Plan S and Humanities Publishing – The Scholarly Kitchen

It is widely recognized that HSS and its publishing industry are different (and less profitable). As a publisher in those fields, one could easily be tempted to ask funders for exceptions to policies that push for a faster transition to OA – out of fear that we might become collateral damage in a process that hit us like a storm. One year after Plan S, I think to do so would be a huge mistake.

It is very simple: if we ask for exceptions for HSS, the research we publish will not be able to transition to open with the same speed as STM. As a consequence, HSS research would not be visible as much, would generate less impact and would be even more pushed to the background when budgets are distributed. HSS would be left behind.

We not only need to accelerate OA – increase the speed of transition – but, more importantly, we need to expand the possibilities to transition to OA beyond the APC model. HSS research is highly relevant and deserves to be open. By being more open, HSS can have a greater impact on society and contribute more efficiently to making this world a better place. As HSS publishers, we need to speak up for the communities we serve and help them defend their position in a competitive research landscape. With the right plan for a transition to more openness, HSS will not only survive but thrive in the future and unfold their full potential….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”

2nd HIRMEOS Webinar: A Peer-review Certification System for Open Access Books – Hirmeos Project

The webinar is aimed at presenting the peer-review certification service developed in the course of the HIRMEOS project.

Peer-review has a critical importance in scholarly communication, but both its practices and understanding exhibit a great deal of opacity. This is especially true for the peer review processes concerning open access monographs.

The HIRMEOS Open Book Peer-Review Certification service is a response to the increasing need for transparency and a better understanding of book peer review processes. The certification system, developed in collaboration with the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), provides a convenient way to reassure authors and evaluation agencies about the scientific quality of Open Access books. In the webinar, we are going to introduce this service to different communities by bringing together the perspectives of scholars, publishers, developers and librarians. …”

Open and Shut?: Why did Riksbankens Jubileumsfond decide to leave cOAlition S?

“Nevertheless, Plan S appears to still be struggling to sign up new funders. When it launched, there were 10 funders; today there are still only 19. Many believe this is too few to trigger the change to scholarly communication that cOAlition S members want. Importantly, the two largest producers of research papers in the world – China and the US – are notable by their absence from the coalition.

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, while cOAlition S is quick to tell the world when it signs up a new funder, it is silent when a funder leaves the coalition. It has not, for instance, publicly commented on the decision by the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, or RJ) to leave the coalition. RJ’s name just disappeared from the Plan S web page sometime during the week beginning 20th May. How, when and why did RJ leave?…”

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, a Preliminary Report

Open science is on the rise. Across disciplines, there are increasing rates of sharing data, making available underlying materials and protocols, and preregistering studies and analysis plans.  Hundreds of services have emerged to support open science behaviors at every stage of the research lifecycle.  But, what proportion of the research community is practicing open science? Where is penetration of these behaviors strongest and weakest?  Answers to these questions are important for evaluating progress in culture reform and for strategic planning of where to invest resources next.  

 

The hardest part of getting meaningful answers to these questions is quantifying the population that is NOT doing the behaviors.  For example, in a recent post, Nici Pfeiffer summarized the accelerating growth of OSF users on the occasion of hitting 150,000 registered users.  That number and non-linear growth suggests cultural movement associated with this one service, but how much movement?…”

The Monograph Is Broken. Long Live the Monograph. – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Despite the steadfast nature of this trust dynamic in publishing, scholarly-book publishing has been in a self-professed state of crisis for at least the past quarter century, even as the number of scholarly books published increases each year. This crisis is rooted in the desire of — and necessity for — scholars to publish monographs at a time when sales of such books continue to dwindle. These conflicting pressures are exacerbated by other changes, such as the growth of digital publishing and open access….

So what do we need to do to get this digital transition right?

Acknowledge that scholarly engagement with monographs varies from discipline to discipline and that this might warrant changes in some areas that aren’t appropriate for others.

Don’t focus on print sales but on usage and on what that usage enables. This applies to authors, tenure committees, and publishers alike.

Get all backlist titles online, and not just as e-books but in as many forms as possible.

Beware the fetishizing of print. We know, we know, that this is a grim imperative to the book-lover’s ear. We love books too (we’re publishers after all). But a monograph’s jacket and price often say more about the funding of a publisher than about the quality of or audience for a given book.

Devote more resources to digital: tagging, metadata, indexing, citation, etc. We need to establish new standards to improve discoverability and track usage.

Embrace new ways of promoting scholarship, such as organic (e.g., nonpaid) search-engine optimization.

Support — via participation and sponsorship — innovative experiments, such as:

  • The University of North Carolina Press’s Sustainable History Monograph Pilot, working to establish acceptance of a new publishing model for specialized scholarship.
  • The University of Michigan Press’s Fulcrum and the University of Minnesota Press’s Manifold, open-source platforms, which offer authors the opportunity to create interactive monographs.
  • MIT Press’s PubPub, a hosting platform for the multimedia-enhanced publishing needs of journals, books, labs, and conferences.
  • The University of British Columbia Press’s and the University of Washington Press’s RavenSpace, a collaborative site for indigenous-studies publishing.

For scholarship that adds value primarily to the more esoteric realms of the academic corpus and that increasingly may not be seen as a reliable investment for publishers (even university presses), we need new models, including “pay to publish.”  …”

Springer Nature comment on revised Plan S guidance

We are pleased to see public recognition of the role that transformative deals play in speeding up the transition to Open Access.  We already have nine such deals in place, the four most mature of which are delivering OA take up rates in those markets of over 70%….

However, the approach proposed for Green OA requiring a zero embargo and a CCBY licence on the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) is of particular concern as this could have serious unintended consequences….”

 

OPERAS receives funding for European discovery solution TRIPLE – OPERAS

“The European Commission will finance the project TRIPLE (Targeting Researchers through Innovative Practices and multiLingual Exploration) under the Horizon 2020 framework with approx. 5,6 million Euros for a duration of 42 months. TRIPLE will be a dedicated service of the OPERAS research infrastructure and will become a strong service in the EOSC marketplace. TRIPLE will help social sciences and humanities (SSH) research in Europe to gain visibility, to be more efficient and effective, to improve its reuse within the SSH and beyond, and to dramatically increase its societal impact. Work is expected to start this fall….”

Goldsmiths conference: ‘OA mandates will damage academic freedom’ | The Bookseller

“Academics in the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS) voiced concerns that Open Access mandates will damage academic freedom at a conference held at Goldsmiths, University of London, on Friday (24th May). The conference heard that widening the funder Open Access mandates developed for STEM subjects to cover the humanities fields would actively prevent some researchers from publishing, because they would not have access to funds.

A push has been initiated in the UK to require all monographs to be published Open Access to be eligible for the 2027 Research Excellence Framework (REF). Meanwhile under international initiative Plan S, all government-funded research will have to be published Open Access from 2020.

Sarah Kember, professor of new technologies of communication at Goldsmiths and director of Goldsmiths Press, suggested that funder-mandated OA publishing – as opposed to scholar-led OA initiatives such as Goldsmiths Press – could narrow the range of work appearing and damage diversity. …”