Open is Eating the World: What Source Code and Science Have in Common – The Scholarly Kitchen

“There are increasingly noticeable connections between open source and open research. Both open research and open source are promoted as mechanisms to improve quality by creating faster and more robust feedback mechanisms, they’re both intended to reduce waste and unnecessarily duplicated effort (validation is not duplication of effort, they’re different things), and they both draw / are dependent on communities to be both valuable and sustainable….”

Open Access monographs: Reflections from our recent symposium | Unlocking Research

“The symposium saw common themes emerging around issues with open access for monographs as the system currently stands, but also the potential benefits and possibilities that open access could open up into the future. There was consensus that open access needs to go forward as a shared enterprise with all stakeholders being equal players. Looking into the future there was also concern about the visibility of humanities research going forward when compared to the natural sciences and that humanities authors should strive to demonstrate the impact of their publishing activities. 

Many of the themes discussed in this symposium echoed the recommendations as well as concerns outlined in the Universities UK Open Access Monograph report which was published a few days after this symposium took place. The report emphasised that complex questions still remained around issues such as costs, scalability and business models, but it was positive to read statements that the ‘academic book occupies a very distinct space in scholarly research’ reinforcing the fact that monographs are fundamentally different in intention and in kind when compared with journals or fields of research, and that ‘academic book publishing is an international activity’, with whatever implications this entails, as discussed earlier. …”

Open Access monographs: Reflections from our recent symposium | Unlocking Research

“The symposium saw common themes emerging around issues with open access for monographs as the system currently stands, but also the potential benefits and possibilities that open access could open up into the future. There was consensus that open access needs to go forward as a shared enterprise with all stakeholders being equal players. Looking into the future there was also concern about the visibility of humanities research going forward when compared to the natural sciences and that humanities authors should strive to demonstrate the impact of their publishing activities. 

Many of the themes discussed in this symposium echoed the recommendations as well as concerns outlined in the Universities UK Open Access Monograph report which was published a few days after this symposium took place. The report emphasised that complex questions still remained around issues such as costs, scalability and business models, but it was positive to read statements that the ‘academic book occupies a very distinct space in scholarly research’ reinforcing the fact that monographs are fundamentally different in intention and in kind when compared with journals or fields of research, and that ‘academic book publishing is an international activity’, with whatever implications this entails, as discussed earlier. …”

MIT Press to develop a sustainable framework for open access monographs

The MIT Press has received a three-year $850,000 grant from Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, to perform a broad-based monograph publishing cost analysis and to develop and openly disseminate a durable financial framework and business plan for open-access (OA) monographs. The press, a leader in OA publishing for almost 25 years, will also undertake a pilot program to implement the resulting framework for scholarly front- and backlist titles.

New deals could help scientific societies survive open access | Science

Abstract:  Small scientific societies that publish journals are working to team up with library consortia to ink publishing deals that would transform the journals to exclusively open access. Last week, a project that included funders backing Plan S, the European-led effort to speed the transition to open access, released a set of contract templates and tips meant to help complete such deals. They could eventually eliminate subscriptions, protect society’s publishing revenue, and allow authors at participating institutions to publish an unlimited number of open-access articles in those journals. Five societies and four library consortia—most of them in Europe—have committed in principle to start pilots. But some small publishers may lack the data that libraries require to negotiate such deals.

Plan S Consultation Response from the Society Publishers’ Coalition

“We support the principles of open scholarship and believe that open access to research outputs will benefit researchers across our shared communities. We also believe that authors should retain copyright in their works with no restrictions, and that open access publication fees should be paid by funders or institutions, not by individual researchers. Ability to pay should not be linked to ability to publish. We support the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) as a driver to improve research assessment by evaluating the work itself, rather than using the venue of publication as a proxy for quality. We recognise the importance of open archives and repositories, such as preprint servers, for hosting research outputs, which we see as a fee-free complement to open access in journals.

