Category Archives: oa.coalition_s

Moving away from APCs: a multi-stakeholder working group convened by cOAlition S, Jisc and PLOS – The Official PLOS Blog

Posted on by
Reply

“cOAlition S, in partnership with Jisc and PLOS, are seeking to establish a multi-stakeholder working group to identify business models and arrangements that enable equitable participation in knowledge-sharing. The aims of this working group and the eligibility criteria that interested parties must meet in order to apply are outlined below.

We anticipate that the group will consist of a maximum of twelve individuals and will represent the three key stakeholders – funders, institutions/library consortia and publishers – in roughly equal proportions.

Once established, the working group is expected to convene up to six times. The key outcome from this collaborative effort will be the development of a model (or multiple models) that, if implemented, would enable equitable participation in knowledge sharing….”

Moving away from APCs: a multi-stakeholder working group convened by cOAlition S, Jisc and PLOS | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

“cOAlition S, in partnership with Jisc and PLOS, are seeking to establish a multi-stakeholder working group to identify business models and arrangements that enable equitable participation in knowledge-sharing. The aims of this working group and the eligibility criteria that interested parties must meet in order to apply are outlined below.

We anticipate that the group will consist of a maximum of twelve individuals and will represent the three key stakeholders – funders, institutions/library consortia and publishers – in roughly equal proportions.

Once established, the working group is expected to convene up to six times. The key outcome from this collaborative effort will be the development of a model (or multiple models) that, if implemented, would enable equitable participation in knowledge sharing.

Interested parties should apply using the form available at https://coalitions.typeform.com/MultiGroup….”

Open Science: stakeholders welcome European efforts towards publicly owned and not-for-profit scholarly communication | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

For European public research and innovation actors, scholarly knowledge is a public good. Publicly funded research and its results should be immediately and openly available to all without barriers such as subscription fees or paywalls. This is essential in driving knowledge forward, promoting innovation and tackling social issues.

Key representative organisations of the public research and innovation sector have welcomed today’s adoption of the ‘Council conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy, and equitable scholarly publishing’.

Principles of Diamond Open Access Publishing: a draft proposal | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

“The Action Plan for Diamond Open Access outlines a set of priorities to develop sustainable, community-driven, academic-led and -owned scholarly communication. Its goal is to create a global federation of Diamond Open Access (Diamond OA) journals and platforms around shared principles, guidelines, and quality standards while respecting their cultural, multilingual and disciplinary diversity. It proposes a definition of Diamond OA as a scholarly publication model in which journals and platforms do not charge fees to either authors or readers. Diamond OA is community-driven, academic-led and -owned, and serves a wide variety of generally small-scale, multilingual, and multicultural scholarly communities. 

Still, Diamond OA is often seen as a mere business model for scholarly publishing: no fees for authors or readers. However, Diamond OA can be better characterized by a shared set of values and principles that go well beyond the business aspect. These distinguish Diamond OA communities from other approaches to scholarly publishing. It is therefore worthwhile to spell out these values and principles, so they may serve as elements of identification for Diamond OA communities. 

The principles formulated below are intended as a first draft. They are not cast in stone, and meant to inspire discussion and evolve as a living document that will crystallize over the coming months. Many of these principles are not exclusive to Diamond OA communities. Some are borrowed or adapted from the more general 2019 Good Practice Principles for scholarly communication services defined by Sparc and COAR1, or go back to the 2016 Vienna Principles. Others have been carefully worked out in more detail by the FOREST Framework for Values-Driven Scholarly Communication in a self-assessment format for scholarly communities. Additional references can be added in the discussion.

The formulation of these principles has benefited from many conversations over the years with various members of the Diamond community now working together in the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access, cOAlition S, the CRAFT-OA and DIAMAS projects, the Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA), Linguistics in Open Access (LingOA), the Open Library of Humanities, OPERAS, SciELO, Science Europe, and Redalyc-Amelica. This document attempts to embed these valuable contributions into principles defining the ethos of Diamond OA publishing….”

cOAlition S supports efforts to improve copyright framework for research | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

“Copyright retention has been at the core of Plan S since its inception. Its first principle is that authors or their institutions retain copyright to their work. The Rights Retention Strategy aims to ensure that authors retain their rights and comply with funders´ mandates of immediate open access under open licenses while publishing in the venue of their choice.  

cOAlition S welcomes the various rights retention strategies adopted by research funders and institutions, as well as efforts to improve copyright legislation for research. These include the introduction of Secondary Publication Rights in national copyright legislation, and the European Research Area policy work to identify barriers to access to and reuse of scientific publications in EU copyright legislation and propose legislative and non-legislative measures.  

cOAlition S is also supportive of exploring an EU Secondary Publication Right, advancing towards sustainable universal open access on an international scale, e.g. statutory licensing, and suggestions for mandatory clauses for scientific publishing agreements via contract law, mandatory reversion rights, EU harmonisation of first ownership, and mandatory and stronger exceptions and limitations for research (see: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/891665 and https://zenodo.org/record/7148721).”

cOAlition S confirms the end of its financial support for Open Access publishing under transformative arrangements after 2024 | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

Transformative arrangements – including Transformative Agreements and Transformative Journals – were developed to encourage subscription journals to transition to full and immediate open access within a defined timeframe (31st December 2024, as specified in the Plan S Implementation Guidance). After careful consideration of the outcomes of transformative arrangements, the leadership of cOAlition S reaffirms that, as a principle, its members will no longer financially support these arrangements after 2024.

