Gold and Diamond open access journals landscape – Research Consulting

“The dashboard uses the dataset produced by Walt Crawford on OA journals (GOAJ), which is based on DOAJ data but with added information, for instance on the number of articles published and the types of publishers. Recently, the dataset has been updated with 2019 data and its results are extensively described in the book Gold Open Access 2014-2019.

The purpose of this dashboard is to stimulate usage of this dataset, as this is a resource which is, in our view, currently underused by the Scholarly Communication community. The dashboard is fully interactive and clickable, and, with the Ctrl key, it is possible to click several items simultaneously. With the symbol in the bottom right corner, it is possible to enlarge the dashboard for greater visibility (as circled in red below)….

The majority of OA titles are Diamond, but the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off…

Diamond more titles, Gold more articles: Of the 13939 OA journal titles, over 70% of them are Diamond. However, most articles (>60%) are published by Gold journals.
Gold grows, Diamond levels off: The number of articles published by Gold journals is growing rapidly, while the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off. The number of newly started Diamond journals has also been declining since 2013.

Prominence of Diamond differs dependent on subject…

SSH: In the Social Sciences and Humanities, Diamond journals are predominant, publishing more than three quarters of articles.
Biomedicine: The number of Gold and Diamond journals in Biomedicine is about the same but Gold journals publish many more articles.
Science: In Science, there are more Diamond than Gold journals but Gold journals publish many more articles….”

PsyArXiv Preprints | What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Abstract:  Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, open research is yet to be widely adopted, with early career researchers being the notable exception. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy change and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that – like all researchers – senior academics are in part motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include a) change hiring criteria, b) change how scholarly outputs are credited, and c) change to funding and publishing with open research. The guidance we provide is accompanied by live, crowd-sourced material for further reading.


Initiative for Open Abstracts – COKI

“One of the tactical questions that often comes up with moving towards more open practice in research is the value of taking small steps vs fighting the large battles. Sometimes big changes occur – and the shift towards open access, although slow is an example of a big shift – but often a set of small steps can help to build towards progress. But there is a tension here as well. Small improvements relieve pressure on the system. How do we address the risk that they reduce progress over all? The key to this is in understanding what those small steps can achieve.

Improving the quality and openness of metadata about scholarly communications is an example where many small steps have been made. Because metadata is infrastructure, underpinning many other systems, it is almost entirely invisible. But the work to make it is not.

We make elements of progress, each of them seemingly quite small, but then in combination they suddenly enable significant change. 

What we do within the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative is possible in large part due to incremental improvements in the infrastructure of persistent identifiers and the quality of open metadata data generally. The improvement in access to open citations data as a result of I4OC has been a major boost to our research allowing us, for instance to make a fair comparison of how a citation count index would perform if it used different bibliographic data sources to define the set of outputs to count citations for.

But where does metadata end and content begin? As a research project we also want to be able to do more granular analysis of the contents of research. Lots of data sources provide a classification of the topics of articles, either at the journal or article level. But mostly these are black boxes that tell us more about who made those classifications than about the things we’re interested in. For instance, in my work I’ve frequently been more interested in categorising articles by the technique that they use, rather than the topic being studied. Sometimes the region a study focuses on is more important than the discipline label. In a perfect world any researcher would be able to process the full text to create their own categorisations, but then we’re restricted to open access content, even assuming we can gather all the content together efficiently. Titles can tell us something, but certainly not enough.

What would make a huge difference is comprehensive and central access to abstracts….”

Blog – Europe PMC: Announcing the new version of SciLite – the Europe PMC tool for highlighting annotations

“This month, Europe PMC released a new version of SciLite, a powerful tool for highlighting annotations in life sciences publications. SciLite is powered by the Europe PMC annotation platform via the open annotation API, which provides access to over 1.3 billion annotations. Highlighting annotations in the text enables users to easily scan the article and locate key biological entities, such as genes/proteins, accession numbers, protein interactions, diseases, gene-disease relationship and more….”

