Category Archives: oa.platforms

USC Press and University Libraries launch open-access publishing platform – Office of the Provost | University of South Carolina

Posted on by
Reply

“The University of South Carolina Press and University Libraries are embarking on a new collaborative venture: Open Carolina, an open-access publishing platform….

That’s where University Libraries enters the picture. Many ventures into open scholarly resources are planned as temporary pilot operations because they are funded by time-limited grant pools. Thanks to consistent funding from the Libraries, Open Carolina has a sustainable model that will allow scholars with limited publishing funds to share their research via the platform, partially or totally foregoing associated fees. In its inaugural year, the Libraries aim to fund four full-length books and support is in place to make the program sustainable for years to come and allow Open Carolina to grow steadily.

 

Open Carolina will offer opportunities to a wide range of scholars and researchers regardless of university affiliation. Proposed works will undergo the same intensive peer review and editorial processes as traditionally published books and articles, allowing the university to maintain high standards and join the conversation with other Research 1 institutions that prioritize equitable, open access publishing….”

FAQs | Wellcome Open Research

Posted on by
Reply

“Wellcome Open Research provides Wellcome-funded researchers a place to rapidly publish any of their results, including data sets, negative results, protocols, case reports, incremental findings as well as more traditional articles.

Wellcome Open Research publishes original research on all topics that receive grant funding from Wellcome. This includes:

biomedical science
population health
applied research
humanities and social sciences
public engagement and arts projects, where it includes original research…”

Finding the Right Platform: A Crosswalk of Academy-Owned and Open-Source Digital Publishing Platforms | hc:59231 | Humanities CORE

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  A key responsibility for many library publishers is to collaborate with authors to determine the best mechanisms for sharing and publishing research. Librarians are often asked to assist with a wide range of research outputs and publication types, including eBooks, digital humanities (DH) projects, scholarly journals, archival and thematic collections, and community projects. These projects can exist on a variety of platforms both for profit and academy owned. Additionally, over the past decade, more and more academy owned platforms have been created to support both library publishing programs. Library publishers who wish to emphasize open access and open-source publishing can feel overwhelmed by the proliferation of available academy-owned or -affiliated publishing platforms. For many of these platforms, documentation exists but can be difficult to locate and interpret. While experienced users can usually find and evaluate the available resources for a particular platform, this kind of documentation is often less useful to authors and librarians who are just starting a new publishing project and want to determine if a given platform will work for them. Because of the challenges involved in identifying and evaluating the various platforms, we created this comparative crosswalk to help library publishers (and potentially authors) determine which platforms are right for their services and authors’ needs.

New OSF Search Features for Rapid Research Findability and Sharing

Posted on by
Reply

“Key to success with open and transparent research is have tools and workflows that enable it across the lifecycle. Over 600,000 researchers utilize over 12 million public registrations, projects, files, and preprints for research planning, management, and sharing. OSF Search is the discovery infrastructure that surfaces all of these public objects so that they can be cited, reused, and reproduced.

OSF Search now provides results for registrations, preprints, projects (and related components), files, and users in one easy to use interface. In each search result, you will find key metadata to help you determine if these are the results you are looking for. There is also a new “Context” section in each result, which will provide a preview of the metadata fields that reference your search term. For example, a search for “climate change” will return all objects with “climate change” in the title, abstract, subjects, registration responses, wiki, contributors, institutions, funders, and copyright holders.

In combination with a variety of Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) implemented across the OSF, users and other data consumers can easily discover the content that is relevant to them while moving past results that are not helpful. For example, the funder facet utilizes the funder metadata field on OSF objects, which is powered by the Crossref Funder Registry. For our institutional members, we include their Research Organization Registry (ROR) identifier in the metadata of research shared by their affiliates. That means there is no misidentification or confusion due to a funder or institutional name being spelled differently or with a previous name; the PIDs are permanent and unique to them….”

Research Organization Registry (ROR) | Case Study: Why ResearchEquals Integrated ROR and Live Streamed It

Posted on by
Reply

“Chris Hartgerink, the founder of Liberate Science, discusses why and how they integrated ROR into the modular publishing platform ResearchEquals for author affiliations in user profiles and Crossref DOIs and explains why they live streamed all eight hours of the work….”

DOAJ is confirmed as a unique platform for many open access journals and a key index for African journals – DOAJ News Service

Posted on by
Reply

“DOAJ has double the number of OA journals from Africa and five times the number of OA journals from Global South countries compared with the Web of Science….

The OpenAlex data also confirmed that DOAJ indexes more African and Global South journals than Scopus or Web of Science…

although DOAJ has substantially better coverage of journals from Africa and the Global South than Web of Science or Scopus, it remains a fact that the majority of the known open access journals from areas are not listed by any of the major indexing services at all, including DOAJ!…”

Online Open Access publizieren | PUBLISSO – ZB MED-Publikationsportal Lebenswissenschaften

Posted on by
Reply

“PUBLISSO offers a range of publishing platforms for publishing work and research data Open Access and permanently – following the spirit of Open Science. All publications receive a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and are archived for the long term.

PUBLISSO provides several services for this purpose….”

