Akkoord met Springer 2015-2016 over Open Access

VSNU heeft met uitgever Springer een principe-akkoord bereikt voor 2015 en 2016. Universiteiten betalen voortaan niet meer voor abonnementen, maar voor Open Access publicatie van artikelen in nagenoeg alle Springer tijdschriften (1.500 titels). Het betreft alle artikelen van auteurs van alle instellingen die nu de overeenkomst aangaan. Een vergoeding per artikel is niet meer nodig.

Bron: OA-nieuwsbrief VSNU

Scholarly Communications Librarian 12 Month

“The Scholarly Communications Librarian manages an active program of education, training, advocacy, support and information sharing on topics related to the sharing and barrier-free access of scholarly research products. The librarian raises campus awareness of trends in scholarly publishing, including open access to the scholarly record, alternative metrics for measuring research impact, and copyright and fair use. Additionally, this position will be an integral part of FSU [Florida State University] Libraries digital scholarship program, and will report to the Digital Scholarship Coordinator….”

Digital Services Support Officer at SOAS, University of London

“Working closely with the SOAS Research and Enterprise office, you will help researchers and academics to make choices between “Gold” and “Green” publication options, ensuring that SOAS’ policies and funding body requirements are met. With a strong grasp of metadata standards and compliance, you will manage ingest of data into SOAS’ repositories, ensuring that depositors are able to upload their material in a timely manner, with accurate bibliographic and other metadata. You will advise and assist in the specification of system upgrades, migrations and new system implementations which might include putting SOAS intellectual property onto new Open Access Journal or Monograph platforms….”

The Only Substitute for Metrics is Better Metrics

Comment on: Mryglod, Olesya, Ralph Kenna, Yurij Holovatch and Bertrand Berche (2014) Predicting the results of the REF using departmental h-index: A look at biology, chemistry, physics, and sociology. LSE Impact Blog 12(6)

The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible? is a brother metaphysician with a rival theory? Bradley, F. H. (1893) Appearance and Reality

The topic of using metrics for research performance assessment in the UK has a rather long history, beginning with the work of Charles Oppenheim.

The solution is neither to abjure metrics nor to pick and stick to one unvalidated metric, whether it?s the journal impact factor or the h-index.

The solution is to jointly test and validate, field by field, a battery of multiple, diverse metrics (citations, downloads, links, tweets, tags, endogamy/exogamy, hubs/authorities, latency/longevity, co-citations, co-authorships, etc.) against a face-valid criterion (such as peer rankings).

      See also: “On Metrics and Metaphysics” (2008)

Oppenheim, C. (1996). Do citations count? Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 9(2), 155-161.

Oppenheim, C. (1997). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology. Journal of documentation, 53(5), 477-487.

Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27.

Oppenheim, C. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301.

Harnad, S. (2001) Research access, impact and assessment. Times Higher Education Supplement 1487: p. 16.

Harnad, S. (2003) Measuring and Maximising UK Research Impact. Times Higher Education Supplement. Friday, June 6 2003

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35.

Hitchcock, Steve; Woukeu, Arouna; Brody, Tim; Carr, Les; Hall, Wendy and Harnad, Stevan. (2003) Evaluating Citebase, an open access Web-based citation-ranked search and impact discovery service Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton.

Harnad, S. (2004) Enrich Impact Measures Through Open Access Analysis. British Medical Journal BMJ 2004; 329:

Harnad, S. (2006) Online, Continuous, Metrics-Based Research Assessment. Technical Report, ECS, University of Southampton.  

Brody, T., Harnad, S. and Carr, L. (2006) Earlier Web Usage Statistics as Predictors of Later Citation Impact. Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 57(8) pp. 1060-1072.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Time to Convert to Metrics. Research Fortnight 17-18.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).

Harnad, S. (2008) Validating Research Performance Metrics Against Peer Rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8 (11) doi:10.3354/esep00088 The Use And Misuse Of Bibliometric Indices In Evaluating Scholarly Performance

Harnad, S. (2008) Self-Archiving, Metrics and Mandates. Science Editor 31(2) 57-59

Harnad, S., Carr, L. and Gingras, Y. (2008) Maximizing Research Progress Through Open Access Mandates and Metrics. Liinc em Revista 4(2).

