“We are Wikimedians working on EU policy to foster free knowledge, access to information and freedom of expression….”
“While publishers in multiple fields are adopting preprints , we have discovered a great deal of confusion about the pros and cons of preprinting as well as disparity in publishers’ policies regarding preprinting in health professions education (HPE). In seeking to resolve this confusion, we documented preprint policies at 74 journals within HPE (e.g. nursing, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, rehabilitation sciences, nutrition). We culled preprint policies for 43 (58%) journals using journal websites, JISC’s Sherpa Romeo tool, and Wikipedia’s list of academic publishers by preprint policy. We then obtained information from email solicitations for an additional 27 (36%), leaving us without information for 4 (5%). Of the 70 journals for which we have information, 53 (76%) will review/accept preprinted manuscripts; 11 (16%) do not, and 6 (9%) are unclear or make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (For a link to our list of HPE journals and our understanding of their policies regarding preprinted manuscripts, see https://jahse.med.utah.edu/submission/ and select “Where to Publish”.) No wonder there is confusion.
We encourage our colleagues across the health professions to join our call to eliminate this confusion by encouraging all HPE journals to support and promote preprinting. The value of preprinting has only become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic . Being able to preprint scholarship prior to formal submission enhances formative review and revision, augments the benefits of peer coaching, and promotes higher quality publications. Preprinting also makes work available to others more quickly, which can enhance collaboration and uptake of new ideas without compromising the eventual copyright of the final published product.”
“On April 12, 2022, our eLife Community Ambassadors and Open Science Champions heard and discussed strategies to sustainably advocate for open science (OS), as well as greater integrity and equity in research.
The aim of the webinar was to introduce OS to this global group of more than 300 early-career researchers (ECRs), as well as to discuss different ways of practising OS and how to overcome the barriers to adopting these – all under the guidance of our experienced panel of open science advocates. With our Community Ambassadors programme, we want to enable each researcher to consider their role in creating a more open and inclusive global research environment, and to facilitate a space and community for all those interested to voice any questions about or ideas for promoting OS practices in their local research communities….”
“Erica Stone looks at the discrepancies between tax funded academic research and the post-research availability of expensive journals, and advocates for a new, open-access relationship between the public and scholars. This talk was filmed at TEDxMileHighWomen. All TEDx events are organized independently by volunteers in the spirit of TED’s mission of ideas worth spreading….”
“Open Access benefits everyone. Retain your rights.
It’s good for you, for science, and for society…
The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) enables authors to exercise the rights they have on their manuscripts to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository on publication and provide open access to it. To help researchers acknowledge and assert their rights, cOAlition S is launching an online campaign, under the theme “Publish with Power: Protect your rights“. The campaign aims to encourage researchers to retain their intellectual property rights, explains the steps they need to take and highlights the benefits for them and also for science and society. Below is a suite of resources about the Rights Retention Strategy, freely available for downloading, using and sharing….”
“On the occasion of a World Intellectual Property Day focused on Intellectual Property and Youth, we call on governments to ensure that national and international copyright laws ensure the right to education for all.
We applaud the choice of theme, which draws attention to the largest generation in history, who will be the driving force for sustainable and inclusive development.
Yet, young people today are faced with considerable barriers to engage politically, economically and socially. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated preexisting challenges and created new obstacles that prevent youth and students from thriving. This has been particularly evident with regard to education.
As affirmed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, education is a human right and a public good that plays an essential role in enabling young people to transform their lives and their communities. The right to education includes access to knowledge and, as highlighted by UNESCO’s International Commission on the Futures of Education, it is a life-long right that is “closely connected to the right to information, to culture and, to science”. Alarmingly, the world is completely ‘off track’ to achieve SDG 4 on Quality Education by the 2030 deadline.
Overly restrictive and outdated intellectual property laws are among the factors that have aggravated the situation facing educators and students, adding complexity, confusion and unnecessary costs. Consequently, young people and students throughout all sectors of education have been hindered from fully participating in society, from innovating and fully unlocking their creativity to benefit themselves and their communities.
In short, we must act now to ensure that Intellectual Property rules are a support, and not a barrier, to inclusive, equitable, adaptable, and high-quality education….”
“Open access – free access to scholarly publications – offers many advantages. As surveys show, however, some researchers still have reservations. In the past decade, numerous empirical studies have been published providing substantiated results on the hopes and concerns regarding open access….
To conduct this review, TIB identified a total of 318 scientific studies that empirically examine various effects of open access. From this corpus, the authors selected 61 particularly relevant studies for a systematic comparison; these were then analysed thoroughly and the various results were compared in detail.
