Open access management – a new domain? | Research Information

“OAM [open access management] ensures smoother and more automated processes around APC-handling, agreement monitoring and full-text archiving. It guides authors and administrators along the complete publishing process, ensuring compliance with funding policies and steering them away from predatory publishers.

As the shift to OA is accelerating, we see an increasing number of public and private actors providing solutions in the OAM space. Some specialise in publishers, like the Copyright Clearance Center (RightsLink), others focus on institutions, such as Jisc (Monitor Open), or serve multiple stakeholders like us at ChronosHub….”

Patient outcomes, open access: Ginny Barbour sets MJA agenda | InSight+

“There’s no doubt for me that we are moving along a trajectory where open access is absolutely going to be the outcome. The question is just how we get there and how quickly we get there.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the Office of Science and Technology Policy from the United States White House put out an edict that all federally funded research in the US must be made open access by 2026. In Australia already, we have a number of moves that are going in that direction.

We know that our Chief Scientist Dr Cathy Foley is looking at that closely, and the [National Health and Medical Research Council] and the [Australian Research Council] have open access policies.

I think it’s fair to say that this is a topic of great interest and Australia probably needs to move a little bit quicker.

“For the MJA [Medical Journal of Australia], there’s no question that we want open access. We want that research to be read; it needs to be used and reused, not just by practitioners but by patients. Open access can only be a good thing for the Journal.”

Everything Hertz: 161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)

“Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science….”

This Woman Has Done More for Science Than Anyone Else in History. No One’s Giving Her Credit. | by Loudt Darrow | Sep, 2022 | Medium

“The name of Alexandra Elbakyan probably means as much to you as a clipped toenail, but I reckon in a parallel universe, perhaps where Schrödinger’s cat escaped alive and became an affluent cardboard box interior designer or something, Alexandra’s name is synonymous with scientific prowess as much as the “E=mc²” you see printed on t-shirts and coffee mugs.

But not in here though.

Of all the timelines ours must be the darkest, for not only is Alexandra’s name less recognisable than Marilyn Manson without the clown makeup on, she is also being persecuted by the law and facing international multi-million-dollar fines for her revolutionary work….

Sci-Hub equalises the field. It gives science back to the scientists. It makes it accessible no matter which college sweater you wear.

And scientists are grateful for it — only in February of this year, more than 40 million papers were downloaded from India, China, and the US. Papers that are downloaded from Sci-Hub also get their citations doubled; that means more scientists get to read them and build their work upon them.

Sci-Hub may be the pirate bay of science. Not as sexy a contribution as the Special Theory of Relativity or the Laws of Motion. But is no doubt the work that will have the most impact on science as a whole.”

Fifteen Questions: Marc Lipsitch on Covid Modeling, Open-Access Science, and Latte Art

“I’ve been arguing for open-access and favoring open-access journals for my own work — not exclusively, but a lot. I’ve been working as an editor and reviewer on open-access journals. That’s the wave of the future. It’s outrageous that publicly funded research is paywalled. Most journals add almost no value to the papers they publish. “Epidemiology,” one of the major journals in our field, really edits it carefully and improves the paper beyond the peer review. But there are other ways to pay for that. It’s long overdue….”

Clarivate’s former publisher relations expert joins Frontiers | Research Information

“Research publisher Frontiers appoints Tom Ciavarella as head of public affairs and advocacy for North America to strategise and execute advocacy initiatives to support Frontiers’ mission and accelerate transition to open science.

Tom has 20 years’ experience in relationship management, business development, and content strategy. After an early career in copy-editing and writing, he worked at F.A. Davis Company, an independent medical publisher in the US, where he acquired and developed new medical textbooks and helped bring print-only resources into the digital world. In 2015, Tom joined Clarivate Analytics (now Clarivate) as a publisher relations manager for Web of Science Group with a focus on content and communication strategy. 

Most recently, Tom managed large strategic accounts for the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), a non-profit that helps publishers and other copyright holders coordinate content delivery, licensing, and open access workflows. Tom also served as a liaison to CCC’s government relations team, which works to guide policymakers on copyright modernisation and related topics. …”

Individual Award 2021 – Paul Ginsparg – Einstein Foundation Berlin

“Preprints have been shared in the physics community since the early 1950s but mostly among well established professors. Physicist Paul Ginsparg, who receives the Einstein Foundation’s Individual Award, set out to democratize access to scientific results. Today, his preprint server arXiv has spread to many other fields—and made science progress more efficient and fairer….”

From Mattering Press to the Open Book Collective: Interview with Joe Deville | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Corazza, F., & Fathallah, J. (2022). From Mattering Press to the Open Book Collective: Interview with Joe Deville. Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.ffebd406

As well as being the Chair of the Open Book Collective, due to launch soon, Joe Deville is one of the founders of Mattering Press, a small Open Access book publisher. We sat down with Joe to speak to him about how he became involved in Open Access publishing, some of the challenges that small publishers can face when starting up, and how his work with Mattering Press led to his involvement in the Open Book Collective.

 

Dr. h.c. Johan Rooryck – an in-depth interview | Open Science Talk

Abstract:  On 1 September 2022, professor of linguistics and director of cOAlition S Johan Rooryck was created a doctor honoris causa at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. In this in-depth interview, Rooryck reflects on his career so far and shares his vision of a future where scholar-led, fair and equitable open access prevails over commercial publishing structures.

