Wiley Removes Goodin as Editor of the Journal of Political Philosophy (Updated) | Daily Nous

“Robert Goodin, the founding and longtime editor of the Journal of Political Philosophy, has been removed from his position at the journal by its publisher, Wiley….

So far, there has been no official explanation offered as to why Goodin was fired….

Anna Stilz (Princeton), a member of the Journal of Political Philosophy editorial board and editor-in-chief of Philosophy & Public Affairs, shared parts of an email she sent to fellow editorial board members.

Like many of you, I wrote earlier today to resign from Wiley’s Editorial Board…  But now I’d just like to second [the complaint about] Wiley’s unreasonable demands and to add my perspective as Editor-in-Chief of Philosophy and Public Affairs, another Wiley-owned journal.

Wiley has recently signed a number of major open-access agreements: this means that increasingly, they get their revenue through author fees for each article they publish (often covered now by public grant agencies), rather than library subscriptions. Their current company-wide strategy for maximizing revenue is to force the journals they own to publish as many articles as possible to generate maximum author fees. Where Editors refuse to do that, they exert all the pressure they can, up to and including dismissal, as in this case. Though I am not privy to the details of Bob’s communications with Wiley, I can say that P&PA has experienced similar demands. A few years back we only succeeded in getting them to back down by threatening to file a lawsuit. They were quiet for a while, but recently their demands have begun to escalateUPOD again.


All political philosophers and theorists who care about the journals in our field have an interest in showing Wiley that it can’t get away with this….”

Levels of Open Access · nasa/Transform-to-Open-Science · Discussion #454 · GitHub

“There’s a lot of different terminology around open access, particularly around various levels of open access. I thought it might be helpful to aggregate some of the disparate information into one source on the TOPS Github, which is below! This is sourced from Open Book Publishers, Researcher.Life, and Taylor & Francis.There are many kinds of open access, but they broadly fit into three categories: libre, which is open access that allows content to be free to read and generally, there are no barriers for reuse, gratis, which is open access that allows content to be free to read, but has barriers for reuse, and then there’s one level (black) that fits into neither libre nor gratis….”

SPARC Europe joins Open Book Futures (OBF) project to increase access to OA books

We are pleased to announce our participation in the recently launched Open Book Futures (OBF) project, funded by Arcadia and the Research England Development (RED) Fund. Open Access (OA) publishing has […]

The post SPARC Europe joins Open Book Futures (OBF) project to increase access to OA books appeared first on SPARC Europe.

From the Right to Science to the Right to Open Science: The European Approach to Scientifi c Research – European Yearbook on Human Rights 2022

Abstract:  This contribution focuses on the framework of human and fundamental rights related to science: on the one hand, scientific research has been heavily influenced by the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and digital technologies; on the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the need to strengthen the Right to Science, ensuring its effective enforcement and the maximum sharing of scientific knowledge. The aim of this contribution is to participate in the debate on the Right to Science by proposing a configuration of a Right to Open Science. It is suggested, therefore, to interpret European policies on Open Science as an explicit embodiment of the human Right to Science. This approach should be adopted as a benchmark in the forthcoming national and local implementations of European policies on Open Science, in order to increasingly guarantee the maximum sharing of knowledge and, at the same time, the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individuals involved.

Should the UK replace journals with a REF repository? | Times Higher Education (THE)

“There is a long-standing debate about whether the UK’s Research Excellence Framework is a waste of time and money given its insistence on re-assessing tens of thousands of papers that have already been reviewed by journals. Why not just base REF scores on journal rankings instead?

One answer is that, as Robert de Vries put it in a recent article for Times Higher Education, journal-administered peer review “sucks”. De Vries is conscious, though, that the obvious alternative to journals, post-publication review on subject repositories, might quickly descend into a social-media-style “attention-economy hellscape”, which would be even worse.

His solution is to oblige everyone who publishes on such platforms to undertake post-publication review to ensure that visibility is a function of merit. But I believe that a specific REF repository would be a better solution, eliminating reviewing redundancy while upholding high standards….”

Implementing open science at scale Tickets, Fri 5 May 2023 at 14:00 | Eventbrite

“On 5 May, 14:00-15:30 London time (UTC+1) (in your timezone): the next Fireside Chat will take place on “Implementing open science at scale”.