The effects studied relate to seven major aspects of open access:
Attention in the scientific community
Quality of scientific publications
Productivity of the publishing system
Use of publications
Inequality in the science system
Economic impact on the publishing system…
Dr. David Hopf, lead author of the study, reported the key findings: “The literature reviewed confirms several advantages of open access: open access leads to increased usage and to a professionally and geographically more diverse readership. At the same time, open access publications make a greater contribution to knowledge transfer than traditionally published research results, and the publishing process – the time between the submission and acceptance or publication of articles – is shorter. What is more, a number of negative concerns assumed in relation to the effects of open access – for example, that open access publications are of an inferior quality and lead to disadvantages in print edition sales – have been dispelled.”
However, one partial result came as a surprise: the fact that open access publications are cited more frequently than publications that are not freely available is often mentioned as an advantage of open access – and is also confirmed by most empirical studies. However, a substantial proportion of the empirical literature deviates from this result, which means that an OA citation advantage cannot be conclusively confirmed empirically. In light of a high level of plausibility and methodological difficulties in this area, however, it can still be assumed that such an advantage exists.
Just one finding indicates a negative effect of open access: where so-called article processing charges (APCs) – publication costs incurred by many open access publications – exist, authors with fewer resources may be discouraged from publishing open access, e.g. due to low income levels in some regions of the world or a lack of institutional funding. However, this is not an effect of open access per se, but rather an effect of a particular business model for financing open access publications….”
Hopf, D., Dellmann, S., Hauschke, C. and Tullney, M. (2022) Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010-2021. Hannover : Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB).
Open Access – the free access to scientific publications – intuitively offers many advantages. At the same time, some scientists, members of university administration, publishers, and policymakers continue to have reservations against open access. In the last decade, numerous empirical studies on the effects of open access were conducted. This report provides an overview of the state of research from 2010 to 2021. The empirical findings presented help determine the advantages and disadvantages of open access and serve as a knowledge base for scholars, publishers, academic institutions, and policy makers. An overview of the state of knowledge informs decisions on open access and publishing strategies. In addition, this report identifies aspects of open-access effects that are potentially highly relevant but have not yet been adequately studied. Overall, various advantages of open access can be considered empirically confirmed at the current state of research. These advantages include improved knowledge transfer, increased speed of the publication process, and increased usage by a more diverse readership, both in terms of profession and location. In addition, some presumed negative effects – such as lower quality of publications and disadvantages in the sale of print editions – can be considered empirically refuted. The empirical results on effects of open-access publishing therefore support the goal of a far-reaching transformation to open access, to which the German science organisations, among others, have committed themselves.
Open access intuitively offers many advantages. However, surveys show that some scientists still have reservations. In the last decade, many empirical studies have been published, providing evidence regarding such hopes and concerns. What was missing is a literature review on the effects of open access that provides a comprehensive overview of these empirical findings. To fill this gap, Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (abbreviated BMBF) recently completed a study named “Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010 –2021”. The accompanying report is now published and freely available in the repository Renate. In this blog article, we provide a short overview over the results.
“IRRT Global Libraries As Advocates For Information Policy Change, Friday, June 24, 2022 – 8:30AM – 1:00PM
The pandemic has raised our awareness and understanding of the need for information policies that support the ability of libraries to serve their communities. What are the persistent and new policy issues that libraries around the world must focus on? How can we strengthen our ability to influence legislative and legal change, and participate in the political process on the local, national, and global levels? The range of policy issues of relevance to libraries is extraordinary: intellectual freedom and the rising challenges to the books and other resources we make available in our collections; privacy and the threats that we and our users face on protecting their identities; civil liberties and the constraints on freedom of action and speech; open access to research and educational resources, funding for libraries, and for education and research programs; copyright and the importance of fair use and the exceptions that enable libraries to carry out their services; the expansion and quality of access to the internet and the challenges of the digital divides in our communities; telecommunications policy and the growth of social media monopolies and issues like net neutrality; government information and the importance of guaranteeing that records of the work of our governments are openly and readily accessible; the survival of school libraries which are so essential to our library ecosystem; and there are many more specific to local, national and global contexts. Libraries must be at the core of the debates on information policy issues, as their success and effectiveness will increasingly be the ability to influence, interpret and apply new policy directions. By information policy, we mean those laws, regulations, and programs established by governments and other organizations that define the strategies for the advancement and management of such things as technology, telecommunications, and electronic information. It permeates all other policy areas, such as education, foreign relations, science, culture, health, and perhaps most fundamentally, commerce, workforce development, and business. Information policy is increasingly recognized as central to economic progress and social change. This pre-conference will provide opportunities for learning about and sharing the impact of the pandemic on information policy around the world, provide a detailed look at several key policy areas, and inform how library professionals can be effective advocates in the legislative and legal arenas.”
