Category Archives: oa.comparisons

CIPSI: an open chemical intellectual property service for medicinal chemists.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  The availability of patent chemical data offers public access to a chemical space that is not well covered by other sources collecting small molecules from scholarly literature. However, open applications to facilitate the search and analysis of biologically-relevant molecular structures present in patents are still largely missing. We have developed CIPSI, an open Chemical Intellectual Property Service @ IMIM to assist medicinal chemists in searching and analysing molecules in SureChEMBL patents. The current version contains 6,240,500 molecules from 236,689 pharmacological patents, of which 5,949,214 are confidently assigned to core chemical structures reminiscent of the Markush structure in the patent claim. The platform includes some graphical tools to facilitate comparative patent analyses between drugs, chemical substructures, and company assignees. CIPSI is available at [http://cipsi.imim.es](http://cipsi.imim.es).

CIPSI: an open chemical intellectual property service for medicinal chemists – PubMed

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  The availability of patent chemical data offers public access to a chemical space that is not well covered by other sources collecting small molecules from scholarly literature. However, open applications to facilitate the search and analysis of biologically-relevant molecular structures present in patents are still largely missing. We have developed CIPSI, an open Chemical Intellectual Property Service @ IMIM to assist medicinal chemists in searching and analysing molecules in SureChEMBL patents. The current version contains 6,240,500 molecules from 236,689 pharmacological patents, of which 5,949,214 are confidently assigned to core chemical structures reminiscent of the Markush structure in the patent claim. The platform includes some graphical tools to facilitate comparative patent analyses between drugs, chemical substructures, and company assignees. CIPSI is available at [http://cipsi.imim.es](http://cipsi.imim.es).

 

Open access movement in the scholarly world: Pathways for libraries in developing countries – Arslan Sheikh, Joanna Richardson, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Open access is a scholarly publishing model that has emerged as an alternative to traditional subscription-based journal publishing. This study explores the adoption of the open access movement worldwide and the role that libraries can play in addressing those factors which are slowing its progress within developing countries. The study has drawn upon both qualitative data from a focused literature review and quantitative data from major open access platforms. The results indicate that while the open access movement is steadily gaining acceptance worldwide, the progress in developing countries within geographical areas such as Africa, Asia and Oceania is quite a bit slower. Two significant factors are the cost of publishing fees and the lack of institutional open access mandates and policies to encourage uptake. The study provides suggested strategies for academic libraries to help overcome current challenges.

 

When Is a Year Complete? · OpenISU

Posted on by
Reply

Scholarly metadata takes time to get into databases. How long do I need to wait before the records from a completed calendar year are available in bibliographic databases? When do December 2022 papers reliably show up in databases in 2023? I have typically waited until the following September before looking at the most recent year, but is that enough?

To collect actual data on record availability, I set up an automated API call in February 2022. Every day for the past 18 months, the program has launched at 9:00am (assuming my computer is turned on and plugged in) and collects the number of 2022 ISU publications in Web of Science, Dimensions, and OpenAlex.  The program records the data, saves it, and updates the plot.

Social-media Search Comparo

Posted on by
Reply

“Bluesky, Threads, and Mastodon (as of last week) all have a built-in search capability. So now’s a good time for a first-look comparison.

My social-media life is at @timbray@cosocial.ca, a member-owned co-op Mastodon instance, but I regularly visit Bluesky and Threads, just to keep in touch. I continue to believe that the evolution of humanity’s tools of conversation is terribly important. This week, our member-owned co-op instance installed Mastodon 4.2 and turned on search….”

Open Funder Registry to transition into Research Organization Registry (ROR) – Crossref

Posted on by
Reply

“Today, we are announcing a long-term plan to deprecate the Open Funder Registry. For some time, we have understood that there is significant overlap between the Funder Registry and the Research Organization Registry (ROR), and funders and publishers have been asking us whether they should use Funder IDs or ROR IDs to identify funders. It has therefore become clear that merging the two registries will make workflows more efficient and less confusing for all concerned. Crossref and ROR are therefore working together to ensure that Crossref members and funders can use ROR to simplify persistent identifier integrations, to register better metadata, and to help connect research outputs to research funders.

