Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process | SciELO Preprints

Khanna , S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process. In SciELO Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.4729

Abstract: By analyzing 25,671 journals largely absent from journal counts and indexes, this study demonstrates that scholarly communication is more of a global endeavor than is commonly credited. These journals, employing the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS), have published 5.8 million items and represent 136 countries, with 79.9 percent publishing in the Global South and 84.2 percent following the OA diamond model (charging neither reader nor author). More than half (54.6 percent) of the journals operate in more than one language, while publishing research in 60 languages (led by English, Indonesian, Spanish, and Portuguese). The journals are distributed across the social sciences (45.9 percent), STEM (40.3 percent), and the humanities (13.8 percent). For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, the Web of Science indexes 1.2 percent of the journals and Scopus 5.7 percent. On the other hand, Cabells Predatory Reports includes 1.0 percent of the journals, while Beall lists 1.4 percent of them as predatory. A recognition of the expanded scope and scale of scholarly publishing will help ensure that humankind takes full advantage of what is increasingly a global research enterprise.

 

Guide to Plan S compliance in OJS

“For cOAlition S funded research covered by Plan S requirements, all peer-reviewed scholarly articles must be published in venues that fulfil the “Requirements for Publication Venues.” Individual publication venues (such as journals publishing on OJS) are responsible for ensuring that they meet these requirements. Journals that do not meet these requirements will not be suitable for scholarly articles resulting from cOAlition S-funded research.

Many of the Plan S requirements for publication venues represent best practices for quality, discoverability, and interoperability in scholarly publishing. We recommend that journals adopt these practices regardless of whether they intend to publish scholarly articles resulting from Coalition S-funded research….

This guide is intended for journals published on OJS which intend to meet the Requirements for Publication Venues articulated by Plan S under Part III: Technical Guidance and Requirements. This guide is modelled around the Plan S requirements, with sections of this guide mirroring the sections (1.1 and 1.2) of the Plan S requirements. The guide provides specific recommendations for implementing the requirements in OJS. Where suitable we have linked to other PKP documentation and guidance which provides additional details on the implementation of specific features and specifications.

While we will do our best to keep this guide up-to-date, the Plan S documentation should be relied upon for the most current and detailed information….”

$10M to support open-access and open-source research | UdeMNouvelles

“By awarding a $10-million grant to Coalition Publica through the Major Science Initiatives Fund 2023-2029, the Canada Foundation for Innovation is helping to address the ongoing need to operate and maintain research facilities of national importance, enabling Canadian researchers to undertake activities that rival those of their international colleagues.

Coalition Publica is developing an open, non-commercial infrastructure for digital research, dissemination and scholarly publication in the humanities and social sciences. The infrastructure is based on the complementarity of two leading technology solutions dedicated to open access and open science.

The first of those solutions is the erudit.org dissemination platform of the Érudit Consortium of Université de Montréal (UdeM), Université Laval and Université du à Montréal, while the second is the Open Journal Systems editing and publishing software developed by the Public Knowledge Project at Simon Fraser University….”

Canada Foundation for Innovation renews its support for Coalition Publica | 19 August 2022

“Coalition Publica will strengthen its digital services to the Canadian and international scholarly community with continued investment from CFI. The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) is awarding a $10 million grant to Coalition Publica under the Major Science Initiatives Fund 2023-2029. Through this program, CFI contributes to the ongoing operation and maintenance needs of research facilities of national importance in order to enable Canadian researchers to undertake world-class research. Coalition Publica is developing an open, non-commercial infrastructure for digital research, dissemination, and scholarly publishing. It is based on the complementarity between the publishing software Open Journal Systems, developed by the Public Knowledge Project (Simon Fraser University (SFU)), and the erudit.org dissemination platform of the Érudit Consortium (Université de Montréal, Université Laval, Université du Québec à Montréal), two leading technological solutions dedicated to open access and open science. In collaboration with the editorial teams of more than 250 scholarly and cultural journals, Coalition Publica also offers access to the largest corpus of Canadian research results in the humanities and social sciences. More than 220,000 publications are available, and 8,000 new articles are disseminated each year. Rich and diverse, the collections are representative of Canadian and international research and creation: archaeology, economics, history, literary studies, psychology, education… They are consulted each year by nearly 6 million users worldwide….”

eScholarship Pilots New Technologies – California Digital Library

“The University of California’s open access publishing program and institutional repository, eScholarship, is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. As part of this celebration of the many ways eScholarship has enabled UC affiliated scholars and editors to openly share their research and publications with the world over the past two decades, we’ve taken some time to examine the nuts and bolts of our services, which have grown organically as we’ve expanded and adapted to support the changing needs of the scholarly community and the reading public.  Looking under the hood, we find that, while eScholarship is still a powerful and flexible platform, the underlying technology is somewhat outdated, with many bespoke core components.  

