Library Publishing Workflows Project Releases Journal Workflow Documentation | Educopia Institute

“There is no single correct way for a library to publish journals; it’s a process that often grows organically in response to local needs. However, having models to draw from when creating or updating a journal publishing workflow can result in better processes and stronger partnerships. 

To enable library publishers to build on each others’ work in this area, the Library Publishing Workflows project (IMLS 2019-2022) is excited to release a complete set of journal publishing workflow documentation for each of our twelve partner libraries.

 

The programs behind these workflows are large and small, high-touch and light-touch, and staffed and focused in a variety of ways. Individually, they offer models for similar programs. As a set, they highlight the diversity of practice in this vital area of librarianship. 

For each partner library, we have provided a program profile, one or more workflow diagrams, and accompanying detailed workflows. We are also releasing the workflow diagrams as a set, to enable quick review and comparison across all of the workflows. The documentation is the result of more than two years of interviews, revisions, group discussions, and peer reviews. Because publishing workflows are always evolving, however, this documentation represents a snapshot in time….”

Assessing the Effect of Article Processing Charges on the Geographic Diversity of Authors Using Elsevier’s ‘Mirror Journal’ System

Journals publishing open access (OA) articles often require that authors pay article processing charges (APC). Researchers in the Global South often cite APCs as a major financial obstacle to OA publishing, especially in widely-recognized or prestigious outlets. Consequently, it has been hypothesized that authors from the Global South will be underrepresented in journals charging APCs. We tested this hypothesis using >37,000 articles from Elsevier’s ‘Mirror journal’ system, in which a hybrid ‘Parent’ journal and its Gold-OA ‘Mirror’ share editorial boards and standards for acceptance. Most articles were non-OA; 45% of articles had lead authors based in either the United States of America (USA) or China. After correcting for the effect of this dominance and differences in sample size, we found that OA articles published in Parent and Mirror journals had lead authors with similar Geographic Diversity. However, Author Geographic Diversity of OA articles was significantly lower than that of non-OA articles. Most OA articles were written by authors in high-income countries, and there were no articles in Mirror journals by authors in low-income countries. Our results for Elsevier’s Mirror-Parent system are consistent with the hypothesis that APCs are a barrier to OA publication for scientists from the Global South.

Job: Publishing Officer (Scottish Universities Open Access Press). Fixed Term 2 Years, 1.0 FTE. Application deadline: Nov 3, 2021 | University of Dundee

We are recruiting for an exceptional individual to join us as a Publishing Officer (Scottish Universities Open Access Press) within our Research and Resources Division, LLC&CI to implement a new Open Access University Press for Scotland.

This post is to implement a new Open Access University Press for Scotland. A non-commercial press with shared ownership member institutions of the Scottish Confederation of University & Research Libraries. The scope of the platform will initially focus on monographs, set within a broader context of developing new library-led open access publishing services and initiatives.

Your priorities will include:

Regular reporting to Management Board of the press.
Establish and support editorial board and commissioning processes, and ensure scalability.
Embed academic-led advocacy strategy to engage potential authors.
Establish brand and marketing strategy, including support of events like book launches or publicity events.
Clearly document workflows covering stages of publications for various formats or options.

Please see the job description (available on the university’s website, accessed by the apply button) for full details of the duties associated with this role.

Who we’re looking for:

Evidence of strong communication skills both written and verbal with proven ability to build effective relationships..
Ability to talk through business and operational challenges clearly with partners at various experience levels.
Ability to liaise with a wide variety of stakeholders and authors and to demonstrate excellent support service skills.
Ability to plan own work and responsibilities over the short and medium term, with an awareness of longer-term issues, and meet deadlines.
Proven ability to work independently using initiative and judgement to deliver successful outcomes.

Please see the person specification for full details of the skills and experience required for this role.

We are one of the UK’s leading universities – internationally recognised for our expertise across a range of disciplines and research breakthroughs in multiple areas, including science, medicine and engineering, amongst many others. Conveniently located on the banks of River Tay, our main city-centre campus is at the heart of Dundee – an up-and-coming, friendly, compact and affordable city with a rich heritage in design and technology. We also have campuses at Ninewells Hospital and in Kirkcaldy which are easily accessible via local transport links.

For further information about this position please contact Hannah Whaley, Assistant Director, Research & Resources at h.whaley@dundee.ac.uk.

