Category Archives: oa.academic_led

Put your publication money where your mouth is | Brain Communications | Oxford Academic

Posted on by
Reply

“In this editorial, we will try to convince you that publishing in academic-led, community-oriented journals like ours is a better use of your hard-earned grant money than publishing in for-profit journals….

“For the society or charity-owned journals like ours, the surplus funds raised beyond the costs associated with publishing are put back into the scientific community. In our case, The Guarantors of Brain charity uses money raised by Brain and Brain Communications to support fellowships, meetings, and travel grants to attend conferences or to do pro-bono work in low-income countries (see https://guarantorsofbrain.org/)….”

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.

Shaping the future with Researcher-run Journals – Open Collective

Posted on by
Reply

“Please join us for a 3-hr workshop covering startup and longevity planning for researcher-run Diamond Open Access journals.   The workshop will cover Diamond OA basics and the state of Earth Sciences publishing as well as “under the hood” details of community building, media and branding strategies, building for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in science publishing, and Open data/code principles applied to journal design.  Participants can expect a crash course in journal-building and will be invited to contribute to a future-looking white paper representing how we, the global research community, would like to see funding agencies support Open Access. There is no fee to participate.  Refreshments provided. Limited to 50 participants.”

[2308.14953] An Open Community-Driven Model For Sustainable Research Software: Sustainable Research Software Institute

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Research software plays a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge, but ensuring its sustainability, maintainability, and long-term viability is an ongoing challenge. To address these concerns, the Sustainable Research Software Institute (SRSI) Model presents a comprehensive framework designed to promote sustainable practices in the research software community. This white paper provides an in-depth overview of the SRSI Model, outlining its objectives, services, funding mechanisms, collaborations, and the significant potential impact it could have on the research software community. It explores the wide range of services offered, diverse funding sources, extensive collaboration opportunities, and the transformative influence of the SRSI Model on the research software landscape

Who’s afraid of open infrastructures? | Research Information

Posted on by
Reply

“Joanna Ball, Yvonne Campfens and Tasha Mellins-Cohen underline the importance of non-profit infrastructure and standards bodies…

both COUNTER and DOAJ are essential components of the knowledge ecosystem – but new challenges arise and new organisations are needed to help meet them. In 2018 the idea for the OA Switchboard (https://www.oaswitchboard.org/) was conceived to allow publishers, libraries and research funders to easily share information about OA publications throughout the publication journey, synchronising data from a multitude of systems and processes that would otherwise have to be manually connected within each separate organisation.

What do these organisations have in common? We are all owned and led by our community, and we’re not for sale or for profit. We are foundational open infrastructure and standards bodies, operating behind the scenes with low budgets and limited staffing – none of us have salespeople, marketing teams, exhibition budgets or in-house technology support. We collaborate with one another and with bigger bodies like Crossref, ORCID and NISO to create the foundations on which much scholarly infrastructure relies.

 

And foundations is absolutely the right word: scholarly communications is an exciting and innovative space with new commercial and non-commercial services springing up almost daily. We deliver value through open infrastructure, data and standards, and naturally services and tools have been built by commercial and not-for-profit groups that capitalise on our open, interoperable data and services – many of which you are likely to recognise and may use on a regular basis….”

The Corporate Capture of Open-Access Publishing

Posted on by
Reply

“As the heads of progressive university presses on two sides of the North Atlantic, we support open and equitable access to knowledge. If history is any guide, however, the new policies may unintentionally contribute to greater consolidation in academic publishing — and encourage commercial publishers to value quantity over quality and platforms over people. Unless the new open-access policies are accompanied by direct investment from funders, governments, and universities in nonprofit publishers and publishing infrastructure, they could pose a threat to smaller scholarly and scientific societies and university presses, and ultimately to trust in published knowledge….

Without meaning to, many putatively open-access policies could further privatize the results of academic research….

The open-access movement has its roots in the practice of self-archiving (also called “Green” open access), wherein scholars deposit prepublication versions of their work in university repositories or community-owned preprint servers that function (to the extent possible) outside the economic strictures of formal publishing. Publishers effectively co-opted the movement by promoting instead models in which authors or their institutions pay publishers for the privilege of openness (also called “Gold” open access). As a result, open-access policies that enforce openness at any cost, under any model, have paradoxically, and against the intentions of policymakers, furthered the commodification of knowledge….

