A recap of a successful year in open access, and introducing CC BY as default

“We’re pleased to start 2015 with an announcement that we’re now using Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY 4.0 as default. This will apply to all of the 18 fully open access journals Nature Publishing Group owns, and will also apply to any future titles we launch. Two society- owned titles have introduced CC BY as default today and we expect to expand this in the coming months.  

This follows a transformative 2014 for open access and open research at Nature Publishing Group …”

Forum Herbulot 2014 statement on accelerated biodiversity assessment (July 2014)

“Forum Herbulot [FH] is a research initiative, founded in the year of 2000, with approx. 150 members from 42 countries…. FH supports the Bouchout Declaration (http://bouchoutdeclaration.org/) for open access to biodiversity data and thus strongly encourages opening for free use the online access to key biodiversity data including sequences (along with access numbers on BOLD and GenBank / EMBL / DDBJ published in the original descriptions), taxonomic names, descriptions, occurrence data, images, ecological dates, habitats, biological traits and data….”

The Green Cure for Zeno’s Paralysis

All the author opinions cited by U. Utah librarian Rick Anderson in his recent UKSG squib are familiar ones, based largely on author ignorance. Their rebuttals have been known for years (e.g., the self-archiving FAQ since 2001 and even earlier in the AmSci OA Forum). Most are covered in this:

Harnad, S. (2006) Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno’s Paralysis, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 8. Chandos.

The very same prima facie author objections would no doubt have been voiced if authors had been polled in advance on the (universal) mandate to publish or perish.

Although it?s unclear what his underlying motivation is, Utah librarian Rick Anderson has consistently sounded like a publisher?s advocate (or subscription agent!) for years and years now, and in his UKSG squib he is simply citing the persistence of author ignorance and the status quo as evidence and justification for the persistence of author ignorance and the status quo!

The remedy, of course, is effective global Green OA mandates.

Green OA and Green OA mandates grow anarchically, article by article and institution/funder by institution/funder, rather than journal by journal. So journals can only be cancelled once all or almost all of their contents are accessible via Green OA ? and that day arrives only when Green OA and effective Green OA mandates have become global and are generating full or almost full compliance.

Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28


On past postings by Rick Anderson:

More Skulduggery from SSP’s Scholarly Scullery February 15. 2014

The Need to Upgrade All OA Mandates to Add Immediate-Institutional-Deposit Requirement December 14. 2013

Spurning the Better to Keep Burning for the Best October 11. 2013

Openness Probe for the SSP Scholarly Scullery September 27. 2013

Is the Library Community Friend or Foe of OA? September 16. 2013

Librarians Applauding Embargoes on Open Access to Research Findings? May 4. 2007

Peter Suber’s Fair and Gentle But Firm Rejoinders to OA Opponents March 27. 2007

The Battle for Open: How Openness Won and Why it Doesn’t Feel Like Victory, by Martin Weller | Books | Times Higher Education

“Martin Weller’s book [The Battle for Open: How Openness Won and Why it Doesn’t Feel Like Victory] is written in a beguilingly approachable style, reminiscent of 101 position papers and blog posts aimed at thrashing out the role of the modern university within contemporary society. However, there the similarities end. What we have here is a clear and unequivocal account of how higher education is being dismantled in order to monetise that most precious of assets, namely the contents of academics’ heads….”

Update on Open Access Policies

Latest changes on Open Access Policies per country/funding agencies:

India
Following a consultation in July 2014, to which ALPSP responded, two Departments under the
Ministry of Science & Technology of the Government of India, have produced a policy on open
access. Researchers in receipt of grants from the Departments of Biotechnology (DBT) and Science
and Technology (DST) will be required to adhere to the new policy, which has changed since the draft
proposal. The policy is based solely on accepted manuscripts1 and repository deposit.
The Ministry is encouraging or requiring institutions to develop their own repositories, dependent on
the level of funding they receive. It has created a centralised system to harvest not just the metadata,
but the full text of deposited manuscripts. Where an institution does not have its own repository,
direct deposition to the centralised repositories is required.
The key points of the policy are:
  1. 1. Accepted Manuscripts (AM) reporting on research which has been fully or partially funded by DBT or DST are in scope, as are Accepted Manuscripts which utilize infrastructure built with the support of these two Departments. This is likely to encompass equipment though this has not yet been confirmed. Review articles are also included (regardless of whether they were invited or author-initiated), as long as the authors were in receipt of funding from DBT or DST during the period when the article was produced.
  2. The AM should be deposited (as above) within two weeks of acceptance by a journal.
  3. The AM should be made publicly available after a “recommended” (but not required) embargo period of 6 months for Science, Technical and Medical disciplines and 12 months for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. This is much more specific than the language in the draft proposal, which was “not greater than 1 year”.
  4. The policy applies to manuscripts arising from funding from the fiscal year 2012-2013 onwards.
  5. Papers in a repository which are still under an embargo period may be requested and forwarded to the authors via the “Request Button” available within repository software.
Authors are expected to bring their obligations under this policy to the notice of publishers.
Austria
The Austrian national funder, FWF, has updated its OA policy. FWF supports Gold OA where an
Article Publication Charge (APC) is paid and the article is made available under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence. Articles resulting from research funded by FWF may be
published in either fully OA or hybrid journals, and FWF will cover the costs of Gold OA in addition to the project costs. There is a notable difference in the maximum APC it will cover:
  • Fully OA journals, maximum APC is €2,500 per publication
  • Hybrid OA journals, maximum APC is €1,500 per publication
Other publication costs, such as page charges, colour figure charges or submission fees are no longer eligible for funding. 
Where the authors choose to deposit the accepted manuscript in a repository, the embargo period should be no longer than 12 months.
Whichever option is chosen, a sustainable-access repository deposit is required (list provided at OpenDOAR), and further, if the publications are in the life sciences, deposit is required in Europe PubMed Central.
The policy also encourages researchers to make their research data openly accessible either immediately, or if not used in publications, 2 years after the project is completed.
Portugal
The Portuguese National Funding Agency has announced a green Open Access policy. The accepted manuscript is required to be deposited into one of the open access repositories hosted within the Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) as soon as possible, preferably immediately on acceptance for publication. Embargo periods are only 6 months for Science, Technical and Medical disciplines and 12 months Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. 
The policy is applicable to publications from research funded by the Agency including research papers, conference proceedings, posters, books and book chapters, monographs, Masters and PhD
theses.
The policy also covers data, with researchers being encouraged to share the data from research they have funded, by placing them in the appropriate repository (Genbank is given as an example), as soon as possible. 
South Africa
The National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa has also announced a green Open Access  policy. Authors of papers reporting research funded by NRF are required to deposit the Accepted Manuscript to their institutional repository, with an embargo period no greater than 12 months. Where
the Version of Record is published in an open access journal, there should be little or no embargo on the Accepted Manuscript in the repository. There is no indication that gold Open Access APCs will be funded.
Again, this policy covers the research data which supports the publication. This should be deposited in an “Accredited Open Access repository”, with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for citation. 
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced an Open Access Policy. The key points of the policy are that publications arising from research supported by their funding should be deposited in specified repositories with appropriate tagging of metadata (the repositories do not appear to have been defined at this stage). The publications should be published under the CC-BY (4.0) licence and the Foundation will cover the cost of the (reasonable) Article Publication Charges. The Foundation are providing a period of 2 years of transition when the policy will take effect (1 January 2017), during which time relevant publications may have a 12 month embargo period.
They go further and note that the data underlying the published research results also have to be made immediately accessible and open, subject also to the above transition period.
It seems that the Foundation expects publishers to manage these requirements on behalf of the researcher. 
Charity Open Access Fund
The Charity Open Access Fund (COAF) is a partnership between six medical research funders:
  • Arthritis Research UK
  • Breast Cancer Campaign
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust
Together, the group will provide block grants to 36 UK research institutions, to support Article Publication Charges (APC) for gold OA of the papers arising from the research they fund. The articles (peer-reviews research articles, non-commissioned review articles and study protocols) have
to be published under a CC-BY licence. In return for payment of the APC and in addition to publishing the article, the journal is expected to deposit the Version of Record2 in PubMed Central
(and copied to Europe PubMed Central).
Researchers can also comply by depositing the Accepted Manuscript in Europe PubMed Central with
a 6 month embargo period. 

Update on Open Access Policies

Latest changes on Open Access Policies per country/funding agencies:

India
Following a consultation in July 2014, to which ALPSP responded, two Departments under the
Ministry of Science & Technology of the Government of India, have produced a policy on open
access. Researchers in receipt of grants from the Departments of Biotechnology (DBT) and Science
and Technology (DST) will be required to adhere to the new policy, which has changed since the draft
proposal. The policy is based solely on accepted manuscripts1 and repository deposit.
The Ministry is encouraging or requiring institutions to develop their own repositories, dependent on
the level of funding they receive. It has created a centralised system to harvest not just the metadata,
but the full text of deposited manuscripts. Where an institution does not have its own repository,
direct deposition to the centralised repositories is required.
The key points of the policy are:
  1. 1. Accepted Manuscripts (AM) reporting on research which has been fully or partially funded by DBT or DST are in scope, as are Accepted Manuscripts which utilize infrastructure built with the support of these two Departments. This is likely to encompass equipment though this has not yet been confirmed. Review articles are also included (regardless of whether they were invited or author-initiated), as long as the authors were in receipt of funding from DBT or DST during the period when the article was produced.
  2. The AM should be deposited (as above) within two weeks of acceptance by a journal.
  3. The AM should be made publicly available after a “recommended” (but not required) embargo period of 6 months for Science, Technical and Medical disciplines and 12 months for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. This is much more specific than the language in the draft proposal, which was “not greater than 1 year”.
  4. The policy applies to manuscripts arising from funding from the fiscal year 2012-2013 onwards.
  5. Papers in a repository which are still under an embargo period may be requested and forwarded to the authors via the “Request Button” available within repository software.
Authors are expected to bring their obligations under this policy to the notice of publishers.
Austria
The Austrian national funder, FWF, has updated its OA policy. FWF supports Gold OA where an
Article Publication Charge (APC) is paid and the article is made available under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence. Articles resulting from research funded by FWF may be
published in either fully OA or hybrid journals, and FWF will cover the costs of Gold OA in addition to the project costs. There is a notable difference in the maximum APC it will cover:
  • Fully OA journals, maximum APC is €2,500 per publication
  • Hybrid OA journals, maximum APC is €1,500 per publication
Other publication costs, such as page charges, colour figure charges or submission fees are no longer eligible for funding. 
Where the authors choose to deposit the accepted manuscript in a repository, the embargo period should be no longer than 12 months.
Whichever option is chosen, a sustainable-access repository deposit is required (list provided at OpenDOAR), and further, if the publications are in the life sciences, deposit is required in Europe PubMed Central.
The policy also encourages researchers to make their research data openly accessible either immediately, or if not used in publications, 2 years after the project is completed.
Portugal
The Portuguese National Funding Agency has announced a green Open Access policy. The accepted manuscript is required to be deposited into one of the open access repositories hosted within the Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) as soon as possible, preferably immediately on acceptance for publication. Embargo periods are only 6 months for Science, Technical and Medical disciplines and 12 months Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. 
The policy is applicable to publications from research funded by the Agency including research papers, conference proceedings, posters, books and book chapters, monographs, Masters and PhD
theses.
The policy also covers data, with researchers being encouraged to share the data from research they have funded, by placing them in the appropriate repository (Genbank is given as an example), as soon as possible. 
South Africa
The National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa has also announced a green Open Access  policy. Authors of papers reporting research funded by NRF are required to deposit the Accepted Manuscript to their institutional repository, with an embargo period no greater than 12 months. Where
the Version of Record is published in an open access journal, there should be little or no embargo on the Accepted Manuscript in the repository. There is no indication that gold Open Access APCs will be funded.
Again, this policy covers the research data which supports the publication. This should be deposited in an “Accredited Open Access repository”, with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for citation. 
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced an Open Access Policy. The key points of the policy are that publications arising from research supported by their funding should be deposited in specified repositories with appropriate tagging of metadata (the repositories do not appear to have been defined at this stage). The publications should be published under the CC-BY (4.0) licence and the Foundation will cover the cost of the (reasonable) Article Publication Charges. The Foundation are providing a period of 2 years of transition when the policy will take effect (1 January 2017), during which time relevant publications may have a 12 month embargo period.
They go further and note that the data underlying the published research results also have to be made immediately accessible and open, subject also to the above transition period.
It seems that the Foundation expects publishers to manage these requirements on behalf of the researcher. 
Charity Open Access Fund
The Charity Open Access Fund (COAF) is a partnership between six medical research funders:
  • Arthritis Research UK
  • Breast Cancer Campaign
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Leukaemia & Lymphoma Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust
Together, the group will provide block grants to 36 UK research institutions, to support Article Publication Charges (APC) for gold OA of the papers arising from the research they fund. The articles (peer-reviews research articles, non-commissioned review articles and study protocols) have
to be published under a CC-BY licence. In return for payment of the APC and in addition to publishing the article, the journal is expected to deposit the Version of Record2 in PubMed Central
(and copied to Europe PubMed Central).
Researchers can also comply by depositing the Accepted Manuscript in Europe PubMed Central with
a 6 month embargo period. 

