TRANSFORMATIVE AGREEMENTS – ESAC

Transformative agreements are those contracts negotiated between institutions (libraries, national and regional consortia) and publishers that transform the business model underlying scholarly journal publishing, moving from one based on toll access (subscription) to one in which publishers are remunerated a fair price for their open access publishing services.

The transformative mechanism of these agreements is grounded in the evidence-based understanding that, globally, the amount of money currently paid in journal subscriptions, which amounts to an average cost of Euro 3800 per article, is amply sufficient to sustain open access publishing of the global scholarly article output….”

TRANSFORMATIVE AGREEMENTS – ESAC

Transformative agreements are those contracts negotiated between institutions (libraries, national and regional consortia) and publishers that transform the business model underlying scholarly journal publishing, moving from one based on toll access (subscription) to one in which publishers are remunerated a fair price for their open access publishing services.

The transformative mechanism of these agreements is grounded in the evidence-based understanding that, globally, the amount of money currently paid in journal subscriptions, which amounts to an average cost of Euro 3800 per article, is amply sufficient to sustain open access publishing of the global scholarly article output….”

What is Open?

Open Source for Open Scholarship began when a community of people gathered to discuss how open projects might better support each other. Adam Hyde, co-founder of the Collaborative Open Knowledge Foundation (Coko), convened a group of people working on open tools for science and research and facilitated a one day meeting. This turned into regular calls, the development of a supportive network, and lead to the 2018 meeting that produced this handbook.  Face to face meetings and regular calls allow a community to develop a common vocabulary. Community vocabularies may be unclear to folks who were not in the room or on the call when terms were discussed.  This post will define the terms we use to frame our work. Our hope is that this will both give context to the posts in this series and make it easy for newcomers to jump in to open source and scholarship community discussions….”

Are we being wilfully blind about the transformation that’s needed in scholarly publishing?

This brings to mind another esoteric wall game, “Open Access”, where it could be argued that the remorseless application of pressure over the past two decades has advanced open access inch by painful inch to the point where we are all exhausted, but the goal?—?no paywalls?—?remains out of reach.

That both games have remained goalless for so long suggests each contains a fundamental flaw that can only be fixed by some sort of transformation of the way it’s played. Whisper it quietly, but unlike tradition-loving private schools in Britain, “transformative” has emerged as a new buzzword in the Open Access lexicon….”

Invest in Open Infrastructure: A Concept 0.2 | Invest in Open Infrastructure

“We imagine a world in which communities of researchers, scholars, and knowledge workers across the globe are fully enabled to share, discover, and work together. It is clear that the needs of today’s diverse scholarly communities are not being met by the existing largely uncoordinated scholarly infrastructure, which is dominated by vendor products that take ownership of the scholarly process and data. We intend to create a new open infrastructure system that will enable us to work in a more integrated, collaborative and strategic way. It will support global connections and consistency where it is appropriate, and local and contextual requirements where that is needed….

It is clear that the needs of today’s diverse scholarly communities are not being met by the existing scholarly infrastructure, which is dominated by vendor products that take ownership of the scholarly process and data as well as by North Atlantic dominance and digital colonialism. The goals of these vendors is largely to generate profit, which stands in stark contrast to the values of mission-driven educational and research organisations where innovation and open access are central. These products favor vendor lock-in and monopoly models by nature, despite a clear incompatibility with the scholarly values of our communities. The dependence of research and scholarship on digital infrastructure has grown. In the scholarly community, there is a new awareness of the opportunities of open infrastructure (including governance for user communities and contextual relevance alongside the retention of resources within scholarly communities) and new engagement as well as a sense of urgency to work together to support stable, sustainable, interoperable and open infrastructure….

