“If a large proportion of academics were to simultaneously boycott these journals, they would quickly lose their value and the incentive to publish there would be reduced. The academic community could then transition the flow of knowledge from commercially-owned journals to fair open-access systems that are more in line with the ideals of the community….
We plan to grow a community of academics who pledge to exclusively support community-owned free open access publication systems. Crucially, pledges made by members will only become active when a pre-specified threshold of support has been reached in the academic community, with names anonymised until this time, allowing individuals to show support without risking their livelihoods….
Our Kickstarter-like system of pledges will be launched in 2019….”
“The ecosystem of scientific publishing that we all rely on isn’t working as it should. Publishers generate profit by locking away vital results behind steep paywalls, going after those who breach them with deadly force. Research professionals are pressured to deliver, publish and review on tight deadlines, creating perverse incentives to exaggerate facts and omit assumptions and constraints. With little to no reward for authors and reviewers, and with the peer-review process hidden behind closed doors, reproducibility is disastrously low.
A radical change is needed. Science can be better; we need science to better. But the only way to change this is if we – researchers and scientists, librarians, scientific societies, R&D departments, universities, students, and innovators – all come together to bring about change.
We need your help. And your peers need yours. Sign the pledge today and commit to:
Make every effort to make your research openly available to the public.
Stand up to the dominant scientific publishing houses that extort the scientific community
Educate others and spread the message that science needs to be better…”
“I’ve decided to quit academia.edu and researchgate and put all of my pre-prints/manuscripts on PsyArXiv. I deleted any manuscript copies that I had uploaded to academia.edu and RG and removed my accounts from them. I’m writing you because you posted a copy of our collaborative work on researchgate. It is of course your prerogative as to how you share our work, but I thought I might ask you to consider taking that copy of our paper down. I’m trying to streamline access points for our work and also to redirect traffic away from these commercial sites. PsyArXiv is indexed by Google scholar, so the work remains freely accessible in a space backed by a non-profit entity (the Open Science Framework). Another benefit of OSF is that it is backed by a large preservation grant, so that the works on PsyArXiv will be supported in perpetuity even if OSF grows or changes.”
“[M]uch digitisation of special and archival collections has been carried out by academic libraries and heritage organisations with the support of public funding, making content available for everybody to enjoy. However, sustainability of digitisation is still a big problem, especially in the context of providing open access….In creating sustainable digital content, there is a solution that can help bring specialist research to life, one collection at a time; and this is how Reveal Digital have approached the challenge. The support for digitisation of materials through an innovative library crowdfunding model is already underway on the other side of the pond, with collections such as Independent Voices achieving wide popularity and support….Hosted on the Reveal Digital platform, over 100 pledging libraries to date have controlled access until the collection moves to open access (in 2019) following a two-year embargo period, as per its cost recovery-open access model. The platform provides page image-based access with full-text searching, hit-term highlighting, searchable title and issue-level metadata and browsing by series, title and issue….”
“Large international scientific publishers are currently enjoying remarkable profit margins. Their business is heavily indebted to the voluntary work of the researchers. The scientific community produces research, usually publicly funded, edits the publications as unpaid volunteers, and then buys back the scientific publications. Publishers have increased the price of publications significantly year by year although in this digital era the trend should be the opposite. In 2015 Finnish research organisations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees and in the future the price looks to be higher still. The hikes in fees are especially problematic at a time when funding cuts are narrowing the scope of opportunity for science as it is. In currently ongoing contract negotiations Finnish scientific libraries are demanding that prices be made more reasonable and open access publishing more prevalent. We, the signatories, support these goals. We are prepared to abstain from refereeing and editorial duties for the journals of the publishers involved in these negotiations if the goals of the Finnish negotiators are not realised.”
From the January 2013 launch announcement: “The inaugural Patient Safety Science & Technology Summit made history when for the first time nine leading medical device companies publicly pledged to make their devices interoperable. The groundbreaking pledges will make patient data collected and displayed on their devices accessible for patients and clinicians – launching a movement designed to reverse the rising tide of preventable patient deaths at U.S. hospitals….”
