“I was delighted this week to be notified that the Humanities Commons team has received an Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities….”
Crossposted from Platypus. I was delighted this week to be notified that the Humanities Commons team has received an Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. NEH Announces $30.9 Million for 188 Humanities Projects Nationwide: https://t.co/Zt20RWxTpn pic.twitter.com/nnZBRwhQNi — NEH (@NEHgov) January 14, 2020 This grant is the foundation of … Continue reading Infrastructure and Capacity Building ?
“The AHA’s 2017 survey on this issue captured the breadth of the problem. Unequal access affects historians working in a wide variety of contexts, including full-time faculty at institutions unable to afford subscriptions, part-time and irregularly employed historians, independent scholars, job candidates, and historians employed outside of higher education. Faculty with inadequate access cannot keep up with the latest scholarship for teaching and have circumscribed access to the primary sources that enliven a classroom and stand at the center of highly regarded history pedagogy. This is not only a matter of academic careers or the pursuit of what we customarily refer to as “producing new knowledge”; it is also a matter of equity in higher education. Unequal access for faculty means unequal educational opportunity for students.
For contingent faculty, uneven research access reflects another aspect of job insecurity—if they lose their job, they lose access. …
The AHA encourages history departments to provide full library access to their own scholar alumni and to unaffiliated historians in their regions. History departments and academic units can play a positive role by supporting the scholarship of their alumni and by bringing more unaffiliated scholars into their orbit. Providing these historians a university affiliation—whether as a visiting scholar or by whatever means is feasible—will help close the gap between those with and without adequate research access. These actions will enable every historian to fully realize their potential as scholars and contributors to our discipline.”
“Dear cOAlition S,
This is an open letter to the funders, government bodies and institutions that support Plan S and will be submitted to the open consultation of cOAlition S draft framework for transformative journals.
We thank you for the provision of a draft framework for transformative journals and appreciate the opportunity to consult on the guidance. We are responding from the perspective of publishers working across the humanities and social sciences (HSS) who typically publish a large proportion of unfunded authors, be that by region, discipline or organisational setting. We remain committed to realising the benefits of full and immediate open access for our authors and their stakeholders and we appreciate the efforts of cOAlition S to date to engage with the wider discussion and assist smaller publishers to transition to open publishing models. Given that scholarship remains a global and collaborative endeavour, we urge cOAlition S to continue to be mindful of the unintended consequences for academic colleagues and disciplines that do not have the luxury of direct funding, or access to money for APCs from their organisation or institution.
The issues as previously stated in our open letter of 8th February 2019 remain a reality. Transformative agreements – and thus funding for APCs – are not available to all of the many varied publishers within the ecosystem. Globally there remain mixed approaches to achieving open access with many customers, including within Europe, preferring non-APC routes to open publishing. This includes green open access. Other models, such as subscribe-to-open, remain interesting but un-tested with respect to long-term sustainability….”
“At first sight it seems to be self-evident that the ethics-community should embrace those open science principles unconditionally. Transparency, accessibility, and solving societal challenges are laudable goals. Understanding and solving societal challenges seems to be the core business of ethics: the theoretical branches of ethics aim for a better understanding of the practical and moral dimension of human life in general and applied ethics engages with possible solutions of urgent societal challenges. Thus, ‘open science’ seems to be the ideal context for ethical research to flourish. But as philosophers we should be a bit more reflective than just preaching the gospel of open science without critical remarks. In the following I want to highlight five possible pitfalls and problems around open science. The aim is not to frustrate the entire enterprise but to contribute to a responsible way of introducing the open science principles….
I think the opposition between academic freedom and open science is a misconception. Academic freedom is a necessary requirement for any research….”
“Today, the National Endowment for the Humanities announces a new grant opportunity, the Fellowships Open Book Program (FOBP). This program, offered to university and non-profit presses, will fund the creation of open access editions of humanities monographs whose underlying research was funded by one of the eligible NEH fellowship programs (i.e., Fellowships, Awards for Faculty, JUSFC-NEH Fellowships for Advanced Social Science Research on Japan, and the Public Scholars program).
For nearly 50 years, the prestigious NEH fellowship programs have supported the research behind thousands of important humanities and social science monographs. The new Fellowships Open Book Program will ensure that these books have the widest possible audience by making them available as free-to-download ebooks, under a Creative Commons license.
The FOBP follows the NEH/Mellon Humanities Open Book Program, which was a partnership between the NEH and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that aimed to digitize out-of-print humanities books and release them as free ebooks. This program has shown that humanities monographs may be downloaded thousands of times once made openly available, indicating great interest in excellent humanities research. In many cases, these downloads also led to additional purchases of print copies.
This new Fellowships Open Book Program has several enhanced features, many of which were suggested by the field:…”
“With the publication of this issue of Redescriptions, we are happy to announce that within the period 2018–2019 Redescriptions has successfully completed a change of publishers to the new Helsinki University Press (HUP). With this relocation, Redescriptions becomes fully open access journal, with no costs to the readers or the authors….”
“OpenEdition is supported financially by the four founding institutions (CNRS [French National Centre for Scientific Research], Aix-Marseille University, EHESS [School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences], Avignon University), which provide the platform with staff, infrastructure and funds to cover operating costs. They also receive support directly from the Ministry of Research (as a research infrastructure). About 50 FTE staff are permanently seconded from the four founding institutions. The staff are divided into an editorial department that manages the relationships with the content producers (blogging researchers, publishers, journal editors), an IT department that runs systems and development, a department for international development and a department dedicated to the Freemium services – ‘Freemium’ being a pricing strategy by which a digital product or service is provided free of charge, but money is charged for additional features. The other main source of revenue stems from project funding – national, regional and European. These funds are used to develop new and innovative tools and services. Recently, OpenEdition has added the Freemium model (ji.sc/2Vxjge3) to their revenue streams, but this system has not been introduced to cover operating costs or infrastructures. Rather, it serves to help the journal publishers and editors to cover their publishing and editing costs. Two-thirds of the money collected is transferred to the publishers OpenEdition works with, while the remaining third is retained to operate the commercial services that sell these Freemium services….”
“TOME brings together scholars, universities, libraries, and presses in pursuit of a common goal—a sustainable open monograph ecosystem.
Monographs remain the preeminent form of scholarly publication in the humanities and humanistic social sciences, but the funding model is broken. TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem) seeks to address this problem by moving us toward a new, more sustainable system in which monograph publishing costs are met by institutionally funded faculty book subsidies. These publication grants make it possible for presses to publish monographs in open access editions, which increases the presence of humanities and social science scholarship on the web and opens up knowledge to a truly global readership.
TOME launched in 2017 as a five-year pilot project of the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of University Presses (AUPresses). The pilot is built on a) participating colleges and universities and b) participating university presses.
Participating colleges and universities commit to providing baseline grants of $15,000 to support the publication of open access monographs of 90,000 words or fewer (with additional funding for works of greater length or complexity).
Participating university presses (numbering over 60) commit to producing digital open access editions of TOME volumes, openly licensing them under Creative Commons licenses, and depositing the files in selected open repositories….”