Neue Studie vom OA-Monitor: 15 Jahre Open Access Entwicklung (New study from the OA Monitor: 15 years of Open Access development) | BMBF Digitale Zukunft

Open Access – i.e. the free, digital publishing of scientific literature – has increased significantly worldwide and also in Germany since the beginnings of the Open Access (OA) movement in 2003. How has publishing behaviour changed in Germany? The recently published study by the BMBF-funded project “Synergies for Open Access” provides an overview of developments from 2005 to 2019.

—————–

Open Access – also das freie, digitale Publizieren wissenschaftlicher Literatur – hat weltweit und auch in Deutschland deutlich zugenommen seit den Anfängen der Open Access (OA)-Bewegung in 2003. Wie hat sich das Publikationsverhalten in Deutschland verändert? Die jüngst veröffentlichte Studie des BMBF-geförderten Projektes „Synergien für Open Access“ gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklungen der Jahre 2005 bis 2019.

Internet Archive 25th Anniversary – Universal Access to All Knowledge

“As the Internet Archive turns 25, we invite you on a journey from way back to way forward, through the pivotal moments when knowledge became more accessible for all.

From the Library of Alexandria to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press; from the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to information to the creation of the World Wide Web, access to knowledge has always been thanks to the builders and the dreamers.

Now, go way back with us to 1996 when a young computer scientist named Brewster Kahle dreamed of building a “Library of Everything” for the digital age. A library containing all the published works of humankind, free to the public, and structured as a nonprofit to last the ages. He named this digital library the Internet Archive. Its mission: to provide everyone with “Universal Access to All Knowledge.” …”

Revisiting – The Google Generation Is Alright – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Lettie Conrad: Turning a retrospective eye on the last dozen years’ fear and loathing about the “Google Generation,” I am impressed by early calls for the digital transformation of academic publishing and predictions about how technological disruptions would usher in lasting changes to users’ experiences of all ages and areas of study. When we revisit these posts, such as this 2009 commentary from Ann Michael following sessions on the topic at SSP’s Annual Meeting that year, we can see the ground on which publishers and our partners have been building more service-oriented programs and data-driven digital products. 

Evidence of changing researcher practices and scholarly communications, from studies like those from the CIBER research team, are now being integrated into user-driven publishing strategies. And, looking back, we can see that many of these changes are not specific to the younger set, but in fact, Google (and other disruptors) have wrought lasting changes on the information experiences of all of us. For those at the forefront of such product development and cultural change, progress can sometimes feel slow and painful. It can help to look back and remember how far we’ve come….”

Reflections as the Internet Archive turns 25 – Internet Archive Blogs

“As a young man, I wanted to help make a new medium that would be a step forward from Gutenberg’s invention hundreds of years before. 

By building a Library of Everything in the digital age, I thought the opportunity was not just to make it available to everybody in the world, but to make it better–smarter than paper. By using computers, we could make the Library not just searchable, but organizable; make it so that you could navigate your way through millions, and maybe eventually billions of web pages.

The first step was to make computers that worked for large collections of rich media. The next was to create a network that could tap into computers all over the world: the Arpanet that became the Internet. Next came augmented intelligence, which came to be called search engines. I then helped build WAIS–Wide Area Information Server–that helped publishers get online to anchor this new and open system, which came to be enveloped by the World Wide Web.  

By 1996, it was time to start building the library….”

Review of: Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access

“In the nearly 20 years since the publication of the three declarations on open access (OA) (Bethesda, Budapest, and Berlin), many digital and economic developments have altered the landscape of open scholarly publishing. Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, a 25-chapter collection edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray, explores questions raised by these changes with a focus on how the intersection of technologies and traditions surrounding publishing and OA are informed by the past and may project into the future.

The book is divided into six parts: colonial influences; epistemologies; publics and politics; archives and preservation; infrastructures and platforms; and global communities. The editors have chosen well in assembling dozens of scholars and practitioners from both the Global South and Global North in this useful volume aimed at those who study and practice OA scholarship. Each of the chapters succeeds in advancing the conversation regarding either the historical dimensions or future directions of a particular facet of open scholarship. The collection seeks to provide a range of perspectives across current research and inform practice but is not introductory and those new to the conversation may do well to first read an overview of OA scholarly communication.1

As with many developments in digital technology, the earliest rhetoric around digital, OA scholarship was largely, even overly, optimistic. Many of the assumptions underpinning OA disruption posited inevitably greater freedom and openness in scholarly communication.

The volume opens with four chapters that complicate this narrative and offer a deeply insightful critique of the promise of OA scholarship, specifically as it relates to post-colonial societies. In Chapter 1, the author draws from Jacques Derrida’s scholarship on Plato’s Pharmacy to explore the ways that OA implementation can be a sort of pharmakon (“poison remedy”) by fostering healthy scholarly flourishing in some regions while acting to noxious effect in the African context. The theme of OA systems and the perpetuation of inequality are expanded upon in the second chapter while the final two chapters of the first section, drawing from current best practices, offer suggestions for a more just and inclusive future….” 

Lebert, Marie, A short history of ebooks

Table of contents:

1. Project Gutenberg, a visionary project

2. The milestones of Project Gutenberg

3. PDF, a pioneer format created by Adobe

4. Gabriel, a portal for European national libraries

5. The British Library and its treasures

6. From PDAs to smartphones

7. The first e-readers

8. E Ink, an electronic ink technology

9. Online dictionaries and encyclopedias

10. Experiments by best-selling authors

11. From OeB to EPUB as a standard format

12. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for the world

13. The Creative Commons licence

14. From Google Print to Google Books

15. The Internet Archive, a library for the world

16. eBooks seen by some pioneers

17. A tribute to librarians around the world

18. A timeline from 1971 until now

Morrison et al. (2021) Open access article processing charges 2011 – 2021 | uOttawa Research

by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou & Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.