Exceptionally, individual cOAlition S funders may still choose to financially participate in Transformative Agreements beyond 2024 as part of their respective national strategies. Such exceptions will be communicated on the cOAlition S website.

Support for Transformative Journals will also cease at the end of 2024. In anticipation of this, no new applications to this programme will be considered after the 30th of June 2023.

 

Freier Zugang umgehend und uneingeschränkt – das ändert ab dem 1. Januar 2023

Posted on by
Reply

From Google’s English:  “The SNSF will adjust its Open Access requirements at the beginning of 2023. Scientific articles must now be accessible immediately. This corresponds to the principles of cOAlition S, which the SNSF joined in June 2022….

If scientific results are only publicly accessible after a blocking period, this not only harms science, but also society, which has often paid for this research. “From the point of view of the SNSF, the time for such delays in articles is now over,” says Matthias Egger, President of the National Research Council. “We no longer accept blocking periods.” If the SNSF funds a research project, the resulting articles must be freely available immediately.

As before, this obligation can be fulfilled in three different ways: publication in an open access journal (golden way), in a hybrid journal or as a manuscript version (“Author’s Accepted Manuscript”) in a digital archive (green way). The regulations for books and book chapters remain unchanged.

Use without any restrictions

Other requirements will also be new for 2023. The SNSF stipulates a CC-BY license for all articles. Scientific articles are primarily distributed and read digitally. Both the researchers and the SNSF have an interest in knowledge being spread as widely as possible and used in as many different ways as possible. The so-called Creative Commons licenses (CC licenses) are the standard today for the use of digital content and content distributed via the Internet. This means: The articles can basically be used without restrictions – from further distribution to automated evaluation in order to gain completely new insights. Of course, the researchers must be named as the authors each time they are used, and it must be clear whether the content has been changed.

rights reserved

Many publishers restrict what researchers can do with the articles they have created themselves through exclusive publication contracts. Very often these limitations also prevent the fulfillment of OA obligations. The SNSF is therefore adopting the rights retention strategy developed by cOAlition S: researchers reserve the right to make their manuscript freely available immediately and under a CC-BY license when they submit it. They refer to their obligations towards the SNSF….”

Funders Support Use of Reviewed Preprints in Research Assessment

Posted on by
Reply

eLife’s new publishing model has sparked vigorous discussion about the role of editors in selecting research articles for publication. In October, the organisation announced that it is eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review and instead focusing on preprint review and assessment.

In support, a group of nine funders have committed to including reviewed preprints in the evaluation process, even if they lack the traditional stamp of approval from journal editors. Among these supporters are the Gates Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and Wellcome.

[Clip]

Supporting organisations:

Cambridge University Libraries
Champalimaud Foundation
cOAlition S
Gates Foundation
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
Research Libraries UK
Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute
Wellcome

IEEE Commits its Entire Hybrid Journal Portfolio to Transformative Journal Status Aligned with Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for humanity, announced today that it has committed its full portfolio of more than 160 hybrid journals, which publish both open access and subscription-based content, to become Transformative Journals under Plan S.

This commitment means that any authors receiving research grants from Coalition S, a group of research funders, are compliant with Plan S requirements when publishing their research articles in any IEEE fully open access or hybrid journals. In addition to the existing direct open access agreements with hundreds of institutions, all of IEEE’s hybrid journals now qualify as ‘Transformative Journals’ under Plan S.

DIAMAS receives grant to develop Diamond Open Access publishing in Europe | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

Aix-Marseille Université, cOAlition S, and Science Europe are pleased to announce that they are participating in a Horizon Europe project called ‘Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication’ (DIAMAS). The 3-year project, launched on the 1st of September 2022, receives funding in the context of the Horizon Europe call on Capacity-building for institutional open access publishing across Europe.

The DIAMAS project, which was awarded a grant of €3m, brings together 23 European organisations that will map out the landscape of Diamond Open Access publishing in the European Research Area and develop common standards, guidelines and practices for the Diamond publishing sector. The project partners will also formulate recommendations for research institutions to coordinate sustainable support for Diamond publishing activities across Europe.

Moreover, the DIAMAS project will interact closely with the global community of the ‘Action Plan for Diamond Open Access’ signatories. While the project will spearhead some of the activities laid out in the Action Plan, it welcomes complementary actions and contributions. As a first step, DIAMAS project partners and members of the Diamond Open Access Plan Community had the chance to meet and discuss collaboration opportunities during the Diamond Open Access Conference (Zadar, Croatia, 19 – 20 September 2022).

 

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia joins cOAlition S | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the first Australian organisation to join cOAlition S and the country’s first funding agency to introduce the requirement that scholarly publications arising from the research it funds must be made freely available and accessible.