Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles
Abstract: The digital world in which we live is changing rapidly. The changing media environment is having a direct impact on traditional forms of communication and knowledge translation in public health and epidemiology. Openly accessible digital media can be used to reach a broader and more diverse audience of trainees, scientists, and the lay public than traditional forms of scientific communication. The new digital landscape for delivering content is vast and new platforms are continuously being added. We focus on several, including Twitter and podcasting and discuss their relevance to epidemiology and science communication. We highlight three key reasons why we think epidemiologists should be engaging with these mediums: 1) science communication, 2) career advancement, 3) development of a community and public service. Other positive and negative consequences of engaging in these forms of new media are also discussed. The authors of this commentary are all engaged in social media and podcasting for scientific communication and in this manuscript, we reflect on our experience with these mediums as tools to advance the field of epidemiology.
“With the 2010 introduction of their “Article Future” format, Cell Press created a new container for research that included supporting data, centered user needs, and reflected the need for more snackable and sharable content. These elements of the Article of the Future have since become widely adopted and are now seen as the norm, so what’s next? This webinar will feature speakers who are leveraging user behavior to explore new and more valuable ways to communicate research and the research process. Representing publishers and aggregators across business models and disciplines, they will examine current projects that are expanding our concept of the journal article and discuss what the next 10 years may bring.”
Wide support for cOAlition S’ rights retention strategy would allow negotiators to take a harder line with publishers, says Alice Gibson
Abstract: It is undeniable that scholarly publication is boosted nowadays by the use of the English language, but this does not (and cannot) mean that the other languages have to be obliterated as scientific and cultural agents, equally valid and indispensable. Therefore, multilingualism is an expression of bibliodiversity that has to be protected and cherished, particularly in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), a field in which culturally and societally relevant studies are made in local languages, when approaching areas such as cultural heritage, education, migration, public administration. The main goal of this paper is to present a literature review in order to identify the main aspects influencing language selection and the useof multilingualism within scholarly communication, allowing for putting forward recommendations for future initiatives aiming at enhancing multilingualism, particularly in connection with the opportunities deriving from Open Science.
Investing in the Open Access Book infrastructure: a call for action
This is a guest blog post by Pierre Mounier, Jeroen Sondervan, and Graham Stone.
Join Pierre Mounier (EHESS, OpenEdition, OPERAS), Jeroen Sondervan (Knowledge Exchange Open Access Working Group and Utrecht University Library), Graham Stone (Jisc), and key stakeholders in signing a position paper calling for investment in the open access book infrastructure (Zenodo version of record, Google doc version for signatories).
In June 2020, we published a blog Open Access to academic books: Working towards the “tipping point”, which reflected on the work of the Knowledge Exchange (KE) task and finish group’s work around open access books (see “Towards a Roadmap for Open Access Monographs: A Knowledge Exchange Report”. The blogpost led to a number of valuable discussions with stakeholders and key experts in the OA books community regarding the need to develop a joined up approach to the open infrastructure required for a successful transition to open access for books.
In light of forthcoming (and existing) policy on open access for books, the KE task and finish group agreed to extend their work on open access books by facilitating a partner exchange in February 2021. This one-day virtual workshop gathered key stakeholders, including representatives of cOAlition S, SPARC Europe, OASPA, OAPEN, DARIAH-EU, OpenAIRE, national funders, KE partner organizations and many more.
After a brief overview, the day used a workshop approach to develop a common understanding on the need for further attention and support for open access for academic books. Delegates explored the key issues in three parallel sessions (OA Book Watch, OA Book Network, OA Book infrastructure), before a Mentimeter poll was used to prioritise areas for further discussion. At the end of a long day of vibrant and fruitful discussion, we took stock of the contributions and discussed the idea of a position paper on open access books infrastructure. A writing group was formed and we started work on the position paper.
“Stanford Libraries seeks a full-time Director for the Office of Scholarly Communications, a unit that will support the Open Access Policy passed by Stanford University’s Faculty Senate in November 2020. With the passage of the OA Policy, the entire focus of which is academic articles, the University is poised to quickly move forward in support of open scholarship, increased access to scholarly information, and transforming the academic article publishing landscape. …”
“As the state of Maryland’s flagship institution and one of the nation’s preeminent public research universities, we are committed to action that will make Maryland’s research more visible, accessible, affordable, and transparent….
Our current scholarly publishing and communication ecosystem is in crisis. University of Maryland researchers are on the front lines of developing innovative solutions to urgent problems that threaten the well-being and health of the planet and people across the globe. Yet, trends in international publishing make it increasingly difficult to provide equitable access to the publicly funded research that can help our communities thrive and make our lives better. Learn how you can take action and be part of the movement for open and equitable scholarship….”
“Scholarly publishing is highly diverse and constantly changing. Over the previous decades it has responded to a number of large challenges on the global and local levels. In this session we aim to take a snapshot of the current status of the industry with a global perspective and explore emerging models of open publishing. Which open access strategies can work together, and which lead to conflict? How do we value the diversity of models, and where do we need clear and more uniform strategies? What challenges do scholar-led, community-owned publishing initiatives face? What impact can we expect from transformative agreements and other big deals in the different regions of the world? Are the Plan S principles applicable worldwide, are they necessary or sufficient? How sustainable are existing open access strategies and business models? ”
“The Librarian for Scholarly Communications supports Open research, communication, and data on the Vanderbilt University campus through education, training, and analysis. As a member of the Digital Scholarship and Communications (DiSC) Office, the Librarian for Scholarly Communications consults with faculty, students, and staff about emergent scholarly communications models, analyzes faculty publishing patterns and impact metrics, and evaluates and advises on research communication tools. The Librarian for Scholarly Communications also manages the institutional repository, coordinating the ingestion workflow in dialogue with liaison librarians in the divisional libraries, and with LTDS in software development….”