With paid open access, the academy is being asked, in effect, to subsidize the commercial sector’s use of university-research outputs with no reciprocal financial contribution….

Questions about academic freedom, widening inequality, the impact on smaller publishers, and the applicability of science-based policy for the arts, social sciences, and humanities have long been overlooked in conversations about open access….

The answers, we propose, lie somewhere in that overlooked, undervalued middle ground of nonprofit or fair-profit university-press publishing, mission-aligned with the academy. Many of those presses have been leaders in findings ways to meet the goals of providing both equitable access to knowledge and equitable participation in the creation of new knowledge. These are the publishers that universities should protect, invest in, and make deals with. Perhaps an international network of university-based publishers, libraries, and other public-knowledge providers could work together, balancing paid-for and open research content in a way that is sustainable rather than extractive, and that still values the research itself. Such a network could face down the likes of academia.edu….”

Programme now live: The Lower Decks: A symposium on Janeway and Open Access Publishing. Sept 07-08, 2023 @ Birkbeck, University of London and online. #JanewayOA23 | Open Library of Humanities

Posted on by
Reply

Location: Birkbeck, University of London, & streaming online

Dates: 07/09/2023 – 08/09/2023

Cost: Free

Registration: https://thelowerdecks.janeway.systems/signup (closes on 22 August)

Conference programme: https://thelowerdecks.janeway.systems/programme

In celebration of the ten-year anniversary since the launch of the project of the Open Library of Humanities (OLH), an award-winning, academic-led, diamond open access journal publisher, and the five-year anniversary of Janeway, its ground-breaking open-source scholarly publishing platform, we are holding a symposium to explore future directions for Janeway engineering and open access publishing.

Since its launch, the Janeway and 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. Accordingly, Janeway and OLH staff are hosting a symposium which will include presentations on best practice, future developments and breakout sessions to hear from our community as we work together to make these a reality. You can check the conference programme here

#JanewayOA23

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)

Webinar #3 on collective funding models for open access books, 04 October 2023, 2pm (BST) | Jisc

Posted on by
Reply

This is the third event in the series where infrastructure providers and librarians will discuss why not-for-profit, community-led open infrastructure is so important for Open Access books and how it can best be supported by funders, publishers, and libraries.

In August 2021, UKRI launched a new open access policy, which for the first time includes a provision for long-form scholarly works including monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024.

In preparation for policy implementation, Jisc and the Open Access Books Network have come together to hold a series of online events which will focus on different publishing models for open access books.

This online event is the third in the series, and in it, infrastructure providers and librarians will discuss why not-for-profit, community-led open infrastructure is so important for open access books and how it can best be supported by funders, publishers, and libraries.

Programme

14:00 – Introduction

14:10 – Toby Steiner, Product Manager, Thoth Open Metadata

14:20 – Silke Davison, Community Manager at DOAB & OAPEN Foundation

14:30 – Emma Booth, Metadata Manager for Content Management, The University of Manchester Library

14:40 – Audience Q&A

15:25 – Wrap up, further resources

15:30 – Close

Who should attend

Research services librarians
Scholarly comms librarians
Acquisitions and metadata librarians
Research managers
Professionals who support open access at their organisation

 

Mid-summer reflections on our five years’ journey…

Posted on by
Reply

“OA Switchboard has been live as operational solution since 1 January 2021 (17 consortia and multi-site participants, 154 institutions, 31 publishers, more than 5,100 ‘organisations’, over half a million ‘messages’), supporting two use cases for journal article publications and a variety of business models, including non-APC based models. It operates a sustainable governance and funding model via Stichting (‘foundation’) OA Switchboard, founded by OASPA in October 2020. Security and privacy is ensured via technology and contracts. All participants in OA Switchboard sign the same Service Agreement that the General Terms & Conditions are an integral part of….”

Lost in translation? Revisiting notions of community- and scholar-led publishing in international contexts | Flavours of Open

Posted on by
Reply

This cross-post has originally been published on the ScholarLed blog.

 

This blog delves into the meanings of ‘community-led’ and ‘scholar-led’ publishing in different contexts, arguing against using these terms imprecisely while exploring the generative ‘messiness’ of these ways of publishing that defies easy categorisation.