Knowledge Unlatched:A Global Library Consortium Model for Funding Open Access Scholarly Books | Montgomery | Cultural Science

“This special issue of Cultural Science Journal is devoted to the report of a groundbreaking experiment in re-coordinating global markets for specialist scholarly books and enabling the knowledge commons: the Knowledge Unlatched proof-of-concept pilot. The pilot took place between January 2012 and September 2014. It involved libraries, publishers, authors, readers and research funders in the process of developing and testing a global library consortium model for supporting Open Access books. The experiment established that authors, librarians, publishers and research funding agencies can work together in powerful new ways to enable open access; that doing so is cost effective; and that a global library consortium model has the potential dramatically to widen access to the knowledge and ideas contained in book-length scholarly works.”

Open Access symposium TU Eindhoven

Op 10 maart organiseert de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven onder de titel Opening up your research & results een Open Access symposium voor onderzoekers. De voertaal is Engels. Sprekers zijn o.a. Hans van Duijn, Daniël Lakens en Anthonie Meijers (TU/e), Cas Maessen, Christa Hooijer en Jos Engelen (NWO), Nicola Stead (PLOSone).

Content Mining Hackday in Cambridge this Friday 20150123 all welcome

We are having a ContentMine hackday – open to all – this Friday in Cambridge https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/contentmining-hackday-in-cambridge-facilitated-by-contentmine-tickets-716287435 .

We are VERY grateful to Laura James, from our Advisory Board who also set up the Cambridge Makespace where the event will be held. This event will cover everything – technical, science, sociolegal, etc. We are delighted that Professor Charles Oppenheim , another of our Advisory Board, will be present. Charles is a world expert on scholarship including the policy and legality of mining. For example he flagged up today that the EU and its citizens are pushing for reform…

We’re also expecting colleagues from Cambridge University Library so we can have a lively political stream. And we’ve got scientific publishers in Cambridge – love to see you.

There’ll be a technical stream – integrating the components of quickscrape, Norma, AMI and our API created by Mark MacGillivray and colleagues at CottageLabs. All the technology is brand new and everything is offered Openly (including commercial use).

