Category Archives: oa.impact

Open Source impact study – OpenForum Europe

Posted on by

“OpenForum Europe and Fraunhofer ISI are conducting a study on the impact of Open Source Software and Hardware on technological independence, competitiveness and innovation in Europe for the European Commission. The work has started in January and will end in December 2020. 

Read more about the consortium, the rationale behind the project and its goals. It is a long-awaited initiative, serving as a scientific basis for future Open Source policymaking in Europe and with a potential global impact. You can also see the possibilities to contribute, as we are welcoming researchers and others involved in Open Source to share their thoughts….”

New Approaches to Evaluate Researchers’ Impact

Posted on by

“The second Basel Sustainable Publishing Forum (BSPF) will be held virtually on 26–27 October 2020. Until then, due to the current COVID-19 situation, we would like to offer you some of the conference topics via webinars! In the weeks and months preceding the conference, selected speakers will discuss various aspects on Open-Access publishing. The first webinar in the series was already held on 2 July 2020. It touched upon topics such as Plan S and Price Transparency and consisted of talks from different publishers. The webinar website and the full recording can be found here.

Now, the second webinar within the framework of the Basel Sustainable Publishing Forum will be held on 11 September 2020 at 2:00 pm (CEST). The topic is “New Approaches to Evaluate Researchers’ Impact” and Prof. Dr. Ed Constable from the University of Basel and co-chair of the BSPF 2020 will moderate the webinar. So do not miss out on this webinar and register now! …”

COARD (Collaborative Open Access Research and Development)

Posted on by

“COARD develops and applies technology and analysis tools that provide insight into the usage and impact of open access scholarly content. We work with publishers, communities and users of scholarly content with the goal of supporting and sustaining a diversity of actors involved in creating and disseminating open access scholarly content….

COARD, standing for Collaborative Open Access Research and Development is the trading name of Knowledge Unlatched C.I.C. a community interesting company registered in the UK. Founded by Frances Pinter, Knowledge Unlatched was focused on developing funding models for open access books. Following several successful pilot rounds that demonstrated the concept the funding operations, name and trademarks of Knowledge Unlatched C.I.C. were transferred to Knowledge Unlatched Gmbh which continues to act as a funding intermediary for open access scholarly books and content….”

More Readers in More Places: The benefits of open access for scholarly books | Zenodo

Posted on by

“Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximise statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally under-served populations.”

Diversifying Readership Through Open Access | Open research | Springer Nature

Posted on by

“Diversifying readership through open access: A usage analysis for OA books is a new white paper by Springer Nature and COARD based on usage data for 3,934 books, including 281 open access books.

This white paper presents the analysis of that data, exploring what effect, if any, publishing OA has on the geographic usage of books. The findings will be of interest to researchers, authors, librarians and publishers alike. …”

Diversifying Readership through open access: A usage analysis for open access books | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

Posted on by

“Open access (OA) books are reaching more countries and have greater usage and higher citation numbers than non-OA books. A new analysis collaboratively produced by Springer Nature and COARD (Collaborative Open Access Research & Development) presents these and other key findings in a new white paper that explores how OA affects the geographical diversity of readers. 

It shows that OA books have substantially more readers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and that OA also helps to increase attention to scholarship about these countries. The study is to date the largest and most comprehensive of its kind; the underlying dataset is based on 3,934 books published by Springer Nature, including 281 OA books.

Confirming previous research looking at the potential usage benefits of OA, this analysis shows more downloads and more citations for every type of book, in every discipline, in each of the three years of publication (2015, 2016, 2017) included in the sample. The report finds that OA books on average achieve ten times more downloads and 2.4 times more citations than non-OA books. Furthermore, download numbers from the open web are generally around double those from institutional network points….”

Gaming the Metrics | The MIT Press

Posted on by

“The traditional academic imperative to “publish or perish” is increasingly coupled with the newer necessity of “impact or perish”—the requirement that a publication have “impact,” as measured by a variety of metrics, including citations, views, and downloads. Gaming the Metrics examines how the increasing reliance on metrics to evaluate scholarly publications has produced radically new forms of academic fraud and misconduct. The contributors show that the metrics-based “audit culture” has changed the ecology of research, fostering the gaming and manipulation of quantitative indicators, which lead to the invention of such novel forms of misconduct as citation rings and variously rigged peer reviews. The chapters, written by both scholars and those in the trenches of academic publication, provide a map of academic fraud and misconduct today. They consider such topics as the shortcomings of metrics, the gaming of impact factors, the emergence of so-called predatory journals, the “salami slicing” of scientific findings, the rigging of global university rankings, and the creation of new watchdogs and forensic practices.”

How to Boost the Impact of Scientific Conferences: Cell

Posted on by

“We can maximize the impact of scientific conferences by uploading all conference presentations, posters, and abstracts to highly trafficked public repositories for each content type. Talks can be hosted on sites like YouTube and Youku, posters can be published on Figshare, and papers and abstracts can become open access preprints.”

 

 

Elsevier have endorsed the Leiden Manifesto: so what? – The Bibliomagician

Posted on by

“If an organisation wants to make a public commitment to responsible research evaluation they have three main options: i) sign DORA, ii) endorse the Leiden Manifesto (LM), or iii) go bespoke – usually with a statement based on DORA, the LM, or the Metric Tide principles.

The LIS-Bibliometrics annual responsible metrics survey shows that research-performing organisations adopt a wide range of responses to this including sometimes signing DORA and adopting the LM. But when it comes to publishers and metric vendors, they tend to go for DORA. Signing DORA is a proactive, public statement and there is an open, independent record of your commitment. DORA also has an active Chair in Professor Stephen Curry, and a small staff in the form of a program director and community manager, all of whom will publicly endorse your signing which leads to good PR for the organisation.

A public endorsement of the LM leads to no such fanfare. Indeed, the LM feels rather abandoned by comparison. Despite a website and blog, there has been little active promotion of the Manifesto, nor any public recognition for anyone seeking to endorse it….”

Elsevier have endorsed the Leiden Manifesto: so what? – The Bibliomagician

Posted on by

“If an organisation wants to make a public commitment to responsible research evaluation they have three main options: i) sign DORA, ii) endorse the Leiden Manifesto (LM), or iii) go bespoke – usually with a statement based on DORA, the LM, or the Metric Tide principles.

The LIS-Bibliometrics annual responsible metrics survey shows that research-performing organisations adopt a wide range of responses to this including sometimes signing DORA and adopting the LM. But when it comes to publishers and metric vendors, they tend to go for DORA. Signing DORA is a proactive, public statement and there is an open, independent record of your commitment. DORA also has an active Chair in Professor Stephen Curry, and a small staff in the form of a program director and community manager, all of whom will publicly endorse your signing which leads to good PR for the organisation.

A public endorsement of the LM leads to no such fanfare. Indeed, the LM feels rather abandoned by comparison. Despite a website and blog, there has been little active promotion of the Manifesto, nor any public recognition for anyone seeking to endorse it….”