Abstract: The Metadata 2020 initiative is an ongoing effort to bring various scholarly communications stakeholder groups together to promote principles and standards of practice to improve the quality of metadata. To understand the perspectives and practices regarding metadata of the main stakeholder groups (librarians, publishers, researchers and repository managers), we conducted a survey during summer 2019. The survey content was generated by representatives from the stakeholder groups. A link to an online survey (17 or 18 questions depending on the group) was distributed through multiple social media, listserv, and blog outlets. Responses were anonymous, with an optional entry for names and email addresses for those who were willing to be contacted later. Complete responses (N=211; 87 librarians, 27 publishers, 48 repository managers, and 49 researchers) representing 23 countries on four continents were analyzed and summarized for thematic content and ranking of awareness and practices. Across the stakeholder groups, the level of awareness and usage of metadata methods and practices was highly variable. Clear gaps across the groups point to the need for consolidation of schema and practices, as well as broad educational efforts in order to increase knowledge and implementation of metadata in scholarly communications.
“Laura Hanscom has been appointed the head of the department of Scholarly Communications and Collections Strategy (SCCS), the MIT Libraries announced today. In this position, she will lead MIT Libraries services and staff in transforming models of scholarly publishing to increase the impact and reach of research and scholarship and promote open, equitable, and sustainable publishing and access models. The SCCS head also coordinates overall collection management strategy for the Libraries’ general collections, as well as vendor negotiations and repository services. Hanscom began serving in her new role April 12, 2021. …”
by Monica Berger, CUNY New York City College of Technology
Abstract: Open access was intended to be the great equalizer but its promise has not come to fruition in many lower-income countries of the Global South. Under-resourcing is only one of the many reasons why these scholars and publishers are marginalized. In order to examine inequality in our global scholarly communications system, we can compare a negative and a positive outgrowth of this imbalance. Predatory publishing represents a a weak imitation of traditional, commercial journal publishing. In contrast, Latin America’s community-based, quality scholarly infrastructure is anti-colonial. It can be argued that Latin America’s publishing infrastructure represents one solution to predatory publishing. As the future of open access is debated, it is critical that we look to Latin America as we support new models that reject legacy commercial journal publishing and support bibliodiversity.
Jeffrey Beall infamously called Brazil’s SciELO a “publishing favela” or slum. Yet Latin America represents an important exception to the problem of underdevelopment of scholarly communications in the Global South. In order to begin to better understand the marginalization of the Global South and Latin America’s success, we need to unpack the history of open access, its overemphasis on the reader as opposed to the author, and how notions of development influenced its discourse. This focus on the reader is neo-Colonialist, positioning scholars from the Global South as “downloaders” and not “uploaders,” whose scholarship is peripheral.
Lacking alternative publishing options, predatory publishing, or amateurish, low quality publishing, exploited this gap. In its pathetic imitation of international, corporate publishing, predatory publishing is neo-Colonial and a form of “faux” open access where subaltern authors, editors, and publishers poorly imitate Global North corporate publishing. Predatory publishing is a sad simulacra with real world damage. Since predatory publishing is overwhelming based in the Global South and many of its authors based in the Global South, it tarnishes the reputation of all scholarship from less developed countries. In contrast, predatory authorship and publishing are rare in Latin America.
Latin America is an exemplar of sustainable and humane open access. Heather Morrison deemed Latin American as a “long-time peerless leader in open access.” The advent of Plan S, a rapid flip to open access, is accelerating the co-option of open access by large, commercial publishers predicating a variety of negative outcomes. In contrast, the Latin American concept of bibliodiversity represents an important alternative model. No one size fits all and a local vision governs. Bibliodiversity interrogates the presumption that all scholarship must be English-language. It also values indigenous and local knowledge as well as lay readers. Redalyc and SciELO include measures for research collaboration. Various regional scholarly organizations cooperate, sharing expertise, providing training in editorial and technical best practices. This cooperation has expanded to a global scale. The Confederation of Open Access Repositories and SPARC are partnering with LA Referencia and others, expanding Latin America’s vision globally, generating a meaningful alternative model for open access.
Slides with talk transcript and sources as presented at the Association of College and Research Libraries conference, ACRL 2021: Ascending into an Open Future, held virtually, April 16, 2021.
“In an attempt to capture that information, Pacher and his colleagues created Open Editors, a database containing information such as names, affiliations and editorial roles of just under half a million editors working for more than 6,000 journals run by 17 scholarly publishers.
They outline their initiative in a SocArXiv preprint paper published on 11 March.
Although Open Editors already includes editor data from publishing heavyweights such as Elsevier and Cambridge University Press, Pacher says, other major players such as Springer Nature, John Wiley & Sons, and Taylor and Francis are so far missing.
Pacher has made the data and code freely available to encourage other academics to help build the database….”