“The purpose of this site is to promote scholarly journals run according to the Fair Open Access model (roughly, journals that are controlled by the scholarly community, and have no financial barriers to readers and authors – see the Fair Open Access Principles for full details). Such journals have a long history. Many are of high procedural quality, but are less well known than commercial journals of similar or lower quality.
One main aim of this site is to help such journals to coordinate their efforts to accelerate the creation of a journal ecosystem that will out-compete the commercially controlled journals. Such efforts are complementary to the work of discipline-based organizations such as LingOA, MathOA, PsyOA, and the overarching FOAA, that focus primarily on converting commercially controlled subscription journals to Fair Open Access….”
“Abstract: The website Sci-Hub enables users to download PDF versions of scholarly articles, including many articles that are paywalled at their journal’s site. Sci-Hub has grown rapidly since its creation in 2011, but the extent of its coverage was unclear. Here we report that, as of March 2017, Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of the 81.6 million scholarly articles registered with Crossref and 85.1% of articles published in toll access journals. We find that coverage varies by discipline and publisher, and that Sci-Hub preferentially covers popular, paywalled content. For toll access articles, we find that Sci-Hub provides greater coverage than the University of Pennsylvania, a major research university in the United States. Green open access to toll access articles via licit services, on the other hand, remains quite limited. Our interactive browser at https://greenelab.github.io/scihub allows users to explore these findings in more detail. For the first time, nearly all scholarly literature is available gratis to anyone with an Internet connection, suggesting the toll access business model may become unsustainable.”
“Open Access and a transparent Open Peer-to-Peer evaluation are the prerequisites for a new peer review concept which provides more benefits for reviewers than the present review system in scholarly publishing….”
“In September 2016 Sage announced that it had acquired the full journal portfolio of the open access publisher Libertas Academica (LA), which it said consisted of 83 titles….
What the press release did not say is that Libertas Academica had at one time been on Beall’s list of “Potential, possible, or probable predatory” publishers….
[David Ross, SAGE Publishing’s Executive Director of Open Access] added, “I can assure you that the standards of the journals published … would satisfy even the most stringent definitions of peer review.”
Why then last Friday did the archival service PORTICO announce that 21 LA journals have been “triggered” in Portico as they are “no longer available through any online platform.” I take this to mean that the journals have been discontinued….”
“When EdReports reviews curricula, educators take notice. So Open Up Resources and Illustrative Mathematics — partners in developing an integrated math curriculum of open educational resources (OER) for grades 6-8 — were thrilled with the results of a review released Wednesday.”
Abstract: Energy policy often builds on insights gained from quantitative energy models and their underlying data. As climate change mitigation and economic concerns drive a sustained transformation of the energy sector, transparent and well-founded analyses are more important than ever. We assert that models and their associated data must be openly available to facilitate higher quality science, greater productivity through less duplicated effort, and a more effective science-policy boundary. There are also valid reasons why data and code are not open: ethical and security concerns, unwanted exposure, additional workload, and institutional or personal inertia. Overall, energy policy research ostensibly lags behind other fields in promoting more open and reproducible science. We take stock of the status quo and propose actionable steps forward for the energy research community to ensure that it can better engage with decision-makers and continues to deliver robust policy advice in a transparent and reproducible way.
“It is a peculiar situation when commercial science journals can not only ask investigators to pay for the privilege of sending in their work but also charge universities and others for the privilege of accessing work that was publicly funded.”
“Enago, the leader in editing and publication support services, today announced the worldwide release of Open Access Journal Finder (OAJF) that aims at enabling research scholars to find open access journals relevant to their manuscript. OAJF uses a validated journal index provided by Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) – the most trusted non-predatory open access journal directory. The free journal finder indexes over 10,700 pre-vetted journals and allows researchers to compare their paper with over 2.7 million articles and counting. Seeing the positive response in the initial pilot stage, OAJF has also been rolled out in languages other than English, primarily Chinese, Japanese, and Korean….”
“The Enago Open Access Journal Finder enables you to find quality open access journals that are pre-vetted to protect you from predatory publishers. This free journal finder solves common issues on predatory journals, journal authenticity, and article processing fees by utilizing a validated journal index provided by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Enago’s proprietary search algorithm helps you shortlist journals that are most relevant to your manuscript and research objectives, thus giving you the best chance of publication.”
“A growing number of scientists are reporting their methods and data online and in real time, rather than only publishing their most exciting results behind a paywall in some academic journal. It’s called open science, but is nowhere near being the accepted way to carry out scientific research. This has to change. Now. Maintaining public trust in science depends on it….”