Clinical trial results for $3.2 billion Covid drug are missing in action

“The results of most clinical trials of the Covid drug molnupiravir (Lagrevio) have not been made public and remain completely unknown, a new study has found.

 

 

 

The drug is currently being administered to Covid patients in the United States, the UK, and India. The World Health Organisation has issued a “conditional recommendation” for its use in some patient groups. Global sales so far stand at $3.2 billion….”

Update zu DEAL | openaccess.nrw

2021 wurden über 27.000 Publikationen im Rahmen der DEAL-Verträge in Zeitschriften von Wiley und Springer Nature veröffentlicht. Mehr als 95 % der Autor:innen nutzten dafür die Open-Access-Option, was zu einem Anstieg des OA-Anteils bei den deutschen Publikationen geführt hat1. Da der Vertrag mit Wiley zum 31.12.2022 endet und die reguläre dreijährige Laufzeit des Vertrags mit Springer Nature ebenfalls zum Jahresende abschließt, verhandelt die DEAL-Gruppe nun wieder mit den Verlagen. Einen Einblick in die Verhandlungen gab es kürzlich auf verschiedenen Wegen1,2, was wir zum Anlass nehmen möchten, die derzeitigen Pläne zur Weiterführung der Verträge im Folgenden zusammenzufassen.

 

2021-12-03_SustainableOpenScholarshipatUTAustin-Final.pdf | Powered by Box

“The strategic planning process that President Hartzell laid out included the announcement of the strategic aspirations and pillars12 that support the strategic direction of the university to become the world’s highest-impact public research university. These aspirations cover the range of impacts UT Austin will have on people, place, and the pursuit of transformative experiences, education, and research. The “people” pillar includes an expectation that UT Austin will “foster free and open discourse to enhance knowledge and understanding” (University of Texas at Austin, 2021a, emphasis original). Further, our pursuit is to “embody our public mission to serveTexas, the United States and the world” and to “advance ambitious research, scholarship and creative arts” by “operat(ing) best-in-class research infrastructure and resources” (University of Texas at Austin, 2021a, emphasis original). How do we achieve such laudably lofty goals? The University will need to take a multi-faceted approach to achieve these and the rest of the aims in our strategic direction, but we would argue that one of the fundamental blocks in the foundation for this plan is embracing open scholarshipin ways that can be sustained and encouraged to flourish at UT Austin….”

Full article: Unsub in Real Life: Using Unsub as Part of Serials Decisions and Negotiations

Abstract:  This presentation introduced attendees to the benefits and limitations of Unsub, a data analysis tool designed by OurResearch. In this presentation, OurResearch co-founder, Heather Piwowar, demonstrated the use of Unsub for analyzing usage and cost data on a library’s “Big Deal.” The other two presenters, Jessica Harris of the University of Chicago, and Eric Schares of Iowa State University, discussed how they used the tool at their libraries to make collection development decisions for their libraries’ journal subscriptions.

KU University Senate approves resolution supporting open access

“KU’s University Senate unanimously approved a resolution adopting principles of open access at the university. 

The resolution outlines two key components. First, it encourages KU scholars to publish in open access journals and/or archive their articles in KU’s open access digital repository, KU ScholarWorks.

Second, it encourages the libraries to include open access as a guiding principle in journal negotiations for the university and to “prioritize openness by crafting agreements that advance open access and other methods of open dissemination for research outputs.” 

The resolution was put forth in part as a continuation of KU Libraries’ open access initiatives, which include publisher negotiations. Negotiations working toward providing the best possible collections have been challenged by the costs of large journal packages, particularly those by large commercial publishers such as Elsevier, SAGE and Wiley, as journal packages and other collections costs continue to rise. …”

Critique of “Transformative” Reasons: “T”As and Their Discontents | Brianne Selman @ Library Publishing Forum, 18 May 2022

Presentation slides by Brianne Selman. Session description: “This session will summarize some of the major categories of the critiques of “transformative” agreements. Perspectives that critique negotiation approaches, the continued bundling of costs into large agreements, market concentrations, decline in scholarly standards, analysis of whether OA goals are even being met by TAs, as well as major equity and diversity concerns will be summarized and discussed.”

