EU open-access envoy urges foundations to join Plan S

“Organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust should join Plan S to continue their “moral leadership” on open research, Plan S founder and European Commission open-access envoy Robert-Jan Smits told Research Europe. He was speaking on his return from a weeklong tour of federal agencies, universities and learned societies in the United States, where he was attempting to boost international support for the plan….

Smits claimed that the feedback on Plan S he received in the US was mostly that independent foundations need to join….

Smits has said that Plan S is based on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s policies. These include that papers reporting research it has funded must be made openly available immediately and with a licence that permits unrestricted reuse. The foundation has forced some of the world’s most prestigious journals to change their policies so that they comply.

During the trip, Smits sought to quell fears that Plan S would undermine the so-called green open-access model, in which papers are placed in repositories, usually after a publisher-imposed embargo period. Plan S will not accept embargo periods, causing some concern that it will only support the gold open-access model in which papers are made openly available immediately, usually by paying publishers an article-processing charge.

Smits said that Plan S leaves “ample room” for repositories, article preprints and self-archiving. He also admitted that organisations in the US flagged the plan’s lack of recognition for publishers using the so-called diamond and platinum open-access models, which do not charge authors publication fees….

According to Smits, those he met who were most enthusiastic about Plan S were librarians and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.

More cautiously interested parties, he said, were the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Smits said this was because the OSTP is awaiting a new director who will set the agenda for open access at the federal level. Research Europe has approached these organisations for comment.

Those who were most sceptical of the plan were the learned societies, Smits said. These organisations rely on income from journal subscription charges and fear that the loss of revenue caused by a switch to open access would affect activities such as the organisation of conferences, he said….”

Drivers and Implications of Scientific Open Access Publishing (September 2016)

“This paper presents the results of a new and experimental study on the research and publishing activities of scientific authors. It also aimed to test the feasibility of an OECD global survey on science with a focus on major emerging policy issues. This online, email-based pilot survey was based on a stratified random sample of corresponding authors of publications listed in a major global scientific publication index across seven diverse, hand-picked science domains. The results provide evidence of the extent of journal and repository-based open access, data sharing practices, the link between different forms of open access to research and research impact, and the decoupling of quality assurance and access roles played by journals. The results point to the importance of considering economic incentives and social norms in developing policy options for open access. The findings also provide new insights on scientist careers, mobility and gender pay bias….”

Paying for Open Access does not increase your paper’s impact, but self-archiving in a repository does | MarXiv

“Numerous studies have found that Open Access papers are cited significantly more than the global average. Across all scientific disciplines, the average citation increase is 30%. If that’s not a compelling enough reason to make your research Open Access, I don’t know what is!

According to a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the citation impact driven by publishing your research Open Access* is caused by papers that are Green Open Access — where the author “self-archives” their work in a central repository, commonly an institutional archive or a public, discipline-specific repository like MarXiv. The effect is largely not caused by papers that are Gold Open Access, where the paper is available for free directly from the publisher. Why might this be the case? Let’s start by getting our terminology straight, first….”

This App Is Leading The Revolution in Free Access to Scientific Papers

“A perfect storm of technology and the public’s demand for knowledge are driving a surge towards open access (OA) science and academia that anyone can read for free.

Now, the researchers behind Unpaywall – a browser plug-in that helps you find free, legal copies of academic papers – have conducted a huge analysis of the state of OA literature, and it confirms that the barriers to scientific knowledge are truly crumbling.

 

The team used three separate sampling methods to analyse the state of access to 300,000 random journal articles available online, and estimate that a stunning 28 percent of all scholarly literature – some 19 million articles, basically everything with a DOI dating as far back as 1900 – is now open access….”

Open and Shut?: Open Access and the Research Excellence Framework: Strange bedfellows yoked together by HEFCE

“When the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) announced its open access policy last March the news was greeted with great enthusiasm by OA advocates, who view it as a “game changer” that will ensure all UK research becomes freely available on the Internet. They were especially happy that HEFCE has opted for a green OA policy, believing that this will provide an essential green component to the UK’s “otherwise one-sided gold OA policy”. The HEFCE policy will come into effect on 1st April 2016, but how successful can we expect it to be, and what are the implications of linking open access to the much criticised Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the way HEFCE has done? These are, after all, strange bedfellows. Might there be better ways of ensuring that research is made open access? …”

Mr Smits goes to Washington: Architect of bold European open-access plan hopes to garner US support

“A month after European funders launched the ‘Plan S’ initiative to demand immediate open access to scientific literature in the next two years, the plan’s creators have revealed more details about their bold scheme — and are hurriedly trying to get support from US policymakers….

Smits is in the United States this week to talk to research funders, scientific societies and representatives of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. “I’m going for business, not chit-chat,” he told Nature….

In mid-September, Smits suggested at the conference of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in Vienna that if an author published work behind a paywall but immediately deposited an accepted version of the manuscript in an open repository, under a liberal publishing licence, they would be adhering to Plan S.

That clarification might mean that many paywalled journals could find a way to respect Plan S without changing their publishing models. …

Smits declined to answer Nature’s questions about whether researchers archiving preprints would be sufficient, saying that this would all be laid out by Røttingen and Sweeney’s task force….”

PsyArXiv Preprints | The Rent’s too High: Self-Archive for Fair Online Publication Costs

Abstract:  The main contributors of scientific knowledge—researchers—generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall. With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing. This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a pay-to-publish model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders. Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year—hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles. A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists—widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it.

Helping UK open access repositories comply with OpenAIRE guidelines | Jisc

“This webinar will give an overview of the current aggregation strategies from UK repositories in OpenAIRE.

We will discuss issues and solutions, introducing the latest releases of the OpenAIRE guidelines for literature repository and guidelines for CRIS-CERIF managers….”