Columbia University joins OLH LPS model

“We are delighted to announce that Columbia University through its network of libraries has just joined the Open Library of Humanities’ Library Partnership Subsidy system….

The Open Library of Humanities is an academic-led, gold open-access publisher with no author-facing charges. With funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the platform covers its costs by payments from an international library consortium, rather than any kind of author fee.

 

Paula Clemente Vega, Marketing Officer for the Open Library of Humanities, welcomed Columbia University: “We are delighted to have Columbia University as member of our LPS model. Our member libraries are contributing together to the devising of an alternative to the APC model, which is both unsustainable for the majority of humanities scholars and the budgets of most universities in the context of the serial crisis. With the help of Columbia University we will continue to support and extend open access to scholarship in the humanities with neither author-facing, nor reader-facing charges.” …”

Characteristics of mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was established in 2000 to address concerns about publication bias and public access to information about clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate differences between for-profit and non-profit sponsors of efficacy mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on key trial characteristics that relate to data integrity. We also sought to evaluate whether the registry is fulfilling its purpose as a means of promoting transparency between researchers and the public by providing complete and quality information about the trials it contains. We found that trials tend to be small, use a placebo instead of an active comparator, and employ randomization and blinding. We discuss the implications of these design characteristics and the limitations of the registry.

 

Petition · Right to share publications · Change.org

“As scientists and scholars, we create the intellectual content that appears in APA [American Psychological Association] Journals. We conduct the research, write the papers and review the work at no cost to your journals. We also edit your journals for minimal income. This makes the academic publication system incredibly profitable for publishers.

It deeply concerns us that APA uses these profits to pay staff to threaten us to remove these products of our free labor from our academic websites, where other academics can read and build on our work. 

We engage in practices like voluntary reviewing for APA because we feel a commitment to producing a public good that others can use to promote scientific progress. By using these profits to restrict us from sharing our own work, you have privatized a public good and made our relationship transactional. Of course, it is entirely within your rights to do so.

If you wish to make this relationship transactional, we demand that you use the profits from our work to pay us for reviewing. If we learn that you have pressured any of the signees to remove their own APA publications from their academic website, then all signees will demand that you pay us $300 per review (unless otherwise agreed upon in writing). 

In short, you have a simple choice: You continue to accept our free labor and allow us to share the products of our labor on our academic websites OR we move to a transactional relationship and you pay us for our reviewing and we use that money to pay for open access rights for our papers (or any other purpose we deem relevant).”

What happened when a professor was accused of sharing his own work on his website

“Like many academics, William Cunningham, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, shares his own articles — published and soon-to-be — on his website. And like most academics, he does so in the interest of science, not personal profit.

So Cunningham and hundreds of his colleagues were recently irked by a takedown notice he received from the American Psychological Association, telling him that the articles he had published through the organization and then posted on his website were in violation of copyright law. The notice triggered a chain of responses — including a warning from his website platform, WordPress, that multiple such violations put the future of his entire website at risk. And because the APA had previously issued similar takedown notices, the threat of losing his website seemed real to Cunningham.

In response, psychologists started a petition to the APA, saying that if it didn’t stop policing authors’ personal websites for the sharing of science, then it needed to pay peer reviewers $300 for each article review….”

Plan S and the History Journal Landscape: Royal Historical Society Guidance Paper

“? What are the new contours of peer-reviewed journal publication for Humanities and Social Science disciplines following the establishment of cOAlition S in September 2018?

? How prepared are History journals and History researchers for the implementation of Plan S-aligned open access mandates in the UK?

? What are the potential implications for UK-based and international History journals of implementing (or choosing not to implement) Plan S-aligned open access policies?

? What is the evidence base that should inform UKRI’s consultations on open access? …”

Open access monographs: from policy to reality (2 October 2019)

“This one-day symposium took place at St Catharine’s College at the University of Cambridge on 2 October 2019 and explored the policies, economics and future directions of open access monograph publishing. Attendees had the opportunity to discuss innovations in the sector, share their enthusiasms and concerns about current developments, and learn more about the opportunities for and realities of publishing an open access book.? Keynote speakers included Professor Martin Eve (Birkbeck, University of London) and Professor Margot Finn (President of the Royal Historical Society) and the panel discussions were comprised by representatives from Research England, The Wellcome Trust, academic experts on the subject as well as various publishing houses. The panel discussions aimed to create a forum for researchers to express the challenges and benefits they foresee if open access monographs becomes a requirement.

Full details of the speakers and panellists can be found in the event programme flyer.

The symposium was supported by the Arcadia Fund, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin.

Open access monographs: from policy to reality (2 October 2019) – Symposium programme
Welcome – Dr Jessica Gardner
The Economics and Political-Economics of Open-Access Monograph Publishing – Prof. Martin Paul Eve
Open research publishing in the humanities – Dr Nicola Kozicharow
Open Access Monographs: From Policy to Reality – Perspectives from the Royal Historical Society – Prof. Margot Finn
Policy and practice: Moving towards Plan S and REF – panel discussion featuring Dr Steven Hill (chair), Prof. