Updates on Parasitology and adopting a Gold Open Access Model of production | Parasitology | Cambridge Core

“Many readers will have noted that all published articles within Parasitology from January 2022 onwards were available online only. The hardcopy production, like many other academic journals, has now ceased. This is true not only for regular issues but also for forthcoming special issues. Moreover, from January 2023, Parasitology will become Open Access (OA) where we adopt a Gold Open Access Model, specifically a non-exclusive Gold Open Access CC-BY licence….”

Webinar: Open Access and Creative Commons licenses – Courses & calendars – Københavns Universitetsbibliotek

“Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses that enable free distribution of copyrighted works and permit licensees to modify and build upon the works depending on license. The licenses are also the most used licenses on research outputs such as articles and datasets. 

This webinar will give an introduction to the Creative Commons licenses and how they are used within Open Access publishing.

The webinar will focus on: 

The anatomy and features of the Creative Commons licenses. 
The Journals’ use of Creative Commons licenses. 
The Funders’ requirements to use Creative Commons licenses. 
How Copenhagen University Library supports researchers in the usage of Creative Commons licenses. …”

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia joins cOAlition S | Plan S

Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the first Australian organisation to join cOAlition S and the country’s first funding agency to introduce the requirement that scholarly publications arising from the research it funds must be made freely available and accessible.

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing – OASPA

“The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organisations that have seen an increase in the number, and broad range in the quality, of membership applications. Our organisations have collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly publications and to clarify that these principles form the basis of the criteria by which suitability for membership is assessed by COPE, DOAJ and OASPA, and part of the criteria on which membership applications are evaluated by WAME. Each organisation also has their own, additional criteria which are used when evaluating applications. The organisations will not share lists of or journals that failed to demonstrate that they met the criteria for transparency and best practice.

This is the third version of a work in progress (published January 2018); the first version was made available by OASPA in December 2013 and a second version in June 2015. We encourage its wide dissemination and continue to welcome feedback on the general principles and the specific criteria. Background on the organisations is below….”

Revised principles of transparency and best practice released | OASPA

A revised version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing has been released by four key scholarly publishing organizations today. These guiding principles are intended as a foundation for best practice in scholarly publishing to help existing and new journals reach the best possible standards. 

The fourth edition of the Principles represents a collective effort between the four organizations to align the principles with today’s scholarly publishing landscape. The last update was in 2018, and the scholarly publishing landscape has changed. Guidance is provided on the information that should be made available on websites, peer review, access, author fees and publication ethics. The principles also cover ownership and management, copyright and licensing, and editorial policies. They stress the need for inclusivity in scholarly publishing and emphasize that editorial decisions should be based on merit and not affected by factors such as the origins of the manuscript and the nationality, political beliefs or religion of the author.

 

Help shape Open Energy: register your interest for Advisory Groups ? Icebreaker One

“The aim of the Data Licensing Advisory group is to develop the standard licences that are required to allow Shared Data to flow through Open Energy Access Control, in alignment with the Data Sensitivity classes. This will include key policies, such as conditions for participation, roles and responsibilities. The outputs of this group will be the necessary licences and requirements for a functioning Access Control. …”

Libraries take charge

“The Open Access publishing landscape: why academic libraries are entering the Open Access publishing space….

Academic publishing is changing, and university libraries are becoming more intrinsically woven into the fabric of the new landscape. Although publishers affiliated with universities, such as Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, have been around for centuries, university libraries are now launching their own publishing and content hosting initiatives, usually with a sole focus on Open Access. If you’re not familiar with it, Open Access is part of a movement to facilitate the free exchange of knowledge and widen access globally. It often entails publishing academic articles, books, resources and content under public copyright licences, usually Creative Commons licenses, to enable free distribution and reuse of the work under certain conditions.

 

The past decade has seen the launch of several new university presses in the UK dedicated to publishing Open Access research, including Cardiff University Press (launched in 2014), UCL Press (2015), the University of Westminster Press (2015), White Rose Press (2016) and, most recently, the Scottish Universities Press (2022). At the same time, libraries have been carving out their own space in the publishing sphere, providing hosting solutions to their academics, staff and students. Initiatives include the University of St Andrews Journal Hosting Service, Liverpool John Moores University Open Journals Service and Edinburgh Diamond (which I manage)….”

Zero Embargo | Clarke & Esposito

“A scenario that has been on the minds of publishers over the past decade (and incorporated into strategic planning scenarios by many publishers) is the possibility of “zero embargo.” In 2013, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued policy guidance to agencies in the form of the OSTP memorandum on “Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research” (the “2013 Memorandum,” also widely referred to as the “Holdren Memo” because it was issued by John Holdren, at the time the Director of OSTP). The Holdren Memo directed federal agencies in the US with annual research and development budgets of more than $100 million to develop access policies to ensure public access to federally funded research. While the Holdren Memo provided wide latitude to agencies on many of the specifics, the memo put forth a 12-month post-publication embargo period as a guideline. By “post-publication embargo period,” the Holdren Memo was referring to the period between publication of an article resulting from funded research in a journal and the freely accessible public release of that journal article in the form of either the author accepted manuscript (AAM) or the final published version of record (VOR). 

OSTP is an office of the White House and as such sets policy on behalf of the US President. The US federal agencies—including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and so on—are part of the Executive Branch and therefore under White House oversight. Any OSTP policy can be revised by a subsequent administration, and one possibility has always been that the 12-month post-publication embargo could be shortened, potentially to zero. Indeed, such a scenario almost occurred during the Trump administration when such a memorandum was drafted, though it was never ultimately issued.  

