FOASAS: Fair Open Access in South Asian Studies

“Profiteering and restricted access have led to a crisis in academic publishing. The Fair Open Access movement is best promoted by mobilizing individual disciplines. With this manifesto, we, an open group of scholars of classical and modern South Asian Studies, declare our support for Fair Open Access publishing….

The following publishers and journals meet many or all FOA criteria (see §7 of the FOASAS Manifesto). …”

 

ALPSP Copyright Committee responds to UKRI Open Access Policy | STM Publishing News

“The ALPSP Copyright Committee is concerned that the announcement of the UKRI’s new open access policy will have a negative impact on progress made to date.  Limiting the opportunity for funded articles to publish in hybrid journals does not benefit learned society authors as it restricts their choice on where to publish.  Whilst many ALPSP members are investigating whether a transformative/transitional agreement may be a viable option, many learned societies have found that the complexities involved in setting up and maintaining these agreements can be extremely  difficult, particularly for smaller societies who may only publish a few journals.  This may inadvertently put these smaller publishers at a distinct disadvantage and result in their journals no longer being selected by UKRI funded authors.

Additionally, making hybrid journals fully gold open access may not be possible in the near future if there is insufficient gold open access content to include in these journals.  This could well lead to major economic difficulties for many learned and professional societies.  Finally, requiring the publication of Accepted Manuscripts with no embargo and under a CC BY licence fails to recognise the significant investment learned societies will have made in getting to that version, including in terms of peer review and related value added publishing services.  As an unintended consequence, this would dilute the Version of Record and slow the speed of transition towards open access, as publishers and societies would continue to recover their investment through subscriptions.  Ultimately, without significant additional funding being added to the ecosystem in the short term to cover this, we are very concerned about the impact of this new policy on the UK publishing industry generally and on learned societies in particular….”

Social Science Reproduction Platforms

“The Social Science Reproduction Platform (SSRP) is an openly licensed platform that facilitates the sourcing, cataloging, and review of attempts to verify and improve the computational reproducibility of social science research. Computational reproducibility is the ability to reproduce the results, tables, and other figures found in research articles using the data, code, and materials made available by the authors. The SSRP is meant to be used in combination with the Guide for Accelerating Computational Reproducibility (ACRe Guide), a protocol that includes detailed steps and criteria for assessing and improving reproducibility.

Assessments of reproducibility often gravitate towards binary judgments that declare entire papers as “reproducible” or “not reproducible”. The SSRP allows for a more nuanced approach to reproducibility, where reproducers analyze individual claims and their associated display items, and take concrete steps to improve their reproducibility. SSRP reproductions are transparent and reproducible in themselves since they are based on the ACRe Guide’s standardized reproduction protocol and publicly document their analyses to allow for collaboration, discussion, and reuse. Sign up for a free account now to get started in improving computational reproducibility—one claim at a time!

SSRP was developed as part of the Accelerating Computational Reproducibility in Economics (ACRE) project led by the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS in collaboration with the AEA Data Editor)….”

Social Science Reproduction Platforms

“The Social Science Reproduction Platform (SSRP) is an openly licensed platform that facilitates the sourcing, cataloging, and review of attempts to verify and improve the computational reproducibility of social science research. Computational reproducibility is the ability to reproduce the results, tables, and other figures found in research articles using the data, code, and materials made available by the authors. The SSRP is meant to be used in combination with the Guide for Accelerating Computational Reproducibility (ACRe Guide), a protocol that includes detailed steps and criteria for assessing and improving reproducibility.

Assessments of reproducibility often gravitate towards binary judgments that declare entire papers as “reproducible” or “not reproducible”. The SSRP allows for a more nuanced approach to reproducibility, where reproducers analyze individual claims and their associated display items, and take concrete steps to improve their reproducibility. SSRP reproductions are transparent and reproducible in themselves since they are based on the ACRe Guide’s standardized reproduction protocol and publicly document their analyses to allow for collaboration, discussion, and reuse. Sign up for a free account now to get started in improving computational reproducibility—one claim at a time!

