“The simple point that I plan to return with is this?—?alignment is the new hustle. When Plans, Programmes, and Policies align with Sustainability, Stability, and Standardization then we’ll be riding a wave into the setting sun, whistling while we work on locavore open knowledge (to fully integrate all my ridiculous metaphors.)”
“The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is supportive of the aims and goals of Plan S, to make all publicly funded, peer-reviewed research publications immediately and freely Open Access to the reader.
Spreading new knowledge and allowing that knowledge to be built upon benefits all. We, therefore, believe that the universal availability of the publications arising from the research we fund is important to achieving our vision of ‘improving the health and wealth of the nation through research’.For this reason, we have a long-standing commitment to increasing research openness and transparency. We were one of the original funders of Europe PMC and we were the world’s first health research funder to publish comprehensive accounts of its commissioned research within its own Open Access journals.
We look forward to working closely with other research funders and the wider research community to achieve the aims of Plan S. As part of this work, we will be reviewing our current Open Access policy. …”
“Below are my thoughts on why funder mandates requiring grantees to publish immediate open access are essential and worthy of support. Specifically, my thoughts on why the new initiative (Plan S) from the European Commission to accelerate the transition to full open access is good for science and society. This plan was announced in September 2018 and is going into effect in January of 2020; it requires grantees of the funders participating in the plan to publish their research in fully open access journals only. This initiative is the result of a struggle from the late 1990s to get publishing to change. Plan S started with 11 national funding agencies in Europe, but has since been quickly expanding with Wellcome Trust, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other funders joining it recently….”
“The results of publicly funded research must be freely available to all. By 2020, universities want to make all peer-reviewed articles by Dutch researchers open-access publications as standard. Following a request by the government, in 2013 the VSNU formulated a plan to achieve this goal.
‘The Dutch universities’ strategy is unique on the international stage,’ says Koen Becking, executive open-access negotiator for the VSNU and Executive Board President at Tilburg University. Together with Tim van der Hagen, Executive Board President at Delft University of Technology, and Anton Pijpers, Executive Board President at Utrecht University, he leads executive negotiations with the major publishing houses….
The Dutch approach is such a success because the universities have formed a single negotiating body and are supported by the government. In this regard, Becking refers to the government’s open-access policy, which was continued by the new government in 2017….”
“This is the sixth year I’ve rounded up the year in open access – and it was the most remarkable. When the year began, the world’s largest academic publisher, Elsevier, had increased their annual profits, with an operating profit approaching US$1.2 billion in science, technology, and medicine – a profit margin of over 36%. [PDF] By year’s end, a hefty chunk of the world’s research community was walking away from big subscription deals with Elsevier and others.
That was a last resort after years of hard bargaining. While we could never be sure one or other side wouldn’t blink before it came to this, this didn’t seem to come out of the blue. What did, was a dramatic announcement from Europe in September that could usher in immediate open access to much publicly-funded research – not just after a one-year embargo….
Here are my month-by-month highlights of an action-packed year in open access to the scientific literature…..”
“In its latest State of Open Data survey, Figshare revealed that a hefty 64 per cent of respondents made their data openly available in 2018.
The percentage, up four per cent from last year and seven per cent from 2016, indicates a healthy awareness of open data and for Daniel Hook, chief executive of Figshare’s parent company, Digital Science, it spells good news….
For example, the majority of respondents – 63 per cent – support national mandates for open data, an eight per cent rise from 2017. And, at the same time, nearly half of the respondents – 46 per cent – reckon data citations motivate them to make data openly available. This figure is up seven per cent from last year….
Yet, amid the data-sharing success stories, myriad worries remain. Top of the pile is the potential for data misuse….
Inappropriate sharing of data is another key concern….
Results indicated that a mighty 58 per cent of respondents felt they do not receive sufficient credit for sharing data, while only nine per cent felt they do….
Coko recently won funding from the Sloan Foundation to build DataSeer, an online service that will use Natural Language Processing to identify datasets that are associated with a particular article. …”
“Today, President Trump signed into law the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking (FEBP) Act (H.R. 4174, S. 2046), which includes the Open, Public, Electronic and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act (Title II). The package passed Congress on Monday, December 31, 2018.
The OPEN Government Data Act requires all non-sensitive government data to be made available in open and machine-readable formats by default. It establishes Chief Data Officers (CDO) at federal agencies, as well as a CDO Council. The law’s mission is to improve operational efficiencies and government services, reduce costs, increase public access to government information, and spur innovation and entrepreneurship. This is a win for evidence-based decision-making within the government….”
“So what has this to do with academia and publishing? Well, as I muse on the relentless drive to open access (OA), especially looking at the rise of Plan S, I think it is worth asking if we are comfortable with what I see as an authoritarian sensibility to managing a researcher’s life….”
Abstract: This paper examines issues relating to the perceptions and adoption of open access (OA) and institutional repositories. Using a survey research design, we collected data from academics and other researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) at a university in Australia. We looked at factors influencing choice of publishers and journal outlets, as well as the use of social media and nontraditional channels for scholarly communication. We used an online questionnaire to collect data and used descriptive statistics to analyse the data. Our findings suggest that researchers are highly influenced by traditional measures of quality, such as journal impact factor, and are less concerned with making their work more findable and promoting it through social media. This highlights a disconnect between researchers’ desired outcomes and the efforts that they put in toward the same. Our findings also suggest that institutional policies have the potential to increase OA awareness and adoption. This study contributes to the growing literature on scholarly communication by offering evidence from the HASS field, where limited studies have been conducted. Based on the findings, we recommend that academic librarians engage with faculty through outreach and workshops to change perceptions of OA and the institutional repository.