Just yesterday, we published a summary of a recent workshop between funders and publishers on funding metadata workflows that we convened with the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and Sesame Open Science. As the report notes, “open funding metadata is arguably the next big thing” [in Open Science]. That being the case, we think this is the ideal time to strengthen our support of open funding metadata by beginning this transition to ROR….”

Measuring open access publications: a novel normalized open access indicator

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  The issue of open access (OA) to scientific publications is attracting growing interest within the scientific community and among policy makers. Open access indicators are being calculated. In its 2019 ranking, the ”Centre for Science and Technology Studies” (CWTS) provides the number and the share of OA publications per institution. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of institutions makes comparisons based on the shares of OA publications biased. We show that OA publishing practices vary considerably according to discipline. As a result, we propose two methods to normalize OA share; by WoS subject categories and by disciplines. Normalized Open Access Indicator (NOAI) corrects for disciplinary composition and allows a better comparability of institutions or countries.

A study on copyright issues of different controlled digital lending (CDL) modes – Ying Wang, Tomas A. Lipinski, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  In the recent years, CDL has been heatedly talked about, CDL should be treated objectively and rationally. Getting knowledge of CDL modes and their copyright issues is critical for sustainable development of CDL. Rather than CDL becomes a transient phenomenon as a result of many copyright hurdles. The paper will explore CDL modes by combing CDL practices and programs from research papers and official website documents of different library organizations. Then, based on legal frameworks of CDL in the US, Canada and the UK which are summarized, copyright issues of CDL modes are analyzed from perspectives of implementing institution, service resources, and usage mode. Finally, some copyright recommendations for sustainable development of CDL are proposed. We believe that library institutions can use CDL to advance their crucial mission for the public’s interest through making sense of different CDL modes and their copyright issues and implementing some proposals about copyright processing.

 

 

Finding the Right Platform: A Crosswalk of Academy-Owned and Open-Source Digital Publishing Platforms | hc:59231 | Humanities CORE

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  A key responsibility for many library publishers is to collaborate with authors to determine the best mechanisms for sharing and publishing research. Librarians are often asked to assist with a wide range of research outputs and publication types, including eBooks, digital humanities (DH) projects, scholarly journals, archival and thematic collections, and community projects. These projects can exist on a variety of platforms both for profit and academy owned. Additionally, over the past decade, more and more academy owned platforms have been created to support both library publishing programs. Library publishers who wish to emphasize open access and open-source publishing can feel overwhelmed by the proliferation of available academy-owned or -affiliated publishing platforms. For many of these platforms, documentation exists but can be difficult to locate and interpret. While experienced users can usually find and evaluate the available resources for a particular platform, this kind of documentation is often less useful to authors and librarians who are just starting a new publishing project and want to determine if a given platform will work for them. Because of the challenges involved in identifying and evaluating the various platforms, we created this comparative crosswalk to help library publishers (and potentially authors) determine which platforms are right for their services and authors’ needs.

Characterization of Comments About bioRxiv and medRxiv Preprints | Medical Journals and Publishing | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

Posted on by
Reply

“Question  What is the content of the comments posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint platforms?

Findings  In this cross-sectional study, 7.3% of preprints from 2020 had received at least 1 comment (mean follow-up of 7.5 months), with a median length of 43 words. Criticisms, corrections, or suggestions (most commonly regarding interpretation, methodological design, and data collection) were the most prevalent types of content in these comments, followed by compliments and questions.

Meaning  This study found that, although rare, when comments were present on the preprint platforms, they addressed relevant topics that would be expected to emerge from peer review.

Clarivate Annual G20 Scorecard Analyzes Global Research Performance Trends Across G20 Nations | STM Publishing News

Posted on by
Reply

“The G20 scorecard presents an exceptional vantage point on the strengths and challenges of each G20 nation’s research ecosystem. By assessing key indicators such as research output, citations, collaboration networks and innovation potential, the scorecard offers invaluable insights into the changing patterns of worldwide scientific advancement.

Key findings in the 2023 G20 scorecard include: …

Brazil’s output in humanities is three times more likely than the G20 average to be published in an open access (OA) journal. Brazil’s emphasis on OA publication in the humanities sets it apart and may have implications for access to knowledge and the dissemination of research findings….