Looking ahead, the eScholarship team is eager to address this issue of aging and idiosyncratic technology by engaging more fully with leading open source, community-based solutions–both as a consumer of and contributor to these efforts. This desire has motivated our participation in an exciting new initiative, the Next Generation Library Publishing Project (NGLP), funded by Arcadia and focused on building interoperable tools to connect widely adopted, open source platforms and services.  With library publishers specifically in mind, NGLP has created discovery, access, administrative, and analytics/reporting layers designed to work with powerful applications like the journal publishing platforms Janeway and OJS, and the repository platform DSpace–providing combined publishing and institutional repository solutions. The project is currently piloting this modular technology approach to gather feedback from stakeholders.

As one of the pilot partners, CDL is excited to engage the eScholarship community in evaluating this early iteration of a next generation publishing and institutional repository solution. We will host a series of webinars throughout July demonstrating an early version of the NGLP stack, configured for and populated with journal and repository data from two UC campuses. Participants will be able to tour and interact with the pilot implementation, including journal and repository submission workflows and the NGLP Web Delivery Platform (WDP), the last of which provides a unified display layer across multiple content platforms. We will be particularly focused on the presentation of content and related publishing entities, in order to learn what our stakeholders find compelling, confusing, and where the gaps are at this early stage. This feedback will be shared with the NGLP project team as they work to build out a fully realized offering. …”

eScholarship pilots new technologies – Office of Scholarly Communication

“The University of California’s open access publishing program and institutional repository, eScholarship, is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. As part of this celebration of the many ways eScholarship has enabled UC affiliated scholars and editors to openly share their research and publications with the world over the past two decades, we’ve taken some time to examine the nuts and bolts of our services, which have grown organically as we’ve expanded and adapted to support the changing needs of the scholarly community and the reading public.  Looking under the hood, we find that, while eScholarship is still a powerful and flexible platform, the underlying technology is somewhat outdated, with many bespoke core components.  

Looking ahead, the eScholarship team is eager to address this issue of aging and idiosyncratic technology by engaging more fully with leading open source, community-based solutions–both as a consumer of and contributor to these efforts. This desire has motivated our participation in an exciting new initiative, the Next Generation Library Publishing Project (NGLP), funded by Arcadia and focused on building interoperable tools to connect widely adopted, open source platforms and services.  With library publishers specifically in mind, NGLP has created discovery, access, administrative, and analytics/reporting layers designed to work with powerful applications like the journal publishing platforms Janeway and OJS, and the repository platform DSpace–providing combined publishing and institutional repository solutions. The project is currently piloting this modular technology approach to gather feedback from stakeholders….

The Public Knowledge Project’s Open Monograph Press

While much progress has been made by academic libraries, societies, and groups of scholars in supporting the publication of independent journals, giving rise to the Open Access Diamond Journal phenomenon (no charge for authors or readers), the same is not true of books.1  Scholarly books would appear to require a publishing house to produce such works.  Well, in that regard, Open Monograph Press (OMP) offers a publishing house in a box.  Only there is no box.  And the house is virtual, but within it one can see the scholarly book through to publication.

It’s Time to Upgrade OJS | Public Knowledge Project

“We encourage users to upgrade to the current release series OJS 3.3.x!

More than 25,000 active journals around the world use Open Journal Systems (OJS). However, the PKP Technical Committee recently learned that many of those journals are relying on considerably older  versions of OJS. As we are regularly releasing upgrades of the software, given changes to the web, staying with older versions may pose problems for a journal’s stability and security . For example, more than 8,000 journals are using OJS 2.4 – a version that PKP has now retired. …”

 

EIFL checklist for using OJS in journal publishing | EIFL

We have updated and revised the EIFL checklist of good practices in using the free and open software Open Journal System (OJS) for journal editing and publishing. OJS is the most widely used publishing software in EIFL partner countries.

The checklist, by Iryna Kuchma, Manager of the EIFL Open Access Programme, takes forward a key goal of EIFL – to ensure the growth and sustainability of digital repositories and journal publishing platforms. 

OJS is created by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), which is a multi-university initiative developing free and open source software to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing.

This is the second version of the checklist. It includes more details about the current production release of software – OJS 3, and tips on organizational identifiers plugin, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) registration, copyright and licensing, the PKP Project Preservation Network and journal content accessibility. And we’ve updated the ‘further reading’ list.

