Abstract: Purpose: Open science is a collection of practices that seek to improve the accessibility, transparency, and replicability of science. Although these practices have garnered interest in related fields, it remains unclear whether open science practices have been adopted in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD). This study aimed to survey the knowledge, implementation, and perceived benefits and barriers of open science practices in CSD.
Method: An online survey was disseminated to researchers in the United States actively engaged in CSD research. Four-core open science practices were examined: preregistration, self-archiving, gold open access, and open data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models.
Results: Two hundred twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were doctoral students (38%) or assistant professors (24%) at R1 institutions (58%). Participants reported low knowledge of preregistration and gold open access. There was, however, a high level of desire to learn more for all practices. Implementation of open science practices was also low, most notably for preregistration, gold open access, and open data (< 25%). Predictors of knowledge and participation, as well as perceived barriers to implementation, are discussed.
Conclusion: Although participation in open science appears low in the field of CSD, participants expressed a strong desire to learn more in order to engage in these practices in the future.
Abstract: This essay explores the emergence of self-archiving practices in the 1990s as a form of academic labour that is intimately tied to the popularization of the Internet. It argues that self-archiving is part of a sociotechnical imaginary of networked scholarly communication that has helped to shape understandings of digital scholarship and dissemination over the past three decades. Focusing on influential texts written by open access archivangelist Stevan Harnad in 1990 and 1994, the essay analyzes the language and discursive strategies used to promote selfarchiving as form of collective scholarly exchange. Through these writings, Harnad helped to articulate scholars to the Internet as a medium of publication, with impacts still seen today in policy discussions around open access and the public good that shape relations of knowledge production under contemporary forms of capitalism.
From yesterday’s blockbuster White House announcement on immediate OA for federally funded research:
Improving public access policies across the U.S. government to promote the rapid sharing of federally funded research data with appropriate protections and accountability measures will allow for greater validity of research results and more equitable access to data resources aligned with these ideals. To promote equity and advance the work of restoring the public’s trust in Government science, and to advance American scientific leadership, now is the time to amend federal policy to deliver immediate public access to federally funded research.
The no-embargo guidance, to be implemented by federal funding agencies over the next couple of years, is a huge win, full stop. SPARC North America and the ARL are right to celebrate the news. It is, in effect, a single-memo Plan (U.)S.
Still: the unintended consequences. Without lots of vigilance and careful policy revision, the edict—to be implemented across many agencies—could end up enthroning the article processing charge (APC).
Here’s the basic problem. As a growing number of studies document, most of the world’s academic authors (including most humanities and social science authors in the U.S.) can’t afford the often-usurious fees. The APC model, with its tolled access to authorship, is the subscription model seen through a camera obscura: author paywalls in place of reading paywalls. Thus the prevailing APC regime fixes one barrier to access, for readers, by erecting another, for authors.
The big risk is that the new policy will inadvertently crown the author-excluding APC. Thanks to the aggressive, profit-protecting moves of the big five publishers as well as some friendly fire from the Europeans’ Plan S, the APC is already in the pole position. Rich North American universities and well-heeled European nations have been signing so-called “read-and-publish” deals with the publishers for years now—deals that cover APCs for their faculty alone. In the last two years the pace of deal-making has picking up, under the “transformative agreement” euphemism—starving library budgets that could otherwise fund fee-free OA publishing. And since author fees are stitched into the deals, the approach serves to ratify—and secure in place—a scholarly publishing system underwritten by the APC.
Open Access (OA) to research publications is a fundamental resource for the advancement of scientific research. To facilitate the transition to OA, publishers and institutions have begun negotiating the so-called transformative agreements, contracts combining access to subscription journals with the ability to publish OA. While the debate on transformative agreements is very much alive, little attention is being paid to the “green road”, the practice of openly self-archiving manuscripts that have been accepted by journals but not yet typeset. Here we focus on medical literature, showing how the green road could outperform transformative agreements as a means of increasing the full and free availability of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
There are myriad models for supporting open publications, and keeping track of all the terminology can feel overwhelming. What is the difference between green, gold and diamond OA? Is Subscribe to Open the same thing as Opening the Future? And what exactly do people mean when they talk about transformative agreements?
No one model can sustainably transition all scholarly content to open, so in this session we will attempt to remove confusion surrounding the various options being offered to libraries. In this introductory webinar the presenters will simply and clearly explain the different revenue models for supporting open content, specifically related to electronic open books and open journals, as well as provide an overview of which models are currently being supported through LYRASIS Open initiatives. Handouts will be distributed during this session as a reference guide for future decision making.
Die Medizinische Bibliothek sichert die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung der Charité. Sie unterstützt Forschende, Studierende und Lehrende, Krankenversorgung und Verwaltung bei der effizienten und unabhängigen Nutzung und Verbreitung von Informationen und engagiert sich im Bereich Open Access. Die Charité strebt größtmögliche Offenheit für Publikationen sowie für zugrundeliegende Forschungsdaten an. Für die Charité mit rund 4.000 Veröffentlichungen jährlich stellt dies erhebliche kommunikative, organisatorische und finanzielle Herausforderungen dar. Im Rahmen des Berliner Exzellenzverbundes Berlin University Alliance (BUA) führt die Charité ein Projekt durch, um den grünen Weg des Open Access zu stärken.
Open-Access-Publikationen werden stärker rezipiert und häufiger zitiert als herkömmliche “Closed Access“-Publikationen und sind wichtig für die nationale und internationale Sichtbarkeit der Forschung aller Wissenschaftler*innen an der Charité wie an allen Einrichtungen der Berlin
University Alliance. “Green Open Access” , auch “Self-Archiving” genannt, ermöglicht es Autor*innen, wissenschaftliche Publikationen über eine Zweitveröffentlichung auf einem Publikationsserver frei zuänglich zu machen, ohne dass für Autor*innen Kosten entstehen. Green Open Access ist von besonderer Bedeutung auch vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender Mandate von Forschungsförderern, Open Access zu publizieren bei zugleich steigenden Open-Access-Artikelgebühren. Ziel des Projekts ist, die Möglichkeiten des Self-Archiving bekannt zu machen und als selbstverständliche Praxis im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu etablieren. Hierzu sollen Hindernisse für eine solche Praxis identifiziert und Wege zu deren Überwindung ermittelt und beworben werden. Das Projekt soll Möglichkeiten der Incentivierung von Green Open Access entwickeln und evaluieren und durch regelmäßige Workshops in digitalem und face-to-face Format eine Grundlage für die Verbreitung der nötigen Kenntnisse und Praktiken bilden. Ausgehend vom transdisziplinären Feld Diversity & Gender Equality soll eine Ausweitung und Vervielfältigung durch Mutiplikatorenschulung (teach-the-teacher) erreicht werden.
erfolgreich abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium im Bereich Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft (mind. Master); alternativ abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium in einem anderen Studiengang, bevorzugt Gender Studies oder Lebenswissenschaften (mind. Master) mit Praxiserfahrung (mind. 2 Jahre) in für die Aufgabe relevantem Gebiet oder nachgewiesener Zusatzqualifikation in einschlägigen Bereichen. Eine Promotion wird nicht vorausgesetzt, ist jedoch von Vorteil.
gru?ndliche Kenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Publikations- und Veröffentlichungspraxis einschl. des Publikationsmarktes,
vertiefte Kenntnisse im Bereich Open Access inkl. wissenschaftspolitischer Zielsetzungen und rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen des grünen Weg des Open Access (darunter Publisher und Funder Policies, Creative-Commons-Lizenzen, Preprints, institutionelle und fachspezifische Repositorien, Metadaten für die Veröffentlichung, Predatory Publishing).
sehr gute Vortrags- und Präsentationsfähigkeiten sowie ausgeprägte Kommunikationskompetenz und Serviceorientierung,
ausgeprägte Fähigkeit zu konzeptioneller und selbstständiger Arbeit sowie eine kooperative, motivierende und ergebnisorientierte Arbeitsweise
wünschenswert sind zudem Kenntnisse der Automatisierung von Workflows, insbesondere Kenntnisse über Schnittstellen und Werkzeuge wie SWORD, OAI-PMH, Deep Green, CrossCite, SHERPA/RoMEO, Unpaywall und OpenRefine
“First, self-archiving your AMs is good for philosophy. It makes it possible for researchers without journal subscriptions to access your work quickly and easily, which in turn helps them to make their own contributions to the field. For example, if there’s a paywalled article that I’m interested in, I’ll search for it in online repositories or check out the author’s website. If a self-archived AM is available, I can download it instantly and start reading and making connections with my own work. If no self-archived AM is available, then I email the author to see if they are willing to send me a copy. Sometimes the author is kind enough to send me their paper quickly, but other times my email goes unanswered and I never get to read the paper. This can slow down my progress on a project; I often need to email multiple philosophers who haven’t self-archived their papers. Some might say that the solution to this problem is to use Sci-Hub, but Sci-Hub distributes journal articles illegally and is allegedly involved in cybercrimes.
Second, self-archiving your AMs is good for you. It enables more people to engage with and cite your work and so can help you become well-known in your field. For example, if your paper’s title and abstract sound relevant to my work and I’m able to download your self-archived AM, then I can read it in full and potentially discuss your arguments in detail in my own paper. If you haven’t self-archived your AM, I might instead decide to discuss and cite ideas from a different paper that has been self-archived. Studies confirm that papers that are self-archived can have a significant boost in citations compared with papers that are not….”
Abstract: The importance of open access (OA) advocacy is well-documented in the literature of academic librarianship, but previous research shows that librarians’ OA behaviors are less conclusive. This article compares the self-archiving practices of music librarians and musicologists to see how librarians rank in OA adoption. Availability of articles published from 2013 to 2017 in six green OA journals in music librarianship and musicology indicates a need for continued advocacy and enhanced understanding of OA policies and opportunities.
“Sharing should be simple. With shareyourpaper.org, we’ll make sure that deposit into any repository is just that. We’re building a workflow that removes barriers we’ve seen after asking thousands of authors to self-archive, as well as easily upgrades the deposit workflow in thousands of repositories. For libraries, shareyourpaper.org helps you fill your repository by offering the simplest possible deposit workflow for authors, while saving you time and requiring no migrations or upgrades to your current repository….”
“Self-archiving needs to be simpler to unleash its power as an equitable route to open access. Yet, it’s too hard for individual repositories to overhaul their existing user experience. We’re building shareyourpaper.org to transform deposit from an often complicated, time-consuming process into one that’s possible in just a few clicks, for any repository without the need for complex integrations. Shareyourpaper.org is a tool that automates the deposit workflow?—?metadata entry, permissions and version checking?—?to require only the single manual step of uploading the paper itself. Libraries looking to fill their repositories can learn more and help us build the tool by signing up….
Late this year, we plan to launch shareyourpaper.org for anyone, everywhere, to deposit wherever they are in the publishing process. It’ll be free, built on open-source code, community-curated open data, simple documented APIs, library values, and resources that enable others to do even better. If you’d like to learn more or contribute in any way, please express your interest.…”
Abstract: This paper examines Open Access (OA) self archiving policies of different Open Access Repositories (OARs) affiliated to COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) as partner institutes. The process of scrutiny includes three major activities – selection of databases to consult; comparison and evaluation of Open Access policies of repositories listed in the selected databases and attached to COAR group; and critical examination of available self archiving policies of these OA repositories against a set of selected criteria. The above steps lead to reporting the following results: key findings have been identified and highlighted; common practices have been analyzed in relation to the focus of this paper; and a best practice benchmark has been suggested for popularizing and strengthening OARs as national research systems. This paper may help administrators, funding agencies, policy makers and professional librarians in devising institute-specific self archiving policies for their own organizations.
“The Open Access Button creates library-aligned tools and resources that make it easier to do research without subscriptions. During our day to day work, we have noticed that authors struggle with finding the right copy of their research to archive, and we know from collaborations with the repository community that we are not alone. We decided to create guides that are specifically designed to help researchers understand how to properly self-archive. The guides are a resource for the community, and we encourage all to share and reuse them.
The first guide contains visual examples to help authors identify how preprint, postprints and versions of record look, how to find each version and check if that version can be legally shared online. You can view it and contribute online at openaccessbutton.org/versions-explained . The second set of guides, available for most major journals, provide simple to follow instructions for authors to obtain an Author Accepted Manuscript from their Journal Submission System, where the AAM is stored during the publishing process. These guides are soon to be launched, if you are interested in giving feedback, let me know to share the final release copy of the document with you.
Our current next steps for the guides include refining their content, moving it to stand-alone pages, adding images, supporting data on which journals use which submission systems and A/B testing success with the guides. We’ll also be integrating them into our deposit pages, which already provide a route for authors to deposit and archive content legally without meta-data entry or policy checking.
The guides are possible thanks to the feedback and contributions from librarians and members of the community who have taken the time to chat with us and share their experiences. If you are a institutional repository librarian, if you work closely with authors, or if you have ever asked for content in behalf of authors we’d love to hear and learn from you. If you are interested in learning more about our efforts and find ways to collaborate, reply to this email or email me at ….”
According to a new bill introduced to the French Council of Ministers on December 9, 2015, authors of new scholarly articles arising from publicly-funded research may make them open access through repositories after an embargo (6 months in the sciences, 12 months in the social sciences and humanities). Apparently the bill would allow this regardless of the contracts authors signed with publishers. The bill permits green OA in this sense but does not require it.