Facilitated by Chelle Gentemann, Programme Scientist for NASA’s Transform to OPen Science (TOPS) mission with The Turing Way co-lead Malvika Sharan, this panel will feature insights from Ana Persic (UNESCO Open Science), Nokuthula Mchunu (National Research Foundation, Africa Open Science Platform), Steve Crawford (NASA) and Alex Mendonça (SciELO Brasil). These individuals and community leaders represent different open science efforts addressing the challenges and implementation of open science in Brazil, Africa, the USA and more broadly through cross-country collaborations (read their bios below).

Recommendations, infrastructures, expert services, policies, government buy-in, grassroots advocacies or combinations of several of these — what has worked in different geographical contexts? Highlighting these initiatives led and facilitated by our speakers, we will discuss the convening role of UNESCO, 25 years of SciELO’s open access efforts, 5 years of pan African Open Science Platform and the 2023 NASA’s ‘Year of Open Science’ to drive the implementation of open science at various scales.

We will also facilitate open discussions with attendees to learn about their perspectives on the topic via a shared document (links shared upon registration).

This event is being co-hosted by The Turing Way – a community-led handbook on data science and research and TOPS – part of NASA’s Open-Source Science Initiative designed to rapidly transform agencies, organizations, and communities to an inclusive culture of open science….”

GraspOS Landscape Survey on Reforming Research Assessment ::

“The purpose of this survey is to gain overview of the state-of-the-art research assessment practices at the research performing and funding organisations who already are, or could become, signatories of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. The survey is conducted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) for the Landscape analysis of EU project GraspOS.”

GraspOS Landscape Survey on Reforming Research Assessment – GraspOS

“The purpose of this survey is to gain overview of the state-of-the-art research assessment practices at the research performing and funding organisations, and other organisations involved with research assessment, who already are, or could become, signatories of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment.

The survey is conducted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) for the Landscape analysis of EU project GraspOS. The landscape report supports the development of Open Science Assessment Framework (OSAF).

The questionnaire is structured based on CoARA core-commitments and principles. The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment sets a shared direction for changes in assessment practices for research, researchers and research performing organisations, with the overarching goal to maximise the quality and impact of research. The Agreement includes the principles, commitments and timeframe for reforms and lays out the principles for a Coalition of organisations willing to work together in implementing the changes.

Signatories commit to a common vision, which is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer-review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators….”

To Preprint or Not to Preprint: Experience and Attitudes of Researchers Worldwide

Abstract:  The pandemic has underlined the significance of open science and spurred further growth of preprinting. Nevertheless, preprinting has been adopted at varying rates across different countries/regions. To investigate researchers’ experience with and attitudes toward preprinting, we conducted a survey of authors of research papers published in 2021 or 2022. We find that respondents in the US and Europe had a higher level of familiarity with and adoption of preprinting than those in China and the rest of the world. Respondents in China were most worried about the lack of recognition for preprinting and the risk of getting scooped. US respondents were very concerned about premature media coverage of preprints, the reliability and credibility of preprints, and public sharing of information before peer review. Respondents identified integration of preprinting in journal submission processes as the most important way to promote preprinting.


The Scholarly Fingerprinting Industry

Abstract:  Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, Wiley, and SAGE: Many researchers know that the five giant firms publish most of the world’s scholarship. Fifty years of acquisitions and journal launches have yielded a stunningly profitable oligopoly, built up from academics’ unpaid writing-and-editing labor. Their business is a form of IP rentiership—collections of title-by-title prestige monopolies that, in the case of Nature or The Lancet, underwrite a stable of spinoff journals on the logic of the Hollywood franchise. Less well-known is that Elsevier and its peers are layering a second business on top of their legacy publishing operations, fueled by data extraction. They are packaging researcher behavior, gleaned from their digital platforms, into prediction products, which they sell back to universities and other clients. Their raw material is scholars’ citations, abstracts, downloads, and reading habits, repurposed into dashboard services that, for example, track researcher productivity. Elsevier and the other oligopolist firms are fast becoming, in other words, surveillance publishers . And they are using the windfall profits from their existing APC-and-subscription business to finance their moves into predictive analytics.


Library to host Francophone OER Summit | Library

“On April 27, the University of Ottawa Library, in collaboration with the Canadian Association of Research Librariesnorth_east

external link (CARL), will host the Francophone OER Summit. Held both onsite and online, this event dedicated to open educational resources (OER) will bring together some 30 practitioners, experts and students from Francophone communities across Canada and Québec.

OER are free and openly accessible learning and teaching resources. They can be custom created, adapted or translated, and are widely available. They are also more equitable for users.

The lack of French-language educational resources and textbooks is an issue that has been highlighted by many at the University of Ottawa , as well as by stakeholders at other Francophone and bilingual post-secondary institutions in Canada . In this context, the creation and adaptation of OER in French can help mitigate this problem….”

