“We need to replace our outdated and undemocratic publishing system with one which is free to read and publish, reliable, archival, flexible and democratically governed. We propose to do so with a two layer system. The foundational layer is a commonly owned, distributed infrastructure that will maintain a freely and openly accessible database built on a flexible graph structure to allow new and arbitrary methods of publishing and scholarly productivity. The services layer will be provided by a number of third parties building on this flexible infrastructure….”
“We need to replace our outdated and undemocratic scholarly publishing system.
The time is right for researchers to take back control of publishing.
Neuromatch is delighted to announce a new initiative to build an open publishing platform based on these principles:
A system owned and managed by a coalition of university libraries ensuring it is safe and reliable in the long term, and cannot be sold for profit. Community governance ensuring that it stays responsive to the needs of different types of researchers.
Free to read and publish
An inclusive system where everyone is welcome regardless of their ability to pay. No research funding wasted on inflated publisher profits.
Open and re-usable data
Designed for the future. Third parties and communities can build their own journals and tools on top of an open database. A flexible, graph-based data format that allows for experiments in new types of articles and forms of peer review….
For more details, see our white paper….”
“These are but a handful of the writers who have signed their names to an open letter released Thursday by a nonprofit group concerned with digital rights issues, Fight for the Future. The letter, titled “Authors for Libraries,” expresses disheartenment about “the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the Association of American Publishers and the Publishers Association.”
The letter calls for libraries to be able to “permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format.” That seems like a typical right of libraries, but the books in question are specifically e-books. Currently, libraries must pay to rent, not own, e-books from publishers, and the prices, according to the letter, “are often likened to extortion.” This, despite e-books often being cheaper to manufacture than print books and more accessible. …”
The institutional OA diamond publishing sector can be challenged by fragmentation; its visibility can be limited, its service of varying quality, and its sustainability is not always secure. A new European […]
The post New Project. DIAMAS, building capacity for OA diamond publishing appeared first on SPARC Europe.
Recording of the September 2022 Data Sharing and Reuse Seminar Series, “Making Open Science Practical in the Global South Through Grassroots Community Building.”
The institutional OA diamond publishing sector can be challenged by fragmentation; its visibility can be limited, its service of varying quality, and its sustainability is not always secure. A new European Commission-funded project, DIAMAS, aims to build capacity amongst institutional publishers in Europe to address some of these challenges. It will run for 30-months and started on 1 September with 23 partners collaborating. SPARC Europe is one of the project’s partners.
“With paradigm shifting events like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and other socio-economic-political upheavals taking place across the globe, the need for accessible, trustworthy research underpinned by a commitment to Open Science is more urgent than ever. UNESCO articulated this urgency in its 2021 Recommendation on Open Science (??https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation) and stakeholders across the science system have been working to bring about a truly open future in various ways. In this discussion on the state of Open Science in the Netherlands PLOS is joined by Dr. Irene Haslinger, Library Director at TU Delft. Back in 2019, the TU Delft has released its OS strategy and has expressed the ambition to be a frontrunner in this area. She will be addressing the question: Who are the drivers of systemic change when it comes to Open Science? Should libraries be mere facilitators, or can they do more to ensure an equitable transition to this open future? And what distinctive role can mission-oriented scientific publishers play? Joining Dr. Haslinger will be Dr. Marcel LaFlamme, Open Research Manager at PLOS, Dr. Anke Beck, Regional Director of Publishing Development (Europe), and Sara Rouhi, Director of Strategic Partnerships….”
“Following on from our previous post, here we focus specifically on the relevance of the OA Switchboard to the stakeholder group ‘institutions’.
?What institutions gain by partnering with the OA Switchboard
Institutions receive publication metadata from publishers in different ways (that also often change) which leads to complex technical integrations and increased manual handling. The OA Switchboard ‘message hub’ simplifies the sharing of information, and delivers data quickly and clearly.
What’s in it for institutions?
Two use cases:
Reporting Made Easy
Matching Publication Costs with Publication Funds
Consistent data format from multiple publishers
Reduce (manual) efforts and increase efficiency
Because it’s the right thing to do…
For the ‘reporting made easy’ use case this means:
Structured data (Excel or JSON) and a standardised protocol providing data in a consistent format across publishers. Support the ease of integration with your systems.
Authoritative data from source, leveraged with persistent identifiers (PID’s) e.g. DOI’s, ORCID and ROR id’s.
