“As we have argued in previous publications, it is clear that any need for payment in the scholarly communications process will exclude significant sectors of the global research community. For example, subscription-based systems exclude less-prosperous scholars, who frequently cannot even manage sufficient access to read the literature relevant to their work. Similarly, the system based on article processing charges (APCs) favored by some sectors of the OA community excludes many scholars from authorship, however attractive the open reading may prove….Honestly, we do not see any of the OA approaches being developed and promoted as fully addressing this challenge. We have presented arguments previously that an ideal solution is what can be termed “platinum” OA: journals that are open to readers and authors alike without cost or barrier. These journals can be funded via subsidy from interested entities (institutions, funders, or societies) that prioritize effective and open communication over financial gain, and that develop under collaborations in a cross-stakeholder model (e.g., university presses with scholarly societies, libraries with funders, nonprofit publishers with scholarly societies). We note, as have many others, that funds exist for a shift to platinum OA in the form of the massive subscription budgets that institutions have maintained to keep up with the rising costs of commercial, closed-access journals….”
“We see two logical ways forward in developing a model for scholarly communication in a world that has a robust Internet technology infrastructure. One model builds virtual walls into that architecture to reflect the artificial borders of nation-states and, in a finer detail, societies and corporations contained within them. The other is an open, complex, networked, borderless model that facilitates unhindered scholarly communication planet-wide, bringing all relevant data and all possible informed minds to the scholarly conversation. The former is a model that recreates in virtual space the early nineteenth-century achievements in nation-building and class stratification. The latter represents a model reflecting twenty-first-century realities and needs. We are betting on the latter, and are working actively towards its efficient implementation.”
“Published in Science in 2015, the TOP [Transparency and Openness Promotion] guidelines include eight modular standards, each with three levels of increasing stringency. Journals select which of the eight transparency standards they wish to adopt for their journal, and select a level of implementation for each standard. These features provide flexibility for adoption depending on disciplinary variation, but simultaneously establish community standards….”
“Our visit to Cuba not only showed us the history and culture of our Caribbean neighbor but also highlighted barriers to full participation in open access that we anticipated may be shared by others in the global south. Some of these barriers included the digital divide, inequalities in relative purchasing power, global power structures as reflected in scholarly publishing, the dominance of Western scholarly standards, and the privileging of English language scholarship.
While there may be little the OA movement can do directly to influence the Internet infrastructure or the tenure process in developing regions, nonetheless, it can find ways to improve those scholars’ access to OA materials and participation in OA publishing. The OA movement can hold firm to its philosophical underpinnings of global inclusion by taking actions mentioned throughout this paper: it can encourage OA websites to accommodate low bandwidth users; develop more inclusive web discovery tools, publishing standards, and evaluative metrics; assist repositories and journals in creating metadata and websites that aid indexing by search engines; help OA publications and initiatives find funding; and find ways to ease the language gap for those who aren’t English native speakers.
All these observations aren’t intended to trivialize the progress and impact open access has achieved thus far. They’re meant to encourage the OA movement in the West to come even closer to the goal of global inclusion, although what we’ve outlined is by no means all the challenges scholars in Cuba and developing regions face around OA. We give the last thoughts to Maha Bali, an Egyptian academic at the American University, Cairo: ‘But as a scholar from the global South… what is one to do? Wait until the North listens? Because, really, so far the only way to make them listen has been to write in their language, their journals, to their standards of scholarship and hope for the best.’61”
“In keeping with its role as a bellwether for a changing profession, the Roadshow’s latest revision points to several clear lessons in designing engagement. At a high level, engagement must recognize the diversity of scholarly communication and the variety of paths libraries are following. For many stakeholders within and beyond the library, the perception that scholarly communication is simply a conversation about open access to scholarly articles remains. This can be dispiriting for librarians who may feel that if they cannot sustain a large open access fund or drive a campus mandate then scholarly communication “isn’t for their campus.” Similarly, campus administrators and faculty may dismiss scholarly communication as little more than library complaints about funding.
