“Following on from the recent webinar entitled Scholarly Communication & COVID-19: Closing the Loop for Effective Peer Review, we asked our speakers to summarise their talks by offering a few key takeaways, which you can find below.
We also asked speakers to respond to the many questions that were posed by attendees via the webinar chat. You can find those questions and answers directly under the takeaways. This may be useful for those who missed it or wish to share with colleagues.
Abstract: In this presentation, the editor and managing editor of the Georgia Library Quarterly (GLQ), the journal of the Georgia Library Association, will provide a brief history of the journal and share information related to current publication practices, in addition to discussing future plans, with a focus on sustainability, including maintaining a robust editorial board, ensuring a reliable peer review process, and the importance of legacy planning to make sure that future editors gain the knowledge and expertise to continue to successfully manage and publish a long-standing and vital journal for Georgia librarians and librarianship. GLQ is published by Kennesaw State University’s Digital Commons. GLQ is an open access publication that applies the Creative Commons Attribution License to all articles, with authors retaining the copyright while allowing others to reuse and copy the article, provided the original authors and source are cited. Attendees of the presentation will gain insight on how an open access learned society journal with an all-volunteer editorial board operates and learn ways to maintain continuity with publishing practices to promote sustainability.
“This is a guest speaker presentation given at the virtual Open Science Fellows Program 2020 in Berlin. The presentation captures the speakers perspectives on Open Science where he related it to the story of William Kamkwamba from Malawi, his journey through Open Science and Projects and Initiatives that are making use of Open Science in overcoming the challenges of COVID-19 today.”
“In the past years, principles around open scholarly infrastructure have been proposed to provide guidance on development and procurement of services, among others by SPARC NA. As a next step, in the Netherlands, a set of guidelines, now under open consultation, will inform future terms and conditions for collaborations with third parties on research information.
These guiding principles address: – ownership of (meta)data – enduring access – trusted and transparent provenance – open collaboration with the market – interoperability – community-owned governance But how do these resonate with service providers? If the recent result of the Dutch negotiations with Elsevier shows anything, it is that there are multiple interpretations as to what collaboration on open science infrastructure means. In this session, we intend to have a discussion with open science specialists and providers of open scholarly infrastructure. Do for-profit and non-profit providers have different interests in this regard? Will these principle-based collaborations fit the goals of open science? Organized by Bianca Kramer, Jeroen Bosman, Jeroen Sondervan (Utrecht University Library).”
“An increasing number of LIBER institutions—and also institutions and consortia worldwide—are looking to integrate their Open Access strategies with Transformative Agreements. Such agreements enable institutions to repurpose their subscription expenditures to support open access publishing rather than paywalls.
Transformative Agreements (TA) specifically aim to rein in hybrid publishing costs and liberate the lump-sum payments of subscriptions: authors no longer pay APCs and, instead, their institutions (via their libraries) repurpose former subscription expenditures to remunerate publishers for their editorial services associated with the open access publication of accepted articles. While each agreement is unique and context-specific, TAs share a common goal and seek to adhere to the ESAC Guidelines for Transformative Agreements. In order to better understand the latest benchmarks achieved with TAs, this webinar will present two case studies of TA negotiated by LIBER members, illustrating in what way they are considered to be transformative and providing an open assessment of to what degree they have been successful in achieving their goals.”
“Authors-pay models have served as an invaluable first step to fully open scholarly communication, but they exhibit inherent biases and shortcomings –appropriate for some fields, institutions, and regions, and exclusionary for many others. This panel, held on April 9, 2020, featured three diverse non-profit publishers that are exploring more inclusive non- APC open access models: Open Library of Humanities (OLH), Annual Reviews (AR), and PLOS (Public Library of Science).
The unique market pressures and opportunities requiring innovation for each of their open access business models will be described. All three publishers have worked closely with researchers, libraries, and funders to ensure that their approaches are collaborative and transparent. Speakers: Richard Gallagher Annual Reviews Martin Eve Birkbeck, University of London and OLH Sara Rouhi PLOS …”
“I am delighted to announce that the R2R conference has now made available the video of the debate — as part of a playlist that is slowly filling up with videos of all the conference’s sessions and workshops.”
“When work does not reach OA publication, readership from the wider medical community may be restricted, limiting the scope for critical appraisal to either conference attendees (von Elm et al., 2003) or those able to mitigate the financial cost of paper access (Velterop, 2003). The gold standard for anatomical research accessibility maytherefore be OA peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting….
The primary objective of this study was to quantify the proportion of anatomy research papers that are available as gold and bronze OA. The secondary objective comprised quantitative analysis of citation rates between gold and bronze OA and non-OA papers….
The combined proportion of open access publications was 20.0% (125 of 625). The open access publication rate from research presented was 18.75% (69 of 368) at BACA and 21.79% (56 of 257) at AACA [American Association of Clinical Anatomists]. The total number of publications published by year and the average OA publication rate per year can be seen in Figure 2 for AACA and Figure 3 for BACA [British Association of Clinical Anatomists]….
This study is the first to assess the longitudinal citation rates of OA and non-OA Anatomy publications and one of the largest individual studies comparing OA and non-OA citation rates in medical research. These data have shown that citation rates are significantly higher (n on-OA 15.14 vs OA 18.95 p=0.047) amongst OA anatomy papers presented at these two conferences. On average, conference papers were cited 16.4 times (BACA 16.56, AACA 16.19) ranging from 0-236. In view of this, it is encouraging that BACA OA publication rates have improved in recent years….”
“Following on from this week’s webinar entitled PhD students take on openness and academic culture, we asked our speakers to summarise their talks by offering a few key takeaways, which you can find below. This may be useful for those who missed it or wish to share with colleagues. You can also access the full audio recording.
We have also asked speakers to respond to the questions that were posed by attendees via the webinar chat. Those questions and answers will be posted directly under the takeaways in a short while….”