The diversity of our staff and students helps to make the University of Dundee a UK university of choice for undergraduate, postgraduate and distance learning. Family friendly policies, staff networks for BME, Disabled and LGBT staff, membership of Athena SWAN, the ECU Race Equality Charter and Stonewall as well as a full range of disability services, create an enjoyable and inclusive place to work.

scholar-led.network: New Support for Scientific Publication Projects

The scholar-led.network (German) wants to change this and advocates fair, diverse and public spirit-oriented publishing. In doing so, it is committed to and involved in Open Access journals, book publishers and blogs which are run collaboratively by scientists in order to give the diverse community of publication initiatives a voice. The network aims to be an advocate for independent, non-profit-oriented Open Access and to ensure sustainability in a field which is often characterised by project-based funding. In the interview, network co-founders Juliane Finger and Marcel Wrzesinski introduce the initiative and discuss its challenges, goals and initial plans.

Why the price of scholarly publishing is so much higher than the cost | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

“In an efficient market, competing providers of a good will each try to undercut each other until the prices they charge approach the cost. If, for example, Elsevier and Springer-Nature were competing in a healthy free market, they would each be charging prices around one third of what they are charging now, for fear of being outcompeted by their lower-priced competitor. (Half of those price-cuts would be absorbed just by decreasing the huge profit margins; the rest would have to come from streamlining business processes, in particular things like the costs of maintaining paywalls and the means of passing through them.)

So why doesn’t the Invisible Hand operate on scholarly publishers? Because they are not really in competition. Subscriptions are not substitutable goods because each published article is unique. If I need to read an article in an Elsevier journal then it’s no good my buying a lower-priced Springer-Nature subscription instead: it won’t give me access to the article I need.

(This is one of the reasons why the APC-based model — despite its very real drawbacks — is better than the subscription model: because the editorial-and-publication services offered by Elsevier and Springer-Nature are substitutable. If one offers the service for $3000 and the other for $2000, I can go to the better-value provider. And if some other publisher offers it for $1000 or $500, I can go there instead.)…

Björn Brembs has been writing for years about the fact that every market has a luxury segment: you can buy a perfectly functional wristwatch for $10, yet people spend thousands on high-end watches. He’s long been concerned that if scholarly publishing goes APC-only, then people will be queuing up to pay the €9,500 APC for Nature in what would become a straightforward pay-for-prestige deal. And he’s right: given the outstandingly stupid way we evaluate reseachers for jobs, promotion and tenure, lots of people will pay a 10x markup for the “I was published in Nature” badge even though Nature papers are an objectively bad way to communicate research.

But it feels like something stranger is happening here. It’s almost as though the whole darned market is a luxury segment….

How can funders fix this, and get APCs down to levels that approximate publishing cost? I see at least three possibilities.

First, they could stop paying APCs for their grantees. Instead, they could add a fixed sum onto all grants they make — $1,500, say — and leave it up to the researchers whether to spend more on a legacy publisher (supplementing the $1,500 from other sources of their own) or to spend less on a cheaper born-OA publisher and redistribute the excess elsewhere.

Second, funders could simply publish the papes themselves. To be fair several big funders are doing this now, so we have Wellcome Open Research, Gates Open Research, etc. But doesn’t it seem a bit silly to silo research according to what body awarded the grant that funded it? And what about authors who don’t have a grant from one of these bodies, or indeed any grant at all?

That’s why I think the third solution is best. I would like to see funders stop paying APCs and stop building their own publishing solutions, and instead collaborate to build and maintain a global publishing solution that all researchers could use irrespective of grant-recipient status. I have much to say on what such a solution should look like, but that is for another time.”

61th Online Seminar: Open Access Publishing – Zooming in on Copyright and CC Licenses | Helmholtz Open Science

The 61st Helmholtz Open Science Online Seminar will take place on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 from 3:00 p. m. to 4:30 p. m.

In this seminar, the Helmholtz Open Science Office will present on the topic of “Open Access Publishing – Zooming in on Copyright and CC Licenses”. We will shortly look into Open Access Publishing and the options for researchers at Helmholtz in general and then zoom in on the topics of copyright (What does this mean for your research, writing and publication process?) and CC Licences (How can you make use of these licences to “free” your own research and to successfully engage in Open Science?). After the presentation by Dr Christoph Bruch (Helmholtz Open Science Office) there will be ample opportunity for open discussion.

Questions can be submitted in advance via the Open Knowledge Foundation Online Pad and will – if possible – be addressed during the course of the event: https://pad.okfn.de/p/61st_Helmholtz_Open_Science_Online_Seminar

The 90-minute event will be held in English and will be conducted via the video conferencing tool Zoom. The seminar will not be recorded.

To participate in the event (free of charge), please register in advance.