Springer Nature negotiations aim to secure a transitional open access agreement

UK institutions are in negotiation with Springer Nature to secure a transitional open access (OA) agreement for the Nature, Nature research journals and Palgrave journals. A proposal that meets the requirements of the sector has not yet been provided.

Four Urgent Recommendations for Open Access Negotiations with Publishers 2022 | LIBER Europe

LIBER, Europe’s leading association of research libraries, presents four urgent recommendations for libraries to use when conducting Open Access negotiations with publishers. This document builds on the Five Principles for Open Access Negotiations with Publishers of 2017, considering the new benchmarks in the landscape in publisher negotiations as well as the body of negotiation principles and recommendations that have, in the meantime, been embraced by LIBER institutions.

cOAlition S and ALPSP publish OA toolkit | Research Information

“Smaller independent publishers, libraries, and consortia can now more easily enter into Open Access agreements thanks to a set of new tools published by cOAlition S and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP). 

Commenting on the publication of the toolkit, Colleen Campbell, coordinator of the OA2020 Initiative, said: “In order to foster a diverse, open scholarly publishing landscape, libraries and consortia need to broaden the scope of their negotiation strategies to embrace smaller independent publishers, but tailoring each agreement can take considerable time and resources. Shared standards and greater automation are required, and these tools give us a sound foundation from which to build.”

The toolkit addresses this need for automation with the following materials:

A report (download or view), containing shared principles for developing an OA agreement; a data template;  six example licences ready to be used and adapted as necessary; and a list of the many librarians and publishers who have contributed to the development of the toolkit. 

A detailed workflow (download or view) providing an overview of the entire process, from contract negotiation to achieving compliance with funder policies and reporting to libraries….”

Four Urgent Recommendations for Open Access Negotiations with Publishers – LIBER Europe

The Four Urgent Recommendations

100% open access under fair conditions, or no agreement
Pricing of open access publishing services must be fair and transparent
Define strategies to support a diversity of open publishing venues
Engage stakeholders in the process of transition

 

Why publication services must not be negotiated | bjoern.brembs.blog

Recently, the “German Science and Humanities Council” (Wissenschaftsrat) has issued their “Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access“. On page 33 they write that increasing the competition between publishers is an explicit goal of current transformative agreements:

publishers become publication service providers and enter into competition with other providers

This emphasis on competition refers back to the simple fact that as content (rather than service) providers, legacy publishers currently enjoy monopolies on their content, as, e.g., the European Commission has long recognized: In at least two market analyses, one dating as far back as 2003 and one from 2015, the EC acknowledges the lack of a genuine market due to the lack of substitutability:

it is rare that two different publications can be viewed as perfect substitutes, as there are differences in the coverage, comprehensiveness and content provided. Therefore, in terms of functional interchangeability, two different publications could hardly be regarded as substitutable by the end-users, the readers. On that basis, the Commission found that consumers will rarely substitute one publication for another following a change in their relative prices

or

Publications for different academic subjects are clearly not substitutable from the reader’s point of view. Even within a given discipline, there may be little demand side substitution from the point of view of the individual academic between different publications.

As this lack of substitutability is one of the main sources of the problems associated with academic publishing today, not just the German WR, but many initiatives around the globe see increased competition among publishers as key to moving forward.

bjoern.brembs.blog » Why publication services must not be negotiated

“Recently, the “German Science and Humanities Council” (Wissenschaftsrat) has issued their “Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access“. On page 33 they write that increasing the competition between publishers is an explicit goal of current transformative agreements:

publishers become publication service providers and enter into competition with other providers

This emphasis on competition refers back to the simple fact that as content (rather than service) providers, legacy publishers currently enjoy monopolies on their content, as, e.g., the European Commission has long recognized: In at least two market analyses, one dating as far back as 2003 and one from 2015, the EC acknowledges the lack of a genuine market due to the lack of substitutability…

Without such prestige, the faculty argue, they cannot work, risk their careers and funding. Arguments that these ancient vehicles are unreliable, unaffordable and dysfunctional are brushed away by emphasizing that their academic freedom allows them to drive whatever vehicle they want to their field work. Moreover, they argue, the price of around one million is “very attractive” because of the prestige the money buys them.

