Cancer Reports is transitioning to Open Access—Embracing Open Science – Bansal – – Cancer Reports – Wiley Online Library

“Continuing its stride towards embracing Open Science, we are pleased to share the exciting news that Cancer Reports is transitioning to Open Access. Starting from 13th August, 2020, all articles submitted and accepted for publication in Cancer Reports will be published Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. …”

Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

From Partisan to Partnership

“In the wake of OA2020 and Plan S, publishers are increasingly under pressure to enter into transformative agreements that transparently shift their business model from subscription to one based on open access publishing services. Embarking on such a transition can be extremely daunting for publishers, considering their rightful concern over long-term economic sustainability. Other issues have also become apparent. Many publishers and libraries lack the business knowledge to match author affiliations with subscription revenues/costs. Large publishers may be ready for a cost-neutral transformative agreement based on per-article charges, but an APC-based model may not work for other publishers/disciplines/institutions. Past attrition rates and subscription price increases have made both publishers and libraries wary. And the historic transactional relationship between publishers and libraries has given little opportunity to develop trust. Yet in recent months, a growing number of publishers have chosen the path of absolute customer engagement and transparency in order to define the terms of a new economic model or transformative agreement. This panel will offer perspectives from successful publisher-library collaborations that have led to forward-looking agreements and new business models. Panellists, comprising sets of publisher-library dyads, will share their insights into how transparency and trust transformed their relationships from partisan contracting parties into collaborative partnerships….”

 

From Partisan to Partnership

“In the wake of OA2020 and Plan S, publishers are increasingly under pressure to enter into transformative agreements that transparently shift their business model from subscription to one based on open access publishing services. Embarking on such a transition can be extremely daunting for publishers, considering their rightful concern over long-term economic sustainability. Other issues have also become apparent. Many publishers and libraries lack the business knowledge to match author affiliations with subscription revenues/costs. Large publishers may be ready for a cost-neutral transformative agreement based on per-article charges, but an APC-based model may not work for other publishers/disciplines/institutions. Past attrition rates and subscription price increases have made both publishers and libraries wary. And the historic transactional relationship between publishers and libraries has given little opportunity to develop trust. Yet in recent months, a growing number of publishers have chosen the path of absolute customer engagement and transparency in order to define the terms of a new economic model or transformative agreement. This panel will offer perspectives from successful publisher-library collaborations that have led to forward-looking agreements and new business models. Panellists, comprising sets of publisher-library dyads, will share their insights into how transparency and trust transformed their relationships from partisan contracting parties into collaborative partnerships….”

 

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back – The Pandemic’s Impact on Open Access Progress – The Scholarly Kitchen

“2019 was a watershed year for progress in the transition of research publishing to open access (OA). The shakeup caused by Plan S had some time to sink in, cancellations of big subscription deals ramped up, and as I noted last October, the conversation had shifted from “eventually things will move to OA,” to instead a sense of urgency, “we’re on the clock for a move to OA.” The value of open science (increased transparency, open data, open access to research results) has become increasingly obvious during the current global health crisis. Both the positives (rapid reporting and sharing of information) and the negatives (the glut of bad science being issued as preprints and promoted via mainstream media without proper curation) are now evident, with the good generally outweighing the bad. Despite the daily evidence of the importance of shifting to an open science environment for research, the economic fallout from the pandemic is going to make necessary progress difficult and slow….

Business models beyond the APC may have an even bigger struggle ahead. Because of the many shortcomings of the APC model, a variety of OA business models that can be applied in different contexts and that are appropriate for each community and research field are needed for long-term sustainability. Right now, most of the non-APC models in-play rely upon voluntary spend from someone. Will the cost paid for publication of a Diamond-OA journal out of a library make the cut when budgets are being slashed? Collective action strategies that rely upon libraries voluntarily paying for memberships or subscribe-to-open models are going to be similarly hard to justify, given that you receive all the same benefits of the model whether or not you choose to pay….

Open access relies on the concept that knowledge is a public good, but acknowledges that there are costs and efforts necessary to produce and maintain that public good. The global health crisis has the potential to bring stakeholders together in support of improving the way we communicate research results, but the accompanying economic downturn may create significant roadblocks to those efforts.”

Auf dem Weg zur Open Access Transformation | Informationspraxis

From Google’s English:  Since 2010, the DFG program “Open Access Publishing” has been a central instrument for the institutional funding of open access publications at German universities. In the course of a DFG program evaluation, the central library of the Research Center Jülich created a data analysis that shows the publication output of the sponsored universities illuminated in 2011-2017. The results of the study lead to the following findings:

The DFG program has proven to be structuring for the funded universities, which thus have a publication fund located at the university library.
Open access publishing is a trend at German universities, as the tenfold increase in the gold open access rate at the sponsored and non-sponsored universities between 2006 and 2017 shows.
The German university publication system is still a long way from a complete open access transformation, since the proportion of closed access publications has declined little and the absolute number of closed access publications has even increased.
With a few exceptions, the level of APCs among the publishers under review increases significantly and on average exceeds the price increase rates for subscription magazines.

Recommendations for action at the end of the article show what funded institutions and funding agencies should take into account in future monitoring procedures.

Scholar-led Open Access Publishers Are Not “Author-Chutes” · punctum books

“Both Open Book Publishers (OBP) and punctum books recently shared publicly that their per-title cost for high-quality open access monographs hovers somewhere around the $6,000 mark. This number is markedly different from the findings of the the 2016 Ithaka report “The Costs of Publishing Monographs,” which found that open access monographs published by university presses cost between $30,000 and $50,000.

As both institutional libraries and funding bodies invested in a transition to a fully open access scholarly communications landscape are naturally seeking how best to spend their money in the public interest, it comes as no surprise that the disclosure of our numbers, and accompanying financial transparency, has elicited diverse responses from the scholarly publishing world….

Rather, we invite university publishers to transparently disclose their financial records, so that we can level the playing field and have a discussion on what is really important: how we can help the entire scholarly communications landscape to transition to a sustainably open and cost-efficient access model, with the freedom to read, write, edit, and publish, and where public knowledge is truly accessible to the public.”

Open access checklist for books and chapters | Open research | Springer Nature

“Many research funders and institutions worldwide have introduced policies requiring authors to make their research openly accessible, whether through immediate open access publication, or through archiving a version of their manuscript in a repository. An increasing number of these policies apply to monographs and chapters in edited collections. Follow our open access checklist to help you meet the requirements of your funders and institutions, and identify potential sources of book processing charge (BPC) or chapter processing charge (CPC) funding if you are publishing OA.”

 

Open access checklist for books and chapters | Open research | Springer Nature

“Many research funders and institutions worldwide have introduced policies requiring authors to make their research openly accessible, whether through immediate open access publication, or through archiving a version of their manuscript in a repository. An increasing number of these policies apply to monographs and chapters in edited collections. Follow our open access checklist to help you meet the requirements of your funders and institutions, and identify potential sources of book processing charge (BPC) or chapter processing charge (CPC) funding if you are publishing OA.”