Reimagining the past and future of academic books: interview with Janneke Adema, author of Living Books | DARIAH Open

At DARIAH, recognizing and even celebrating the complexities of humanistic and artistic research practices has always been a heart of our interest. This includes connecting DARIAHns with fair Open Access players and showcasing, discussing innovations that are pushing the boundaries of what we can conceive as the scholarly monograph in the 21st century. The conversation below with Janneke Adema, author of Living Books: Experiments in the Posthumanities had started out as a twitter exchange that later we continued in the margins of the book. In this post, you can read its remediated, recontextualized version where the questions are not directly anchored in the introduction chapter of the book. We discuss how blogging helped her to rethink book publishing (of her own and of others); the fetishization of print books and how it relates to Zoom background, dynamic forms of publishing and many more. Enjoy!

[…]

 

Adapt and Advance: Global community leaders highlight opportunities to drive openness and equity in scholarly publishing at the 15th Berlin Open Access Conference – Office of Scholarly Communication

Nearly 400 participants, representing hundreds of institutions and consortia from around the world, came together for the 15th Berlin Open Access Conference (B15) to discuss the ongoing transition of the scholarly publishing system to open access. Co-hosted by the University of California and the Open Access 2020 Initiative of the Max Planck Digital Library/Max Planck Society, the online conference placed particular emphasis on negotiation processes with publishers.

Watch the Webinar ? · Open Knowledge Institutions : Reinventing Universities

Recently, Open Knowledge Institutions was published openly by the MIT Press. Uniquely, this title went through a radically collaborative and transparent publication process, from its original drafting through the facilitation of the Book Sprints team, to its open review period as the inaugural title in the MIT Press’s Works in Progress program, to its open publication both on PubPub and on MIT Press Direct.

Our webinar “An Open Process for Open Knowledge,” hosted virtually on September 8, 2021 sought to explore this process with those involved. We discussed the benefits of and considerations around engaging in such an open process and how this connects to the subject matter of the book itself. Below is a recording of the event.

Publishers’ Protections Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment

The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a public study at the request of Congress to evaluate current copyright protections for publishers. Among other issues, the Office will consider the effectiveness of publishers’ existing rights in news content, including under the provisions of title 17 of the U.S. Code, as well as other federal and state laws; whether additional protections are desirable or appropriate; the possible scope of any such new protections, including how their beneficiaries could be defined; and how any such protections would interact with existing rights, exceptions and limitations, and international treaty obligations. To aid in this effort, the Office is seeking public input on a number of questions. The Office also plans to hold a virtual public roundtable to discuss these and related topics on December 9, 2021.

Librarians as gate-openers in open access publishing: A case study in the United Arab Emirates – ScienceDirect

The advent of open access (OA) has changed the scholarly communication landscape resulting in disruption of traditional relationships between different stakeholders. Thus, the gatekeeping role of academic librarians has been impaired. However, by assuming the role of gate-openers, librarians have become facilitators of OA uptake in the United Arab Emirates. Results of the UAE librarians survey show that they are aware of OA routes and predatory journals; they are using different instruction methods to educate users on OA resources and publishing; and they harness OA resources along the traditional subscription-based products. Readers of international library journals need to be aware of efforts undertaken by their peers to advance OA mandate outside the Eastern European and North American context, often dominating scholarly communication studies.

Librarians as gate-openers in open access publishing: A case study in the United Arab Emirates – ScienceDirect

The advent of open access (OA) has changed the scholarly communication landscape resulting in disruption of traditional relationships between different stakeholders. Thus, the gatekeeping role of academic librarians has been impaired. However, by assuming the role of gate-openers, librarians have become facilitators of OA uptake in the United Arab Emirates. Results of the UAE librarians survey show that they are aware of OA routes and predatory journals; they are using different instruction methods to educate users on OA resources and publishing; and they harness OA resources along the traditional subscription-based products. Readers of international library journals need to be aware of efforts undertaken by their peers to advance OA mandate outside the Eastern European and North American context, often dominating scholarly communication studies.

Tentative Florilegium: Experiments & Recipes for ReWriting Books | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Digital publishing tools and non-restrictive copyright regimes make it possible to incorporate source texts and data in ways that go beyond conventional citation practices, re-assessing the relationships between publications and their sources while providing full attribution. In the summer of 2021, COPIM’s Experimental Publishing Group hosted a mini-workshop series on ReUsing Data and ReUsing Texts to explore this potential. The ReUsing Data workshop experimented with how scholars and new kinds of data books might assemble, relate, expose and perform data differently. 

The ReUsing Texts workshop focused on how scholars might gather, engage, (dis)appropriate, remix and rewrite existing texts. The Combinatorial Books: Gathering Flowers project, set up by COPIM, Open Humanities Press and Gabriela Méndez Cota explores rewriting as a way of writing books. We co-hosted the workshop with Gabriela’s team of scholars, technologists, and students from the Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México and their work inspired the event. Gabriela and her team set out to collaboratively ‘rewrite’ Tondeur and Marder’s book The Chernobyl Herbarium: Fragments of an Exploded Consciousness (Open Humanities Press, 2016).

[…]