“The Patient Safety Movement Foundation (PSMF) today announced that Medtronic, a leading global healthcare solutions company, has joined a growing list of healthcare technology companies that have signed the Patient Safety Movement’s public pledge to share their data to promote patient safety. In addition, Medtronic committed $5 Million to the PSMF over a five-year period, and Medtronic’s CEO, Omar Ishrak, will join Patient Safety Movement’s Board of Directors. By signing this Open Data Pledge, Medtronic pledges to allow access to all available acute clinical data generated by their products used in hospitals and in outpatient practice settings to interested parties that want to use them to help minimize preventable patient complications and death. When companies share the data of their products, it provides researchers and entrepreneurs with critical information to develop and accelerate solutions to improve patient care. This information includes predictive algorithms that can notify clinicians and patients of possible dangerous trends – allowing for intervention earlier….Patient Safety Movement is a commitment-based organization that asks hospitals to implement processes to avoid human errors becoming fatal and asks healthcare technology companies to share the data their products are purchased for, without disclosing their proprietary algorithms or protected data and subject to applicable patient privacy laws….”
” … While the theoretical case for open science is easy to make, practically getting scientists to make those changes is less trivial. Over the past few years, initiatives such as the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines, Open Science Foundation badges, and study preregistration have been developed to encourage scientists to adopt open practices. These drives have been very successful in driving top-down change, by encouraging journals to adopt new policies and practices. But what about bottom-up approaches to the problem of promoting open science? On Wednesday, a new paper published in Royal Society Open Science argued for a new, grassroots approach to this problem, by putting the power back into the hands of scientists at the coalface of research, by changing the way that we think about the peer review process (full disclosure: both myself and fellow Head Quarters blogger Chris Chambers are co-authors on the paper). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness (PRO) Initiative is, at its core, a simple pledge: scientists who sign up to the initiative agree that, from January 1 2017, will not offer to comprehensively review, or recommend the publication of, any scientific research papers for which the data, materials and analysis code are not publicly available, or for which there is no clear reason as to why these things are not available. To date, over 200 scientists have signed the pledge …”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”
“Open access for monographs and book chapters is a relatively new area of publishing, and there are many ways of approaching it. With this in mind, a recent publication from the Wellcome Trust aims to provide some guidance for publishers to consider when developing policies and processes for open access books. The Wellcome Trust recognises that implementation around publishing monographs and book chapters open access is in flux, and invites publishers to email Cecy Marden at email@example.com with any suggestions for further guidance that would be useful to include in this document. ‘Open Access Monographs and Book Chapters: A practical guide for publishers’ is available to download as a pdf from the Wellcome Trust website.”
“The purpose of this post is to shed some light on a specific issue in the transition to open access that particularly affects small and low-cost publishers and to suggest one strategy to address this issue. In the words of one Resource Requirements interviewee: ‘So the other set of members that we used to have about forty library members , but when we went to open access online, we lost the whole bunch of libraries. Yeah, so basically we sent everybody ,you know, a letter saying we are going to open access online, the annual membership is only $30, we hope you will continue to support us even though there are no longer print journals, and then a whole flu of cancellations came in from a whole bunch of libraries, which we had kind of thought might happen but given how cheap we are, I have to say I was really disappointed when it indeed did happen especially from whole bunch of [deleted] libraries [for which our journal is extremely relevant]. I was going, seriously $30?’ Comments: for a university library, a society membership fee, when not required for journal subscriptions, may be difficult to justify from an accounting perspective. $30 is a small cost; however, for a university the administrative work of tracking such memberships and cutting a check every year likely exceeds the $30 cost. With 40 library members at a cost of $30, the total revenue for this journal from this source was $1,200. A university or university library could sponsor this amount at less than the cost of many an article processing charge. The university and library where the faculty member is located have a support program for open access journals; clearly the will, and some funding, is there. One of the challenges is transitioning subscription dollars to support for open access, as I address in my 2013 First Monday article. Following is one suggestion for libraries, or for faculty to suggest to their libraries: why not engage your faculty who are independent or society publishers to gain support for cancellations or tough negotiations and lower prices for the big deals of large, highly profitable commercial publishers that I argue are critical to redirect funding to our own publishing activities? Here is one scenario that may help to explain the potential …”