Abstract: This piece offers several threads that bind an ideal together: there are practical actions to increase the public-ness of scholarship, increasingly compelling reasons to adopt an outward-orientation, as well as many challenges to performing public scholarship in higher education. We propose that a more public scholarly practice can be sought through the dissemination of research products, the processes by which research and scholarship are conducted, opening pedagogy beyond the classroom, developing soft skills as a public intellectual, and increasing visibility with/in communities.
Abstract: Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S compliant. We suspected this was not so, and set out to explore this using DOAJ’s journal metadata. We conclude that an overwhelmingly large majority of open access journals are not Plan S compliant, and that it is small HSS publishers not charging APCs that are least compliant and will face major challenges with becoming compliant. Plan S need to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC-based journals.
“I was dismayed, therefore, by David Nicholas’s recent article. To me, this seemed to misunderstand the plan’s aims and approach and some of its essential elements.
He failed to mention, for example, the plan’s commitment to funding researchers’ publication costs, and cited the role of the ResearchGate and Sci-Hub websites in making papers increasingly free and open, when both have been sued for copyright infringement. I wish he had dug deeper and more carefully because everyone involved in the long-running debates about open access deserves better….
The financial challenges posed to learned societies by Plan S also need to be dissected in more detail. Publishing operations are often justified as supporting valued activities such as travel and research bursaries, but revenue varies hugely between societies and it is fair to ask whether some are placing undue pressures on library budgets. Resolving this issue will require greater transparency from learned societies, but also imaginative thinking about alternative ways to fund their activities….
At times like this, we should not forget our communal desire to enrich the world by sharing with it the fruits of our academic labours….”
:The Royal Historical Society has published an interim/draft report feeding back on Plan S. Although not a historian but as someone with a keen interest in open access in the humanities disciplines – and in the spirit of open exchange, since this document has understandably caused some alarm among humanities scholars – I wanted to write up my criticisms (and one ringing endorsement where I agree with them) in public.
This report starts out well but also contains a substantial number of inaccuracies, contestable aspects, or selective interpretations of the information available about Plan S. Here are the parts where I disagreed or had comment: …
Throughout the report there are two conflations made that are very problematic. The first is that gold open access is an author-pays model of Article and Book Processing Charges (APCs/BPCs). This is not even the definition of gold open access, which merely stipulates that the publisher make it openly available. Other models are available that do not require authors to pay but that still return revenue to a publisher. These are not explored anywhere in this document.
The second problem throughout is that while early on in the report, zero-embargo green open-access is mentioned in a footnote, this actually then disappears from the rest of the report. …
[I]n this document, open access to published research is presented as a problem for systemically disadvantaged groups, rather than as something that might help them. …”
Abstract: This paper examines issues relating to the perceptions and adoption of open access (OA) and institutional repositories. Using a survey research design, we collected data from academics and other researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) at a university in Australia. We looked at factors influencing choice of publishers and journal outlets, as well as the use of social media and nontraditional channels for scholarly communication. We used an online questionnaire to collect data and used descriptive statistics to analyse the data. Our findings suggest that researchers are highly influenced by traditional measures of quality, such as journal impact factor, and are less concerned with making their work more findable and promoting it through social media. This highlights a disconnect between researchers’ desired outcomes and the efforts that they put in toward the same. Our findings also suggest that institutional policies have the potential to increase OA awareness and adoption. This study contributes to the growing literature on scholarly communication by offering evidence from the HASS field, where limited studies have been conducted. Based on the findings, we recommend that academic librarians engage with faculty through outreach and workshops to change perceptions of OA and the institutional repository.
“One of the Allen Institute’s priorities is an academically oriented search engine, established in 2015, called Semantic Scholar (slogan: “Cut through the clutter”). The need is great, with more than 34,000 peer-reviewed journals publishing 2.5 million articles a year. “What if a cure for an intractable cancer is hidden within the tedious reports on thousands of clinical studies?,” Etzioni once said.
Although Semantic Scholar has focused so far on computer and biomedical sciences, Etzioni says that the engine will soon push into the social sciences and the humanities as well. The Chronicle spoke with him about information overload, impact factors’ imperfect inevitability, and the promise and perils of AI….”
“Teachers—especially those of English or the arts—rely on famous works of literature, music, and film in their classes, copying and repurposing them to analyze with students.
But often, embedding these works in curricula to share with other teachers or making them available to students can raise questions about copyright: How much of an original movie or poem can a teacher include, and how widely can resources made with these materials be distributed?
As of Jan. 1, thousands of works are newly exempt from these questions. At the beginning of 2019, anything that was originally copyrighted in 1923 passed into the public domain—meaning that anyone can use and reprint it, free of charge and without permission….”
Abstract: In recent years, a number of business models have been developed for open access (OA) monographs in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). While each model has been created in response to specific circumstances and needs, some commonalities can be observed. This article outlines some of the main types of model to support the costs of publishing OA books and provides examples of these models across the world.
It is followed by three short sketches providing more depth on: firstly, a traditional publisher’s OA monograph offer; secondly, a licensing-based model which draws from existing library budgets; and finally, an experiment with delayed open access for books in philosophy: http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.118
Abstract: Tübingen University Library offers a continuously improved next generation bibliographic database for theology and religious studies. The “Index theologicus” database is available worldwide in open access. It is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) in the funding program “specialised information services” . This paper informs about the background of the project and the steps the Library took in order to transform a legacy online content database system into one of the most important international bibliographies in theology without increasing the number of staff involved.
“TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem) advances the wide dissemination of scholarship by humanities and humanistic social sciences faculty members through open access editions of peer-reviewed and professionally edited monographs.
Scholars face growing difficulty in finding publishers for their monographs as academic library budgets shrink and demand for monographs falls. To collaboratively address this problem, the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of University Presses (AUPresses) launched this initiative in spring 2017.
In each of the first five years, colleges and universities participating in TOME are providing at least three baseline publishing grants of $15,000 to support the publication of open access monographs. Publishers accepting these grants—for eligible books that have been approved through the usual editorial and peer-review processes—are making high-quality, platform-agnostic, digital editions freely available. These TOME-supported monographs will make new research freely available online, increasing the presence of humanities and social science scholarship on the web and opening up knowledge to more readers….”