500,000 OSF Users: Celebrating a Global Open Science Community

“Ten years ago, open science was an unfamiliar concept and the only practitioners were innovators seeking to do science in a more rigorous, transparent, and inclusive way. These innovators engaged research communities across the world around open research practices, and now we celebrate 500,000 registered users on the Open Science Framework (OSF), one of many indicators that open science is now mainstream.

OSF has experienced non-linear growth every year since it launched in November 2012. In early 2013, OSF was a self-funded lab project with just 371 users. Since then, OSF gained critical support from private funders such as Arnold Ventures to become a robust public goods infrastructure to enable open science behaviors. This kickstarted a culture change process enabling grassroots communities to advance new norms by increasing the visibility of open science and offering peer-to-peer training on how to get started….”

Libraries take charge

“The Open Access publishing landscape: why academic libraries are entering the Open Access publishing space….

Academic publishing is changing, and university libraries are becoming more intrinsically woven into the fabric of the new landscape. Although publishers affiliated with universities, such as Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, have been around for centuries, university libraries are now launching their own publishing and content hosting initiatives, usually with a sole focus on Open Access. If you’re not familiar with it, Open Access is part of a movement to facilitate the free exchange of knowledge and widen access globally. It often entails publishing academic articles, books, resources and content under public copyright licences, usually Creative Commons licenses, to enable free distribution and reuse of the work under certain conditions.

 

The past decade has seen the launch of several new university presses in the UK dedicated to publishing Open Access research, including Cardiff University Press (launched in 2014), UCL Press (2015), the University of Westminster Press (2015), White Rose Press (2016) and, most recently, the Scottish Universities Press (2022). At the same time, libraries have been carving out their own space in the publishing sphere, providing hosting solutions to their academics, staff and students. Initiatives include the University of St Andrews Journal Hosting Service, Liverpool John Moores University Open Journals Service and Edinburgh Diamond (which I manage)….”

News & Views: Publishers and Market Consolidation – Part 2 of 2 – Delta Think

Last month we examined the large degree of consolidation in journals publishing. We saw that 95% of publishers publish 10 journals or fewer, but account for barely one fifth of articles published. Meanwhile, half of total scholarly output is published by just 10 publishers, those with the largest numbers of journals.

We can further analyze the market’s consolidation by comparing annual growth rates in the numbers of publishers, journals and articles….

By looking at the trends, some clear patterns emerge.

The numbers of publishers (in blue) grew more quickly in the mid-teens than before or since. This is consistent with the S-shaped curve in the numbers of publishers we noted last month. So it seems the market showed signs of fragmentation in the mid-teens, followed by consolidation more recently.
Growth in numbers of journals (in orange) accelerated until about 2017, then started to fall off. This happened in tandem with the slowing growth in the numbers of publishers.
The rate of growth in numbers of articles (in grey) seems to run counter to the trends above. On average it was flat (at around 5%-6%) until 2018/2019, but then it accelerated. We think much this is because of the unusually high levels of submission in the wake of COVID (as we discussed in our market sizing analysis last year)….

The data also suggest that growth in publisher and journal numbers has slowed, while growth in output has accelerated. Over the last few years – irrespective of Covid effects – it seems the larger publishers are producing larger journals, and the smaller publishers smaller ones. Larger organizations may be able to produce things more efficiently than smaller ones. Meanwhile, the rise of Open Access and reduction in reliance on print works removes constraints on publication sizes….”

Growth of open content in 2021 – About JSTOR

“By combining rapidly expanding open and free primary sources with our continuously growing journal archives, we strengthen the depth of your patrons’ research and enhance the value of your investment in JSTOR.

We introduced new functionality and more diverse types of open content from publishers, libraries, archives, and museums, including more open images from Artstor and open primary source collections. These resources are complemented with essential Open Access scholarship and address the increased needs for remote teaching and learning….”

An Innovative Approach to Bridging Open Access, Collection Development, and Faculty: An Altmetric and CiteScore Case Study at a Large Public University

Abstract:  This case study examines the outcomes of an altmetric analysis of open access (OA) and non-open access (non-OA) publications from the Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark and New Brunswick. It explains the magnitude of the 2014–2020 business faculty OA and non-OA publications and their relative scholarly impact and metrics. The continued increase in the volume of OA articles suggests that professors are gradually accepting these article types, and that altmetric and CiteScore journal ranking metrics data may strengthen strategic initiatives for business librarians to assist faculties and university libraries in collective decision-making processes.