Notifications are pushed instantaneously upon publication, via one API, across multiple publishers.
A safe space for publication metadata: independently managed, shared infrastructure that allows for the transparent exchange of data….”
“Open Educational Resources (OER) are meant to be as open and available as possible, but if they’re not accessible or on accessible platforms, how “open” are they really? In this webinar, staff from the Michigan State University (MSU) Libraries will share how they’ve integrated accessibility into their OER initiatives and OER grant program to improve the accessibility of OER created at MSU. In order to hopefully implement similar OER accessibility processes at their libraries, attendees can expect to learn about OER accessibility resources, MSU Libraries’ OER accessibility checklist & grant program accessibility requirements, MSU Libraries’ staff who work on OER accessibility, MSU Libraries’ OER accessibility evaluation workflow & procedures, specific OER accessibility challenges/issues and OER accessibility tips and lessons learned.”
“Versions of papers before they have been externally peer reviewed or edited have become more central to the whole scholarly communication process over the past few years. Some say they represent an exciting new future (enabling the rapid sharing of research and democratising it), while others are concerned that they may cause misunderstandings and people drawing conclusions too hastily.
It is clear preprints are now firmly part of the scholarly communication process, but some challenges remain. Join us as we open up this engaging discussion and answer your questions live.
The future of preprints in the academic publishing industry
Insights into the value of preprints for all stakeholders in scholarly communications
Challenges in enabling the rapid dissemination of research and how preprints can be utilised effectively …”
In late August, at the start of the Fall 2022 school semester, Wiley Publishing Company abruptly withdrew 1,379 multidisciplinary titles from Proquest, a vendor for university ebook collections around the world. As a result, librarians and faculty members in the United States and internationally have scrambled to identify alternative textbook options for their students as the pandemic amplified the trouble with restrictive licensing and e-textbooks.
Library Futures and SPARC strongly condemn this action by Wiley, which seriously hinders students’ access to equitable, affordable course materials. The full list of titles and public contact information for their authors was compiled by Johanna Anderson of #ebookSOS.
It’s that time of year again, the 2022 Ig Nobel Prizes have been announced.
The post Post-publication Peer Review via the Ig Nobel Prizes appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
In this editorial, we describe the work that has been undertaken by the ESTS editorial collective (EC) over the last two years towards establishing a publishing infrastructure for open research data. A broad movement in the scholarly community is pushing towards data sharing or “open data,” particularly in the natural sciences and medicine. Recognizing that there are compelling reasons why scholars are wary of data sharing and careful to protect their work, our EC has pursued experiments towards establishing a publishing infrastructure. The goal is to better understand the possible benefits for the STS community from data sharing and the role that a scholarly-run journal like ESTS could play in realizing such opportunities. The sharing of data could serve as an archive of work in/for STS; offer greater recognition of diverse contributions to scholarly research beyond individual author(s); enable reuse of data for new insights and pedagogical opportunities; and engender new forms of scholarly community in the field.
“Current eBook licensing practices are eradicating the central mission of libraries, with grave repercussions for equity and access to the world’s knowledge. The root of the issue is that while libraries buy print books in order to lend them to patrons, they can’t actually buy eBooks. Instead, they license the content from publishers. This means that publishers can set whatever terms they want in eBook licenses to libraries—or refuse to license them at all.
Library Futures supports legislation that aims to equitize the eBook marketplace. To that end, we have developed model legislative language that avoids the problematic Maryland language and that we therefore believe will hold up against legal challenges. In short, we propose model legislation grounded in state consumer protection, state contract law, state procurement law, and contract preemption.”
Abstract: In 2014, the European Commission initiated a process to strengthen science 2.0 as a core research policy concept. However, this turned into a substantial ideational shift. The concept of science 2.0 was dropped. Instead, open science became established as one of the three pillars of the €94 billion research framework programme Horizon Europe. This article scrutinises the official narrative regarding the shift of concepts, identifying transparency issues, specifically misrepresentation of concepts and data, and the redaction of key material. This can be characterised as problems of input legitimacy. A public consultation did take place, but numerous transparency issues can be found. From science 2.0 to open science, the ideational shift was portrayed as simply a matter of exchanging two synonymous concepts. However, science 2.0 is a descriptive concept referring to science being transformed by digitalisation. In contrast, open science involves normative assumptions about how science should work and be governed.