PKP Enables Diamond Open Access: The OA Diamond Journals Study | Public Knowledge Project

by John Willinsky & Juan Pablo Alperin, May 2021

The Public Knowledge Project (PKP), has been, by design and since its inception
over two decades ago, developing software that enables scholars from around
the world to professionally peer-review and publish their colleagues’ work without
charging them or the public to read this work. By creating open source (free)
software that distributes the power to participate in scholarly publishing by
organizing and supporting academic journal editing – including the management
of peer review and and production processes – thousands of scholars, many
operating in low-resource environments, have been able to produce professional-
quality academic journals that are free to both authors and readers. As such, PKP
has long been aware of its essential role in supporting OA diamond journals (Open
Access journals without an Article Processing Charges), but The OA Diamond
Journals Study1 published on March 9, 2021, with 971 OJS users among those
surveyed, offers us a rare level of insight into our community, and a clearer sense
of the extent to which PKP has made OA diamond possible for thousands of
journals around the world.

The OA Diamond Journal Study, sponsored by Science Europe and cOAlition S, was
able to survey 1,619 journals in 2020, finding that 60% (971) of these journals use
OJS. OA diamond journals are said to represent “a wide archipelago of relatively
small journals serving diverse communities” (p. 7) that are collectively estimated
to make up “at least 17,000, but likely up to 29,000, OA diamond journals” (p. 47)
from four regions of world (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, 5%
in the US/Canada) and from across the disciplines (60% HSS, 22% science, 17%
medicine). If the respondents of the survey are seen to be representative of the
estimated minimum 17,000 diamond journals, then the 60 percent use level for OJS
roughly corresponds to PKP’s own count of more than 10,000 active OJS journals.
The study points, as well, to the type and location of the publishers: “Most OA
diamond journals are the sole journal of their publisher or are with a publisher
having just a few journals. Most of these publishers are university-based” (p. 48).
These are the characteristics of PKP’s principal community of users and further
highlight the close relationship between OA diamond journals and journals using
OJS.

While those who know PKP and the OJS community may have been aware of this
connection, the close to one thousand survey responses from OJS users along
with the report’s unbiased analysis of the context in which they operate has made
three things abundantly clear:

 

With 60% of the journals using OJS, PKP has been instrumental in making OA
diamond journals a reality.
No other platform or tool, with the exception of email in some contexts, is as widely used as OJS by OA diamond journals for their operations, especially as they grow in size.
No other system has contributed as much to supporting the linguistic or geographic diversity of scholarly publishing as OJS.
As OA diamond journals are APC-free, they can be trusted not to include the so-called predatory journals.

That is, given this role as a key enabler of OA diamond journals, and given other
study findings about the characteristics of this group of journals, the report makes
it clear, in our reading, how PKP, with its multilingual OJS, is contributing to the
healthy intellectual enterprise of OA diamond journals and, as direct consequence,
to greater global participation in research.

In analyzing some of the characteristics of OA diamond journals, the report
indirectly highlights some of the strengths of PKP and OJS that have led to its
popularity among this community, as well as some of the areas where there are
opportunities for PKP to improve its offerings, or to otherwise better communicate
their value to the community. The remainder of this response will therefore focus
on summarizing and responding to various indicators of PKP’s success found in
the study, and subsequently to engaging with the misconceptions and missed
opportunities that we will seek t

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices | SciELO Preprints

Abstract:  This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or in Cabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do About Possibly Predatory Practices

This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices | SciELO Preprints

Abstract:  This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

 

Developing an updated plugin for Dataverse integration with OPS/OJS on Vimeo

“In this activity we present the current status of development of a plugin to integrate Dataverse with Open Preprint Servers (OPS) and Open Journal Systems (OJS) in their most recent versions (3.3.x series).

Presentation held on 11/19/21 at Open Publishing Fest 2021:
openpublishingfest.org/calendar.html#event-90/ …”

Open access journals must be preserved forever | Public Knowledge Project

“PKP is delighted, on this World Preservation Day, to share an important update on Project JASPER, our partnership with DOAJ, Internet Archive, CLOCKSS and Keepers Registry. We initiated Project JASPER a year ago with an express goal to preserve no-fee journal content all over the world – much of which is published on Open Journal Systems. We have made great strides in a year, which you can read all about below or on the JASPER website, and are looking forward to what the coming year brings as well.

Project JASPER (JournAlS are Preserved forevER) is an initiative to preserve open access journals. It was launched on World Preservation Day 2020 and is in response to research* that shows that online journals—both open and closed access journals—can just disappear from the internet. This happens because of a lack of awareness amongst smaller publishers around the need for long-term digital preservation and/or the resources to enroll a journal in a long-term digital preservation scheme….”