“This paper is intended to act as a pillar and reference point for CC’s advocacy work in copyright reform in the cultural heritage context, with a focus on issues arising in the digital environment. It may serve to support members of the CC community in their own advocacy efforts, guide policymakers in their legislative processes, and inform anyone interested in the policy issues gravitating around access and reuse of culture and cultural heritage. It will likely be adapted into a GLAM Guide for Policymakers and will be augmented with real-life examples, case studies and practical advice. It starts with an overview of copyright challenges to the legitimate activities of GLAMs, notably preservation (largely through digitization) and sharing of digital and digitized content images and data for access, use and reuse. It also notes copyright’s chilling effects in the face of the GLAM sector’s general risk aversion. The paper then offers insights towards effective copyright reform addressing those challenges, with a focus on the opportunities related to the digital environment. The proposals for reform aim to create legal certainty and international harmonization as well as to facilitate cross-border transactions. The paper encourages policymakers to recognize and support the pivotal roles of GLAMs in preserving and providing access to knowledge and culture to all members of society. It urges policymakers to engage with stakeholders to ensure there are clear, simple, and effective policies in place to support better sharing of cultural heritage in the public interest. The paper provides a high-level overview of the policy issues and, as a whole, it does not necessarily reflect the current situation in any specific jurisdiction.”
“On 30 March 2022, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) published the text of the draft resolution on social media. The text of the UK draft resolution on Strengthening Clinical Trials to Improve Public Health can be found here: Strengthening Clinical Trials to Improve Public Health – zero draft …”
“While the CWTS Leiden ranking has been available since 2011/2012, it is only in 2019 that a first attempt was made at ranking institutions by Open Access-related indicators. This was due to the arrival of Unpaywall as a tool to measure openly available institutional research outputs – either via the Green or the Gold OA routes – for a specific institution.
The CWTS Leiden ranking by percentage of the institutional research output published Open Access effectively meant the first opportunity for institutions worldwide to be ranked by the depth of their Open Access implementation strategies brushing aside aspects like their size. This provided an interesting way to map the progress of CESAER Member institutions that were part of the Task Force Open Science 2020-2021 Open Access Working Group (OAWG) towards the objective stated by Plan S of achieving 100% Open Access of research outputs.
The OAWG then set out to map the situation of the Member institutions represented in it on this Open Access ranking and to track their evolution on subsequent editions of this ranking. The idea behind this analysis was not so much to introduce an element of competition across institutions but to explore whether progress was taking place in the percentage of openly available institutional research outputs year on year.
The results of this analysis – shown in figures within this paper for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 editions – show strong differences across Member institutions that are part of the OAWG. From internal discussions within the group, it became evident that these differences could be explained through a number of factors that contributed to a successful Open Access implementation at an institutional level. This provided the basis for this work.
The document identifies four key factors that contribute to a successful OA implementation at institutions, and hence to achieving a good position on the CWTS Leiden ranking for Open Access. These factors are:
• Open Access policies. This aspect is highlighted as the key driver for a successful OA implementation: high-ranked institutions typically implement strong OA policies, whereas low-ranked ones often lack a specific policy beyond the (common) one issued by the European Commission for its framework programmes.
• Institutional system configuration (repositories and/or current research information system (CRIS) systems). The way institutional systems support OA implementation are configured is also a critical element for a high ranking. High-ranked institutions within the OAWG often have an interconnected institutional repository and a CRIS. Other institutions only operate a repository and some have neither.
• Institutional research support staff. A strong OA policy and an adequately configured set of institutional systems may not be enough to guarantee a successful OA implementation if the research support staff behind such work is not numerous or well-trained enough.
• Open Access advocacy strategies. One of the key areas of activity for such staff is the communication with researchers to highlight the relevance of Open Access implementation at a given institution and to provide the required support workflows….”
The Open Access Books Network (OABN) is pleased to share that it has become an OPERAS Special Interest Group (SIG), and as such it is now formally supported by OPERAS, the European Research Infrastructure supporting open scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the European Research Area.
Martin Paul Eve, Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing at the University of London’s Birkbeck College, busts a widespread myth about OA books: If I publish my book Open Access, I won’t have control over my work.