Despite having these principles and ambitions in common with Plan S, we have concerns about the Plan, as it is currently written, and have detailed these below. As a group of societies that publish journals, we share a common aim of transitioning to open access in a sustainable way, and we seek to engage with funders, institutions and consortia to find a way forward within the spirit of the Plan’s principles; to this end, we have also included some suggestions of how cOAlition S can help to ensure that a transition is potentially achievable….”

Achieving Open Science in the European Open Science Cloud. Setting out OpenAIRE’s vision and contribution to EOSC – Executive Summary | Zenodo

“Key to EOSC architecture is its sustainability, which will primarily be driven by: 1- a participatory design and governance to accommodate different needs and requirements, 2- shared investments as they are being developed by member states (MS/AC), 3- the ability to adapt to new technologies and foster innovation. It is therefore critical that EOSC architecture avoids at any cost a monolithic and centralized approach, and follow a “System of Systems” approach, where resources are brought together at different levels to deliver data and data services. Emphasis is therefore placed on a business-tobusiness (B2B) sharing (data, services, people) and access, with agreements on: 1- A shared policy compliance framework (i) dictating and applying the rules of how the data elements are published, shared and re-used, and (ii) implementing an interlinked data space where every research result comes with its context (related entities), provenance (full data and science path) and usage….

EOSC will converge national support structures bringing all players together in a collaborative arrangement. No single organization is able to fulfil the Commons approach alone and implementation of Open Science requires specific handling, as most of the barriers are cultural and organizational….

For Open Science to succeed in EOSC, we need to: i) provide services for all stakeholders involved in the research life cycle, ii) ensure data federation for both small and big data to become an integral part of EOSC, iii) embed services in institutional settings, and iv) link to international infrastructures. …”

Disruption Disrupted: The Great MOOC Die-Off –

“[W]e have an overpopulation of MOOCs that are in the midst of a die-off. I’m not saying that MOOC companies are dying off. As far as I can tell, Coursera seems to be healthy. (I have less visibility into EdX’s financial status.) What I mean is that previous generation of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard-style xMOOCs, having failed to achieve either their mission or their sustainability goals, are now being repurposed into other things. Because we don’t have better names for those things, we still call them “MOOCs.” But they don’t meet the definition of Massively Open Online Courses. Even the Stanford/Harvard/MIT definition….”

Disruption Disrupted: The Great MOOC Die-Off –

“[W]e have an overpopulation of MOOCs that are in the midst of a die-off. I’m not saying that MOOC companies are dying off. As far as I can tell, Coursera seems to be healthy. (I have less visibility into EdX’s financial status.) What I mean is that previous generation of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard-style xMOOCs, having failed to achieve either their mission or their sustainability goals, are now being repurposed into other things. Because we don’t have better names for those things, we still call them “MOOCs.” But they don’t meet the definition of Massively Open Online Courses. Even the Stanford/Harvard/MIT definition….”

The MIT Press receives a generous grant from the Arcadia Fund to develop and pilot a sustainable framework for open access monographs | The MIT Press

“The MIT Press has received a three-year $850,000 grant from Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, to perform a broad-based monograph publishing cost analysis and to develop and openly disseminate a durable financial framework and business plan for open access (OA) monographs. The Press, a leader in OA publishing for almost 25 years, will also undertake a pilot program to implement the resulting framework for scholarly front and backlist titles.

Amy Brand, director of the MIT Press and principal investigator for the grant, sees it as an opportunity to explore alternatives to the traditional market-based business model for professional and scholarly monographs. “Until the mid-1990s, most U.S. university presses could count on sales of 1,300–1,700 units, but today monograph sales are typically in the range of 300–500 units,” says Brand “Many presses make up this difference with internal subsidies or subventions from institutional or philanthropic sources, but this is not sustainable and often unpredictable. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, this generous award from Arcadia will allow us to develop and test a flexible OA sustainability model that can then be adapted to the needs of our peers.”

There is growing consensus within the university press community that publishing academic monographs through a durable OA model may be the best way to advance scholarship and fulfill our mission. The U.S.-based Association of University Presses comprises 148 member presses that collectively publish approximately 15,000 monographs per year. Crafting and promoting a viable OA model for this community—and leading the way as the MIT Press intends to do—would represent a major breakthrough….”