The Mettre en œuvre la stratégie de non-cession des droits sur les publications scientifiques a tool for researchers is now also available in English : Implementing the rights retention strategy for scientific publications.
The rights retention strategy is part of France’s Second National Plan for Open Science. The strategy’s conclusions on the evaluation of research and the implementation of open science are also supported by the Council of the European Union. Finally, it enables researchers to align with certain funding agencies’ open science policies.
Abstract: The journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today’s research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and funders distribute their resources. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the “gold standard of scholarly assessment”. We took as an example six high impact general medicine journals (Annals, BMJ, Lancet, Nature, NEJM and JAMA) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual IFs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their publication and citation rates by journal. A significant increase in IF change for COVID-19 manuscripts published from 2019 to 2020 was seen, against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts from 2019 to 2021.The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked 10 months earlier than the publication rate. The rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasised the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust on journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigour perceived by academia and the society. Loss of confidence towards procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivise authors to exploit the publication process by monopolising their research on COVID-19 and encourage them towards publishing in journals of predatory behaviour.
“In contrast, before the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, clinical researchers were generally reluctant to adopt widespread sharing of preprints, probably because of concern that the potential harm that could result to patients, if medical treatment is based on findings that have not been vetted by peer reviewers. For example, the BMJ group opened a preprint server (ClinMedNetPrints.org) in 1999, but was closed in 2008, because only around 80 submissions were posted during this period . The BMJ group, together with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Yale University launched a new server, bioR?iv in 2013, and medR?iv in 2019 , but they were not actively used.
Outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic triggered clinical researchers to use actively preprint servers, and during the initial few years of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 35,000 preprints, mainly related to COVID-19, have been posted to medR?iv. This marked increase in the posting of preprints indicates that clinical researchers have found benefits of preprints in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: research outcomes can be disseminated quickly, potentially speeding up research that may lead to the development of vaccines and treatments; quality of the draft can be improved by receiving feedback from a wider group of readers; the authors can claim priority of their discovery; and unlike articles published in subscription-based journals, all the preprints are freely available to anyone….”
“Publicly available data from open sources (census.gov, cdc.gov, data.gov, etc.) are vital resources for students and researchers in a variety of disciplines. Unfortunately, processing these datasets is often tedious and cumbersome. Organizations follow distinctive practices for codifying datasets. Combining data from different sources requires mapping common entities (city, county, etc.) and resolving different types of keys/identifiers. This process is time consuming, tedious and done over and over. Our goal with Data Commons is to address this problem.
Data Commons synthesizes a single graph from these different data sources. It links references to the same entities (such as cities, counties, organizations, etc.) across different datasets to nodes on the graph, so that users can access data about a particular entity aggregated from different sources without data cleaning or joining. We hope the data contained within Data Commons will be useful to students, researchers, and enthusiasts across different disciplines….
Data Commons can be accessed by anyone via the tools available on datacommons.org. Students, researchers and developers can use the REST, Python and Google Sheets APIs, all of which are free for educational, academic and journalistic research purposes….”
“The Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) project is working to change that by providing libraries with resources to create a robust, values-driven, and community-led system to share knowledge. With support from an Arcadia Fund grant, the NGLP began as a collaboration of Strategies for Open Science (Stratos), the California Digital Library (CDL), and Educopia with three co-investigators: Kristen Ratan, Catherine Mitchell and Katherine Skinner.
The team gathered feedback from the library community, developed open-source software, and has piloted technology solutions that are showing promising results. Their aim is to provide tools that will help librarians become key players as publishers – complementing their work as repository managers – to offer a sustainable, non-commercial alternative as knowledge brokers….
One pilot included five library publishers interested in testing a turnkey, hosted journal and institutional repository solution. Another, led by California Digital Library (CDL), tested the NGLP ecosystem’s ability to serve a large consortial publisher hosting in-house. And yet another, led by University of North Carolina Press and Longleaf Services, tested a journal and journal portal solution. All participants are eager to continue production services. …”
“Public access to research data is critical to advancing science and solving real world problems. The Realities of Academic Data Sharing (RADS) Initiative project team has spent considerable time this year developing surveys designed for campus administrators and funded researchers, inquiring into public-access research data management and sharing (DMS) activities and their costs. Public-access DMS activities are often distributed across institutional departments and units and, as such, the expenditures to support these activities are rarely captured holistically within one institution and may not even be captured at the unit or department level. The goal of surveying campus administrators and funded researchers is twofold: to determine where, within the institution, these activities are occurring, and to understand the costs to the institution to support them. Defining public-access DMS activities further provides a common framework for gathering expenses for the staffing, services, and infrastructure of these activities, which then provides a more comprehensive view of the overall cost of making research data publicly accessible.
Although the RADS studies focus on data management practices over the last decade, the project team recognizes that many of these activities may be helpful for those in the higher education community currently defining institutional processes for supporting public access to research data. Identifying necessary services, infrastructure, and staffing, and ways in which to categorize expenses and budgeting for open access to research data, is timely due to the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy and the revised federal agency policies that will result from the 2022 OSTP Nelson memo.
The RADS project team and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) have released a report, Public Access Data Management and Sharing Activities for Academic Administration and Researchers, that defines the data management and sharing activities used in our research. We hope that the research community will provide feedback around these activities, as this report presents version 1 of the RADS public access DMS activities. Additional versions will be released in response to community feedback and best practices as more institutions and agencies implement DMS policies in the coming year….”