SSRP was developed as part of the Accelerating Computational Reproducibility in Economics (ACRE) project led by the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS in collaboration with the AEA Data Editor)….”

“Positively Disrupt(ing) Research Culture for the Better”: An Interview with Alexandra Freeman of Octopus – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In early August, it was announced that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) would provide significant funding for a new open publishing platform. Called Octopus, this initiative is not yet fully launched, but when it is it plans to “provide a new ‘primary research record’ for recording and appraising research “as it happens’”; UKRI calls Octopus “a ground-breaking global service which could positively disrupt research culture for the better.” I reached out to Octopus’s founder, Dr. Alexandra Freeman, to ask some questions about Octopus and its plans for the future….”

Exciting new feature in uO Research coming soon! | Library | University of Ottawa

“uO Research is the University of Ottawa’s open access institutional repository. It offers a global showcase for the digital research and teaching-related material produced by the uOttawa community by making it freely and permanently available on the web.

As of August 24th, 2021, all users will have the option to select a Creative Commons (CC) licence for their work during the submission process to uO Research. A CC licence is a simple and standardized way to grant copyright permissions for creative and academic works; ensure proper attribution; and allow others to copy, distribute, and make use of those works. …”

Let’s Get Creative about Licensing: Your Questions Answered about How to Retain Copyright While Allowing Others to Copy, Distribute, and Build Upon Your Work

“Are you an open scholar who would like to grant others select copyright permissions to your creative work? Are the layers of licensing options difficult to navigate? We’re here to help support you in this process and give you the fundamentals of what you need to know when choosing a license. This webinar will cover all of the frequently asked questions about choosing a license and what advantages these licenses offer to both your scholarship and the larger body of growing research.

Join moderator Joanna Schimizzi, Professional Learning Specialist at the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education, along with panelists Brandon Butler, Director of Information Policy, University of Virginia Library and Becca Neel, Assistant Director for Resource Management & User Experience, University of Southern Indiana for an informative discussion on licensing your research. If you have specific concerns or questions about licensing requirements and benefits, please email them in advance and we will do our best to address them.”

Open Access Books – Part II – Delta Think

“If a publisher decides to implement an OA books program, what does it do with older titles? Does it make its backlist retrospectively OA? Or reserve OA for frontlist titles only? (Or both?)….

The chart above analyzes the lead times in indexing books. It shows how many years after publication books were added to the index (the DOAB) and deemed to be made OA.

If titles are made OA in their year of publication (deemed to be frontlist titles), the lead time will be zero. Just over 25% of DOAB titles are frontlist.
If titles were made OA after their year of publication (deemed to be backlist titles), then the lead time will be a positive number. Around 16% of titles were made OA the year after publication. The remaining 69% or so of titles are deep backlist.
Although not shown above, the oldest titles in the DOAB date back decades. Earlier years (before 2000) typically have a handful of titles per publication year, with annual numbers increasing significantly in more recent years. The oldest title in the index was published in 1787….

Patterns in license usage are different if analyzed by publication year (left) compared with the year they were made OA or added to the index (right). We can clearly see license use by publication year shows distinct patterns, but license use by indexed year appears more random….

 

We see that the proportion of CC BY licenses (colors at the bottom of each bar) is significantly lower in books (32%) than in journals (51%). Likewise, CC BY-NC (2nd from bottom) – books (4%) vs. journal articles (15%). But CC BY-NC-ND licenses show the opposite: books have a greater proportion (29%) than journals (18%)….”

UKRI Open Access protocols: August 2021 | Historical Transactions

“Is to publish the research article in a subscription journal and deposit EITHER the Author Accepted Manuscript OR the Version of Record (where the publisher permits) in an institutional or subject repository at the time of final publication. This loosely corresponds to Green Open Access, though whereas this has hitherto operated with an embargo period, the policy now requires immediate Open Access to the deposited article. It is worth noting that some publishers, particularly outside the UK, do not currently permit a zero embargo period: authors will need to request this, which publishers will consider on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, submissions under Route 2 must include the following text in the funding acknowledgement section of the manuscript and any cover letter / note accompanying the submission: ‘For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising’.

