A November 2017 study found that “limiting our search to all ‘articles’ and ‘reviews’ published between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012. … only 43% of primary scientific articles and 50% of review papers relating to coral dominated MPAs [marine protected areas] were freely accessible to decision makers” but didn’t seem to be aware that “SCOPUS only has 29.18% coverage of the DOAJ Open Access titles.”
“The release of the “Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2016/2017” (Statistical First Release 247) by HESA was accompanied around the sector by a series of sudden sharp intakes of breath in institutional data offices. It represents a brave and bold move into new ways of presenting and sharing data, and showed off a new format that will delight some and disappoint others. In this article I look at what has changed, and why.
The dash for designation. In applying for Designated Data Body status in England, HESA has made a move towards offering “open data”, suggesting that “From 2021 all of our publications will be available in open data format, allowing additional access to the information we enrich.” The Open Data Institute defines open data as “data that anyone can access, use or share,” which sounds like a pretty good thing. In many cases, though, open data has simply meant data that is available under an open (usually Creative Commons) licence – good to have legal clarity, but not at all the same as providing easily usable data.. HESA should be lauded for making this move for SFR248, but it is only a starting point….”
“Fordham Law School’s faculty rank among the most prolific and most highly downloaded legal scholarship writers, according to SSRN, a widely used open-access online repository. Fordham Law professors rank 8th all-time among U.S. and international law schools in authors posting papers (245), 18th in papers posted (1,379), and 20th in total number of downloads (335,295), based on figures updated on Jan. 1 listing SSRN’s top 750 law schools. In the past 12 months, Fordham also ranked 22nd in the United States and 27th globally in total downloads (37,113), and 22nd and 36th respectively in number of new papers (85)….”
Openness is central to the research endeavor. It is essential to promote reproducibility and appraisal of research, reduce misconduct, and ensure equitable access to and participation in science. Yet, calls for increased openness in science are often met with initial resistance. The introduction of pre-print servers, open access repositories, and open data sets were, for example, initially resisted, but eventually adopted without adverse effects to the scholarly ecosystem. The launch of the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) is facing similar obstacles. This initiative has campaigned for scholarly publishers to make openly available the references found in articles from their journals. Many publishers, including most of the large ones, support the initiative and have opened their references. However, the initiative still lacks support from a minority of the large publishers.
“Now celebrating its 15th anniversary, at the turn of the millennium the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) put forward a seminal statement defining ‘open access’ as the free online availability of peer reviewed research. Despite little support for the BOAI initially, open access publishing is now commonplace and an estimated 28% of scientific literature is now predicted to be published in this way. In our interview with Melissa Hagemann, Senior Program Manager of the Open Society Foundations, and co-organiser of the meeting in Budapest, we talk about the history of the movement and the challenges it still faces today….”
Recently, we announced a new Open Access hosting partnership with UCL Press. But just what does this mean, exactly?
Our customised hosting services are designed to help publishers showcase and distribute the Open Access journals that they publish to maximum effect. These are the natural extension of our marketing and indexing services, developed on the basis of our years of experience in content management architecture layered with advanced discovery technologies. By working with a range of publishers and content types, we have built a flexible platform to inter-connect scholarly articles at the level of their metadata, and establish a forum for user interaction around them. For Open Access journals, however, we are able to offer further advantages by embedding the full text articles within our discovery environment.
“This report presents the first major comparative analysis of usage data for OA and non-OA scholarly books, and provides an informed view of how a book benefits from OA publication. It also highlights the challenges involved in measuring the impact of OA on scholarly books and suggests that there is much to do across the whole scholarly communications network in supporting authors and their funders.”
“Goal 3: Change collection focus from “outside in” to “inside out”. This is the critical flip in strategy that academic libraries need to make….Measures: 1. The number of library staff that is allocated to “inside-out” activities, including scholarly communication, data management, repository management, digitization, etc. This might also be expressed as a percentage of all library staff or of staff involved in collections, including selection, acquisitions, cataloging, and circulation. 2. The portion of the collections budget, defined to include funds allocated to digital scholarship activities like Open Access Authors fund and to support community Open Access projects. 3. The amount of money invested in the acquisitions of special collections. This could be represented in dollars or as a percentage of the collections budget….”
“To round off a great Open Access week, we’d like to announce a new interesting project we’ve started. Continuing our efforts in the field of Open Science, Open Knowledge Finland was commissioned by CSC – IT Center for Science and the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture to implement a Study on the Openness of Scientific Publishers.”