Harvard, MIT edX windfall funds bold vision, few specifics

“Almost two years ago, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sold edX, their pioneering massive open online course provider, to 2U, an online program management company. At the time, many in higher ed argued that edX’s sale to a for-profit company undermined its nonprofit mission to expand access to learning. Also, some of edX’s original investors and dues-paying university partners were concerned about not getting a cut of the $800 million that 2U paid Harvard and MIT.

But Harvard and MIT celebrated the windfall at the time as a way to fund a nonprofit “reimagining the future of learning for people at all stages of life, addressing educational inequalities, and continuing to advance next generation learning experiences and platforms.” (EdX’s sale garnered the two institutions a tenfold return on their combined $80 million investment.) Now, the universities have followed through on that promise with their recent announcement of the Axim Collaborative. The new nonprofit was funded from edX’s sale and aims to improve educational outcomes and employment pathways for underserved students….”

Scientific research is deteriorating | Science & Tech | EL PAÍS English

“The field of scientific research is deteriorating because of the way the system is set up. Researchers do the research – financed with public funds – and then the public institutions that they work for pay the big scientific publishers several times, for reviewing and publishing submissions. Simultaneously, the researchers also review scientific papers for free, while companies like Clarivate or the Shanghai Ranking draft their lists, telling everyone who are the good guys (and leaving out the people who, apparently, aren’t worth consideration).

In the last 30 years – since we’ve been living with the internet – we’ve altered the ways in which we communicate, buy, teach, learn and even flirt. And yet, we continue to finance and evaluate science in the same way as in the last century. Young researchers – underpaid and pressured by the system – are forced to spend time trying to get into a “Top 40? list, rather than working in their laboratories and making positive changes in the world.

As the Argentines say: “The problem isn’t with the pig, but with the person who feeds it.” Consciously or unconsciously, we all feed this anachronistic and ineffective system, which is suffocated by the deadly embrace between scientific journals and university rankings. Our governments and institutions fill the coffers of publishers and other companies, who then turn around and sell us their products and inform us (for a price) about what counts as quality….

Despite the issues, there’s certainly reason to be optimistic: although we scientists are victims (and accomplices) of the current system, we’re also aware of its weaknesses. We want to change this reality.


After a long debate – facilitated by the Open Science unit of the European Commision – the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (COARA) has been created. In the last four months, more than 500 institutions have joined COARA, which – along with other commitments – will avoid the use of rankings in the evaluation of research. COARA is a step forward to analyze – in a coherent, collective, global and urgent manner – the reform of research evaluation. This will help us move away from an exclusively quantitative evaluation system of journals, towards a system that includes other research products and indicators, as well as qualitative narratives that define the specific contributions of researchers across all disciplines….”



Jerry Sheehan, Deputy Director of Policy and External Affairs at the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Departs for a New Position at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

“Jerry Sheehan, Deputy Director of Policy and External Affairs is leaving NLM to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Mr. Sheehan has been appointed as OECD’s new Director of Science, Technology and Innovation.

“Mr. Sheehan’s extensive policy knowledge, his passion for open science, and outstanding interpersonal skills contributed to the success of the many activities he carried out in support of NLM’s mission,” said NLM Director Patricia Flatley Brennan, RN, Ph.D.

During his tenure at NLM, Mr. Sheehan oversaw NLM’s policy team and initiatives, fostered the work of a Blue Ribbon Panel that helped reshape NLM’s Intramural Research Program and shepherded NLM’s involvement in major NIH initiatives including the NIH Public Access Policy, the Genomic Data Sharing Policy, and the Data Management and Sharing Policy.

NLM is currently working on an interim plan to redistribute Mr. Sheehan’s responsibilities across NLM leadership and developing a strategy to address the responsibilities of this position in the long term.”

Talking about Open Science: First Open Science Community Hannover Meetup – Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)

“TIB launches Meetup on Open Science for interested parties from the Hannover region

The Open Science Lab of TIB – Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology invites everyone interested in Open Science from the Hannover region to the first Meetup of the Open Science Community Hannover (OSCH) – on 11 May 2023 from 17:00 to 19:00 in the lecture room of TIB at the TIB Science/Technology site.

Anyone who wants to share ideas on Open Science, Open Scholarship, Open Science Policy, Open Peer Review, Open Source Software and the importance of reproducibility, transparency and inclusivity in research, as well as many other topics related to Open Science, is in the right place for the Meetup….”