Harnad, S. (2009) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. Scientometrics 79 (1) Also in Proceedings of 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics 11(1), pp. 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds. (2007)

Harnad, S. (2009) Multiple metrics required to measure research performance. Nature (Correspondence) 457 (785) (12 February 2009)

Harnad, S; Carr, L; Swan, A; Sale, A & Bosc H. (2009) Maximizing and Measuring Research Impact Through University and Research-Funder Open-Access Self-Archiving Mandates. Wissenschaftsmanagement 15(4) 36-41

Scholarly Communications Librarian 12 Month | Careers @ Inside Higher Ed

Job Location: 

Tallahassee, FL
Job Category: 
December 16, 2014

Diversity Profile

Job ID: 38220 Full/Part Time: Full-Time Regular/Temporary: Regular Apply On Or Before: 01/14/2015 Department The Scholarly Communications Librarian manages an active program of education, training, advocacy, support and information sharing on topics related to the sharing and barrier-free access of scholarly research products. The librarian raises campus awareness of trends in scholarly publishing, including open access to the scholarly record, alternative metrics for measuring research impact, and copyright and fair use. Additionally, this position will be an integral part of FSU Libraries digital scholarship program, and will report to the Digital Scholarship Coordinator.  Responsibilities * Manage development and growth of DigiNole Commons, FSU’s institutional repository * Monitor advancements in scholarly communication, open access, institutional repositories, and related legislative and funding initiatives, and communicate their implications to campus stakeholders * Maintain and build collaborative partnerships with research and administrative units on campus * Member and support person for the Faculty Senate Library Committee Scholarly Communication Task Force * Development and implementation of an Open Access Policy * Manage open access fund, and explore future mechanisms for funding open access * Liaison to the Library Publishing Coalition and Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions * Exploring related research topics including: measurement and impact of scholarship, open peer review, data management, new publication platforms, digital tools for scholarship, etc. * Manage the hosting and support for University Libraries journal publishing partnerships * Partner with library departmental liaisons to implement strategies for including faculty and student work in DigiNole Commons * Serve as a library resource on copyright, fair use and grants compliance, especially related to publishing  Qualifications * ALA-accredited masters degree (awarded or near complete); * Previous experience in an academic library setting is desirable; * A strong public service orientation; * A high degree of facility with relevant technologies and systems; * Demonstrated knowledge of trends and best practices in scholarly communications across a variety of disciplines; * Knowledge and experience in copyright law as it relates to fair use and library exemptions, new modes of scholarly communication, open access, authors* rights, and use of intellectual property; * Excellent oral, written, and interpersonal communications skills. * Ability to work effectively with faculty, students, and staff in a team environment;  Preferred * Minimum two years of relevant library experience; * Coursework or experience in digital scholarship, scholarly communications and/or digital humanities; * Familiarity with repository platforms (Digital Commons, Islandora)  Helpful The successful candidate will serve as a resource and advocate for issues that promote availability of scholarly intellectual resources. S/he will develop, implement, and assess an educational program; work with subject liaison librarians to promote knowledge about open access support to academic departments, and to assist faculty with issues related to their authored content; promote the use and utility of DigiNole Commons, FSU’s institutional repository, and good research practices in a digital environment.

The Scholarly Communications Librarian serves as the Libraries’ resource on issues related to intellectual property and its use in research and teaching, including: drafting and reviewing policies, guidelines, contracts and license agreements; serving as liaison to campus offices on intellectual property-related issues; analyzing copyright status and risk for digital publishing; and maintaining current information on use of copyrighted material.

