The AUPresses Global Partner Program Begins: An Interview with the Partner Presses

A pilot program that seeks to deepen transnational dialogue and collaboration among mission-driven scholarly publishers.

The post The AUPresses Global Partner Program Begins: An Interview with the Partner Presses appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Librarian for Scholarly Communications Job Opening in Nashville, Tennessee – ALA JobLIST | Jobs in Library & Information Science & Technology

“The Librarian for Scholarly Communications supports Open research, communication, and data on the Vanderbilt University campus through education, training, and analysis. As a member of the Digital Scholarship and Communications (DiSC) Office, the Librarian for Scholarly Communications consults with faculty, students, and staff about emergent scholarly communications models, analyzes faculty publishing patterns and impact metrics, and evaluates and advises on research communication tools. The Librarian for Scholarly Communications also manages the institutional repository, coordinating the ingestion workflow in dialogue with liaison librarians in the divisional libraries, and with LTDS in software development….”

Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate Open Access | Plan S

“In this brief note, we formulate 6 arguments that articulate why cOAlition S Organisations will not financially support the hybrid model of publishing. We define a hybrid Open Access journal as a subscription journal in which some of the original research papers are Open Access while others are only accessible via payment or subscription. …

Argument 1: Hybrid has not facilitated a transition to Open Access (OA)…

Argument 2: The research community pays twice (double dipping)…

Argument 3: Hybrid journals are more expensive than fully OA journals…

Argument 4: Hybrid journals provide a poor quality of service…

Argument 5: Hybrid journals crowd out new, full OA publishing models…

Argument 6: Reader access: a hybrid journal is a “random OA” journal…

The arguments developed here provide the rationale for why cOAlition S Organisations have decided not to financially support hybrid journals unless these journals adopt a transformative arrangement that will lead them towards full and immediate OA by December 2024. In the meantime, these arrangements must ensure that OA publication fees are properly offset against subscription fees, so as to avoid any double-dipping. Publishers will only “bite the bullet” and start exploring new OA publishing models when they realize that the hybrid model is no longer a viable option.”

Balancing local & global in open science policies | EIFL

“How to design open science policies that address local needs, and are at the same time aligned with regional – for example, African or European – priorities? I face this question every time I get involved in new open science policy development initiatives. And usually there is more than one answer, depending on the policy context….

Open access to publications – repository deposits, immediate open access under a CC-BY licence, alignment with the cOAlition S Right Retention strategy and Horizon Europe requirements, and linking to research assessment and evaluation: 

 

Require researchers to deposit in a repository a machine-readable electronic copy of the full-text (published article or final peer-reviewed manuscript) before or at the time of publication. 
Retain ownership of copyright, and licence to publishers only those rights necessary for publication. Authors (or their organizations) must ensure open access to the Author Accepted Manuscripts or the Version of Record of research articles at the time of publication. All research articles must be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY licence or equivalent or, by exception, a Creative Commons Attribution, NoDerivatives CC BY-ND licence, or equivalent. For monographs, deposit remains mandatory, but access could be closed.
For purposes of individual or institutional evaluation of research output, full texts of publications must be deposited in the repository….”

“Exploring Open Access Practices, Attitudes, and Policies in Academic L” by Rachel E. Scott, Caitlin Harrington et al.

Abstract: This article reports the results of a 2019 survey of academic librarians that investigated their attitudes, practices, and policies regarding open access (OA). This study asks if academic librarians write policies to ensure that they approach OA intentionally and systematically across all library services. The results indicate that, though librarians report favorable beliefs about OA and integrating OA into technical and public services, they seldom create OA policies.

Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?

Abstract:  In April 2020, the OAPEN Library moved to a new platform, based on DSpace 6. During the same period, IRUS-UK started working on the deployment of Release 5 of the COUNTER Code of Practice (R5). This is, therefore, a good moment to compare two widely used usage metrics – R5 and Google Analytics (GA). This article discusses the download data of close to 11,000 books and chapters from the OAPEN Library, from the period 15 April 2020 to 31 July 2020. When a book or chapter is downloaded, it is logged by GA and at the same time a signal is sent to IRUS-UK. This results in two datasets: the monthly downloads measured in GA and the usage reported by R5, also clustered by month. The number of downloads reported by GA is considerably larger than R5. The total number of downloads in GA for the period is over 3.6 million. In contrast, the amount reported by R5 is 1.5 million, around 400,000 downloads per month. Contrasting R5 and GA data on a country-by-country basis shows significant differences. GA lists more than five times the number of downloads for several countries, although the totals for other countries are about the same. When looking at individual tiles, of the 500 highest ranked titles in GA that are also part of the 1,000 highest ranked titles in R5, only 6% of the titles are relatively close together. The choice of metric service has considerable consequences on what is reported. Thus, drawing conclusions about the results should be done with care. One metric is not better than the other, but we should be open about the choices made. After all, open access book metrics are complicated, and we can only benefit from clarity.