Importantly (and in response to input from humanities and social science stakeholders), an exemption is permitted to the CC BY licence. CC BY ND (no derivatives) may be used where this can be justified by the author….”

Ashley Farley | Plan S

“[Q] If you had the power to pass an international law concerning Open Access, what would that be?

[A] Through Open Access work, I have learned so much about copyright, Creative Common’s licenses, and author’s rights. If I had the power to pass an international law, I would require that authors retain the rights to their work. To enhance this, I would encourage the use of the most liberal of CC licenses to ensure that the research community itself has the inherent right to interact with that knowledge.”

COPIM response to new UKRI Open Access Policy | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

COPIM (Community-led Publication Infrastructures for Monographs) welcomes the announcement of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)’s open access (OA) policy, which will:

include monographs, chapters & edited collections from 1 January 2024;

require the final version of a publication or accepted manuscript to be made open access via a publisher’s website, a platform or a repository, within a maximum of 12 months of publication;

and recommend Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licensing, while other Creative Commons permissions such as Attribution Non-Commercial (BY NC) and Attribution Non-Derivative (BY ND) licences are also permitted.

At COPIM, we believe that a shift to open access for academic books is not only possible, but necessary. We — together with a larger network of projects committed to community-led and not-for-profit approaches to scholarly publishing — are developing infrastructures and business models to support publishers and authors in making their long-form research output openly available without relying on embargoes or author-facing charges (otherwise known as Book Processing Charges or BPCs). These infrastructures are already supporting university and scholar-led presses to publish open access books without these constraints.

We are pleased to note that both UKRI’s summary of the responses to its consultation on the new policy and its explanation of its policy changes emphasised that COPIM is well positioned to support a transition towards open access for long-form academic work, and we look forward to doing so.undefined

The experience of our consortial partners who publish open access books is that there is a wide and deep appetite among readers for open access to long-form academic research. Furthermore, given the importance of the book to the creation and dissemination of Humanities and Social Science research, it is vital that we achieve immediate and equitable open access routes for books. The alternative is a future in which access to Humanities and Social Sciences research is limited and expensive, and these disciplines increasingly marginalised.

In this response, we would like to briefly outline how COPIM and COPIM’s consortial partners are already supporting embargo- and BPC-free open access for books, and in what ways the infrastructures and models built by COPIM will help to support other presses to do so. We would also like to outline how we feel the UKRI open access policy could be extended further, and what we would like to see from any future policies for open access books, based on our initial response to the UKRI open access consultation.

ALPSP Copyright Committee Responds to UKRI Open Access Policy

“The ALPSP Copyright Committee is concerned that the announcement of the UKRI’s new open access policy will have a negative impact on progress made to date.  Limiting the opportunity for funded articles to publish in hybrid journals does not benefit learned society authors as it restricts their choice on where to publish.  Whilst many ALPSP members are investigating whether a transformative/transitional agreement may be a viable option, many learned societies have found that the complexities involved in setting up and maintaining these agreements can be extremely  difficult, particularly for smaller societies who may only publish a few journals.  This may inadvertently put these smaller publishers at a distinct disadvantage and result in their journals no longer being selected by UKRI funded authors.

Additionally, making hybrid journals fully gold open access may not be possible in the near future if there is insufficient gold open access content to include in these journals.  This could well lead to major economic difficulties for many learned and professional societies.  Finally, requiring the publication of Accepted Manuscripts with no embargo and under a CC BY licence fails to recognise the significant investment learned societies will have made in getting to that version, including in terms of peer review and related value added publishing services.  As an unintended consequence, this would dilute the Version of Record and slow the speed of transition towards open access, as publishers and societies would continue to recover their investment through subscriptions.  Ultimately, without significant additional funding being added to the ecosystem in the short term to cover this, we are very concerned about the impact of this new policy on the UK publishing industry generally and on learned societies in particular….”