Rumors have been circulating for months that the Biden administration has been reviewing the Holdren Memo as part of a wider review of open science policy. Last week, Alondra Nelson (currently heading OSTP) issued a memorandum titled “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research” (the “2022 Memorandum, or the “Nelson Memo”). The Nelson Memo is accompanied by an impact statement titled “Economic Landscape of Federal Public Access Policy” (the “2022 Impact Statement”), which was submitted to Congress pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The 2022 Memorandum directs federal agencies to develop policies that will require free public release of research articles upon publication, and that all supporting research data behind the articles be similarly made immediately and freely available.

The zero embargo scenario has arrived….”

How to search for images you can (legally) use for free – The Verge

“If you’re looking for an image that you can repurpose for one of your projects and aren’t able to take a photo yourself, there are a ton of free images you can use online without running into any copyright issues — you just have to know where to look.

Here, we’ll go over different places where you can search for free images on the web. It’s worth noting that when searching for free images, you’ll often come across the Creative Commons (CC) license that lets you use an image for free. But depending on the type of CC license an image has, there may be some limitations that require you to credit the original artist or prevent you from making modifications to the image….”

Accelerating pooled licensing of medicines to enhance global production and equitable access – The Lancet

“From October to November, 2021, the pharmaceutical firms Merck and Pfizer licensed their new COVID-19 oral antiviral medications to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). In both cases, the drugs were licensed quickly, before they were launched, and the MPP then reached agreements with pharmaceutical firms across the globe (27 firms for Merck’s molnupiravir and 36 firms for Pfizer’s nirmatrelvir) to provide generic versions of these to roughly 100 low-income and middle-income countries. This Viewpoint examines the importance of these licences for the global production of, and access to, new medicines, during the pandemic and beyond. It would be a welcome development for these arrangements, which can generate sufficient volumes of production to avoid the supply shortages that encumbered the global vaccination response, to be an indication of a future in which new drugs have multiple suppliers in most low-income and middle-income countries. To explore that possibility, the Viewpoint highlights the political conditions that could make originator firms more inclined to license their products quickly to the MPP, and discusses how public policy can build on the opportunity created by these conditions to promote such licensing further….”

 

Accelerating pooled licensing of medicines to enhance global production and equitable access – The Lancet

“From October to November, 2021, the pharmaceutical firms Merck and Pfizer licensed their new COVID-19 oral antiviral medications to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). In both cases, the drugs were licensed quickly, before they were launched, and the MPP then reached agreements with pharmaceutical firms across the globe (27 firms for Merck’s molnupiravir and 36 firms for Pfizer’s nirmatrelvir) to provide generic versions of these to roughly 100 low-income and middle-income countries. This Viewpoint examines the importance of these licences for the global production of, and access to, new medicines, during the pandemic and beyond. It would be a welcome development for these arrangements, which can generate sufficient volumes of production to avoid the supply shortages that encumbered the global vaccination response, to be an indication of a future in which new drugs have multiple suppliers in most low-income and middle-income countries. To explore that possibility, the Viewpoint highlights the political conditions that could make originator firms more inclined to license their products quickly to the MPP, and discusses how public policy can build on the opportunity created by these conditions to promote such licensing further….”

 

Why Meta’s project to translate automatically between 200 languages will be stymied by copyright – Walled Culture

“Unfortunately, Meta’s grand vision is unlikely to be realised – because of copyright. Unless online material is released under a permissive licence such as the ones devised by Creative Commons, it will be necessary to obtain permission from the copyright holder before a full translation can be made using Facebook’s new tools. It will only take a few high-profile lawsuits from bullying publishers to frighten people away from daring to translate mainstream online articles into their own, poorly-served language without a licence.

And so, once again, copyright maximalism will throttle an exciting chance to make the world a better, fairer place by improving access to knowledge – and all to preserve the sanctity of an outdated intellectual monopoly….”

Exclusive licence to publish – now here’s a thing | Plan S

by Sally Rumsey, Jisc’s cOAlition S OA Expert Imagine this scenario. You’ve written an article and want to make it Open Access (OA). To do this, you submit it to a journal that enables gold OA, i.e. the publisher makes the article immediately OA on publication. You decide to apply a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND licence to your manuscript. This licence does not allow users, by default, to make commercial use (NC=non-commercial) nor derivatives (ND=no derivatives) unless they receive a corresponding authorisation. On acceptance, the publisher of the journal presents you with a Licence to Publish (LTP). This is where the problems surrounding the assignment of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence start. The LTP comprises the grant of a licence to the publisher by you, the original copyright holder and licensor, required for the publisher to publish your article. It also includes a long list of Terms & Conditions created by the publisher. For now, I’ll skate over the fact that you, as the author, are the original copyright holder, and as such, it is you who grants the LTP. Nevertheless, the LTP and its terms and conditions are written by the publisher using their terms – I have written about this unacceptable cock-eyed situation previously (see Licence to publish – the boot is on the wrong foot). […]  

EU/EEA routine surveillance open data policy

“Aggregate EU/EEA epidemiological routine surveillance data shall be:

As open as possible and as closed as necessary to protect personal or commercially sensitive information;
Compatible with the FAIR principles, i.e. findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable;
Publicly and easily accessible to any interested party regardless of their motivation;
Accessible free of charge through a standardised open access license;
Shared as timely as possible….”

Data Protections and Licenses Affecting Text and Data Mining for Machine Learning

Undated.

Abstract:  Machines don’t read works or data. Machines need to first abstract and then format data for learning and then apply tagging and other metadata to model the data into something the machine can “understand.” Legal protections aren’t purpose-built to allow machines to abstract data from a work, process it, model it, and then re-present it. Most licenses aren’t purpose-built for that either. This document walks the reader through all the known protections and licenses as to whether they cover machine learning practices. It then postulates a proposed license structure for that purpose.