The Lower Decks. A Symposium on Janeway and Open Access Publishing.

Posted on by
Reply

“Since its launch, the Janeway and Open Library of Humanities (OLH) team has built an international, award-winning, and critically acclaimed platform and is widely recognised to be one of the foremost academic-led publishers of open access scholarship in the humanities. As we look forward to the next five years, we aspire to consolidate our position as a leading open source scholarly publishing platform, innovate our software in line with user needs, and bring together our community to both increase visibility and make Janeway the very best platform of its kind.”

Libraries Announce Access to Open Publishing Platform Pressbooks | University of Texas Libraries | University of Texas at Austin

Posted on by
Reply

“The University of Texas Libraries announces access to now offers access to Pressbooks for the creation of open educational resources (OER).

Pressbooks is an open textbook creation platform allowing authors to write and publish open access books. Work can then be exported into several formats — including PDF, MOBI, and EPUB — and shared….”

Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven | Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft @Zenodo

Posted on by
Reply

Im Zuge der Open-Access-Transformation sind wissenschaftsgeleitete Zeitschriften mit zahlreichen Herausforderungen konfrontiert: Neben finanzieller und infrastruktureller Unterstützung brauchen diese Zeitschriften ein „capacity building“, also die Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe, insbesondere, um Wissenslücken im Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens zu schließen. Die vorliegenden Handreichungen sind ein Beitrag zu diesem „capacity building“: Angelegt als praktische Ressource, sollen sie Zeitschriften und herausgebende Einrichtungen bedarfsorientiert anleiten und bei der Weiterentwicklung, Professionalisierung und Verstetigung der Publikationstätigkeit unterstützen. Das Set der sechs Handreichungen ist dabei das zentrale Ergebnis des Projektes „Scholar-led Plus“ am Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft und gefördert vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Neben den praktischen Ressourcen hat das Projekt, aufbauend auf einer mehrstufigen Delphi-Befragung, strategische Empfehlungen erarbeitet, die das Feld des wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizierens prospektiv konturieren. Um eine größtmögliche Nutzbarkeit durch wissenschaftsgeleitete Zeitschriften und Projekte zu gewährleisten, sind die Handreichungen in Zusammenarbeit mit Expert*innen aus der Publikationspraxis konzipiert und geschrieben worden.

Das Gesamtdokument als Summe seiner Teile vermittelt grundsätzliches Wissen zu technischen Abläufen, Tools und Infrastrukturen, verknüpft dies aber auch mit Hinweisen zu urheberrechtlichen Aspekten und dem Anspruch auf Datenschutz. Es betont die Relevanz der redaktionellen Arbeit und gibt Empfehlungen zur Optimierung der Prozesse, wobei die bisher vielfach unterrepräsentierten Bereiche der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation und Verbreitung der Inhalte gesondert betrachtet werden. Nicht zuletzt werden administrative Vorgänge adressiert: Neben den Kosten für Zeitschriften und Möglichkeiten der Finanzierung und Förderung werden auch Strategien guter Governance für Zeitschriften beschrieben.

Das Set an Handreichungen wird herausgegeben von Marcel Wrzesinski (Projektleitung “Scholar-led Plus”).

Einzel-Handreichungen:

Technik und Infrastrukturen: Eichler, Frederik, Eppelin, Anita, Kampkaspar, Dario, Schrader, Antonia C., Söllner, Konstanze, Vierkant, Paul, & Withanage, Dulip. (2023). Handreichung Technik und Infrastrukturen. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 7–18). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8208578

Urheberrecht und Datenschutz: Blumtritt, Ute, Euler, Ellen, Fadeeva, Yuliya, Pohle, Jörg, & Rack, Fabian. (2023). Handreichung Urheberrecht und Datenschutz. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 19–34). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8208582

Arbeitsabläufe und Workflows: Bergmann, Max, Dalkilic, Evin, Ganz, Kathrin, Heinig, Julia, Kaden, Ben, Kalte, Isabella, & Junker, Judith. (2023). Handreichung Arbeitsabläufe und Workflows. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 35–54). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8208678

Kommunikation und Distribution: Efferenn, Frederik, Ferguson, Lea Maria, Herb, Ulrich, Neufend, Maike, Schmitz, Jasmin, Siegfried, Doreen, & Taubert, Niels. (2023). Handreichung Kommunikation und Distribution. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 55–68). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8208711

Kostenstrukturen und Geschäftsmodelle: Arning, Ursula, Barbers, Irene, Benz, Martina, Dellatorre, Margit, Finger, Juliane, Gast, Konstantin, Gebert, Agathe, Geuenich, Michael, Hahn, Daniela, Rieck, Katharina, & Sänger, Astrid. (2023). Handreichung Kostenstrukturen und Geschäftsmodelle. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 69–82). Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8210924

Governance und Rechtsform: Dalkilic, Evin, Hacker, Andrea, Hesse, Cindy, Jobmann, Alexandra, Kirchner, Andreas, Pampel, Heinz, Siegert, Olaf, & Steiner, Tobias. (2023). Handreichung Governance und Rechtsform. In Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven (pp. 83–96)

The New Alexandria Foundation – Rebuilding the ancient world anew, digitally.

