“The recording and the slides from today’s webinar entitled Open Access in the global South: Perspectives from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network are now available on Zenodo. Prof. Leslie Chan shared key lessons from OCSDNet which is a research network with scientists, development practitioners, community members and activists from 26 countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Based on OCS experience, he questioned openness and public good, discussed open science definition beyond academy. Prof Chan also highlighted that principles as in the definition of Next Generation Repository should be guiding the technology and the infrastructures, not the other way around.”
A slide presentation by Nikesh Balami, CEO of Open Knowledge Nepal,
Understanding Open Science: Definitions and framework
- 1. Understanding Open Science: Definitions and framework Dr. Nancy Pontika Open Access Aggregation Officer CORE Twitter: @nancypontika
- 2. What is Open Science
- 3. Research Lifecycle: as simple as it gets Idea Methodology Data Collection Analysis Publish
- 4. Idea Methodology Data Collection Analysis Publish Journal article, Dissertation, Book, Source Code, etc. Experiments, Interviews, Observations, etc. Numbers, Code, Text, Images, sound records, etc. Statistics, processes, analysis, documentation, etc. Research Lifecycle: focus on the steps”
A presentation by Paul Peters (CEO of Hindawi and President of OASPA) at the Berlin 13 meeting, March 2017.
“This webinar on Open Access publishing lead by Dr. Maha Bali (American University in Cairo) and Associate Professor Laura Czierniewicz (University of Cape Town, South Africa) took place 20 September 2016 as a part of the one week seminar: Publishing in the Open: Exploring pathways for open access publishing….”
A video interview with Peter Suber by Joe McArthur and members of a networked audience, for Open Con 2016.
Three back-to-back presentations on OA, with slides and audio, two in English and one in Icelandic, from an event on September 15, 2016.
“I will be speaking at the IFLA Satellite Meeting for the program Libraries as Publishers: Building a Global Community. It will take place August 10-12, 2016, in Ann Arbor, Michigan and is sponsored by the IFLA Section on Acquisition and Collection Development, along with Serials and Other Continuing Resources. Here is the proposal: How can (or should) institutional repositories, disciplinary websites, data warehouses, and other open access repositories form part of a larger strategy for library publishing? In the age of linked data and the semantic web, open access repositories might seem to be the first step toward solving a much larger problem, namely, creating a research management infrastructure that helps to assess the impact, productivity, and use of resources online. Yet, the answer to how library publishing units should accomplish linking research management practices and open access publishing mechanisms remains elusive. There are two ways of trying to achieve the solution. First, libraries need to implement new pieces of infrastructure that help to manage research. Examples might include commercial products like Symplectic Elements – http://symplectic.co.uk/, profiling systems like VIVO – http://vivoweb.org/ , research ID systems like ORCID – http://orcid.org/, or discoverability services like SHARE – www.share-research.org. Second, and, more important, however, are the open access policies that govern research management on campus. Mandates like those at Harvard and MIT are often catalysts for creation of infrastructure, and universities may need to create new policies in order to facilitate better research management …”
Presentation at Open access seminars, December 6-9, 2015, An-Najah National University, Birzeit University and Palestine Polytechnic University
A slide presentation by Paula Callan, September 8, 2006.
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”
“Open access for monographs and book chapters is a relatively new area of publishing, and there are many ways of approaching it. With this in mind, a recent publication from the Wellcome Trust aims to provide some guidance for publishers to consider when developing policies and processes for open access books. The Wellcome Trust recognises that implementation around publishing monographs and book chapters open access is in flux, and invites publishers to email Cecy Marden at email@example.com with any suggestions for further guidance that would be useful to include in this document. ‘Open Access Monographs and Book Chapters: A practical guide for publishers’ is available to download as a pdf from the Wellcome Trust website.”
“Recap of Annapolis Group Presentation on [OA book] Publishing – 16 June 2015 – Bryn Geffert – Amherst College.”
“The purpose of this post is to shed some light on a specific issue in the transition to open access that particularly affects small and low-cost publishers and to suggest one strategy to address this issue. In the words of one Resource Requirements interviewee: ‘So the other set of members that we used to have about forty library members , but when we went to open access online, we lost the whole bunch of libraries. Yeah, so basically we sent everybody ,you know, a letter saying we are going to open access online, the annual membership is only $30, we hope you will continue to support us even though there are no longer print journals, and then a whole flu of cancellations came in from a whole bunch of libraries, which we had kind of thought might happen but given how cheap we are, I have to say I was really disappointed when it indeed did happen especially from whole bunch of [deleted] libraries [for which our journal is extremely relevant]. I was going, seriously $30?’ Comments: for a university library, a society membership fee, when not required for journal subscriptions, may be difficult to justify from an accounting perspective. $30 is a small cost; however, for a university the administrative work of tracking such memberships and cutting a check every year likely exceeds the $30 cost. With 40 library members at a cost of $30, the total revenue for this journal from this source was $1,200. A university or university library could sponsor this amount at less than the cost of many an article processing charge. The university and library where the faculty member is located have a support program for open access journals; clearly the will, and some funding, is there. One of the challenges is transitioning subscription dollars to support for open access, as I address in my 2013 First Monday article. Following is one suggestion for libraries, or for faculty to suggest to their libraries: why not engage your faculty who are independent or society publishers to gain support for cancellations or tough negotiations and lower prices for the big deals of large, highly profitable commercial publishers that I argue are critical to redirect funding to our own publishing activities? Here is one scenario that may help to explain the potential …”