Abstract: In this paper, we analyse the current availability of open citations data in one particular dataset, namely COCI (the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI citations; http://opencitations.net/index/coci) provided by OpenCitations. The results of these analyses show a persistent gap in the coverage of the currently available open citation data. In order to address this specific issue, we propose a strategy whereby the community (e.g. scholars and publishers) can directly involve themselves in crowdsourcing open citations, by uploading their citation data via the OpenCitations infrastructure into our new index, CROCI, the Crowdsourced Open Citations Index.
“CROCI, the Crowdsourced Open Citations Index, is a new OpenCitations Index containing citations deposited by individuals, identified by ORCiD identifiers, who have a legal right to publish them under a CC0 public domain waiver.
These citations are treated as first-class data entities, with accompanying properties including the citations timespan, modelled according to the data model described in the OpenCitations Indexes page. For a full explanation of how to provide citations to be ingested in CROCI, see our introductory blog post.
CROCI was first created and released on 3 March 2019….”
“Academics who offer their books free online reach many more readers and are cited slightly more often. Surprisingly enough, it has little effect on the sale of paper editions, positive or negative. …
Remarkably enough, offering books free online has hardly any noticeable effect on the sale of paper versions. ‘The assumption that publishing books via open access will generate a lot of free publicity, which will encourage readers to buy the books, doesn’t seem to hold water.’ But there is also little or no negative effect: an online version seems to have little or no impact on sales. That’s probably because online readers are a different public, Snijder suspects….
Offering a book free online does not automatically lead to optimum use of the work, Snijder stresses. ‘Most people rely on filter mechanisms to sort the wheat from the chaff.’ These could be library catalogues, mentions on social media, specialist websites or blogs by influential authors. ‘The use and success of open access books is mainly determined by language, subject, infrastructure and trust.’ “
Abstract: This article looks at whether there is evidence to support two prevailing assumptions about open access (OA). These assumptions are: (1) fully OA journals are inherently of poorer quality than journals supported by other business models and (2) the OA business model, that is, paying for publication, is more ‘competitive’ than the subscription journal access business model. The assumptions have been discussed in contemporary industry venues, and we have encountered them in the course of their work advising scholarly communications organizations. Our objective was to apply data analytics techniques to see if these assumptions bore scrutiny. By combining citation?based impact scores with data from publishers’ price lists, we were able to look for relationships between business model, price, and ‘quality’ across several thousands of journals. We found no evidence suggesting that OA journals suffer significant quality issues compared with non?OA journals. Furthermore, authors do not appear to ‘shop around’ based on OA price.
“The editor of a journal whose editorial board staged a mass walkout has said that he hopes that the decision encourages others to do the same.
After more than a year of crisis talks, the full editorial board of The Journal of Informetrics, a quarterly, peer-reviewed title published by Elsevier, resigned on 12 January, citing immovable differences over the publisher’s lack of progress towards open access….”
“Today, the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) announces the launch of the new journal Quantitative Science Studies (QSS), published by MIT Press. The editorial board of QSS consists of the members of the former editorial board of Journal of Informetrics (JOI), an Elsevier journal. The members of the editorial board of JOI, which include CWTS researchers Nees Jan van Eck, Anthony van Raan, and Paul Wouters, have unanimously resigned and have moved to QSS. An important reason for the resignation is Elsevier’s lack of support for the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC). Disagreements about journal ownership and open access policies have played a role as well….”
“After several months of earnest attempts on our part, Elsevier was told on January 10 that the Editorial Board of our Journal of Informetrics (JOI) had decided to resign. Subsequently the board announced they will start a new journal: Quantitative Science Studies (QSS). QSS is being launched with financial support from the MIT Libraries and the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB). More information on the board’s decision can be found in an announcement from the current Editor-in-Chief here. We wish the board well with their new venture.