A preprint of the full article is available here: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/42327

The two base datasets and their documentation are available as open data: Morrison, Heather et al., 2021, “2011 – 2021 OA APCs”, https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/84PNSG, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1

 

via https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2021/06/24/open-access-article-processing-charges-2011-2021/

Open access article processing charges 2011 – 2021 | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou & Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.

Coyle’s InFormation: Digitization Wars, Redux

“From 2004 to 2016 the book world (authors, publishers, libraries, and booksellers) was involved in the complex and legally fraught activities around Google’s book digitization project. Once known as “Google Book Search,” the company claimed that it was digitizing books to be able to provide search services across the print corpus, much as it provides search capabilities over texts and other media that are hosted throughout the Internet. 

Both the US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Google (both separately and together) for violation of copyright. These suits took a number of turns including proposals for settlements that were arcane in their complexity and that ultimately failed. Finally, in 2016 the legal question was decided: digitizing to create an index is fair use as long as only minor portions of the original text are shown to users in the form of context-specific snippets. 

We now have another question about book digitization: can books be digitized for the purpose of substituting remote lending in the place of the lending of a physical copy? This has been referred to as “Controlled Digital Lending (CDL),” a term developed by the Internet Archive for its online book lending services. The Archive has considerable experience with both digitization and providing online access to materials in various formats, and its Open Library site has been providing digital downloads of out of copyright books for more than a decade. Controlled digital lending applies solely to works that are presumed to be in copyright. …”

Open access publishing in chemistry: a practical perspective informing new education

Abstract:  In the late 1990s chemists were among the early adopters of open access (OA) publishing. As also happened with preprints, the early successful adoption of OA publishing by chemists subsequently slowed down. In 2016 chemistry was found to be the discipline with the lowest proportion of OA articles in articles published between 2009 and 2015. To benefit from open science in terms of enhanced citations, collaboration, job and funding opportunities, chemistry scholars need updated information (and education) of practical relevance about open science. Suggesting avenues for quick uptake of OA publishing from chemists in both developed and developing countries, this article offers a critical perspective on academic publishing in the chemical sciences that will be useful to inform that education.

 

Open Access: Understanding the Mission, the Models, and the Mindsets

“Over the past 20 years, Open Access publishing has evolved from an aspirational idea into a widely accepted practice in scholarly communications. For those just getting started in publishing and scholarly communications, it can seem like everyone just “knows” what is meant by open access. But how OA is defined and how widely it is adopted differs among institutions, regions, and disciplines. Understanding how open access is funded, how it is operationalized, and to what extent content it is truly “open” can vary widely depending on the stakeholder—librarian, funder, publisher, or researcher. 

Attendees of this introductory workshop will learn about the history and evolution of open access, from the Budapest Open Access Initiative to Plan S, and explore the evolution from the original green and gold OA models to the latest transformative agreements and other business models.

Specifically, the workshop will cover:

Brief history of open access and its position in the broader context of Open Science
Different types of open access and how these definitions are contested
Affordances and limitations of open access
Perspectives of different stakeholders 
Approaches to funding models: transformative agreements, pure publish agreements, memberships, subventions, and micro-payments
Ways that open access may develop in the future…”

Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens? – Kamerlin – – Development and Change – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  This academic thought piece provides an overview of the history of, and current trends in, publishing practices in the scientific fields known to the authors (chemical sciences, social sciences and humanities), as well as a discussion of how open access mandates such as Plan S from cOAlition S will affect these practices. It begins by summarizing the evolution of scientific publishing, in particular how it was shaped by the learned societies, and highlights how important quality assurance and scientific management mechanisms are being challenged by the recent introduction of ever more stringent open access mandates. The authors then discuss the various reactions of the researcher community to the introduction of Plan S, and elucidate a number of concerns: that it will push researchers towards a pay?to?publish system which will inevitably create new divisions between those who can afford to get their research published and those who cannot; that it will disrupt collaboration between researchers on the different sides of cOAlition S funding; and that it will have an impact on academic freedom of research and publishing. The authors analyse the dissemination of, and responses to, an open letter distributed and signed in reaction to the introduction of Plan S, before concluding with some thoughts on the potential for evolution of open access in scientific publishing.

 

 

 

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….”

Altmetrics: Part 2- Celebrating Altmetric’s Decade- AN ATG Original – Charleston Hub

“Altmetric, the company, has been in existence for ten years now. The company has grown, and to get the view from company officials themselves, we submitted questions and various company officials responded to give us an inside look at  Altmetric today – and what we might expect in the future….”

Why they shared: recovering early arguments for sharing social scientific data | Science in Context | Cambridge Core

Abstract:  Most social scientists today think of data sharing as an ethical imperative essential to making social science more transparent, verifiable, and replicable. But what moved the architects of some of the U.S.’s first university-based social scientific research institutions, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), and its spin-off, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), to share their data? Relying primarily on archived records, unpublished personal papers, and oral histories, I show that Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Philip Converse, and others understood sharing data not as an ethical imperative intrinsic to social science but as a useful means to the diverse ends of financial stability, scholarly and institutional autonomy, and epistemological reproduction. I conclude that data sharing must be evaluated not only on the basis of the scientific ideals its supporters affirm, but also on the professional objectives it serves.