The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was founded by Lars Bjørnshauge in 2003; the current managing director is Joanna Ball. A cornerstone in the global Open Science landscape, DOAJ currently lists more than 18,000 peer-reviewed, strictly open access journals (Gold or Diamond). Dominic Mitchell, who has worked for DOAJ for the last ten years, explains how the indexing process is managed by a combination of volunteers and salaried staff like himself, how they work to exclude predatory journals from the list, and how DOAJ is financed. Furthermore, DOAJ is involved in several collaborative projects promoting high-quality scholarly publishing, including The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (4th ed., 2022).
“Research Ethics and Research Integrity are also an issue in Open Science and Citizen Science. As part of their training, these topics should be taught to Doctoral Candidates at the beginning of their career. ROSiE is a three-year project funded by HORIZON2020. ROSiE project’s mission is to develop and openly share novel practical tools that ensure research ethics and research integrity in open science and citizen science. Listen to this episode of the PRIDE Podcast and find out, which tools the Rosie project has to offer for you. The 2023 PRIDE Conference is also dedicated to the subject….”
“A new policy from the White House will extend that rapid-response thinking beyond COVID to the rest of the scientific world.
In August 2022, a directive from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy declared an end to the journal paywall. This memo establishes a timeline for ALL research funded by the US federal government to be made freely accessible to the public the moment it is published.
It does this not to punish legacy journals, but to improve the speed and dissemination of scientific research, to encourage equity of access, and to increase public trust in the scientific process.
This week, we talk with Heather Joseph, Executive Director of the open access advocacy organization SPARC. She tells us how this policy evolved, and what it means for the future of scientific publishing.”
“Over the past 20 years, the academic publishing market has undergone changes that have led us to a juncture where power is concentrated in the hands of a handful of big companies. To help us understand how this came to be and its implications, we are joined today by Claudio Aspesi, a leading market analyst for the academic publishing market. Claudio is a consultant at SPARC, and has authored several reports about the market power and consolidation of the largest commercial players in this space….”
“We spoke to Johan Rooryck. As editor of open access journals, as well as executive director the COAlition S he is one of main contributors to open science. We talked about the transition of journals to Open Access, Plan S and the future of the publishing….”
“Over the last years, as the process of conducting research and scholarship has moved more and more online, it has become clear that user surveillance and data extraction has crept into academic infrastructure in multiple ways.
For those committed to preserving academic freedom and knowledge equity, it’s important to interrogate the practices and structures of the companies that are collecting and selling this data, and the impacts of this business model on academic infrastructure – and particularly on already marginalized and underfunded scholars and students.
To help us understand this landscape and its implications, today we are in conversation with Sarah Lamdan, author of the forthcoming book Data Cartels: The Companies That Control and Monopolize Our Information. …”
“There’s no doubt for me that we are moving along a trajectory where open access is absolutely going to be the outcome. The question is just how we get there and how quickly we get there.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the Office of Science and Technology Policy from the United States White House put out an edict that all federally funded research in the US must be made open access by 2026. In Australia already, we have a number of moves that are going in that direction.
We know that our Chief Scientist Dr Cathy Foley is looking at that closely, and the [National Health and Medical Research Council] and the [Australian Research Council] have open access policies.
I think it’s fair to say that this is a topic of great interest and Australia probably needs to move a little bit quicker.
“For the MJA [Medical Journal of Australia], there’s no question that we want open access. We want that research to be read; it needs to be used and reused, not just by practitioners but by patients. Open access can only be a good thing for the Journal.”
“Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science….”
“It’s a new season of The Received Wisdom!! After their partial summer hiatus, Shobita and Jack discuss the fraud allegations that are rocking the foundations of what we know about Alzheimer’s Disease, and the Biden Administration’s directive to make freely available all publications based on federally funded research. And, they chat with Macarthur Fellow Mary Gray about the “ghost workers” behind digital technologies and supposedly artificial intelligence. Gray is Senior Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research, Faculty Associate at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, and faculty in the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering with affiliations in Anthropology and Gender Studies at Indiana University….
1. Why was the amyloid plaque hypothesis for Alzheimer’s so successful?
2. What are the potential drawbacks and limitations to the US government’s adoption of an open access publication policy?
3. What is ghost work?
4. Why can’t the problem of content moderation be solved solely through computation, and more generally computer science and engineering? What insights can deep understanding of the social dimensions of science and technology provide?
5. What don’t we think of ghost workers as experts? How might reframing it in that way change the discussion? What public policy options might it reveal?
6. How do Gray and Suri categorize different types of ghost work? ”
“It has been possible to see a lot of the work after a one-year embargo. The National Institutes of Health, the NIH, established over 20 years ago a public digital archive called PubMed Central, which has the full text of articles submitted to it by its grantees. But that archive was not nearly as useful as it might have been because of reluctance of journals to allow that to happen to articles on which they own the copyright, because investigators have been compliant with the desires of their favorite journals, and for many other reasons, until Congress said to the NIH well over a decade ago, you must get this material into a public database at least within a year after publication. That happened, and now PubMed Central has millions of articles widely used every day by every investigator. But it’s imperiled by not having adequate access to results when they’re published….
In the article, we’ve emphasized the major thing, which is the elimination of an embargo. But the article, the memo, does have many other things in it that are particularly appealing. It requires that a detailed plan be made, not just for displaying published articles but also for making the materials useful in machine-based learning exercises so that the format is compatible with extracting as much information as possible….
There’s no doubt in the minds of almost everybody that the rapid development of the RNA genome of the coronavirus was essential for, first of all, identifying what the agent of COVID-19 was, but then also in developing the vaccines that have been so important in trying to control this pandemic and developing various kinds of tests that allow us to detect the emergence of the variants that have plagued efforts to do public health control of the virus. So I think there are many ways in which it’s obvious that sharing data at the very, very earliest stages through sequence databases and the speed of communication has been remarkable and, of course, helped by the fact that many of our leading periodicals have followed this so closely and so well….
So this is important. And one of the things that some people accuse advocates like me of neglecting is the fact that there are real costs for publication. Nobody’s saying that publication is free. It’s just, we’re trying to promote access. But someone’s got to pay the costs of doing peer review. The costs are much less than they might otherwise be because the authors and the reviewers don’t get paid. Nevertheless, there are costs. And how do they get covered?
Well, the costs should be borne and are largely borne by the funders of research. And if you view the publication process as an element of the research experience, which it certainly is, it’s a very small element– as I mentioned, just a couple of percent– and, of course, essential if you’re going to make use of the work that gets done with the money. So in general, it’s the funders who pay….”
The US Government recently introduced updated policy guidance around access to academic papers which would see embargos lifted on taxpayer funded research papers.
This will have significant impact both in the US and around the world for accessibility to a wide range of peer-reviewed publications.
So, how did this decision come about and what impact could it have on research?
Director of Open Access Australasia from Queensland University of Technology, Virginia Barbour, speaks with Breakfast’s Tom Mann about the implications of this change.
“In this first episode of Nature’s Take, we get four of Nature’s staff around microphones to get their expert take on preprints. These pre-peer-review open access articles have spiked in number over recent years and have cemented themselves as an integral part of scientific publishing. But this has not been without its issues.
In this discussion we cover a lot of ground. Amongst other things, we ask whether preprints could help democratise science or contribute to a loss of trust in scientists. We pick apart the relationship between preprints and peer-reviewed journals and tackle some common misconceptions. We ask how preprints have been used by different fields and how the pandemic has changed the game. And as we look to the future, we ask how preprints fit into the discussion around open access and even if they could do away with journals all together….”
Open access is a term used to describe academic books, journals, and other research that can be freely copied and shared rather than tightly controlled by large commercial publishers as expensive, proprietary product. Over the past 20 years, this vision has fallen far short of its original ambitions, however, as large publishers have developed new regimes to control the circulation of scientific and scholarly knowledge and charge dearly for it. Since 2015, the Radical Open Access Collective has been championing experimental, noncommercial and commons-based alternatives. In this interview, Sam Moore, an organizer of the Collective, takes stock of the state of open access publishing.
“In the podcast of the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Heller talks about the goals, role models and special features of the festival
The podcast “The Future is Open Science” of the ZBW regularly hosts interesting people who talk about Open Science in science.
In the latest edition of the podcast, Lambert Heller, head of the Open Science Lab at TIB – Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, is a guest. The discussion is about the first German Open Science Festival, which will take place on 30 and 31 August 2022 at the Welfenschloss of Leibniz Universität Hannover. Lambert Heller reveals how the idea for the Open Science Festival came about, what role models there were and what the participants can look forward to under the motto “Meet. Share. Inspire. Care.” …”
“In today’s episode, Nikesh Gosalia talks to Lisa Cuevas Shaw about open science practices and her journey in the publishing industry. Lisa unpacks her experiences, from her beginnings at Sage to her stint at McGraw Hill, before her return to Sage to help expand Corwin. She discusses the opportunities that led her to the Center for Open Science, which is championing open science practices through their tool, Open Science Framework (OSF), using a three-pronged approach of product, policy, and research. Lisa also shares advice on risky career moves, making this a must-listen for all early career researchers. Nikesh and Lisa also dive deep into the nitty gritty of open science. They discuss the goals of open science, its UNESCO definition, and how open science is different from open access. Finally, Lisa makes a strong case for making open science the new default practice, from fostering increased trust in science, accelerating scientific findings, to reducing global inequities.
Lisa Cuevas Shaw is the COO and Managing Director for the Center for Open Science, and an adjunct professor in Management at Pepperdine University. Lisa has extensive experience in the publishing world, having previously worked as a COO and a Deputy Publisher for JMIR Publications and a Senior Vice President for Sage Publishing. She can be reached on Twitter. ”