“We propose that editorial boards of journals ask their current publisher to agree to the principles of Fair Open Access….We propose that if a journal’s existing publisher cannot or will not meet these conditions the editorial board give notice of resignation, and transfer the journal to a publisher meeting the conditions….”
“In 2016, within the FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot, a sub-project focused on Alternative Funding Mechanisms for APC-free Open Access Journals was launched. Approximately one year later, we would like to share the main results of this workline with the public – as we believe these findings can be of interest for other initiatives and publishing platforms.”
“A spate of recent articles in the Guardian have drawn attention to lots of reasons why open access to research publications is reasonable, beneficial and even inevitable. But two recent letters columns in the Guardian, headlined “Information that we want to be free” and “Better models for open access”, have perpetuated some long-running misconceptions about open access that need to be addressed. It’s not surprising that for-profit, barrier-based publishers are fighting to stem the tide, by misinformation if necessary, but researchers and the general public need not be taken in….”
“We have reached peak subscription (Jan Velterop coined the term during an SSP panel I moderated a few years ago). I subsequently wrote a piece in the Scholarly Kitchen on this topic. What I mean by this is that library budgets are stagnant and there are no new markets left—publishers have already sold into all the major research institutes in China, India, South American, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. The Big Deal is a mature product. This means that publishers must come up with new sources of revenue. Open access (OA) is part of this equation, but the OA market has not grown as fast as many predicted. This would ordinarily lead to a spate of acquisitions, but there are not many independent publishers left other than societies, and they are not selling their publications (though they are increasingly licensing them)….”
“How are authors of journal articles paying for Open Access (OA) fees or Article Processing Costs (APCs)? What is the administrative burden for authors? And do their research organisations have an accurate overview of all these payments?
A better understanding of such authors’ perspectives on APC payments will support the development of an optimal communication and administrative strategy with the aim of encouraging authors’ usage of existing APC-funding mechanisms.
For these purposes, Knowledge Exchange has carried out a study among authors at six research organisations. In total, 1,069 authors participated in online surveys focused on their 2015 articles published in OA journals or in subscription journals that offer the option of publishing individual articles on OA for an additional fee, so-called hybrid journals.”
“I’ve decided to quit academia.edu and researchgate and put all of my pre-prints/manuscripts on PsyArXiv. I deleted any manuscript copies that I had uploaded to academia.edu and RG and removed my accounts from them. I’m writing you because you posted a copy of our collaborative work on researchgate. It is of course your prerogative as to how you share our work, but I thought I might ask you to consider taking that copy of our paper down. I’m trying to streamline access points for our work and also to redirect traffic away from these commercial sites. PsyArXiv is indexed by Google scholar, so the work remains freely accessible in a space backed by a non-profit entity (the Open Science Framework). Another benefit of OSF is that it is backed by a large preservation grant, so that the works on PsyArXiv will be supported in perpetuity even if OSF grows or changes.”