Adoption of Open Access Publishing by Academic Researchers in Kenya | Journal of Scholarly Publishing

“This study investigates Kenyan scholars’ adoption of open access (OA). The authors used a questionnaire to collect data from academic researchers at selected Kenyan public universities. The findings of this study indicate that while Kenyan researchers have embraced the concept of OA, challenges such as a lack of mechanisms to guide academic researchers on where to publish, a dearth of funding mechanisms to cover article processing charges, and a lack of accreditation mechanisms for regional and national journals are exposing Kenyan academic researchers to unscrupulous journal publishers and predatory publishing outlets. OA advocates in Kenyan universities need to devise innovative ways of raising awareness about OA, and these universities should provide the environment, infrastructure, and capacity building needed to support OA.”

Scientists, funders flock to ResearchGate | March 1, 2017 Issue – Vol. 95 Issue 10 | Chemical & Engineering News

“ResearchGate, a scientific networking website, says it continues to grow strongly. The organization now boasts connections to more than 100 million publications, 12 million researchers, and 1 million answers to research questions. Akin to a LinkedIn for scientists, ResearchGate claims 840,000 members who are primarily chemists, up from 270,000 in 2013….”

The first report of charging to re-use open access content

“The earliest report to our knowledge of publishers charging to re-use open access content, was by palaeontologist and renowned advocate for open access Mike Taylor who observed in 2012 that Elsevier were charging for non-commercial, educational re-use of Creative Commons Attribution licensed ‘open access’ articles.

The journal involved was Neuron.


You can read the full text of Mike’s report here:

If you know of any earlier reports please do let us know. This is important history to document. We would like this website to be the ultimate one-stop-shop evidence dossier for the continuously-repeated failings of academic publishers.”

Paywall Watch

“Soon after Peter Murray-Rust had noted that Elsevier and RightsLink were selling permissions to re-use ‘open access’ content, he blogged about Springer and RightsLink doing the same thing too.

In August 2013, Peter wrote a blog post entitled Springer charge academics for using CC-NC ‘Open Access’ in lectures.

The price set by Springer and RightsLink to re-use 2 figures from a single ‘open access’ paper in classroom materials was an eye-watering $151.80.

The journal involved was Drugs in R&D. “

Freeze on Federal Activities Gives Scientists a Chill – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Administration officials initially spoke of a freeze on research grants at several agencies, including the EPA and Department of Agriculture, along with a ban on tweets or other social-media comments by agency officials, and a halt in any regulatory changes, even those already approved.

Then, under pressure from members of Congress and an array of critics outside the government, some of those changes are reportedly getting walked back, now described as temporary, or clarified to be less sweeping than they initially appeared.

The EPA made clear that current grants would not be blocked, and that plans to delete climate-change references from the agency’s website had been reversed. The administration’s nominee for secretary of commerce, Wilbur Ross, said that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be allowed to publicly share peer-reviewed findings….”

Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges | SpringerLink

Abstract:  The Internet has fundamentally changed the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals, and the way readers find and access articles. Digital access is nowadays the norm, in particular for researchers. The Internet has enabled a totally new business model, Open Access (OA), in which an article is openly available in full text for anyone with Internet access. This article reviews the different options to achieve this, whether by journals changing their revenue structures from subscription to publishing charges, or authors utilizing a number of options for posting OA versions of article manuscripts in repositories. It also discusses the regrettable emergence of “predatory” publishers, who spam academics, and make money by promising them rapid publication with only the semblance of peer review. The situation is further discussed from the viewpoints of different stakeholders, including academics as authors and readers, practicing physicians and the general public.

Delta Think Investigations Launches “The Evolving State of Open Access”

Not OA and not close. The report costs $1,795 (for the plain PDF) or $2595 (for the PDF plus one year of updates).

“Today, Delta Think releases the first component of the Open Access Investigation with a summary report titled The Evolving State of Open Access. It delivers a thorough analysis of the market, derived from extensive data collection, normalization, and in-depth review by an unbiased source.”

Open Access Book Publishing

A single download of this report costs $1,875.00.

From the description: “This report provides an overview and financial outlook for the global open access book publishing market based on specific research and analysis of the leading competitors’ performance through 2016. Simba has used the information it gathered through primary and secondary research to estimate market performance projected through 2020. We concluded that past trends of individual publisher output either by title or revenue was too variable for meaningful projections at the publisher level.

This research was conducted in conjunction with a larger study of the overall market for professional publishing, including legal and business publishing, the results of which are available in the associated reports: Open Access Journal Publishing 2016-2020, Global Social Science and Humanities Publishing 2016-2020, Scholarly & Professional E-Book Publishing 2015-2019, Global Medical Publishing 2015-2019, Global Scientific & Technical Publishing 2015-2019 and Global Legal Publishing 2016-2020.”

Open Access Awareness and Perceptions in an Institutional Landscape

Abstract:  The aim of this study was to determine the awareness of open access among the academic staff of a research-oriented Spanish university, their use of the institutional repository and their satisfaction with its services. An anonymous survey of 37 questions was sent to all professors, researchers and doctoral students of the University of Navarra. A total of 352 responses (17%) were received. The responses showed statistically significant differences in opinions concerning open access journals and services created on top of the repository. Although there was general agreement on the need for open access, half the respondents adopted open access practices (which included the use of the institutional repository, and other pages and academic platforms). This percentage increased with the older respondents, who were also senior members of staff with tenure and positions of authority at the university. The decision to make publications accessible in open access depends on academic reward and on professional recognition. The services offered by the repository were generally perceived positively, with differences according to the age and subject area of the respondents. The awareness of those differences might help the university library to provide faculty with training and products that suit to their needs and habits.

Cutting without Cursing: A Successful Cancellation Project – The Serials Librarian | Taylor & Francis Online

Abstract:  The Salisbury University Libraries embarked on a serials and database cancellation project in the 2014–2015 academic year, eventually cutting nearly 20% of journals without causing any faculty protests. Picking up ideas from numerous other libraries, the three-person project task force developed a three-stage process: 1) preparation—gathering data and laying the groundwork for getting feedback; 2) getting feedback from liaisons, faculty, and departments; and 3) making decisions about what to cut and sharing the results. This article details the steps taken and key recommendations for other libraries undertaking similar projects.