“JAMA Network Open and JAMA Health Forum datasets now available on DLAdata.com
Data Licensing Alliance, Inc. (DLA), the first marketplace for licensing STEM data for artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) purposes, today announced the addition of the JAMA Network Open and JAMA Health Forum datasets on the DLA marketplace….”
UT researcher Wiebe de Vos has been awarded a European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant totalling €2 million to develop a new membrane with alternating positively and negatively charged domains. This enables the membrane to filter micro-pollutants from water while allowing salt ions and other important minerals to pass through.
The biggest goal of the joint research project AuROA is standardising Open Access book publishing by developing legally secure, versatile model contracts. These cover important subjects such as usage rights, agreed services as well as publishing licenses. The basis for developing the contracts are the individual steps in the project: the stakeholder process, the catalog of services, and the discussion of quality criteria. The contracts are intended to provide a legally secure framework for the high standards of scientific publications as well as to reduce uncertainties and reservations about Open Access among all parties involved.
The contracts are made permanently and freely available to authors, publishers and libraries as well as other interested parties.
Der Vertragsgenerator wurde vom Team AuROA an der Universitätsbibliothek Duisburg-Essen in Zusammenarbeit mit der Kanzlei iRights.law entwickelt, um Unsicherheiten sowie Vorbehalte gegenüber Open Access abzubauen. Die häufig ungleiche Kenntnis über Vertragsinhalte birgt die Gefahr eines einseitigen Macht- und Wissensgefälles. Infolgedessen dient der Vertragsgenerator als Basis für eine gleichberechtigte Zusammenarbeit von verschiedenen Akteur:innen innerhalb der Open-Access-Publikationslandschaft. Grundlage ist die Vergabe einer CC-Lizenz durch die Autor:innen, die weitere Nachnutzungen durch diverse Publikationsdienstleister ermöglicht.
“I am delighted to confirm that under the terms of our new publishing agreement with OUP, authors of all BJD papers, whether published as open access or not, will retain copyright of their article. Rather than handing over copyright, authors are asked to provide to the BJD an ‘Exclusive licence to publish’ instead. If you don’t believe me, look at the copyright statement at the bottom of the page! …”
by Malavika Legge The debate begins with the word ‘market’ Talking about open access and a market in the same sentence ignites all kinds of passions and opinions. Of course, a market around OA publishing exists as sized and estimated by Delta Think to be worth ~US$1.6 billion in 2021 versus their $975 million estimate for 2020. Delta Think’s most recent projections are that the OA journals market could be worth over US$ 2 billion in 2024 if current trends continue. But when OASPA talks to stakeholders about an ‘OA market’, what exactly do we mean? The purpose of OASPA’s ‘OA market’ work is to examine the money flows needed to sustain OA publishing. Any way you look at it, the economics of funding and enabling OA publishing is something we all need to grapple with. Building on the ‘OA market’ work done in 2021, OASPA wished to learn more about what is felt by those in different parts of the world. Despite considerable effort, there was an overall European weighting to views that were collected in 2021, and so, the purpose of my follow-on work has been to round out and supplement the perspectives that had initially been collected. Last week I shared some of the perspectives from stakeholders based outside of Europe about the ongoing ‘OA market’ effort from OASPA. Considering the differing philosophies around scholarly publishing across world regions that came to light in these conversations (see my previous post), should OASPA be labelling the prevailing economic system an ‘OA market’? Or should we call it an OA system, the OA landscape, an OA exchange? Or something else altogether? Debate around the name ‘OA market’ is not new, and the issue was already debated at some length in the 2021 workshops. I continued to unpack this dilemma around the name ‘OA market’ with some of the 15 people from around the world acknowledged in my last post. These stakeholders were willing to provide me with their input and expertise on OASPA’s 2021 issue brief and reflections on the ‘OA market’. In these conversations, opinion remained divided on the use of the term ‘market’ in describing the OA environment. “I would avoid [the term market]…” said one voice, since it presupposes that OA needs “an equilibrium between supply and demand driven by money, which is not the actual central reason why science is done and communicated.” Variations on this thinking were echoed by others. What was even more interesting to me, however, were the ‘anti-market’ forces (and the other things!) that I was told OASPA was missing in its assessment of the ‘OA market’. A distillation of these thoughts are outlined below.