Posted on by
Reply

“The objective of New Alexandria is to develop and nurture an open environment for learning, teaching, and research about premodern civilizations that is inclusive, collaborative, and restlessly innovative. Instead of flattening the differences between ancient and current ways of representing the world, we seek to see more clearly the lively unfamiliarity of the ancient way. Instead of selectively extracting elements of ancient life from their historical contexts, we seek a holistic approach that is interdisciplinary and that integrates anthropological and other socially-informed methodologies. The basic rationale is that cultural and human differences are “good to think with,” vital for humanism and even for humanity….

 

 

Our aim is to take the best that we know and think about premodern civilizations and to make it available to anyone with access to the internet by way of a phone, a tablet, or a computer, at home, in a library, in a park, or on a bus. As our data will be free and open for all to use and engage with, so also must our interpretations of it be free and open, and so also the software that we create for accessing it and analyzing it must be free and open….”

Institutional Repository Readiness Virtual Learning Series – Data Curation Network

Posted on by
Reply

“In April, we shared our new research project, “Sustaining Open Research: Institutional Repository Readiness,” which focuses on supporting IRs that share data in demonstrating alignment with and evaluation of the Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories for Federally Funded Research (DC-DR). As part of this work, we are hosting a series of virtual learning days that include lecture, discussion, and exercises. Each session will have a different topic and set of exercises– and while each session can be attended individually, we invite those that are able to participate in all of them, as the content is cumulative. For those that cannot attend, we plan to record the presentations….”

IBM and NASA teamed up to build the GPT of Earth sciences | Engadget

Posted on by
Reply

“NASA estimates that its Earth science missions will generate around a quarter million terabytes of data in 2024 alone. In order for climate scientists and the research community efficiently dig through these reams of raw satellite data, IBM, HuggingFace and NASA have collaborated to build an open-source geospatial foundation model that will serve as the basis for a new class of climate and Earth science AIs that can track deforestation, predict crop yields and rack greenhouse gas emissions.

For this project, IBM leveraged its recently-released Watsonx.ai to serve as the foundational model using a year’s worth of NASA’s Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2 satellite data (HLS). That data is collected by the ESA’s pair of Sentinel-2 satellites, which are built to acquire high resolution optical imagery over land and coastal regions in 13 spectral bands.

For it’s part, HuggingFace is hosting the model on its open-source AI platform. According to IBM, by fine-tuning the model on “labeled data for flood and burn scar mapping,” the team was able to improve the model’s performance 15 percent over the current state of the art using half as much data….”

Deciding on an Open Access Book Publishing Platform: Ubiquity and the Start of Open Access Book Publishing at the University of Westminster Press – Open Access Books Network

Posted on by
Reply

Welcome to a series of blog posts by publishers, talking about the platforms they use to publish their open access books. In these posts, a range of different presses tell us what platform they use, why they chose it, and how it fits (or occasionally doesn’t quite fit) their work.

The second post in the series is by Andrew Lockett, who was Press Manager at the University of Westminster Press from February 2015 to August 2021. He is a freelance publishing consultant and editor working across trade and academic sectors including via Reedsy, for non-fiction and fiction book titles. Most recently he guest edited a special issue of Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture on ‘Publishing the Internet and the Commons’ and has written several journal articles on publishing and media topics.

 

Velez-Estevez et. al. (2023) New trends in bibliometric APIs: A comparative analysis | Information Processing & Management

Posted on by
Reply

Velez-Estevez, A., I. J. Perez, P. García-Sánchez, J. A. Moral-Munoz, and M. J. Cobo. ‘New Trends in Bibliometric APIs: A Comparative Analysis’. Information Processing & Management 60, no. 4 (1 July 2023): 103385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103385.

Abstract:

The science of science practice requires the analysis of large and complex bibliometric data. Traditional data exporting from companies’ websites is not sufficient, so APIs are used to access a larger corpus. Therefore, this study aims not only to establish a taxonomy but also to offer a comparative analysis of 44 bibliographic APIs from various non-profit and commercial organizations, analyzing their characteristics and metadata with descriptive analysis, their possible bibliometric analyses, and the interoperability of the APIs across four different data categories: general, content, search, and query modes. The study found that Clarivate Analytics and Elsevier offer highly versatile APIs, while non-profit organizations, such as OpenCitations and OurResearch promote the Open Science philosophy. Most organizations offer free access to APIs for non-commercial purposes, but some have limitations on metadata retrieval. However, CrossRef, OpenCitations, or OpenAlex have no restrictions on the metadata retrieval. Co-author analysis using author names and bibliometric evaluation using citations are the types of analyses that can be done with the data provided by most APIs. DOI, PubMedID, and PMCID are the most versatile identifiers for extending metadata in the APIs. Semantic Scholar, Dimensions, ORCID, and Embase are the APIs that offer the most extensibility. Considering the obtained results, there is no single API that gathers all the information needed to perform any bibliometric analysis. Combining two or more APIs may be the most appropriate option to cover as much information as possible and enrich reports and analyses. This study contributes to advancing the understanding and use of APIs in research practice.