“Creating More Accessible Educational Networks: The Open Scholarship Knowledge Base.”
“There is a growing interest in making academic books Open Access (OA) with the number of OA books increasing each year along with the introduction of additional funder mandates. However limited awareness amongst authors as well as a lack of understanding and common misconceptions about licensing and quality, for barriers in the transition to OA for books.
Within the context of open scholarship this calls for an open resource that is easy to use, kept up-to-date and relevant for authors and research support worldwide. This has resulted in the concept of an Open Access Books Toolkit.”
A poster summarizing the experience of Kansas State University administering an APC fund for six years.
“Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals (relevance, reproducibility, efficiency, transparency)
Early, full and reproducible content
preregistration – use preregistrations in the review process
registered reports – apply peer review to preregistration prior to the study and publish results regardless of outcomes
preprint policy – liberally allow preprinting in any archive without license restrictions
data/code availability – foster or require open availability of data and code for reviewers and readers
TDM allowance – allow unrestricted TDM of full text and metadata for any use
null/negative results – publish regardless of outcome
Machine readable ecosystem
data/code citation – promote citation and use standards
persistent IDs – e.g. DOI, ORCID, ROR, Open Funder Registry, grant IDs
licenses (in Crossref) – register (open) licenses in Crossref
contributorship roles – credit all contributors for their part in the work
open citations – make citation information openly available via Crossref
open peer review – e.g. open reports and open identities
peer review criteria – evaluate methodological rigour and reporting quality only or also judge expected relevance or impact?
rejection rates – publish rejection rates and reconsider high selectivity
post-publication peer review – publish immediately after sanity check and let peer review follow that?
author diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
reviewer diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
editor diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
Metrics and DORA
DORA: journal metrics – refrain from promoting
DORA: article metrics – provide a range and use responsibly…”
“While library supported open access funds have helped the institution’s faculty raise visibility of their articles by making them openly available, the authors of this poster urge libraries to critically examine their participation in OA fund programs. In our experience as OA fund coordinators at the Health Sciences Library of the University of Colorado (CU-HSL), we faced many practical challenges but additionally, as a number of scholars point out, it can lead to changes in the core mission of academic libraries….”