The Scholarly Communications Librarian will also monitor and stay current in requirements for open access, and will develop library policies and procedures to support researchers in research compliance. Related areas of responsibility could include: the development of campus open access policies, models for open access publishing and open access financing, the role of peer review and alt-metrics in publishing, codes of research practice, and large-scale scholarly communication projects (Ex. SCOAP3, COAPI, Library Publishing Coalition).  Contact Info Ericka Jones  Staff Services Specialist  Florida State University Libraries  Tallahassee, FL 32306-2047  <

Newsletter on Big Deal negotations

Open Access is an important, if not crucial part of the current negotiations between VSNU and major publishers about journal subscription fees: the so-called Big Deal talks with Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Oxford University Press and Sage. To inform researchers and university administrators about the developments, VSNU initiated an Open Access Newsletter. To subscribe to this newsletter, please email

Wiley’s “Free to read” actually means “pay 35 USD”


I got the above unwanted Twitter from Wiley (I have checked as far as possible that it’s genuine). It seems to be Wiley advertising a free to read article. I have pasted the message so you can try this at home:

Progress in #nanotechnology within the last several decades review from @unifr is #freetoread! http://ow.ly/FXDFQ

I check the poster https://twitter.com/ChemEurJ/status/544832871564050432/photo/1 and it seems to be a genuine site. So off I go to get my free copy (sorry, my free set of photons for sighted readers)…



I click the “View Full Article (HTML)” and get…


So Wiley equate “35 USD” with “free to read”.

I don’t.

I’m sure it’s a BUMP-ON-THE-ROAD (Elsevier excuse).

But this is the independent fourth publisher foul-up I have got in the last four days. We pay them 20 Billion USD and they can’t get it right.


The Scholarly Communications Needs of Faculty: An Evidence-Based Foundation for the Development of Library Services | Dawson | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Abstract:  Objectives – This exploratory research seeks to broadly understand the publishing behaviours and attitudes of faculty, across all disciplines, at the University of Saskatchewan in response to the growing significance of open access publishing and archiving. The objective for seeking this understanding is to discover the current and emerging needs of researchers in order to determine if scholarly communications services are in demand here and, if so, to provide an evidence-based foundation for the potential future development of such a program of services at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Methods – All faculty members at the University of Saskatchewan were sent personalized email invitations to participate in a short online survey during the month of November 2012. The survey was composed of four parts: Current Research and Publishing Activities/Behaviours; Open Access Behaviours, Awareness, and Attitudes; Needs Assessment; and Demographics. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated.
Results – The survey elicited 291 complete responses – a 21.9% response rate. Results suggest that faculty already have a high level of support for the open access movement, and considerable awareness of it. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding their rights as authors, a low familiarity with tools available to support them in their scholarly communications activities, and substantial resistance to paying the article processing charges of some open access journals. Survey respondents also provided a considerable number of comments – perhaps an indication of their engagement with these issues and desire for a forum in which to discuss them. It is reasonable to speculate that those who chose not to respond to this survey likely have less interest in, and support of, open access. Hence, the scholarly communications needs of this larger group of non-respondents are conceivably even greater. 
Conclusion – Faculty at the University of Saskatchewan are in considerable need of scholarly communications services. Areas of most need include: advice and guidance on authors’ rights issues such as retention of copyright; more education and support with resources such as subject repositories; and additional assistance with article processing charges. The University Library could play a valuable role in increasing the research productivity and impact of faculty by aiding them in these areas.

How publishers destroy science: Elsevier’s XML, API and the disappearing chemical bond. DO NOT BUY XML

TL;DR Elsevier typsetting turns double bonds into garbage.

Those of you who follow this blog will know that I contend that publishers corrupt manuscripts and thereby destroy science.

Those of you who follow this blog will know that Elsevier publicly stated that I could not use the new “Hargreaves” law to mine articles on their web page and I must do this through their API. Originally there were zillions of conditions, which – under our constant criticism – have gradually (but nowhere completely) disappeared. They now allow me to mine from the web page, but insist that their XML-API gives better content.

I have consistently refused to use Elsevier’s API for legal, political and social reasons (I don’t want to sign my rights away, be monitored, have to ask permission, etc.). But I also know from at least 5 years of trying to interpret publishers’ PDFs and HTML that information is corrupted. By this I mean that what the author submits is turned into something different lexically, typographically and often semantics. (Yes, that means that by changing the way something looks , you can change its meaning).

