Introducing new search features in the Journal Checker Tool for Transformative Agreements
Reply
Category Archives: oa.jct
Introducing the Hybrid Open Access Dashboard (HOAD) | Plan S
We are pleased to introduce the Hybrid Open Access Dashboard (HOAD), an openly available data analytics tool designed for academic libraries and their consortia. Developed at the State and University Library Göttingen and funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), HOAD combines open data from Crossref, OpenAlex, and the cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool. By doing so, the dashboard illustrates the ongoing transition of hybrid journal portfolios included in transformative agreements to full open access.
How does it work?
HOAD provides interactive charts and tables for exploring the openness of over 12,500 hybrid journals included in 400+ transformative agreements. These are derived from curated and publicly available cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool data. HOAD allows users to gain a general overview and analyse hybrid journal portfolios of selected publishers. Throughout the dashboard, users can compare the global hybrid journal landscape with the situation in Germany since 2017.
As an important aspect, users can explore hybrid open access across Creative Commons licences over time and compare licence types offered by publishers. Notably, Springer Nature journals predominantly adopted the CC BY licence, aligned with the preferences of Plan S, whereas Elsevier and Wiley hybrid journals still use the more restrictive CC BY-NC-ND licence for a substantial share of articles (see Figure).
Users can also explore variations in open access adoption among different countries. The view on the top productive countries shows that lead authors from the United States, China, and India published open access in hybrid journals to a much lesser extent compared to their European counterparts. In contrast, countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Germany have achieved substantially larger open access shares, likely due to the wide implementation of transformative agreements.
Another important aspect assessed by HOAD is the availability of openly accessible metadata. Users can identify publishers that provide comprehensive metadata for their open access articles via Crossref. The metadata assessment includes open licences, abstracts, information about Text and Data Mining (TDM), authors’ ORCID, and funding. By highlighting gaps, HOAD supports library consortia in monitoring and negotiating improvements for open metadata in transformative agreements.
[…]
OSF Preprints | Rights and Retention Strategy: a Primer from UKRN
“This guide describes how authors can retain rights on their “author’s accepted manuscripts” using the Rights Retention Strategy.”
OSF Preprints | Rights and Retention Strategy: a Primer from UKRN
“This guide describes how authors can retain rights on their “author’s accepted manuscripts” using the Rights Retention Strategy.”
Plan S Annual Review 2022
“At cOAlition S, we are committed to accelerating the transition to open access. As an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations, along with the European Commission, we have been rolling out policies and tools since 2018 to achieve the goal of Plan S. In this annual report, we are presenting an overview of our activities in 2022, as well as the latest news on our policies, tools, and services. We also outline our support for various publishing models and highlight specific initiatives of cOAlition S funders. In the last section, we give a preview of our plans for 2023 as we look towards the future of scholarly communication….”
Plan S Annual Review 2022
“At cOAlition S, we are committed to accelerating the transition to open access. As an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations, along with the European Commission, we have been rolling out policies and tools since 2018 to achieve the goal of Plan S. In this annual report, we are presenting an overview of our activities in 2022, as well as the latest news on our policies, tools, and services. We also outline our support for various publishing models and highlight specific initiatives of cOAlition S funders. In the last section, we give a preview of our plans for 2023 as we look towards the future of scholarly communication….”
Plan S Annual Review 2022
“At cOAlition S, we are committed to accelerating the transition to open access. As an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations, along with the European Commission, we have been rolling out policies and tools since 2018 to achieve the goal of Plan S. In this annual report, we are presenting an overview of our activities in 2022, as well as the latest news on our policies, tools, and services. We also outline our support for various publishing models and highlight specific initiatives of cOAlition S funders. In the last section, we give a preview of our plans for 2023 as we look towards the future of scholarly communication….”
Plan S Annual Review 2022
“At cOAlition S, we are committed to accelerating the transition to open access. As an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations, along with the European Commission, we have been rolling out policies and tools since 2018 to achieve the goal of Plan S. In this annual report, we are presenting an overview of our activities in 2022, as well as the latest news on our policies, tools, and services. We also outline our support for various publishing models and highlight specific initiatives of cOAlition S funders. In the last section, we give a preview of our plans for 2023 as we look towards the future of scholarly communication….”
Elsevier absent from journal cost comparison | Times Higher Education (THE)
“Of the 2,070 titles whose information will become accessible under the JCS, although not directly to researchers, 1,000 belong to the US academic publishing giant Wiley, while another 219 journals owned by Hindawi, which was bought by Wiley last year, also appear on the list.
Several other fully open access publishers will also participate on the comparison site including Plos, the Open Library of Humanities, and F1000, while learned society presses and university publishers, including the Royal Society, Rockefeller University Press, and the International Union of Crystallography, are also part of the scheme.
Other notable participants include the prestigious life sciences publisher eLife, EMBO Press and the rapidly growing open access publisher, Frontiers.
However, the two of the world’s largest scholarly publishers – Elsevier and Springer Nature, whose most prestigious titles charge about £8,000 for APCs – are not part of the scheme….
Under the Plan S agreement, scholarly journals are obliged to become ‘transformative journals’ and gradually increase the proportion of non-paywalled content over a number of years. Those titles that do not make their papers free at the point of publication will drop out of the Plan S scheme, meaning authors cannot use funds provided by any of the 17 funding agencies and six foundations now signed up to Plan S. There are, however, no immediate consequences for a publisher who decides not to share their price and service data through the JCS. …”
How to reuse & share your knowledge as you wish through Rights Retention – YouTube
“In 2020 cOAlition S released its Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) with the dual purpose of enabling authors to retain rights that automatically belong to the author, and to enable compliance with their funders’ Open Access policy via dissemination in a repository.
This video explains briefly the steps a researcher has to follow to retain their intellectual property rights….”
Journal Checker Tool: Plan S Compliance Validator | Self Archiving Exceptions
“Self-archiving Approved List
This is a list of titles from publishers which have directly acknowledged their intention to honour the self-archiving agreements which authors/institutions make with Plan S funders….
Self-archiving Prohibited List
This is a list of titles from publishers which have explicitly expressed an intention to “desk-reject” manuscripts containing the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) clause….”