COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) Annual Report 2016-17 (Public Version)

“COAR has been working to strengthen our role in terms of capacity building. We launched the COAR Webinar and Discussion Series to help raise awareness of our activities as well as important trends for repositories. We have also been actively seeking opportunities to develop more concrete training activities for repository managers, through leveraging relationships with partners and looking for external funding opportunities. It is expected that we will be able to launch some training events in 2017, with a special focus on developing regions. While sustainability and staffing continues to be a challenge for COAR, since the reduction of membership fees several years ago, we did gain several new members in 2016 and expect membership to continue to rise in 2017. We continue to benefit greatly from the voluntary participation of members and external experts in many of our activities, and these contributions are fundamental to COAR’s progress. On behalf of the Executive Board, and the COAR staff, I want to thank you for your participation in COAR and I look forward to continued engagement and collaboration in 2017-2018 year….”

Faculty Survey Open Educational Resources | Babson College

“?????Awareness of open educational resources (OER) among U.S. higher education teaching faculty has improved, but still remains less than a majority, according to a new report from the Babson Survey Research Group (BSRG).”

Open Access Funding Pilot: 400+ requests approved, €1 million distributed – LIBER

“LIBER is in charge of running the OpenAIRE FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot.

Approved requests for the FP7 post-grant OA pilot. The pilot recently completed its first year of operation, and has already committed its first €1 million in funding, out of €4 million total. Some results of the work done so far are included in a progress report.”

The Global Gold Open Access “Flip”: A Realistic Plan or Magical Thinking? | The Scholarly Kitchen

“As long as there has been open access (OA), there has been talk of a global ‘flip’ of research journals away from the subscription business model. The difficulties in coordinating an enormous number of stakeholders with different interests have continued to make this unlikely. However, a recent paper from the Max Planck Digital Library claiming that, ‘An internationally concerted shifting of subscription budgets is possible at no financial risk, maybe even at lower overall costs,’ has once again fueled talk of a flip. Has this paper discovered a golden ticket to global OA sustainability, or is it based on flawed assumptions? Long-time green OA advocate Stevan Harnad has written at length about the improbable nature of a global overnight flip to Gold OA via an organized system of membership deals, and about the adverse selection such a system would create … Much of the drive toward a flip is based in the EU and the UK, where public higher education is highly centralized at the national level. This creates the notion that there exists a global pool of funds that could be diverted away from subscriptions and toward OA fees. But the difficulties in coordinating action between self-interested parties becomes even more evident when one thinks about how libraries are funded and subscriptions are paid for in the US, still the major producer of scholarly articles worldwide.  I frequently ask US librarians where their subscription budget comes from and the responses vary widely, but the most common answers are tuition, student fees and some portion of grant overheads. Because tuition and student fees are collected by individual institutions, there’s no big pool of funds that can be diverted centrally from one purpose to another. Such a flip would massively increase the financial burden on productive institutions, while freeing non-productive institution from any responsibility in funding research access.  If I’m running a small teaching school and can save money by cancelling subscriptions, my Dean is going to be much more interested in spending our students’ tuition fees on our students, rather than sending that money off to Harvard to help their poor professors publish papers.  US universities are increasingly cash-strapped, which makes any coordinated give-aways like this unlikely. And having major contributors to the literature like the US, Japan and Australia choose the Green route puts a damper on any global move to Gold OA  But a recent paper from three members of the Max Planck Digital Library suggests the whole thing could be done immediately and at a cost-savings. Their thesis is that each individual library could stop paying subscription fees and instead divert those same funds toward article processing charges (APCs) for their campus authors, and that doing this could happen within current library budgets, requiring no additional funds from outside, and no pooling of funds between institutions.  As Rick Anderson recently pointed out, there’s a difference between advocacy and analysis. Reading this paper, it’s clear which this is. The authors clearly state that they are trying to advocate for a cause …”