Anyway yesterday Chris Shillum, who was part of the team I challenged, tweeted that he would let me have a paper – in XML format – from the Elsevier API. For those who don’t know, XML is designed to hold information in a style-free form. It can be rendered by a stylesheet or program (e.g. FOP) into whatever font you like. I’m very familiar with XML having run the developers’ list with Henry Rzepa in 1997 and been co-author of the universal SAX protocol. Henry and I have developed Chemical Markup Language (CML) precisely for the purpose of chemical publishing (among many other things).


But Elsevier don’t use CML, they use typographers who know nothing about chemistry. At school you may have heard of a “double bond” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bond). It’s normally represented by two lines between the atoms. We used to draw these with rapidographs, but now we type them. So every chemist in the world will type Carbon Dioxide as


capital-O equals capital-C equals capital-O

You can do it – nothing terrible happens. You can even search chemical databases using this. They all understand “equals”.

But that’s not good enough for Elsevier (and most of the others). It has to look “pretty”. It’s more important that a publication looks pretty than that it’s correct. And that’s one of the major ways they corrupt information. So here’s the paper that Chris Shillum sent me.

First as a PDF.


Can you see the C=O double bond in the middle? “(C=O stretching)”. It’s no longer an equals, but a special publisher-only symbol they think looks prettier. Among other things if I search for “C=O” I won’t find the double bond in the text. That’s bad enough. But what’s far worse is that this symbol has been included in their XML. And this gets transmitted to the HTML – which looks like (you can try this yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579301033130 ).



What’s happened??? Do you also see a square? The double bond has disappeared.

The square is Firefox saying “I have been given a character I don’t understand and the best I can do is draw a square” – sorry. Safari does the same. Do ANY of you get anything useful? I doubt it.

Because Elsevier has created a special Elsevier-only method of displaying chemistry. It probably only works inside Elsevier back-room – it won’t work in any normal browser. Here’s what has happened.

Elsevier wanted a symbol to display a double bond. “Equals” which all the rest of the world uses – isn’t good enough. So they created their own special Elsevier-double-bond. It’s not a standard Unicode codepoint – it’s in a Private Use Area: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas). This is reserved for a single organisation to use. It is not intended for unrestricted public use. In certain cases groups, with mutual agreement, have developed communities of practice. But I know of no community outside Elsevier that uses this. (BTW the XML uses 6 Elsevier-only DTDs and can only be understood by reading a 500-page manual – the chemistry is hidden somewhere at the end. This is the monstrosity that Elsevier wishes to force us to use.

It’s highly dangerous. If you change a double bond to a triple bond (ethylene => acetylene) it can explode and blow you up. But double and triple bonds are both represented by a hollow square if you try to view Elsevier-HTML. And goodness knows what else:

So Elsevier destroys information.

Chris Shillum tells me on Twitter that it’s not a problem. But it is. Using the Private Use Area without the agreement of the community is utterly irresponsible. No one even knew that Elsevier was doing it.

Why’s it irresponsible? Because many languages use it for other purposes. See Wikipedia above. Estonian, Tibetan, Chinese … If an Elsevier-double-bond is used in these documents (e.g. an Estonian chemistry department) there will be certain corruption of both the chemistry and the Estonian. There are probably 10 million chemical compounds with double bonds and all will be corrupted.

But it’s also arrogant. “We’re Elsevier. We’re not going to work with existing DTDs (XML specifications) – we’re going to invent our own.” Who uses it outside Elsevier? “And we are going to force text-miners to use this monstrosity.”

And it’s the combined arrogance and incompetence of publishers that destroys science during the manuscript processing. I’ve been through it. I know.



A bibliometric study of scholarly articles published by library and information science authors about open access

Abstract:  Introduction. This study aims to gain a greater understanding of the development of open access practices amongst library and information science authors, since their role is integral to the success of the broader open access movement. 