We properly got into our new facilitator role to support the Council for National Open Science Coordination in 2022 by managing a range of knowledge-exchange conversations with scores of national OS policymakers from across Europe.
The DIAMAS Project — ‘Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication’ began in the autumn of 2022. As one of 23 project partners, we will lead the work on supporting the sustainability of institutional publishing, and we are excited about managing engagement for the project.
For more equity in Open, we made headway on reforming copyright for Open Access through a new project, Project Retain, where we worked hard to gather insights into the rights retention and open licensing policies of institutions of Higher Education, funders, and publishers.
The Open Access Books Network (OABN), which we helped build and co-coordinate, became an OPERAS Special Interest Group (SIG). This new organisational move will bring more stability to this important network.
Our European Network of Open Education Librarians (ENOEL) continued to grow, strengthen, advocate, and develop Open Education (OE) across the continent.
We are proud to announce that SCOSS – together with over 300 libraries worldwide – has so far helped raise 4.85 million EUR to sustain Open Science Infrastructure. One-third of these pledgers are recurrent! We are so grateful that even in hard economic times, libraries are investing in open infrastructure….”
In November 2021, with the support of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and cOAlition S, four ‘task and finish’ working groups were established. The authors facilitated and supported these groups. Each group was responsible for producing tools that will enable library consortia and small independent publishers to negotiate transformative agreements, which is to say, agreements that will enable the publisher to fully transition to open access. The first task and finish group developed shared principles for transformative agreements. The second developed a data template to enable smaller independent publishers to reach agreements with library consortia and libraries, while the third developed example licence agreements. These groups recognized that the implementation of a transformative agreement crosses a complex ecosystem of technology, processes, policies, automated functions and manual functions that relate to contract management, article submission and peer review, content hosting and dissemination as well as financial management. For this reason, a fourth group produced a workflow framework that describes the process in all its phases. The members of these four groups were volunteers from stakeholder communities including libraries, library consortia, smaller independent publishers and intermediaries. This article explains why these tools are needed and the process behind their creation. The authors have combined these tools into a freely available toolkit, available under a CC BY licence.
“SciLake is a Horizon Europe project that aims to introduce and establish the concept of the scientific lake, a research ecosystem where scientific knowledge is contextualised, connected, interoperable, and accessible overcoming challenges related to the heterogeneity and large interconnectivity of the underlying data….”
“Optica Publishing Group (formerly OSA) launched Optica Open today, a new preprint server dedicated to advancing optics and photonics around the globe. Preprints are publicly available, preliminary scholarly articles posted ahead of formal peer review and publication in a journal. Authors can conveniently transmit their Optica Open preprint submissions to an Optica Publishing Group journal or their journal submissions to the preprint server, a first for the optics and photonics community. The Optica Open site is now open for submissions.
Harnessing Figshare’s preprint server capabilities, Optica Open helps authors achieve their open science goals and establish priority of their latest research results. All posted preprints will receive a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), are citable and will be indexed by Google Scholar and Crossref. As with other preprint servers, articles posted to Optica Open are not peer reviewed, although authors may benefit from receiving feedback from their peers. Submissions are screened by subject-matter experts to ensure general relevance to optics and photonics and compliance with the basic submission requirements, including a plagiarism check with iThenticate….”
“This is a community resource for tracking, comparing, and understanding current U.S. federal funder research data sharing policies. Originally completed by SPARC & Johns Hopkins University Libraries in 2016, the content of this resource was updated by RDAP and SPARC in 2021….”
Article processing charge waiver applies to top Nature journals
Publishing fees can represent over a year’s salary for African academics
Policy comes on top of an already-established fee waiver programme for full open-access journals”