Instead, scholarly communication should be presented as an opportunity to do new things that advance the core mission of the library and the institution. Scholarly communication should be understood as supporting exciting new types of scholarship, documenting the broader impact of the university’s work, reducing barriers to student success, and enabling compliance with complicated mandates from national funding agencies. The Roadshow’s use of a pre-survey and modules is one way to tailor outreach to the priorities of diverse institutions, but on-campus engagement can do this in a variety of ways from partnering with campus stakeholders to department-specific work on pressing issues.
A second major lesson learned from our revision is that engagement should be led by presenters that balance their own expertise with work that highlights the expertise of others in the community. Of course, exercises and workshops need to present new information and skills with high levels of credibility, but evaluations make it clear that expertise is valued no more highly than attributes like an engaging presentation style or opportunities to do hands-on work. A session where peers work through a concrete problem together is likely to be more impactful than a dry lecture from even the most respected expert presenter.
This is especially true in the context of scholarly communication where the issues are new and rapidly evolving so expertise is likely to be fluid and shared across the institution. The Roadshow has put a premium on group work because it accommodates diverse levels of expertise. At almost any institution, every librarian is an expert in something and a novice in something else. An exercise or series of events that lets individuals show off their own expertise and then learn from others is effective for all participants, rather than racing past those who are new or slowing down to the frustration of those with more experience.
Finally, scholarly communication engagement is most effective when it is designed to develop a community of practice, rather than impart specific skills. There is too much content to be covered in any single day. A workshop can introduce shared vocabulary, present case studies, or provide a framework, but scholarly communication is too large and fast moving to be covered in a workshop or lecture. Instead, it should be integrated into the core work of the library through targeted engagement that supports pilot projects and new models of librarianship.”
“What we need is a new standard of peer review that is suitable for a Web-based world of scholarly communication. This is to help accommodate the increasingly rapid communication of research and new sources of information, and bring peer review out of the dark (literally) ages and into one which makes sense in a world of fast, open, digital knowledge dissemination….”
“Six key trends, six significant challenges, and six developments in technology profiled in this report are poised to impact library strategies, operations, and services….These top 10 highlights capture the big picture themes of organizational change that underpin the 18 topics: …[Highlight 3:] In the face of financial constraints, open access is a potential solution. Open resources and publishing models can combat the rising costs of paid journal subscriptions and expand research accessibility. Although this idea is not new, current approaches and implementations have not yet achieved peak efficacy….”
There are multiple reasons for depositing the AAM (Author Accepted Manuscript) immediately upon acceptance:
1. The date of acceptance is known. The date of publication is not. It is often long after acceptance, and often does not even correspond to the calendar date of the journal. 2. It is when research is refereed and accepted that it should be accessible to all potential users. 3. The delay between the date of acceptance and the date of publication can be anywhere from six months to a year or more. 3. Publishers are already trying to embargo OA for a year from date of publication. The gratuitous delay from acceptance could double that. 4. The date of acceptance is the natural date-stamp for deposit and the natural point in the author’s work-flow for deposit. 5. The AAV at date of acceptance is the version with the least publisher restrictions on it: Many publishers endorse making the AAM OA immediately, but not the PV (Publisher’s Version). 6. Having deposited the AAM, the author can update it if and when they wish, to incorporate any copy-editing and corrections (including the PV). 7. If the author elects to embargo the deposit, the copy-request button is available to authorize the immediate automatic sending of individual copies on request. Authors can make the deposit OA when they choose. (They can also decline to send the AAM till the copy-edited version has been deposited — but most authors will not want to delay compliance with copy requests: refereed AAMs that have not yet been copy-edited can be clearly marked as such.) 8. The acceptance letter provides the means of verifying timely compliance with the deposit mandate. It is the key to making the immediate-deposit policy timely, verifiable and effective. And it is the simplest and most natural way to integrate deposit into the author’s year-long workflow. 9. The above timing and compliance considerations apply to all refereed research, including research published in Gold OA journals. 10. Of the 853 OA policies registered in ROARMAP 96 of the 515 OA policies that require (rather than just request or recommend) deposit have adopted the immediate-deposit upon acceptance requirement.
Below are references to some articles that have spelled out the rationale and advantages of the immediate-deposit requirement.
Stevan Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière, Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 67(11) 2815-2828 Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report. Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. In: Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resourceeds. J. Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, (2nd edition of Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference) Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 133-141 Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open Access Mandates and the “Fair Dealing” Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)