

“The Government of India is considering a one nation, one subscription (ONOS) policy to enable green open access to readers in India to journal articles published by the identified publishers. However, even if this succeeds, it will not provide green open access to pay-walled articles published by Indian researchers to readers outside the country or to readers in India to journals not covered under the ONOS. On the other hand, adoption of RRP by country’s educational and research institutions will enable free access to the country’s research output everywhere in the world. The ‘Open Science Policy’ (2014) of Departments of Biotechnology, and Science & Technology of the Government of India ( APPROVED%20OPEN%20ACC-ESS%20POLICY-DBT& DST(12.12.2014)_1.pdf) requires final accepted manuscript resulting from research projects, fully or partially funded by DBT/DST to be deposited at the institutional repositories or the interoperable institutional open access repository or the central harvester ( A rigorous implementation of this policy and the adoption of RRP by different academic and research institutions in the country will indeed open a wide door to the muchdesired open science…”

Experimenting with open science practices at the STI 2023 conference – Leiden Madtrics

“As organizers of the STI 2023 conference, we introduce two open science experiments: We adopt a new publication and peer review process and we invite authors of conference contributions to reflect on their open science practices.

The adoption of open science practices has become a prominent topic of study for the science studies community. However, the research practices of the community itself are still quite traditional. While open access publishing, preprinting, open peer review, open data sharing, and other open science practices are gradually becoming more common in the science studies community, the adoption of these practices is still at a relatively low level.

Given the community’s deep understanding of the research system, we think we should be able to do a better job. As organizers of this year’s Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators conference (STI 2023), we therefore introduce two open science experiments: We adopt a new publication and peer review process, fully aligned with state-of-the-art open science practices, and we invite authors of contributions submitted to the conference to reflect on their own open science practices….”

Egenis, the Centre for the Study of Life Sciences : Seminars : Is Open Science Good for Research? :

“This public debate brings together world-leading scholars working at the intersection of Open Science, Science and Technology Studies and the philosophy of science, to discuss the value, opportunities and challenges involved in making research more open. The Open Science movement has been tremendously successful, spurring a global shift in research policies, evaluation procedures and publication channels. At first sight, this seems to be a very good thing: a necessary development in the face of research and publication practices that have grown more and more restrictive, inaccessible and (arguably) unreliable over the last few decades. At the same time, the specific ways in which science is being made open – ranging from Open Access publishing agreements to Open Data mandates by funders and research institutions – are proving controversial and, in some cases, downright damaging to at least some forms of research.

The panel will debate the pros and cons of Open Science policies and practices, with ample time devoted to interventions from the audience. We aim for this session to foster a frank exchange of views over the ongoing transformation of the research landscape, and the ways it affect scientific work at the University of Exeter and beyond. This debate is organised by the PHIL_OS project ( ) and generously sponsored by the European Research Council, the Exeter Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences, the Open Science team at the Library of the University of Exeter, and the Institute for Data Science and AI.

Speakers: Helen Longino (Stanford University), Rachel Ankeny (University of Adelaide), Cameron Neylon (Curtin University) and Sally Wyatt (University of Maastricht)….”

Amending the literature through version control | Biology Letters

Abstract:  The ideal of self-correction in science is not well served by the current culture and system surrounding amendments to published literature. Here we describe our view of how amendments could and should work by drawing on the idea of an author-led version control system. We report a survey (n = 132) that highlights academics’ dissatisfaction with the status quo and their support for such an alternative approach. Authors would include a link in their published manuscripts to an updatable website (e.g. a GitHub repository) that could be disseminated in the event of any amendment. Such a system is already in place for computer code and requires nothing but buy-in from the scientific community—a community that is already evolving towards open science frameworks. This would remove a number of frictions that discourage amendments leading to an improved scientific literature and a healthier academic climate.