“Today more than 40 public and private academic institutions in Texas—members of the Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA)—announced the conclusion of a successful negotiation with Elsevier. TLCUA member libraries secured cost savings on journal subscription access, along with a set of favorable license terms and a novel pilot experiment in restoration of author copyrights that stands to benefit all authors, not just those associated with TLCUA member institutions….”
“It seems like every couple of months, I get asked for advice on picking a Collection Management System (or maybe referred to as a digital repository, or something else) for use in an archive, special collection library, museum, or another small “GLAMorous” institution. The acronym is CMS, which is not to be confused with Content Management System (which is for your blog). This can be for collection management, digital asset management, collection description, digital preservation, public access and request support, or combinations of all of the above. And these things have to fit into an existing workflow/system, or maybe replace an old system and require a data migration component. And on top of that, there are so many options out there! This can be overwhelming!
What factors do you use in making a decision? I tried to put together some crucial components to consider, while keeping it as simple as possible (if 19 columns can be considered simple). I also want to be able to answer questions with a strong yes/no, to avoid getting bogged down in “well, kinda…” For example, I had a “Price” category and a “Handles complex media?” category but I took them away because it was too subjective of an issue to be able to give an easy answer. A lot of these are still going to be “well, kinda” and in that case, we should make a generalization. (Ah, this is where the “simple” part comes in!)
In the end, though, it is really going to depend on the unique needs of your institution, so the answer is always going to be “well, kinda?” But I hope this spreadsheet can be used as a starting point for those preparing to make a decision, or those who need to jog their memory with “Can this thing do that?”…”
“The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), a global publisher in chemical sciences and related fields, is now supplying full-text journal articles to Jisc’s Publications Router, which automatically delivers them into the open repositories of the UK institutions to which the authors are affiliated….”
Abstract: The Open Access (OA) movement supports online access to scholarly publications, eliminates financial and legal restrictions, and supports the dissemination of knowledge. Open access is not a new concept for Indian researchers. Still, there is some gap in the open access movement in India. Open access journals are growing in India, but many are questionable publications, and researchers are sending their papers to such journals. Many times, researchers are not able to identify the correct journal for their paper publication. The major goal of this study is to evaluate the role of DOAJ in the corpus of knowledge made by scholarly publications published between 2003 and 2022. Worldwide recognized database DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) was analyzed for this research study. Open access publishing demonstrates how the world of knowledge is dynamic. India has significantly contributed to the growth of knowledge with its 326 open access journals. DOAJ ambassador and other OA advocates are also trying for promoting open access in India.
“The guide explains the rights retention strategy, its benefits for the researcher and the operational details of its application. It also provides an FAQ that addresses the main questions about choosing licenses, the options available at the various stages of publication, and how to manage relationships with publishers….”
“The CNRS now asks its researchers to apply the strategy of non-assignment of copyright when submitting their articles to publishers.
What is the non-assignment policy?
Alain Schuhl: Scientists are the owners of their works: there is no reason for them to make an exclusive free transfer of them to publishers, thus depriving themselves of the possibility of reusing their own publications. With the strategy of non-assignment of copyright, it is now possible to distribute the accepted author manuscript (AAM) in immediate open access in an open archive, in particular the AAM of an article published in a journal under subscription. This allows immediate open access to be developed without paying publication charges (also misleadingly called article processing charges or APC)….
n English, it is about “ rights retention strategy ” which has been translated into French as “strategy of non-cession of rights”. The full wording would be: “strategy of not assigning copyright exclusively to a publisher ”. By immediately placing a CC-BY license on all their manuscripts up to the MAA, the authors avoid having their publication taken over entirely by the publisher. That’s why in English it’s called a “ retention of rights” strategy, because you don’t cede all your copyrights exclusively to the publisher. But to tell the truth, by putting a CC-BY license on his MAA, it is actually a “strategy of opening of rights”, since the scientist no longer needs to authorize other people to use his publication to translate it, distribute it, etc. Moreover, the author may freely reuse his own texts, graphics and other content for his courses or any communication, which is not the case when he assigns all of his rights to the publisher….”
“When COVID-19 first hit, MIT Press was quick to respond, making relevant book and journal content freely available to help scholars and the general public better understand the pandemic. But, the press’ publishing team wanted to do something more. Like so many in academia, they were becoming concerned with rising instances of false scientific claims entering the mainstream media and eager to stop the spread. Recognizing misinformation in preprints as well as misinterpretation of preprint findings as two primary causes, they began considering ways to flag questionable preprint information while boosting the signal of promising new research.
“Our Press Director Amy Brand and I were talking one day about what we could do, and that’s when the notion of launching an overlay journal of preprint reviews popped up,” said Nick Lindsay, MIT Press’ Director of Journals and Open Access. Lindsay and Brand brought the idea back to their team and began planning what would become Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19), the first multi-disciplinary OA overlay journal for peer reviews of coronavirus-related preprints. MIT Press launched RR:C19 in August 2020….”
Between August and November 2022, almost 80 individuals from across the research and publishing landscape contributed to a study we delivered on behalf of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), to support the development of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for their Open Access (OA) policy.
The framework will help UKRI and the sector assess open access progress, levels of compliance with the policy and its effectiveness. It will also seek to establish insights into open access publication trends across the UK and, where possible, their impact on academic practices and society.
We are in the process of finalising project outputs for public dissemination alongside our associates Bianca Kramer and Cameron Neylon, but we are now in a position to share some high-level findings and next steps. This blog covers five key principles we identified from our discussions with the research and publishing communities, as well as considering the implications for UKRI’s future M&E efforts.