Hindawi’s Decision to Leave the STM Association | About Hindawi

“After ten years of membership in the International Association of STM Publishers, Hindawi has made the difficult decision to terminate its membership in the association. This decision has come as a result of STM’s overwhelming focus on protecting business models of the past, rather than facilitating new models that Hindawi believes are both inevitable and necessary in order for scholarly publishers to continue contributing towards the dissemination of scholarly research in the years to come.

Hindawi will continue engaging with the STM Association in the hopes that it can embrace the challenge of tackling the obstacles that stand in the way of a transition to Open Access. If and when that happens, Hindawi will happily seek to reestablish its membership in the association. Until then we no longer believe that we can continue our membership in good conscience.”

Open Media Science | JCOM

“In this article, we present three challenges to the emerging Open Science (OS) movement: the challenge of communication, collaboration and cultivation of scientific research. We argue that to address these challenges OS needs to include other forms of data than what can be captured in a text and extend into a fully-fledged Open Media movement engaging with new media and non-traditional formats of science communication. We discuss two cases where experiments with open media have driven new collaborations between scientists and documentarists. We use the cases to illustrate different advantages of using open media to face the challenges of OS.”

Satoshi Village

“Jordan Anaya of Omnes Res — creator of the PrePubMed search engine for biomedical preprints — recently compared bioRxiv to PeerJ Preprints. We agree that PeerJ offers the better technology and user experience. However, bioRxiv has greater adoption in the biodata sciences.

In fact, since my last blog post on preprints at the beginning of 2016, bioRxiv has grown by 149% from 2,785 to 6,933 preprints. The growth has been fueled largely by the efforts of ASAPbio and the growing recognition that publishing delays are interfering with science.”

Preprints: biomedical science publication in the era of twitter and facebook – the Node

“Earlier this week, I took part in a workshop on preprints – organised by Alfonso Martinez-Arias and held in Cambridge, UK. Inspired by the ASAPbio movement in the States, Alfonso felt it would be useful to bring discussion of the potential value of preprints more to the forefront in the UK. Happily, he was able to get John Inglis, co-founder of bioRxiv (the primary preprint server for the life sciences), to speak at this event, and also invited several other speakers  – including myself – to talk about their experiences with preprint servers.”

It’s Not Too Late. Let’s Pass an Open Access Law This Year. | Electronic Frontier Foundation

“When the public pays for research, the public should have free access to that research. You shouldn’t have to buy expensive journal subscriptions or academic database access in order to read research that was paid for with federal funding. That’s the simple premise of FASTR, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (S. 779H.R. 1477). As we near the end of the 2015-16 session of Congress, the clock is ticking for FASTR.”

It’s Not Too Late. Let’s Pass an Open Access Law This Year.

Publicly Funded Research Should Be Open to the Public

When the public pays for research, the public should have free access to that research. You shouldn’t have to buy expensive journal subscriptions or academic database access in order to read research that was paid for with federal funding. That’s the simple premise of FASTR, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (S. 779, H.R. 1477). As we near the end of the 2015-16 session of Congress, the clock is ticking for FASTR.

Under FASTR, every federal agency that spends more than $100 million on grants for research would be required to adopt an open access policy. Although the bill gives each agency some flexibility to develop a policy appropriate to the types of research it funds, each one would require that published research be available to the public no later than 12 months after publication.

A previous version of FASTR was first introduced in 2013. FASTR has strong support on both sides of the aisle, but it still hasn’t come up for a vote in either chamber of Congress.

This year, the stakes are higher than ever. Federally funded research is kept in the open today by a 2013 White House memo. With a new administration just months away, it’s essential that Congress secure those provisions by passing FASTR. Priorities will change with future administrations, but by locking FASTR’s provisions into law, we can ensure that that U.S. government continues to make publicly funded research available to the public for generations to come.

Now is the time. If you believe in open access to publicly funded research, then please take a moment to write your members of Congress and urge them to pass FASTR.

EFF is proud to participate in Open Access Week. Check back all week for opportunities to get involved with the fight for open access.

Take ActionTell Congress to pass FASTR.

Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora Join EFF

The Costs of Flipping our Dollars to Gold | The Scholarly Kitchen

“I spoke with the UC study’s co-principal investigators, MacKenzie Smith and Ivy Anderson, about the findings of their study and how these fit into wider prospects and challenges for accelerated moves towards OA.”

The presence of High-impact factor Open Access… | Barbaro | JLIS.it

[Abstract] The present study means to establish to what extent high-quality open access journals are available as an outlet for publication, by examining their distribution in different scientific disciplines, including the distribution of those journals without article processing charges. The study is based on a systematic comparison between the journals included in the DOAJ, and the journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Science edition 2013, released by Thomson Reuters. The impact factor of Open Access (OA) journals was lower than those of other journals by a small but statistically significant amount. Open access journals are present in the upper quartile (by impact factor) of 85 out of 176 (48.8%) categories examined. There were no OA journals with an Impact Factor in only 16 categories (9%).