Read & Publish: over 500 participating institutions – The Company of Biologists

“We are delighted to announce that the number of institutions participating in our cost-neutral Read & Publish Open Access (OA) initiative has more than doubled since June 2021, increasing from 253 to 522.

The number of countries represented has also risen by more than 50% over the last year – from 24 to 39. We have signed new agreements with library consortia in Australia, Spain, Sweden and the United States and, following a successful two-year pilot, we signed a three-year renewal agreement with Jisc in the UK.

The success of our Read & Publish initiative has contributed to a significant growth in the proportion of OA research content in our hybrid journals – Development, Journal of Cell Science and Journal of Experimental Biology.

The journals were the first in the world to be afforded Transformative Journal status by Plan S and all three exceeded their targets for OA growth in 2021.

Our hybrid journals are on track to meet their Transformative Journal targets in 2022 and this takes us closer to our goal of converting them to full OA.

Building on the success of the initiative, libraries can now also include our fully Open Access journals – Disease Models & Mechanisms and Biology Open – in their Read & Publish agreements….”

The growth of open peer review – Leiden Madtrics

“To what extent have ideas on open peer review developed by Godlee and others been realized over the past two decades? There is no straightforward answer to this question, since the availability of systematic data on peer review practices is limited. In this blog post, we use data from Crossref to offer some partial insights into the growing popularity of open peer review…..

As shown in Figure 2, Publons is by far the largest contributor of peer review records in Crossref, accounting for two-third of all records. A large majority of these records are linked to journal articles published by Wiley. Indeed, Wiley has made a considerable effort to promote open peer review (referred to as transparent peer review by Wiley). Other important contributors of peer review records in Crossref are PeerJ and eLife….

Copernicus and F1000 are special cases. Copernicus offers an integrated platform that publishes both journal articles and preprints as well as the associated review reports. Likewise, F1000 provides a platform that publishes multiple versions of an article, including the review reports for each version. Because of their special nature, we present statistics for Copernicus and F1000 separately from the statistics reported above. Peer review records for Copernicus and F1000 aren’t included in Figures 1, 2, and 3….”

Monitoring the transition to open access through its mode of implementation: A principal component analysis of two surveys | PLOS ONE

Open access (OA) is transforming scholarly communication. Various modes of OA implementation have emerged, which reflect the complexity surrounding OA development. This study aimed to examine this development from the perspective of how OA is implemented. The sample comprised 2,368 randomly selected articles published in 2013 and 2,999 published in 2018 indexed in the Web of Science. We also conducted searches in Google and Google Scholar in 2015 for articles published in 2013 and in 2020 for articles published in 2018. Selected articles were categorized as either an “OA article,” “electronic subscription journal article,” or “not available online.” OA articles were classified into 10 implementation modes: Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, Bronze, Subject Repositories, Institutional Repositories, Personal/Institutional Websites, Academic Social Networks (ASNs), Others, and Web Aggregator. Overall, 56.5% of all sampled articles in 2013 were available for free on at least one website in 2015, while 61.7% of all sampled articles in 2018 were freely available on at least one website in 2020. Concerning implementation mode, ASNs had the highest frequency (44.4% in 2015 and 56.0% in 2020), followed by Subject Repositories (35.0% in 2015 and 39.6% in 2020) and Gold (24.1% in 2015 and 37.4% in 2020). To obtain an overview of OA implementation, we conducted principal component analysis with OA implementation mode as the variable for both 2015 and 2020. The first principal component was the axis indicating the number of overlapping OA implementations for each article in 2015 and 2020, while the second principal component was the axis orthogonal to the first, which was difficult to interpret. We identified three groups of OA implementation in each plot of the principal component scores for articles in 2015 and 2020; however, the OA implementation of each group differed in 2015 and 2020. This diversity reflects the respective positions of various stakeholders regarding OA.

 

 

Cambridge’s Transformative Journals see 70 per cent leap in research published open access | STM Publishing News

“The amount of new research published open access (OA) in Cambridge’s Transformative Journals (TJs) leaped by almost 70 per cent in 2021.

