Gardner, Peters Introduce Bill to Keep Government Research Data Publically Available

“U.S. Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Gary Peters (D-MI) today introduced bipartisan legislation to help federal agencies maintain open access to machine-readable databases and datasets created by taxpayer-funded research. The Preserving Data in Government Act would require federal agencies to preserve public access to existing open datasets, and prevent the removal of existing datasets without sufficient public notice. Small businesses rely on a range of publically available machine-readable datasets to launch or grow their companies, and researchers and scientists use data to conduct studies for a variety of fields and industries….”

OpenUP – Front Page

“OPENing UP new methods, indicators and tools for peer review, dissemination of research results, and impact measurement….Open Access and Open Scholarship have revolutionized the way scholarly artefacts are evaluated and published, while the introduction of new technologies and media in scientific workflows has changed the “how and to whom” science is communicated, and how stakeholders interact with the scientific community. OpenUP addresses key aspects and challenges of the currently transforming science landscape and aspires to come up with a cohesive framework for the review-disseminate-assess phases of the research life cycle that is fit to support and promote Open Science….Through analysis, consultation, hands-on engagement with researchers, publishers, institutions and funders, industry and citizens, OpenUP will a) define a framework that defines roles and processes, benefits and opportunities, b) validate the proposed mechanisms through a series of pilots involving researchers from four scientific communities (Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities, Energy), and c) come up with practical policy recommendations and guidelines to be used by EU, national and institutional policymakers at different settings. OpenUP will engage with all stakeholders via a series of outreach and training events, and the creation of an Open Information Hub, a collaborative web based Knowledge Base that will host a catalogue of open tools/services, methodologies, best practices from various disciplines or settings, success stories, reports. This increased level of engagement and knowledge will feed into the development of research and innovation policies that aim to support and complement Open Science….”

Knowledge-hub on colored gemstones | UDaily

“With $350,000 in support from The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, [the University of Delaware’s Saleem Ali] will create an open-access repository for existing global knowledge around colored gemstones and target critical research necessary to surmount challenges facing individuals involved in colored gemstone mining and manufacturing….”

Sven Fund’s ‘Bridge’ to Open Access: Knowledge Unlatched

“In the humanities, however, two challenges have hampered open access adoption.

  • Most versions of ‘gold’ open access require researchers or their funding institutions to pay the costs of publication as an ‘article processing charge,’ or APC.
  • And much of the research published in the humanities and social sciences takes the form of books, which naturally have higher processing charges than articles do.


Knowledge Unlatched attempts to solve this problem by importing into academic publishing a crowdfunding model not unlike that of Kickstarter.

Working with publishers to create a list of books to be “unlatched”–made freely available–it then assembles a consortium of libraries to pay the costs of publication. If enough libraries commit to funding a title, then the book is published. Each library that pledged receives a print copy, and ebook versions are made available for anyone to read as open access.

The model is finding support.

Since Frances Pinter launched Knowledge Unlatched in September 2012, the organization says it has facilitated the publication of more than 400 books in its first three collections. In February, it announced the success of its latest unlatching, its largest to date: 343 titles from more than 50 publishers.

A fourth collection now is being assembled, with the pledging process expected to start next month. This will be the first collection to include journals.”

Impact of Social Sciences – Making research articles freely available can help to negate gender citation effects in political science

“In short, when women political scientists make their work freely available online, their research is cited at similar rates to men’s work. This is a very positive finding given the current gender imbalance found in many aspects of the discipline. (Side note: many scholars, regardless of gender, fail to self-archive due to lack of know-how; Carling has written a very helpful primer on the subject. See also Atchison and Bull.)

A final caveat is necessary. These results should be interpreted with caution. First, the finding that OA can help to negate the gender citation advantage is surprising in light of previous research on gendered citation effects. This must be investigated further to determine whether it is an artefact of the data, whether the pattern holds when other data are used, and whether the pattern holds once self-archiving becomes more commonplace in political science. Second, as with any single-discipline study, the results may lack generalisability. There is considerable evidence that GCE varies by discipline, so it will be important to explore the GCE-OA interaction both within and across disciplines.”

The Evolution of Publishing Agreements at the University of Michigan Library – Digital Library

“Book chapter on the evolution of publishing agreements at the University of Michigan Library. Taking as an example an open-access journal with a single editor, this chapter discusses the various configurations of rights agreements used by the University of Michigan Library throughout the evolution of its publishing operation, the advantages of the various models, and the reasons for moving from one to another….”

How Might A Future OA World Look? | OAnarchy

“As we have argued in previous publications, it is clear that any need for payment in the scholarly communications process will exclude significant sectors of the global research community. For example, subscription-based systems exclude less-prosperous scholars, who frequently cannot even manage sufficient access to read the literature relevant to their work. Similarly, the system based on article processing charges (APCs) favored by some sectors of the OA community excludes many scholars from authorship, however attractive the open reading may prove….Honestly, we do not see any of the OA approaches being developed and promoted as fully addressing this challenge. We have presented arguments previously that an ideal solution is what can be termed “platinum” OA: journals that are open to readers and authors alike without cost or barrier. These journals can be funded via subsidy from interested entities (institutions, funders, or societies) that prioritize effective and open communication over financial gain, and that develop under collaborations in a cross-stakeholder model (e.g., university presses with scholarly societies, libraries with funders, nonprofit publishers with scholarly societies). We note, as have many others, that funds exist for a shift to platinum OA in the form of the massive subscription budgets that institutions have maintained to keep up with the rising costs of commercial, closed-access journals….”