 

Canada boasts an above-average proportion of output in social sciences, medicine, humanities and arts, although OA output is below average in all categories. Canada’s diverse research output and below-average OA rates prompt discussions on access to research findings and collaboration patterns…

In the United Kingdom, in 2022 more than half of output was published in OA journals. Collaborative CNCI remains above the world average but has fallen during the last decade. The U.K.’s increasing OA output and evolving collaboration trends signal shifts in research dissemination and partnership strategies….”

Article Processing Charges in Gold Open Access Journals: An Empirical Study: Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries: Vol 0, No 0

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This study focuses on analyzing the trends in article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals. To gather the required data, a CSV file was generated from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The APC values were assessed and converted into standardized currencies, including INR and USD. Among the 17,379 journals included in the DOAJ, only 5,122 journals were found to charge APCs. Through the examination of the collected data, it was discovered that the highest APC amount recorded was INR 518,334.95 (equivalent to USD 6680.46), while the lowest APC observed was INR 1.04 (equivalent to USD 0.013).

Grambank

Posted on by
Reply

“Grambank was constructed in an international collaboration between the Max Planck institutes in Leipzig and Nijmegen, the Australian National University, the University of Auckland, Harvard University, Yale University, the University of Turku, Kiel University, Uppsala University, SOAS, the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme, and over a hundred scholars from around the world. Grambank is designed to be used to investigate the global distribution of features, language universals, functional dependencies, language prehistory and interactions between language, cognition, culture and environment. The Grambank database currently covers 2,467 language varieties, capturing a wide range of grammatical phenomena in 195 features, from word order to verbal tense, nominal plurals, and many other well-studied comparative linguistic variables. Grambank’s coverage spans 215 different language families and 101 isolates from all inhabited continents. The aim is for Grambank to ultimately cover all languages for which a grammar or sketch grammar exists. Grambank is part of Glottobank, a research consortium that involves work on complementary databases of lexical data, paradigms, numerals and sound patterns in the world’s languages. Grambank can be used in concert with other databases, such as those in Glottobank and D-PLACE, to deepen our understanding of our history and communicative capabilities.”

[2308.04186] The Emergence of Preprints: Comparing Publishing Behaviour in the Global South and the Global North

Posted on by
Reply

Purpose: The recent proliferation of preprints could be a way for researchers worldwide to increase the availability and visibility of their research findings. Against the background of rising publication costs caused by the increasing prevalence of article processing fees, the search for other ways to publish research results besides traditional journal publication may increase. This could be especially true for lower-income countries. Design/methodology/approach: Therefore, we are interested in the experiences and attitudes towards posting and using preprints in the Global South as opposed to the Global North. To explore whether motivations and concerns about posting preprints differ, we adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining a quantitative survey of researchers with focus group interviews. Findings: We found that respondents from the Global South were more likely to agree to adhere to policies and to emphasise that mandates could change publishing behaviour towards open access. They were also more likely to agree posting preprints has a positive impact. Respondents from the Global South and the Global North emphasised the importance of peer-reviewed research for career advancement. Originality: The study has identified a wide range of experiences with and attitudes towards posting preprints among researchers in the Global South and the Global North. To our knowledge, this has hardly been studied before, which is also because preprints only have emerged lately in many disciplines and countries.

Publications | Free Full-Text | Simulating and Contrasting the Game of Open Access in Diverse Cultural Contexts: A Social Simulation Model

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Open Access is a global cause with the aim of allowing unrestricted access to all scientific research output in electronic formats. This paper presents a model for simulating the game of interests behind this cause in order to investigate ways of promoting the practice of open access. The model represents the following actors: Academics, Administrators, Funders, Publishers and Politicians. Five scenarios were developed to represent both realistic and ideal, interesting, situations. The model was developed using the SocLab platform—a formalization of the sociology of organizational action. It is based on previous descriptions of the game and expert knowledge. A structural analysis permits us to examine the properties of the sub-model behind each scenario. The results corroborate certain intuitions about the scenarios representing realistic cases, e.g., they indicate that publishers, being isolated in their interests, are subject to strong pressures from other actors, who have a circumstantial alliance. Administrators take an intermediate stance in all scenarios. The best scenarios for open access are those in which Politicians and Funders clearly support the cause by expressing mandates in that direction, backing academics. Surprisingly, the model shows that it is in the Publishers’ interest not to take an extremist position against open access.