Stakeholder-governed OA platforms – OASPA poster work – Google Slides

“Presenting today: Sofie Wennström from the National Library of Sweden along with Jeroen Sondervan from Utrecht University Library. Co-authors are also Jepser Boserup Thestrup from the Royal Danish Library and Antti-Jussi Nygårds from the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies….”

Artificial Intelligence for Data Discovery and Reuse (AIDR) Symposium 2020

“AIDR (Artificial Intelligence for Data Discovery and Reuse) aims to find innovative solutions to accelerate the dissemination and reuse of scientific data in the data revolution. The explosion in the volume of scientific data has made it increasingly challenging to find data scattered across various platforms. At the same time, increasing numbers of new data formats, greater data complexity, lack of consistent data standards across disciplines, metadata or links between data and publications makes it even more challenging to evaluate data quality, reproduce results, and reuse data for new discoveries. Last year, supported by the NSF scientific data reuse initiative, the inaugural AIDR 2019 attracted AI/ML researchers, data professionals, and scientists from biomedicine, technology industry, high performance computing, astronomy, seismology, library and information science, archaeology, and more, to share innovative AI tools, algorithms and applications to make data more discoverable and reusable, and to discuss mutual challenges in data sharing and reuse.

This year, we are following up with a one-day, virtual AIDR Symposium, that provides a place for the community to continue having these conversations and work together to build a healthy data ecosystem. The program will feature invited speakers and panel discussions from a variety of disciplines, including a focused session on COVID-19 data. Audience are highly encouraged to join the conversation by submitting a poster, joining the panel discussions and social hours, chatting on Slack, and participating in collaborative note-taking.”

Open Science Symposium 2020 – Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

“We are excited to invite all students, data users, and researchers to join us at the third annual CMU Open Science Symposium, taking place virtually on Zoom. The symposium will build awareness and support for the adoption of open research practices and encourage innovative ideas about data sharing.

The full day program will feature talks from researchers, tool developers, and publishers; panel discussions; and networking opportunities.

This dynamic and interactive symposium will accelerate interdisciplinary collaborations at Carnegie Mellon University and beyond. We look forward to you joining us at this fun and rewarding event!”

Ouvrir la Science – Activités de Knowledge Exchange | Partenaires pour améliorer le service à l’ESR

Knowledge Exchange (KE) brings together six organizations from six countries. Their common objective is to examine the issues related to research support and infrastructure and service development.


CNRS (France),
CSC (Finland),
DEIC (Denmark),
DFG   (Germany),
JISC (United Kingdom),
SURF (Netherlands).

Recent results:

About monographs;

A landscape study on open access and monographs –  DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.815932
Knowledge Exchange Survey on Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.1475446
Towards a Roadmap for Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3238545


Accelerating scholarly communication – The transformative role of preprints – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3357727

Economy of Open Science

Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship: A Collection of Interviews – DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2840171
Open Scholarship and the need for collective action – DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3454688


COVID-19 has profoundly changed the way we conduct and share research. Let’s not return to business as usual when the pandemic is over! | Impact of Social Sciences

“But will this new, radically open research communications paradigm result in permanent change?

Many subscription publishers have temporarily made their COVID-19 content openly available, or are providing special conditions for libraries to allow researchers to access relevant collections, demonstrating that there is a willingness to adapt when there is a crisis of this proportion. However, some have already started to move their content back behind paywalls, or have indicated that they will do so in the near future.

COVID-19 has provided us with a relevant and practical example of the benefits of open science. The current moment should act as a catalyst for transforming the current flawed system of research communications into a global knowledge commons; a commons that is more efficient, inclusive, and governed by the scholarly community; a commons with no barriers to access or to publish research….

And COAR is developing an overlay model that will integrate peer review and other types of evaluation services into the distributed international repository and preprint network, which will soon be piloted by several organizations….

We must start now to shift our resources towards open, community-based infrastructures and services whose values align with those of research and society. Let us not go back to business as usual once the pandemic is over. The problems facing the world today are just too important.”