Method. Data were collected from scholarly articles about open access by library and information science authors from 2003 until 2011 found in the Library and Information Science Abstracts database. 
Analysis. A bibliometric approach is taken for the information gathered from 203 articles. Excel and SPSS were used to derive descriptive statistics and correlations. 
Results. Overall an open access rate of 60% was found, which was lower than expected considering 94% of these articles appeared to endorse open access. 
Conclusions. Although these results show a higher open access rate than previous studies, and a linear growth of open access publications over the years, there is still a large gap between theory and practice which needs to be addressed.

The National Enquiry Into Scholarly Communication—Twenty years after

Abstract:  The National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication was organized under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Its report was published by Johns Hopkins University Press after three years of research, In 1979. Why was it undertaken, who was involved, what did it recommend, and what was the result? 

Publishers’ typesetting destroys science: They are all as bad as each other. Can you spot the error?

I’ve just been trying to mine publicly visible scientific publications from scholarly publishers. (That’s right – “publicly visible” – Hargreaves comes later).


They destroy the text. They destroy the images and diagrams. And we pay them money – usually more than a thousand dollars for this. Sometimes many thousands. And when I talk to them – which is regular – they all say something like:

“Oh, we can’t change our workflow – it would take years” (or something similar). As if this was a law of the universe.

Unfortunately it’s a law of publishing arrogance. They don’t give a stuff about the reader. There’s no market forces – the only thing that the PublisherAcademic complex worries about is the shh-don’t-mention-the-Impact-Factor.

And it’s not just the TollAccess ones but also the OpenAccess ones. So today’s destruction of quality comes from BMC. (I shall be even handed in my criticism).

I’m trying to get my machines to read HTML from BMC’s site. Why HTML? Well publisher’s PDF is awful – I’ll come to that tomorrow or sometime). Whereas HTML is a standard of many years and so it’s straightforward to parse. Yes,

unless it comes from a Scholarly publisher…

PUZZLE TODAY. What’s (seriously) wrong with the following. [Kaveh, you will spot it, but give the others a chance to puzzle!]. It’s verbatim from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/14/106 (I have added some CR’s to make it readable

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" 
<html id="nojs" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" 
    xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xml:lang="en-GB" 
    lang="en-GB" xmlns:wb=“http://open.weibo.com/wb”>

<head> ... [rest of document snipped]

When you see it you’ll be as horrified as I was. There is no excuse for this rubbish. Why do we put up with this?

Elsevier’s Bumpy Road; Unacceptable licence metadata on “Open Access”

I am looking for Open Access articles to mine and since I have recently become an astrophysicist I started with http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107614000426

Can I mine it?

elsevierrights elsevierrights1 elsevierrights2

“Open Access” means virtually nothing. Let’s try RightsLink, the tax-collector for the toll-access scholarly publishers. Normally a depressing experience, but here’s a surprise.


Rightslink can’t work out the licence.

(PMR can’t work out the licence either). Sometimes it hides at the bottom of the document…


PMR still can’t work it out? Is it Open.

The only certain thing is that even after years of mislabelling documents Elsevier is still incapable of reliably attaching licence information to document.






Announcing the Latest Update to the Responding the Climate Change Collection

Responding to climate change

New research added to the PLOS Responding to Climate Change Collection In December 2013 PLOS ONE published a unique article, Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature”, by James Hansen … Continue reading »

The post Announcing the Latest Update to the Responding the Climate Change Collection appeared first on EveryONE.

Open Access Policy – Shorenstein Center

“The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy is actively committed to the openness of information relevant to the public….We therefore support and reaffirm Harvard’s Open Access Policy, enacted and implemented by all of the nine individual Harvard faculties….This includes an affirmative vote by the Harvard Kennedy School [of Government], under which the Shorenstein Center operates….Harvard has pioneered measures to promote open access and move toward a publishing system that is in keeping with the University’s goals of promoting the civic good. One of these measures is an open-access policy that has the effect of allowing open distribution of research articles. The Shorenstein Center is committed to advancing these university-wide goals, and has a long-established tradition of offering all research materials produced by the Center and its Fellows free to the public on its website. Further, we will provide an electronic copy of the author’s final version of each scholarly article…to be deposited into the open Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) repository. Each member of the Shorenstein Center grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles. More specifically, each member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to authorize others to do the same….”