With this analogy, it becomes clear why and how tenders protect the public interest against any individual interests. In this analogy, it is likely also clear that academic freedom does not and should not trump all other considerations. In this respect, I would consider the analogy very fitting and have always argued for such a balance of public and researcher interests: academic freedom does not automatically exempt academics from procurement rules.

Therefore, ten experts advocate a ban on all negotiations with publishers and, instead, advocate policies that ensure that all publication services for public academic institutions must be awarded by tender, analogous the the example set by Open Research Europe and analogous to how all other, non-digital infrastructure contracts are awarded.”

Licensing Specialist

“The Library of the University of California, Berkeley (Library) seeks a creative, collaborative, and diligent individual to improve the Library’s electronic resource licensing terms and management to maximize their benefit for campus scholarship, teaching, and research. Working closely under the supervision of the Office of Scholarly Communication Services (OSCS), and collaborating with Acquisitions and the Electronic Resources Unit, the Licensing Specialist: (1) strategically analyzes and revises licensing terms and practices for the Library’s electronic resources, and (2) develops protocols and guidance for implementing a license tracking management and renewal system within the Alma resource management platform.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Develop model license language and definitions.
Ensure model licensing terms align with current academic licensing standards, including as to issues such as text and data mining, non-disclosure, accessibility, electronic course usage, and more.
Develop licensing terms checklist and negotiation guidance.
Confer with publishers and eResources vendors as needed to establish viable licensing terms.

PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Analyze licensing renewal and renegotiation processes, and recommend and implement new practices to optimize program.
Assess processes and develop guidelines to ensure consistency of licensing terms across license portfolios.
Identify processes for managing incoming and currently-negotiated licenses.
Develop guidelines and implementation plan for license tracking and management system within Alma.
Coordinate with other UC campuses and the California Digital Library as needed to improve and synthesize resource licensing terms.

DOCUMENTATION

Based on analysis conducted and recommendations developed, prepare guidance and documentation to support selectors and librarians engaging in license negotiations.
Document methodology for maintenance and enhancement of license tracking and management system….”

Contract Language Working Group Model License Agreement Call for Comments – SeamlessAccess

“We are pleased to announce the second output from the Contract Language Working Group, whose job it is to build on the Entity Category work to produce a toolkit for use in contracts between libraries and service providers (and for service providers to have as a reference for library requirements). This group is working to develop a toolkit that can be used to update contracts and documentation to help libraries and providers choose the appropriate entity category for the resource and outcomes they desire. The first document from the toolkit was the Entity Category Use Case Scenarios released last year.

Today, the Contract Language Working Group is happy to release its Model License Agreement with Commentary document for comments. The Model License is presented in the form of a contract, with sections specific to Federated Authentication issues and commentary from the authors highlighted with purple text for ease of identification….”

Scholarly Publisher Contracts and New Benefits for MIT Authors – MIT Faculty Newsletter

“MIT has been using the Framework for Publisher Contracts to guide negotiations with scholarly publishers for more than two years. This principles-based framework aims to support the needs of scholars, reflect Institute values, and advance scholarship. In a short period of time, MIT has used the framework to reach several agreements with publishers that demonstrate the viability of our approach. We encourage MIT scholars to take advantage of the open access publishing benefits of these agreements….

Elsevier is the one major publisher that remains unwilling to produce a proposal for MIT that aligns with the Framework….”