“However, if OA papers are free of charge and easily available online to everyone, their readability is overly complicated for a wider public due to the usage of both general scientific and technical jargon in writing academic studies [8, 9]. In recent years, following the so-called “Third Mission” (TM), universities and other institutions have started to disseminate scientific results in formats more suitable for the general public….”
The free access to research results has been discussed for many years, nevertheless people still seem to have reservations about Open Access. This video clip ist the first in the series “Open Access myth check” and aims to bust the existing myth that Open Access does not have the same quality as traditional publications. This video was produced as part of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network 2 (16KUV014).
The free access to research results has been discussed for many years, nevertheless people still seem to have reservations about Open Access. This video clip ist the third in the series “Open Access myth check” and aims to bust the existing myth that Open Access restricts the freedom to publish of authors. This video was produced as part of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network 2 (16KUV014).
The free access to research results has been discussed for many years, nevertheless people still seem to have reservations about Open Access. This video clip ist the second in the series “Open Access myth check” and aims to bust the existing myth that Open Access is too expensive or more expensive than traditional publications. This video was produced as part of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network 2 (16KUV014).
Abstract: The technical complexity and functionality of computer programs have made it difficult for courts to apply conventional copyright concepts, such as the idea/expression distinction, in the software copyright case law. This has created fertile ground for significant misconceptions. In this paper, we identify fourteen such misconceptions that arose during the lengthy course of the Google v. Oracle litigation. Most of these misconceptions concern application programming interfaces (APIs). We explain why these misconceptions were strategically significant in Oracle’s lawsuit, rebut them, and urge lawyers and computer scientists involved in software copyright litigation to adopt and insist on the use of terminology that is technically sound and unlikely to perpetuate these misconceptions.
“In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a new policy requiring that all federally funded scholarly research be accessible to the public immediately upon publication. While this open access policy will ultimately benefit society by increasing the availability of data and research outputs, it could place a heavy burden on researchers due to the relatively high cost of open access alongside an academic culture that tends to favor publishing in high impact subscription journals. We examine the complexities of the traditional publishing landscape and offer recommendations for agencies, universities, and publishers to mitigate the impacts on researchers. Specifically, we recommend a short-term increase in funding to cover higher publishing costs, but contributions from all stakeholders are needed to facilitate a long-term solution.”
“Although not new, OA is being pushed vigorously now. The aim is to allow free access to articles, all over the world. The subscription model above would be pushed aside. And who pays for this? The authors pay. Ironically, readers cannot get a magazine or a book for free, even online, but they could get a medical article for free online. The author though would pay an article processing charge (APC), maybe as high as $3,500, to the publisher in order to get their article published. Imagine, a manuscript detailing and summarizing 3–4?years of hard work, and then the author pays to publish….”
“As part of our work with UKRI to support the implementation of the UKRI open access policy for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024, we re-visited some of the key areas of concern for researchers that surfaced during the consultation period for the policy (see UUK Open access and monographs. Evidence review and Open access and monographs: Where are we now? A position paper by the British Academy).
There was a clear need for a focused period of engagement with key stakeholder groups such as researchers/academics across all career levels, librarians/scholarly communication managers, research offices, and rights holders, with the aim being to split the real issues from the perceived problems. As a result, we collaborated with a number of UK university presses and the Open Access Books Network to hold a series of webinars on the subject of the myths around open access for books, as well as to address legitimate concerns and suggest ways to remove barriers to open access publishing.
We held three 90-minute webinars, each consisting of three short presentations from a panel including authors, publishers, open access publishing support services and policy makers. These were then followed by a Q&A session where audience questions were invited. All sessions were chaired by an expert in the field of open access.
The opening session set the context and covered the key themes, and this was then followed by more focused sessions covering specific areas in more detail. You can find all the event recordings, transcripts, presentations, and our panels’ responses to the questions we didn’t have time to cover on our Events webpage and also via the links below….”
An “advent calendar” for open science presenting a different objection or misunderstanding of open science for every day in December. Click through for the response to it from Yerun.
“In August 2021, UKRI launched a new open access policy, which for the first time includes a provision for long form scholarly works including monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024. In preparation for policy implementation, a collaboration of UK university presses, supported by Jisc, have come together to hold a series of online events about the myths around open access for books, as well as to address legitimate concerns and suggest ways to remove barriers to open access publishing.