 

Open Access Policy | NHMRC

“NHMRC supports the sharing of outputs from NHMRC funded research including publications and data. The aims of the NHMRC Open Access Policy are to mandate the open access sharing of publications and encourage innovative open access to research data. This policy also requires that patents resulting from NHMRC funding be made findable through listing in SourceIP….

NHMRC is seeking input from relevant stakeholders about proposed revisions to the Open Access Policy and Further Guidance. The proposed revisions are limited to sections of the documents about publications….”

2i2c: Interactive computing infrastructure for your community

“We make interactive computing more accessible and powerful for research and education. We strive to accelerate research and discovery, and to empower education to be more accessible, intuitive, and enjoyable. We do this through these primary actions: …”

The Customer Right to Replicate | 2i2c

“To ensure the Right to Replicate to our customers, 2i2c makes the following commitments to infrastructure we build and operate:

We MUST use only open source software to run our infrastructure. By only using software that is available to everyone on the same terms, we can ensure that customers can replicate the infrastructure without having to negotiate licensing terms with proprietary software vendors. In addition, any changes we make to open source software will be made in public and/or contributed upstream, so customers continue to have access to them regardless of where their infrastructure is.

We MUST NOT directly depend on proprietary cloud vendor specific products or APIs. Instead, we use cloud-managed open source software, or hide the dependency behind a layer of abstraction. This ensures that customers can port their infrastructure to any cloud provider of their choice, or run it on their own hardware with purely open source software.

This set of commitments acts as a business continuity plan for our customers, ensuring 2i2c will follow best practices within the open source, open education and open research ecosystems….”

Future of Open Scholarship

“The leading structures that conduct, publish and disseminate scholarly research are at risk of collapse. There’s an urgent need to invest now in a coordinated approach to create a preparedness plan for the future of scholarship and research at the institutional level. In doing so, institutions have an opportunity to explore collectively cost-effective and sustainable solutions to address immediate needs at their institution. They also have an opportunity to play an active role in furthering a larger, more systemic shift towards open, community-owned and operated infrastructure at the institutional level to support scholarship and ensure research continuity.

To support that shift, IOI launched a research project in partnership with a network of institutional decision makers to model the future of open scholarship….”

advance: a SAGE preprints community – Browse

“Advance: a SAGE preprints community allows researchers within the fields of humanities and social sciences to post their work online and free of charge. Advance welcomes a variety of preprint* types, including, but not limited to, original research, literature reviews, commentaries, and case studies. Once accepted, each preprint will be freely available online to the research community and peers and will benefit from our monitored commenting feature. Check out our infographic on the 7 benefits of preprints….”

New Open Access Business Models — What’s Needed to Make Them Work?

A look at a session from last week’s CHORUS Forum that discussed new open access business models — what does it take to make them work?

The post New Open Access Business Models — What’s Needed to Make Them Work? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

New Open Access Business Models – What’s Needed to Make Them Work? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The third CHORUS Forum meeting, held last week, is a relatively new entrant into the scholarly communication meeting calendar. The meeting has proven to be a rare opportunity to bring together publishers, researchers, librarians, and research funders. I helped organize and moderated a session during the Forum, on the theme of “Making the Future of Open Research Work.” You can watch my session, which looked at new models for sustainable and robust open access (OA) publishing, along with the rest of the meeting in the video below.

The session focuses on the operationalization of the move to open access and the details of what it takes to experiment with a new business model. The model the community has the most experience with, the individual author paying an article-processing-charge (APC), works really well for some authors, in some subject areas, in some geographies. But it is not a universal solution to making open access work and it creates new inequities as it resolves others….

Some of the key takeaways for me were found in the commonalities across all of the models. The biggest hurdle that each organization faced in executing its plans was gathering and analyzing author data. As Sara put it, “Data hygiene makes or breaks all of these models.” For PLOS and the ACM, what they’re asking libraries to support is authorship – the model essentially says “this many papers had authors from your institution and what you pay will largely be based on the volume of your output.” But disambiguating author identity, and especially identifying which institutions each represents, remains an enormous problem. While we do have persistent identifiers (PIDs) like ORCID, and the still-under-development ROR, their use is not universal, and we still lack a unifying mechanism to connect the various PIDs into a simple, functional tool to support this type of analysis.

One solution would be requiring authors to accurately identify their host institutions from a controlled vocabulary, but this runs up against most publishers’ desire to streamline the article submission process. There’s a balance to be struck, but probably one that’s going to ask authors to provide more accurate and detailed information….

[M]oving beyond the APC is essential to the long-term viability of open access, and there remains much experimentation to be done….”

Launching a fully OA society journal: How ASCO started the Journal of Global Oncology

“As societies grapple with questions around how to approach OA publishing, one of the best ways to identify viable options is to look to other societies with successful OA titles. A great example is the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The society launched its first fully open access journal, the Journal of Global Oncology (JGO), in 2015. The journal, which focuses on cancer research and care in low- and middle-income countries, has grown significantly over the last four years and is now a thriving publication for global oncology research….”