D-SPACE AND GREENSTONE: COMPARATIVE STUDY & USAGE IN Open DOAR (Directory of open Access Repositories)

Abstract:  Open source software is a powerful ally for information dissemination. It helps to extend liberal traditions of information access. There are various open source software’s available on web with diverse range of features and capabilities and are used by different Institutional, Disciplinary, Aggregating and Governmental Repositories. Greenstone, D-Space is widely used open source software systems, and prospective users sometimes wonder which one to adopt. In fact, the aims of these are very different, although their domains of application do overlap. The paper describes the comparative study of prominently used open source software’s & their usage in Open DOAR (Directory of open access repositories)

Details of Energy Dept. Plan to Ease Access to Research Don’t Please All – Publishing – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Last week, without much hoopla, the Department of Energy announced it had a plan for how to increase public access to the results of research it pays for. Unless you’re a grantee who might be directly affected, or a publisher, librarian, or open-access advocate whose job requires you to keep tabs on such developments, you probably missed the news altogether.

But the announcement marks a new, pragmatic phase in the struggle between competing philosophies of how widely published research should be shared, and how quickly. And the policy makes its debut just as publishers and library and university groups are testing new mechanisms of their own to help research move more efficiently in a networked environment. Over the next year, how these pieces of scholarly-communication machinery mesh—or clash—should become a lot more clear….”

Promoting open access to research results | Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences | Swiss Academies Communications

The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) invites publishers and scientific actors to facilitate and expedite the transition to open access: scientific work should be published on open websites and in open access journals. The position paper explains the different routes to open access publishing and proposes urgent measures.

The executive summary: “The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) advocates close links between clinical practice and medical science and dialogue with society. Accordingly, it supports the implementation of open access. The SAMS takes the view that open access to research results is the best way of ensuring and improving the availability of information for researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and the general public. In view of the latest global developments in open access described in this position paper, the SAMS calls on publishers and scientific actors to facilitate and expedite the transition to open access, in order to maximize the benefits of medical research for society.”

NeuroDojo: The sticker price on AAAS’s Zune journal

“We now have the first look at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s promised open access journal, Science Advances.

Wow, that’s expensive.

They want $3,000 as an article processing fee. I have no idea what services they offer will justify a price that is double that of PLOS ONE and thirty times that of PeerJ.

It’s as if they don’t want it to succeed, as if their publisher thinks that the open access model of scientific publishing is fundamentally flawed…”

Announcing “Living Data”: an online competition bringing CGIAR data, facts and figures to life. | CCAFS: CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

“The “Living Data” competition encourages the online public to find new, enticing and innovative online ways to present CGIAR research facts, figures and open data sources. People can enter their “data representation” showcases (infographics, photo films, animated graphics,…) in an online competition, hosted on the CGIAR Development Dialogues website.”

How open data could power change in the private rented sector | Nesta

“Nesta and ODI’s Housing Open Data Challenge invites teams to develop products and services using open data to help people get the best out of renting, whether they are in the private rented sector or in social housing. Hannah Gousy, Policy Officer at Shelter, sets out the context for data in the private rented sector from the point of view of Shelter, in particular building the argument for greater open data in the sector.”

Your weekend white paper: Opening up to Open Access | FutureBook

“At Ixxus, we’ve been investigating how perspectives towards Open Access are changing by chatting with representatives from major STM publishers (scientific, technical, medical). These talks have included SAGE, Taylor & Francis, OECD, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press. Our research – detailed in a white paper you can download here free, in exchange for registration — finds that where Open Access was once met with resistance, the view taken now is more pragmatic….”

Secrets of journal subscription prices: For-profit publishers charge libraries two to three times more than non-profits.

“Some of the results: [1] Even with the discounted Big Deal bundles, Elsevier charges typical research universities in the US  about 3 times as much per citation as non-profit publishers.  But other big commercial publisher bundles are even worse bargains. Wiley’s bundled costs more than twice as much per citation as  Elsevier’s. Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and Sage prices per citation are more than 10 times those of the nonprofits. [2] Bundle prices vary widely between universities. Much of this variation cannot be explained by such differences as enrolment, number of PhD’s granted, or presence of a medical school. [3] Colleges and universities that do not focus on research and do not offer PhD’s get much better bargains from the major commercial publishers. The average prices charged to these by Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley are   about 1/10 of  the prices they charge to research universities.  In contrast, non-profits charge the non-research institutions about ¾ as much as research universities.  For non-research institutions, Elsevier’s prices per citation are similar to those of the nonprofits.  The other for-profit publishers charge non-research institutions “only” 2 to 4 times as much as do the non-profit publishers. Why are the commercial publishers so eager to conceal their prices from the public view? We suspect that part of the reason is that they do not want scholars, librarians, and university administrators to know just how high their prices are compared to  costs as measured by the prices of non-profits. We also suspect that they do not want some universities to  find out that they are paying much more than similar universities for the same package.”

Open science network calls for Global South case studies – University World News

“The just launched Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network is calling for case studies that use “innovative and transformative open processes in generating knowledge and actions” aimed at tackling challenges in the Global South. The broad aim of OCSDNet is to see whether and how open and networked research could support development.”

The Development of Open Access Repositories in the Asia-Oceania Region: A Case Study of Three Institutions

Abstract:  In recent years, open access models of publishing have transcended traditional modes thus enabling freer access to research. This paper takes a trans-regional approach to examining open access publishing in the Asia and Oceania region focussing on three institutions– Charles Darwin University in Australia, University of Hong Kong, and University of Malaya in Malaysia – reflecting on how each is rising, in its own individual way, to meet the range of challenges that its research communities are facing. Specifically, it focuses on open access and institutional repository development, and traces their development at each of the aforementioned institutions.

 The study is based on interviews conducted with staff involved with the development of each repository, and the open access collection in particular, at each of the three institutions. The findings reveal that each of the three institutions is at a different stage of development, with the University of Hong Kong repository ranked at the top within Asia; each has used a slightly different approach toward open access, and used different software to develop their repository. 
 The authors collate the overall experiences of each institution in open access publishing and repository development, and highlight the successes and failures that each has experienced in reaching the level that they are at today. A series of guidelines, which will be of value to institutions in the region at various levels of development, are presented.