Commentary: The publication pandemic

“The rise of OA and the megajournals has turned out to be a lucrative model for publishing houses.1,2 But is it good for the scientific community as a whole? Opinions on this differ from field to field, with the more translational fields, like biology and medicine, taking a more enthusiastic stance and more fundamental fields, like mathematics and physics, a more skeptical one. (See the commentary by Jason Wright in Physics Today, February 2020, page 10, and reference 3.)

There is also a noticeable generational difference of opinion. Some younger scientists view the trend toward OA scientific journals more favorably than their older colleagues do. …”

Intellectual Property Rights VS Open Access Initiatives – KS Legal and Associates

“The conflict between open access and traditional IP rights is becoming a significant problem. The essence of IPR and open access is that they are opposed to one another, to the point that approving one is destructive to the other. Let’s break down and find a balance between them….

The basics of open access, as can be shown, contravene one of the most fundamental concepts of intellectual property rights, which is to safeguard intellectual property….”

Intellectual Property Rights VS Open Access Initiatives – KS Legal and Associates

“The conflict between open access and traditional IP rights is becoming a significant problem. The essence of IPR and open access is that they are opposed to one another, to the point that approving one is destructive to the other. Let’s break down and find a balance between them….

The basics of open access, as can be shown, contravene one of the most fundamental concepts of intellectual property rights, which is to safeguard intellectual property….”

The Scholcomm Chronicles #1. Rambling about Misconceptions of Open Access | Zenodo

Abstract:  This is a short essay/opinion-like article in comics form on some misconceptions of Open Access. “Rambling about Misconceptions of Open Access” is also the first installment of “The ScholComm Chronicles”, which will hopefully develop into an ongoing series.

 

 

The Rights Retention Strategy and publisher equivocation: an open letter to researchers | Plan S

“cOAlition S strategy of applying a prior licence to the Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM) is designed to facilitate full and immediate open access of funded scientific research for the greater benefit of science and society. It helps authors exercise their ownership rights on the AAM, so they can share it immediately in a repository under an open licence.

The manuscript – even after peer-review – is the intellectual creation of the authors. The RRS is designed to protect authors’ rights. The costs that publishers incur for the AAM, such as managing the peer-review process, are covered by subscriptions or publication fees. Delivering such publication services does therefore not entitle publishers to limit, constrain or appropriate ownership rights in the author’s AAM.

Some subscription publishers have recently put in place practices that attempt to prevent cOAlition S funded researchers from exercising their right to make their AAM open access immediately on publication.

The undersigned – cOAlition S funders and other stakeholders in academic publishing – wish to provide clarity to researchers about these practices, and caution them about the possible consequences….”

Thread by @petersuber on “Gold OA”

“I’d put this historically. “Gold OA” originally meant OA delivered by journals regardless of the journal’s business model. Both fee-based and no-fee OA journals were gold, as opposed to “green OA”, which meant OA delivered by repositories….”

Rethinking Research Assessment: Ideas for Action | DORA

“DORA is developing a toolkit of resources to help academic institutions improve their policies and practices. So far, it includes two briefing documents that offer principles to guide institutional change and strategies to address the infrastructural implications of common cognitive biases to increase equity.

Ideas for Action outlines five common myths about research evaluation to help universities better understand barriers to change and provides analogous examples to illustrate how these myths exist inside and outside of academia. It also offers five design principles to help institutions experiment with and develop better research assessment practices….”

Rethinking Research Assessment: Ideas for Action | DORA

“DORA is developing a toolkit of resources to help academic institutions improve their policies and practices. So far, it includes two briefing documents that offer principles to guide institutional change and strategies to address the infrastructural implications of common cognitive biases to increase equity.

Ideas for Action outlines five common myths about research evaluation to help universities better understand barriers to change and provides analogous examples to illustrate how these myths exist inside and outside of academia. It also offers five design principles to help institutions experiment with and develop better research assessment practices….”

ACRL STS SCC: To Fund or Not to Fund: A glimpse into the open access funding landscape in libraries

“In this moderated panel we will explore the OA funding landscape. Our panelists have considered and in some cases developed programs to cover or partially cover article processing charges which authors are required to pay to publish open access. Attending this panel you will learn more about the current landscape of OA funding as well as the issues and barriers currently faced. The session will have time for Q&A. If you already have questions, you can submit them in the registration form. This panel will run from 1:00 – 2:30 Central. Please get in touch with any questions.”

Mythbusting Controlled Digital Lending

“Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Library Futures, this webinar will address the most commonly repeated myths about controlled digital lending, countering misinformation and disinformation about the library practice now in use by hundreds of libraries. Attendees will hear from authors, librarians, copyright specialists, and policy experts as they respond to the common misconceptions about controlled digital lending.”

 

Mythbusting Controlled Digital Lending

“Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Library Futures, this webinar will address the most commonly repeated myths about controlled digital lending, countering misinformation and disinformation about the library practice now in use by hundreds of libraries. Attendees will hear from authors, librarians, copyright specialists, and policy experts as they respond to the common misconceptions about controlled digital lending.”

 

cOAlition S response to the STM statement: the Rights Retention Strategy restores long-standing academic freedoms | Plan S

The statement published earlier today (3rd February) by the STM Association and signed by a number of its members, continues to perpetuate a number of myths and errors relating to the Rights Retention Strategy.

ESC Publications Committee: scope, successes, and challenges 2009–20 | Cardiovascular Research | Oxford Academic

“Currently, all ESC journals are publishing with a subscription model (except ESC Heart Failure and soon EHJ Digital Health), whereby readers or their institution pay, while submitting is free. The editors label 1–2 papers of each issue as Editor’s Choice which are freely accessible, while the remaining papers become open only after 12?months. The hybrid model has the big advantage that it provides funding to run large editorial offices, as required for high impact journals. Of note, editorial services, statistical reviewing, illustrations, as well as news sections require resources. Not the least, subscription provides income for educational societies such as the ESC and many others a service for their members.

Recently, the Welcome Trust, and the European Union, presented Plan S to make open access mandatory for all journals. Plan S would change the business model of publishing completely. Under this regimen, the authors have to pay, while for readers access is free. While open access provides immediate access, also hybrid journal such as the EHJ get 12 million downloads per year (Figure 1B). A disadvantage of open access is the huge manuscript handling fees required for high impact journals which would be a burden for authors from less affluent economies. Therefore, the ESC PubComm took the stand that hybrid journals should continue to be allowed. Also, few open access journals have reached acceptable impact factors. Whether or not Plan S will be able to change publishing remains to be seen. To that end, the decision of US journals and of the National Institute of Health will be essential….”