Mastodon over Mammon: towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge | Royal Society Open Science

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Twitter is in turmoil and the scholarly community on the platform is once again starting to migrate. As with the early internet, scholarly organizations are at the forefront of developing and implementing a decentralized alternative to Twitter, Mastodon. Both historically and conceptually, this is not a new situation for the scholarly community. Historically, scholars were forced to leave social media platform FriendFeed after it was bought by Facebook in 2006. Conceptually, the problems associated with public scholarly discourse subjected to the whims of corporate owners are not unlike those of scholarly journals owned by monopolistic corporations: in both cases the perils associated with a public good in private hands are palpable. For both short form (Twitter/Mastodon) and longer form (journals) scholarly discourse, decentralized solutions exist, some of which are already enjoying some institutional support. Here we argue that scholarly organizations, in particular learned societies, are now facing a golden opportunity to rethink their hesitations towards such alternatives and support the migration of the scholarly community from Twitter to Mastodon by hosting Mastodon instances. Demonstrating that the scholarly community is capable of creating a truly public square for scholarly discourse, impervious to private takeover, might renew confidence and inspire the community to focus on analogous solutions for the remaining scholarly record—encompassing text, data and code—to safeguard all publicly owned scholarly knowledge.

 

Report from Equity in Open Access workshop #4 – Part 1: money flows & trust signals in ‘OA for all’ – OASPA

Posted on by
Reply

“Harking back to a debate from workshop #1 around whether an ‘APC + waiver’ system could ever be equitable, a set of draft principles around APCs & waivers was discussed in OASPA’s third Equity in OA workshop. The hope was to determine what actions could help make the APCs + transformative agreements system more equitable in the here and now (given how prevalent the ‘charge for publishing’ route has become). Clarity around waiver-eligibility, upfront and clear messaging on sites and in submission workflows as well as minimizing emotional and administrative burdens (including via automation wherever possible) were agreed as short term fixes. Certain principles, as proposed, were considered challenging to even discuss, let alone adopt. Many feel that there is no way to preserve waiver processes and successfully uphold equity or author-dignity. On balance, a “whole new system” seems to be required. In this workshop, the scale of the task of increasing equity in OA publishing was undeniable if it had not been before, by virtue of the many stakeholders with divergent views. …

The approaches are variously described and applied across the publishing sector. Whether we lump them together under a single descriptor called ‘Diamond’ is debatable, but partnerships, subsidies, memberships, supporter models and more besides are already in use for delivering OA in ways that are more equitable than large swathes of the current system. As a taster of what exists: 

Collective approaches pull in library/consortial funding to support OA publishing.
Membership models do a version of the above, but supporters are provided very specific membership benefits in return for their funds.
Subsidy models seek grant funding or support from smaller numbers of institutions and/or government bodies. 
Conditional models open content on the basis of a threshold revenue/sustainability target being realized, such as seen in Subscribe to Open offerings.
Discipline-specific partnerships involve collective action towards open access programs in clearly defined subject areas. 
Shared, community-owned infrastructure: while not usually a revenue-generating approach in itself, the cost reduction/cost efficiency derived by this path helps to enable sustainable OA publishing, and supports the goal of APC-free open access, especially when used in combination with one or more of the above….”

Lost in translation? Revisiting notions of community- and scholar-led publishing in international contexts | ScholarLed blog

Posted on by
Reply

This blog delves into the meanings of ‘community-led’ and ‘scholar-led’ publishing in different contexts, arguing against using these terms imprecisely while exploring the generative ‘messiness’ of these ways of publishing that defies easy categorisation.

ARC Alliance

Posted on by
Reply

“The Academic Research Community (ARC) Alliance is a community of like-minded scholars supportive of a non-profit, altruistic, high-quality scholarly publishing alternative to standard publishing models. ARC Alliance utilizes a Diamond Open Access model in which no article processing charge is paid by Alliance member authors, publications are open access, and copyright is retained by authors of their scholarly work.

Motivation for the development of the ARC Alliance is rooted in the unsustainable state of the cost of scholarly publishing, a rapid transition to open access publication, and a desire to catalyze a transition to a high-quality, low-cost, sustainable publishing alternative to best serve the ARC. This effort is a direct response to the rapidly rising costs of access to scholarly publications provided by existing publishers and a means to support the transitions to open access publication without fees to ARC authors or the granting sources funding their research.

Because the ARC Alliance is a community-led effort aimed at preserving the intellectual property of the ARC, expressions of support for the ARC Alliance principles are sought from the academy.  Your signature will be a testimony of your support and help toward building a Diamond Open Access model for the benefit of humanity and more affordable scientific publications.”