Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research | Zenodo

“In 2013, the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council funded a 4-year project on the editorial and commercial history of the world’s oldest-surviving scholarly journal (‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: a social, cultural and economic history of a learned journal, 1665-2015’, AH/K001841). The project is led by Dr Aileen Fyfe at the University of St Andrews in partnership with the Royal Society.

The project team convened a workshop at the Royal Society, 22 April 2016, on ‘The Politics of Academic Publishing, 1950-2016’. This briefing paper is informed by the contributions of those who attended that day, and we thank them for their insights. The authors of this briefing paper are a sub-group of those who attended the April 2016 workshop.

This report is based upon the primary (historical) research of the Philosophical Transactions project team, combined with a literature review, and the expertise of the other authors (principally in higher education research, and in scholarly communication)….”

Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research | Zenodo

“In 2013, the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council funded a 4-year project on the editorial and commercial history of the world’s oldest-surviving scholarly journal (‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: a social, cultural and economic history of a learned journal, 1665-2015’, AH/K001841). The project is led by Dr Aileen Fyfe at the University of St Andrews in partnership with the Royal Society.

The project team convened a workshop at the Royal Society, 22 April 2016, on ‘The Politics of Academic Publishing, 1950-2016’. This briefing paper is informed by the contributions of those who attended that day, and we thank them for their insights. The authors of this briefing paper are a sub-group of those who attended the April 2016 workshop.

This report is based upon the primary (historical) research of the Philosophical Transactions project team, combined with a literature review, and the expertise of the other authors (principally in higher education research, and in scholarly communication)….”

Academics ‘should not sign over research copyright to publishers’ | THE News

“Academics should resist signing over the copyright of their research to a “profit-oriented” academic publisher if they can secure a licence to publish themselves, a report recommends, while university leaders must simultaneously seek ways to ensure that copyright remains with the author.

According to the report, Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Knowledge, reforms of scholarly publishing have given “undue weight to commercial concerns” in recent years. Additionally, the “prestige economy”, in which academics compete for the kudos of having their work published by journals with high impact factors or by high-status presses, has stymied the move towards open access and “free sharing of knowledge”, it argues….”

The OpenAIRE-Connect Project : OpenAIRE blog

“OpenAIRE-Connect is an H2020 EC project, started in January 2017. The project fosters transparent evaluation of results and facilitates reproducibility of science for research communities by enabling a scientific communication ecosystem supporting the exchange of artefacts, packages of artefacts, and links between them across communities and across content providers. To this aim, OpenAIRE-Connect will introduce and implement the concept of Open Science as a Service (OSaaS) on top of the existing OpenAIRE infrastructure (http://www.openaire.eu), by delivering out-of-the-box, on-demand deployable tools in support of Open Science. OpenAIRE-Connect will realise and operate two OSaaS production services (see figure):

  • Research Community Dashboard: it will serve research communities to at publishing research artefacts (packages and links), and monitoring their research impact.
  • Catch-All Notification Broker: it will engage and mobilise content providers, and serve them with services enabling notification-based exchange of research artefacts, to leverage their transition towards Open Science paradigms.

Both services will be served on-demand according to the OSaaS approach, hence be reusable from different disciplines and providers, each with different practices and maturity levels, so as to favour a shift towards a uniform cross-community and cross-content provider scientific communication ecosystem.”

Who should speak for academics over the future of publishing? | THE Opinion

“What I find intriguing is not so much that commercial publishers have learned how to involve academics in peer review, but rather that the learned societies appear to have relinquished the intellectual leadership that [David] Martin assumed was theirs.

With so many journals now being published by so many different societies, university presses and commercial firms, disciplinary leadership is more diffuse than it was 60 years ago and no longer obviously lies with learned societies. Based on ownership, the big four commercial publishers have a clear claim to leadership in the business of academic publishing. But these firms have no grounds on which to claim leadership in the provision of academic prestige.

Given current debates about how the future of academic publishing will be shaped by technology and open access, this matters hugely – and not simply because of the cost of access to research….”

Open Practice Badges Details

“There is no central authority determining the validity of scientific claims. Accumulation of scientific knowledge proceeds via open communication with the community. Sharing evidence for scientific claims facilitates critique, extension, and application. Despite the importance of open communication for scientific progress, present norms do not provide strong incentives for individual researchers to share data, materials, or their research process. Journals can provide such incentives by acknowledging open practices with badges in publications.

There are circumstances, however, in which open practices are not possible or advisable. For example, sharing some human participant data could violate confidentiality. When badge criteria cannot be met, a description in place of the badge can articulate why. Badges do not define good practice; badges certify that a particular practice was followed. Disclosure makes explicit the conditions under which the ethic of openness is superseded by other ethical concerns. Here, we introduce three badges to acknowledge Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistration….”

Allergan – NYSE: AGN – Company Profile – Allergan

“Allergan is an industry leader in Open Science, the Company’s R&D model, which defines our approach to identifying and developing game-changing ideas and innovation for better patient care. This approach has led to Allergan building one of the broadest development pipelines in the pharmaceutical industry with 70+ mid-to-late stage pipeline programs in development….”

MedEdPORTAL

“MedEdPORTAL, an open-access publication covering health professions education, is provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges in partnership with the American Dental Education Association and the American Psychological Association. Materials submitted to MedEdPORTAL are considered stand-alone, complete teaching or learning modules that have been classroom tested and are ready for implementation by our users at their own institutions. Each submission is scrutinized by editorial staff and independent peer reviewers using a standardized review instrument grounded in the tenets of educational scholarship. Published authors receive a formal citation for their accepted publications. Our publications are scholarly works that may support faculty advancement decisions….”

Nieuw open access-akkoord – U-Today

From Google Translate: “The agreements between the Dutch universities and Cambridge University Press (CUP) are unique, says Board Chairman Jaap Winter of the University, university association VSNU negotiator.

Aside Bought

The agreement with CUP universities have open access surrendered at once. Seventeen fully open access journals and 339 hybrid journals, Dutch researchers from June 1 to publish at no extra cost.

This is in discussions about open access as the ‘golden road’: the items are in the archives of the magazine itself and anyone can read them. Another form of open access is less far and is called the ‘green road’. Then scientists can make their articles freely accessible in an archive of their own university or at their website, but they are in the magazine itself still behind a paywall.

Oxford UP

The Dutch universities will only renew subscriptions to scientific journals and publishers open access one step closer. Negotiations with Oxford University Press this faltered .

In old subscription science actually pays twice: researchers write articles yourself and additionally paid subscriber to read the magazines. The results of (mostly publicly funded) research are also not accessible to outsiders.

The advocates of open access, including Secretary Sander Dekker, want to change that. Ideally pay science no longer to articles read , but to publish . The articles themselves are free for everyone.”