Cambridge University Press revealed the figure in an update to the cOAlition S group of funders on the progress of its TJ programme.

The update also shows that the programme exceeded its open access growth target for the year, playing an important role in Cambridge’s plans to transform the vast majority of the research publishing in its journals to OA by 2025.

Overall, the proportion of research articles published Gold OA in Cambridge journals increased to 36 per cent last year – a 47 per cent increase on 2020. The publisher expects that to have reached 50 per cent by the end of this year….”

How can we get more open access to medical studies? Simple, let’s take the green road

Open Access (OA) to research publications is a fundamental resource for the advancement of scientific research. To facilitate the transition to OA, publishers and institutions have begun negotiating the so-called transformative agreements, contracts combining access to subscription journals with the ability to publish OA. While the debate on transformative agreements is very much alive, little attention is being paid to the “green road”, the practice of openly self-archiving manuscripts that have been accepted by journals but not yet typeset. Here we focus on medical literature, showing how the green road could outperform transformative agreements as a means of increasing the full and free availability of peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Avointen tiedejulkaisujen osuus jatkoi kasvuaan vuonna 2021 – Tietolinja

From Google’s English:  “The share of open publications in all peer-reviewed articles at Finnish higher education institutions rose to 77.9% last year. Both universities and polytechnics reached the same percentage. In previous years, the openness of publications has been more common in polytechnics than in universities, but now universities have closed the gap….

The share of open publications in universities increased by more than six per cent compared to the previous year. However, this time the statistical data were collected from the July publication data portal a couple of months later than in the previous year, which may affect the comparability of the figures somewhat. During the year, the share of open publications will gradually increase as the publications are co-recorded and the embargo periods for co-recordings expire….

In most universities, the proportion of open publications was close to or somewhat above 80%. The top of statistics in recent years is no longer alone in its own readings, as other universities have also utilized Jyväskylä’s experience in developing their own processes.

 

The most significant trend in the last couple of years has been the increase in the immediate transparency of publications. An increasing number of publications are openly available on the publisher’s service, either as part of a fully open publication channel or as part of an open hybrid publication channel. For peer-reviewed articles, the combined share of such publications already open to the publisher reached 59.6% last year (2020: 48.1%)….”

Texas ScholarWorks Marks a Milestone | TexLibris

“UT Libraries is excited to announce that Texas ScholarWorks (TSW) has crossed the 100,000 item threshold!…

Texas ScholarWorks (formerly the University of Texas Digital Repository) was created to provide open, online access to the products of the University’s research and scholarship, preserve these works for future generations, promote new models of scholarly communication and deepen community understanding of the value of higher education….”

 

Advancing code sharing in the computational biology community | PLOS Computational Biology

“On March 30, 2021, a new code sharing policy was introduced at PLOS Computational Biology [1]. This policy requires any code supporting a publication to be shared unless there are ethical or legal restrictions that prevent sharing. The policy was introduced in response to community desire for a stronger position on code sharing to reflect the fact that the majority of the community already voluntarily share code [2,3]. This community-driven support for open science practices aligns well with the PLOS mission, and, therefore, the implementation of the new policy was a logical progression for the journal. The policy focuses on increasing code sharing as its primary aim, which, in turn, will support reproducibility, and so is not prescriptive to authors about how or where to share their code. The policy (https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/code-availability) allows authors to comply in ways which work for them. By the end of the first year of the policy, we expected to see an increase in code sharing rates (the percentage of published research articles that share code) without any negative impact on the publishing demographics or the author, editor, and journal staff experiences. This Editorial reports on the impact of policy over the first 12 months, provides a longitudinal view of code sharing in the journal since 2019, and articulates how this effort can move forward to enhance further sharing, reproducibility, and openness.”

OA content up 40% across Springer Nature’s Transformative Journals

Data released today shows that in 2021 Springer Nature’s Transformative Journals (TJs) published 40% more gold open access (OA) research articles than in 2020.

730 Springer Nature journals also met cOAlition S’s challenging TJ requirement targets, meaning that more Springer Nature titles achieved the required metrics than those from all other TJ publishers put together.