The Framework will serve a number of essential functions for stakeholders concerned with the maintenance and development of this infrastructure:

  1. Research and Reporting: tracking projects, infrastructure services, existing mechanisms for community supported infrastructure, funding data and funder needs; and exchanging knowledge on this research on open infrastructure.
  2. Definition: establishing criteria for OI, defining the workflow of scholarly communication, and identifying areas of redundancy and gaps.
  3. Collaboration: building agreement among stakeholders, creating a healthy, competitive environment where end-to-end solutions that meet stakeholder needs and meet OI criteria can be identified and packaged.
  4. Advocacy and Engagement: communicating principles, priorities, good practices and practical tools.
  5. Matching and Assessment: Develop and maintain a methodology for matching what is needed to what is available, prioritizing collaborative solutions. The framework would help to identify areas for investment in the connections between projects that will create more fully adoptable solutions, and promote investment therein….

Our Definition of Open Infrastructure for Scholarly Communications

  • By “Infrastructure” we mean the sets of services, protocols, standards and software that the academic ecosystem needs in order to perform its functions throughout the research lifecycle – from the earliest phases of research, collaboration and experimentation through data collection and storage, data organization, data analysis and computation, authorship, submission, review and annotation, copyediting, publishing, archiving, citation, discovery and more.
  • Open infrastructure is the narrower sets of services, protocols, standards and software that can empower communities to collectively build the systems and infrastructures that deliver new improved collective benefits without restrictions, and for a healthy global interrelated infrastructure system….”

Transformative Agreements: A Primer – The Scholarly Kitchen

At its most fundamental, a contract is a transformative agreement if it seeks to shift the contracted payment from a library or group of libraries to a publisher away from subscription-based reading and towards open access publishing. Though there are many flavors of transformative agreements, the following attempts to offer a description of their core components.

Transformative agreements are everywhere and, although they have received greater attention over the past year, particularly in North America, they are not new. All five of the largest publishers, as well as other smaller ones, have signed one or more transformative agreements. These agreements may be with an individual library (e.g., MIT/Royal Society of Chemistry), a library system (e.g., University of California/Cambridge University Press), or a library consortia (e.g., VSNU-UKB/Springer Nature).  …”

Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing

To conclude, there is need of a well-formulated, uniform terminology for predatory publishing practices. The responsibility collectively lies with journal editors, institutions and organizations. Educators and researchers should avoid publishing in deceptive or parodical (spoofy) journals and help raise the standards of legitimate, low-quality journals. It is time for the scientific community to decide which path to take: towards deception or towards helping low-quality journals.”

Changing our (Dis)Course: A Distinctive Social Justice Aligned Definition of Open Education | Lambert | Journal of Learning for Development – JL4D

Abstract: This paper investigates the degree to which recent digital Open Education literature is aligned to social justice principles, starting with the first UNESCO definition of Open Educational Resources (OER). A critical analysis of 19 texts was undertaken to track dominant and alternative ideas shaping the development of Open Education since 2002 as it broadened and developed from OER to Open Educational Practices (OEP). The paper begins by outlining the method of texts selection, including defining the three principles of social justice (redistributive, recognitive and representational justice) used as an analytical lens. Next the paper sets out findings which show where and how the principles of social justice became lost within the details of texts, or in other digital agendas and technological determinist debates. Finally, a new social justice aligned definition for Open Education is offered. The aim of the new definition is to provide new language and a strong theoretical framework for equitable education, as well as to clearly distinguish the field of Open Education from mainstream constructivist eLearning.

‘Don’t close the definition of “open” for books’ | Research Information

Open access began about 20 years ago – with the formal definition, justifying O and A capitalisations, being largely settled by 2003. Since then this definition of open access has been most successfully applied to journal articles.

Now books are getting focused attention. Some research funders, particularly in Europe but elsewhere too, are determined to radically increase the pace at which open access grows. Research they fund that is published as books may in many cases need to become open access. However, current approaches to open access for journals cannot work for books at a large scale.

If we apply open access to books in the way it is applied to journals, we will fail. If the failure is simply that books do not become more ‘open’, that would be one thing. But it is possible that academic researchers will find themselves required to publish books in ways that will be unsustainable for academic publishers. For Cambridge University Press, where I work, if our books earned only a few percentage points less revenue than they do now, our books programme would become loss-making. Academic books are a vital part of many researchers’ lives and careers. We must not put them at risk….

A definition of ‘open’ for books will therefore need to focus on content being freely readable while relaxing the requirements for allowing re-distribution and re-use. …”