This webinar is the last in the series, and in it, authors, publishers and other experts in the field will dispel some of the myths around issues relating to copyright and the use of third-party content in open access publishing for books, exploring misconceptions and confusions along the way….”
Abstract: Knowledge and implementation of open science principles and behaviors remains uneven between and within sub-disciplines in psychology, despite over 10 years of education and advocacy. One reason for the slow and uneven progress of the movement is a set of closely-held myths about the implications of open science practices, exacerbated by the relative isolation of various sub-disciplines in the field. This talk will cover three of the major recurring myths: that open science is in conflict with prioritizing diversity, that “open data” is a binary choice between fully open and accessible and completely closed off, and that preregistration and registered reports are only appropriate for certain types of research designs. Putting these myths to rest is necessary as we work towards improving our scientific practice.
Jill Claassen, University of Cape Town busts a widespread myth about OA books: ‘Open Access for books is only affordable for funded authors from rich institutions’.
Abstract: Aim To question the efficacy of ‘gold’ open access to published articles. Background Open access is unrestricted access to academic, theoretical and research literature that is scholarly and peer-reviewed. Two models of open access exist: ‘gold’ and ‘green’. Gold open access provides everyone with access to articles during all stages of publication, with processing charges paid by the author(s). Green open access involves placing an already published article into a repository to provide unrestricted access, with processing charges incurred by the publisher. Data sources This is a discussion paper. Review methods An exploration of the relative benefits and drawbacks of the ‘gold’ and ‘green’ open access systems. Discussion Green open access is a more economic and efficient means of granting open access to scholarly literature but a large number of researchers select gold open access journals as their first choices for manuscript submissions. This paper questions the efficacy of gold open access models and presents an examination of green open access models to encourage nurse researchers to consider this approach. Conclusion In the current academic environment, with increased pressures to publish and low funding success rates, it is difficult to understand why gold open access still exists. Green open access enhances the visibility of an academic’s work, as increased downloads of articles tend to lead to increased citations. Implications for research/practice Green open access is the cheaper option, as well as the most beneficial choice, for universities that want to provide unrestricted access to all literature at minimal risk. Keywords Open access, self-archiving, publishing, repository, scholarly literature, dissemination
“The convenience of accessing open-access science literature for free comes at a cost to the authors themselves. In the case of open-access journals, researchers are required to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) for publishing their accepted work. Furthermore, as an unnamed senior researcher from North America included in a recent study points out, open access may disadvantage authors in institutions lacking in resources.
In many instances, researchers cannot access or download their own work or that of their colleagues due to paywall restrictions. The lack of accessibility and control over one’s own copyright material and how it is disseminated is a predicament reminiscent of the reason why Taylor Swift decided to claim ownership for her music by re-recording her old albums. …”
“PLOS has made big leaps in the past year with the launch of five new journals, piloting business models that will make Open Access publishing more equitable and expanding our global footprint in locally responsible ways to get closer to researchers.
Our collaboration with the African Association of Universities (AAU) and the Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa) is a visible way we are moving our mission forward and including the broadest range of voices, globally.
On the 26th April, 2022, we publicly launched this collaboration via a webinar for Presidents, Vice Chancellors, Rectors, Deputy Vice Chancellors, Directors of Research and Directors of Libraries of African Universities. Our partnership will consist of a series of regional workshops across the African continent, focusing on increasing awareness and providing training around Open Science practices and Open Access publishing. …
Some of the main takeaways from these discussions were:
There is still a lack of awareness overall on what Open Science is, and the implications it has for stakeholders within the scholarly communication ecosystem.
Particularly, many misconceptions exist around Open Science and Open Access, e.g. the credibility of open peer review. Their benefits need to be clearer for stakeholders: authors, readers, as well as institutional stakeholders such as the Research Offices.
Academic libraries/librarians are often active in advocating for Open Science and Open Access within their institutions; therefore their involvement is and will be key in progressing adoption. They are, of course, well versed in these topics from their discussions with publishers and their roles with institutional repositories.
There are concerns around cost (article publication charges) and intellectual property rights: if material is open, how can we ensure it is not subject to abuse/manipulation
Incentives for practicing Open Science are not embedded within research assessment and career progression…”