Elsevier launched JOI in 2007 in collaboration with this scientific community, and it has since been consistently valued. After many years of strong collaboration, last year the board raised concerns with some of the journal’s policies. We responded to each of these concerns, explaining our position and making concrete proposals to attempt to bridge our differences and move forward together. These were outlined in a Letter to the Board in October 2018, the key points of which are included below….”
In the remainder of its statement, Elsevier responds to three points made by the resigning editors: (1) open citations, (2) open access, and (3) ownership.
“The Open Citations movement is something I’ve been watching with interest. It hasn’t really broken through into the mainstream yet, like Open Access has, because it’s a bit of a more complex topic and the benefits of it aren’t readily apparent. The main idea behind it is that publishers should add all the listed references for an article (i.e. the sources being cited by that article) to that article’s metadata and make this citation data open on platforms like Crossref….
The benefits of Open Citations are clear right? So what’s the hold up? Why don’t we have this now? Well, it’s time we return to an ongoing theme of this blog which is trying to guilt trip Elsevier into doing the right thing. All the large scholarly publishers (Wiley, Springer, Taylor and Francis, Sage) are now providing open references to Crossref. You can search Crossref Participation Reports yourself and see. Elsevier is the only one holding out….
Elsevier is between a rock and hard place here. They’re the only scholarly publisher with a citation database tool like Scopus. Every other publisher gets a clear benefit from opening up their citations, but for Elsevier it threatens the number of subscriptions to Scopus. With Open Citations, a tool like Scopus becomes less valuable, but if they keep their citations closed they’re directly impeding the progress of research….
If Scopus is actually, truly, threatened by open citations, then isn’t it clear that this is a tool that only existed because of Elsevier created artificial scarcity to grow their profit margin? …”
“As more and more editorial boards come into conflict over the open science policies of their journal, one decides to resign and take their expertise elsewhere. Today the entire editorial board of the Journal of Informetrics, a major publication in the field of Scientometrics and Informetrics, has unanimously resigned their position. In the future they will dedicate their time to a new full open access journal: Quantitative Science Studies. Robert-Jan Smits: “I hope that this example will inspire many more to follow suit.“
The move has been in the making for over a year tells Johan Rooryck (Leiden University), an expert in the field of flipping journals. He was involved in the transition on behalf of the Fair Open Access Alliance and explains the origin of the move. “It basically comes down to a conflict between the editorial board and Elsevier over the openness of the journal. In this case the availability of citation data was a major issue.”
In their response to a shifting landscape major publishing houses are preparing for a future where citation data and other metrics are expected to become much more important aspect of their business. It is therefore not unexpected that publishers want to retain ownership over this type of valuable data. Last year the European Commission was openly criticised for the involvement of Elsevier in the Open Science Monitor leading to a formal complaint to the European Ombudsman….”
“The entire editorial board of the Elsevier-owned Journal of Informetrics resignedThursday in protest over high open-access fees, restricted access to citation data and commercial control of scholarly work.
Today, the same team is launching a new fully open-access journal called Quantitative Science Studies. The journal will be for and by the academic community and will be owned by the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). It will be published jointly with MIT Press.
The editorial board of the Journal of Informetrics said in a statement that they were unanimous in their decision to quit. They contend that scholarly journals should be owned by the scholarly community rather than by commercial publishers, should be open access under fair principles, and publishers should make citation data freely available.
Elsevier said in a statement that it regretted the board’s decision and that it had tried to address their concerns.
“Since hearing of their concerns, we have explained our position and made a number of concrete proposals to attempt to bridge our differences,” Tom Reller, vice president of global communications at Elsevier, said in a statement. “Ultimately they decided to step down and we respect that decision and wish them the best in their future endeavors.”
Elsevier’s response to the board’s requests can be accessed in full here.
This is not the first time the editorial board of an Elsevier-owned journal has quit to start a competing journal. In 2015, the editorial board of top linguistics journal Lingua made headlines by leaving their postsand announcing plans to start a rival open-access publication called Glossa….”