Johan Rooryck starts out by explaining how he became the editor-in-chief of the high-ranking journal Lingua in 1999, how his relations with the publisher Elsevier became increasingly strained, and how he succeeded in bringing all his co-editors along in a sensational break with Elsevier. Instead, they launched the fully open access journal Glossa (now a high-ranking journal of general linguistics) at the platform Open Library of Humanities, in 2015. Rooryck in particular dwells on the non-commercial model known as Diamond Open Access, with no charges facing either readers or authors. Speaking on behalf of Plan S and the cOAlition S, whose executive director he became in 2019, Rooryck also broadens the view to all forms of open access, including open access to books and research data. At the end, he looks ahead to the future, when faced with the final, fundamental question: are you an optimist?

Paul Courant [Receives the 2022 Paul Evan Peters Award]

“The Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and EDUCAUSE are pleased to announce that economist Paul Courant, who has served in multiple roles at the University of Michigan, including provost and dean of libraries, has been named the 2022 recipient of the Paul Evan Peters Award. Courant, a founder of HathiTrust, is the Edward M. Gramlich Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of Economics and Public Policy and the Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor Emeritus of Public Policy in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. He is also a professor emeritus of economics and of information, and he holds the distinction of Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Emeritus and Provost Emeritus. The award recognizes notable, lasting achievements in the creation and innovative use of network-based information resources and services that advance scholarship and intellectual productivity. Named for CNI’s founding director, the award will be presented during the CNI Membership Meeting in Washington, DC, to be held December 12-13, 2022, where Courant will deliver the Paul Evan Peters Memorial Lecture. Previous award recipients include Francine Berman (2020), Herbert Van de Sompel (2017), Donald A.B. Lindberg (2014), Christine L. Borgman (2011), Daniel Atkins (2008), Paul Ginsparg (2006), Brewster Kahle (2004), Vinton Cerf (2002), and Tim Berners-Lee (2000).”

Will New White House Open Access Rules Impact Researchers? | The Brink | Boston University

“To find out what the impact might be—including on Boston University and its researchers, many of whom receive funding from the federal government—The Brink spoke with Mark Newton, University librarian ad interim. An advocate for open access to research, he’s also a former journal editor, previously helping lead the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. …”

Communities, Commoning, Open Access and the Humanities: An Interview with Martin Eve – ScienceOpen

Abstract:  Leading open access publishing advocate and pioneer Professor Martin Paul Eve considers several topics in an interview with WPCC special issue editor Andrew Lockett. These include the merits of considering publishing in the context of commons theory and communing, digital platforms as creative and homogenous spaces, cosmolocalism, the work of intermediaries or boundary organisations and the differing needs of library communities. Eve is also asked to reflect on research culture, the academic prestige economy, the challenges facing the humanities, digital models in trade literature markets and current influences in terms of work in scholarly communications and recent academic literature. Central concerns that arise in the discussion are the importance of values and value for money in an environment shaped by increasing demands for policies determined by crude data monitoring that are less than fully thought through in terms of their impact and their implications for academics and their careers.

 

DPLA Board of Directors elects Felton Thomas as chair | DPLA

“We are pleased to share that the DPLA Board of Directors elected Felton Thomas, Jr., executive director and CEO of Cleveland Public Library, as its new chair at its annual  meeting last month. His term as chair will extend through June 2025. Thomas will replace Denise Stephens, the Peggy V. Helmerich Dean of University Libraries at the University of Oklahoma, whose term of service has ended after six years, the last three of which she served as board chair. …”

 

Taxpayer-Funded Science Is Finally Becoming Public

“It has been possible to see a lot of the work after a one-year embargo. The National Institutes of Health, the NIH, established over 20 years ago a public digital archive called PubMed Central, which has the full text of articles submitted to it by its grantees. But that archive was not nearly as useful as it might have been because of reluctance of journals to allow that to happen to articles on which they own the copyright, because investigators have been compliant with the desires of their favorite journals, and for many other reasons, until Congress said to the NIH well over a decade ago, you must get this material into a public database at least within a year after publication. That happened, and now PubMed Central has millions of articles widely used every day by every investigator. But it’s imperiled by not having adequate access to results when they’re published….

In the article, we’ve emphasized the major thing, which is the elimination of an embargo. But the article, the memo, does have many other things in it that are particularly appealing. It requires that a detailed plan be made, not just for displaying published articles but also for making the materials useful in machine-based learning exercises so that the format is compatible with extracting as much information as possible….

There’s no doubt in the minds of almost everybody that the rapid development of the RNA genome of the coronavirus was essential for, first of all, identifying what the agent of COVID-19 was, but then also in developing the vaccines that have been so important in trying to control this pandemic and developing various kinds of tests that allow us to detect the emergence of the variants that have plagued efforts to do public health control of the virus. So I think there are many ways in which it’s obvious that sharing data at the very, very earliest stages through sequence databases and the speed of communication has been remarkable and, of course, helped by the fact that many of our leading periodicals have followed this so closely and so well….

 So this is important. And one of the things that some people accuse advocates like me of neglecting is the fact that there are real costs for publication. Nobody’s saying that publication is free. It’s just, we’re trying to promote access. But someone’s got to pay the costs of doing peer review. The costs are much less than they might otherwise be because the authors and the reviewers don’t get paid. Nevertheless, there are costs. And how do they get covered?

Well, the costs should be borne and are largely borne by the funders of research. And if you view the publication process as an element of the research experience, which it certainly is, it’s a very small element– as I mentioned, just a couple of percent– and, of course, essential if you’re going to make use of the work that gets done with the money. So in general, it’s the funders who pay….”