Evaluating Publisher Open Access Agreements

Abstract: Librarians are highly experienced in analyzing subscription renewal offers. However, more often libraries are receiving offers from publishers for agreements that incorporate fees for “read” access (i.e., traditional subscription access) with open access “publish” payments. In this workshop, we will provide participants with an overview of types of transformative agreements and factors to consider when analyzing offers that include an open access component. These will be applied to scenarios from different types of publishers. If time, there will be a hands-on portion in which participants will learn how to access usage data beyond COUNTER reports. This will include accessing APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) via OpenRefine. The workshop will build on materials created by SPARC’s Data Analysis for Negotiation Working Group (https://sparcopen.org/our-work/negotiation-resources/dataanalysis/). 

Critique of “Transformative” Reasons: “T”As and Their Discontents | Brianne Selman @ Library Publishing Forum, 18 May 2022

Presentation slides by Brianne Selman. Session description: “This session will summarize some of the major categories of the critiques of “transformative” agreements. Perspectives that critique negotiation approaches, the continued bundling of costs into large agreements, market concentrations, decline in scholarly standards, analysis of whether OA goals are even being met by TAs, as well as major equity and diversity concerns will be summarized and discussed.”

POD for Rosemont / Partnership Joint Forum – Feb 2022 – Google Slides

“POD is working to create a platform that positions data reuse and service integration as strategic assets. Through open, iterative development and leveraging the investment in our libraries’ internal capacities, we will meet multiple library needs and enable innovation in ways that cannot be done through a series of one-off solutions or relying on vendors and external systems….”

Open Research Conversation: Responsible Metrics

“Presentation slides and recording from Open Research Conversation on Responsible Metrics on 18th January 2022.

 

Event description:

There has been much criticism and debate about the influence of research metrics, such as the journal impact factor, on publishing practices and researchers’ careers. The University of Sheffield was an early signatory to DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), meaning it has committed to supporting a responsible approach to research assessment and ending reliance on journal-based metrics. In the spirit of DORA, this conversation will look at the future of metrics and how they can be used responsibly, to increase robustness, transparency, equality and diversity in the academic community.”

Find an expert: Who is best to represent a university on matters of ‘open’?

This was a keynote talk [by Danny Kingsley] given on 17 November 2021 on ETD2021 https://conferences.uaeu.ac.ae/etd2021/en/index.shtml
Abstract: Universities, by their nature, consist of people holding many different views. Discussion and argument is an expected and necessary aspect of the research process. This means it is difficult for a university to have a position on a particular issue, a top-down decision can be one approach although a true position can only genuinely be managed through a consensus. But when the understanding of an issue is uneven across the community, consensus is very difficult. This is the case for questions surrounding ‘open’ research – while there is no shortage of strongly held opinions on the matter, some ill-informed at best. So what happens when the expertise on a subject is not held within the academic ranks, but within the professional staff? Who acts as the spokesperson on the matter for the institution?

Open Source Publishing Tools in Wikidata | 16 November 2021 | Open Publishing Fest

NOVEMBER 16, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

Open Source Publishing Tools in Wikidata

“There are many tools and systems that enable open publishing. Given its evolving and sometimes fragmented nature, this domain can be challenging to identify, track, and study. Wikidata, one of the sister projects of Wikipedia, may offer a solution. Wikidata is editable by anyone, multilingual, and licensed to the public domain. It could serve as an inclusive, dynamic, collectively curated registry of basic facts about open publishing tools. Join us for a demonstration and discussion. We will explore questions such as: (1) Which digital tools do you use for publishing-related activities? (2) Does Wikidata accurately describe your use of a particular tool? (3) Does Wikidata accurately describe the technology of a particular tool? This session is inspired by studies such as the 2019 “Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms” by John Maxwell et al. (mindthegap.pubpub.org)….”

slides: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PzYsP0LQCWezgyWGNEduQcUhTqoi53ppdAU0D7FePMY/viewform

Open Access Publishing under Plan S: When Good Intentions Remain Eurocentric

“cOAlition S has not yet openly and thoroughly discussed how Plan S fits in the current unequal knowledge production system and what its implications will be for existing inequalities among researchers from different nations, economic classes, career stages, or other determinants that currently affect access to funding and publishing opportunities….

the potential of implementing its principles relies largely on the availability of research funding and regional funders’ willingness and ability to cover OA publishing costs….

A second major issue is economic inequalities across countries, which largely pre-determine the ability of researchers to publish in high-impact, rigorous journals, their access to funding opportunities and the capacity of their academic institutions to cover OA publishing costs…. ”