And there’ll be a group of subprojects based on scientific disciplines. They include:

  • clinical trials
  • farming and agronomy
  • crystallography

If you have an area you’d like to mine, come along. You’ll need to have a good idea of your sources (journals, theses, etc.) , and some idea of what you’d like to extract. And, ideally, you’ll need energy and stamina and friends…

Oh, and in the unlikely event you get bored we are 15 metres from the Cambridge Winter Beer Festival.

This month’s typographical horror: Researchers PAY typesetters to corrupt information

One of the “benefits” we get from paying publishers to publish our work is that they “typeset” it. Actually they don’t. They pay typesetters to mutilate it. I don’t know how much they pay but it’s probably > 10 USD per page. This means that when you pay APCs (Article Processing Charges) YOU are paying typesetters – maybe 200 USD.

Maybe you or your funder is happy with this?

I’m not. Typesetters destroy information. Badly. Often enough to blur or change the science. ALL journals do this. I happen to be hacking PLoSONE today (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115884), but this is unlikely to be specific to them:

ploshorror

So what’s the typographical symbol/s in the last line? Hint. It’s NOT what it SHOULD be

Unicode Character ‘PLUS-MINUS SIGN’ (U+00B1)

image of Unicode Character 'PLUS-MINUS SIGN' (U+00B1)

So what’s happened? Try cutting and pasting the last line into a text editor. Mine gives:

(TY/SVL = 0.05+0.01 in males, 0.06+0.01 in females versus 0.08+0.01 in both sexes in L.

This is a DESTRUCTION of information.

So authors should be able to refuse charges for typesetting and save over 100 USD. and thereby improve science.

BTW the same horror appears in the XML. So when the publishers tell you how wonderful XML is, make your own judgment.

There are other horrors of the same sort (besides plus-minus) in the document. Can you spot them?

The only good news is that ContentMine sets out to normalize and remove such junk. It will be a long slog, but if you are committed to proper communication of science, lend a hand.

 

 

Open Research London

Find yourself wanting more after Open Research London? Here you can find Advocacy and Open Access Slides, Resources and more! 

Slides

Actions you can take right now. 

  1. Sign up for updates on OpenCon 2015 and watch OpenCon 2014
  2. Be open yourself and teach others
  3. Support Diego Gomez 

Information and Contact details

If you’d like to get in touch and discuss anything please feel free. Just email me at Joe [AT] RightToResearch [DOT] org

Want to stay up to date? 

Do it quickly and simply by signing up the the Student Statement on the Right to Research! This lets us know you believe in Open Access, and we’ll keep you up to date with big news and important actions. 

Also, follow us on twitter, like us on Facebook, check us out on Linkedin, Youtube and yes, even Google+.

Open Access Explained

Give us some feedback!

Firm action needed on predatory journals | The BMJ

“The rapid rise of predatory journals—publications taking large fees without providing robust editorial or publishing services—has created what some have called an age of academic racketeering.1 Predatory journals recruit articles through aggressive marketing and spam emails, promising quick review and open access publication for a price. There is little if any quality control and virtually no transparency about processes and fees. Their motive is financial gain, and they are corrupting the communication of science. Their main victims are institutions and researchers in low and middle income countries, and the time has come to act rather than simply to decry them.

Unfortunately, predatory publishing is often confused with open access publishing, whereby studies are free to all and can be reused for many purposes. Legitimate open access publishing—which has widely benefited scientific communication—uses all the professional and ethical practices associated with the best science publishing. Predatory publishing upholds few if any of the best practices yet demands payment for publishing….”

Why 2014 Was a Groundbreaking Year in Digital Health | Rosina Samadani

“Lastly, the number of large data sets that opened in health care and the tools to analyze them came of age in 2014. For example, the FDA launched openFDA in June 2014, which made it easier to analyze data about adverse events, drug and medical device recalls, prescription and over the counter product labeling, and to access open source code for analyzing this data.”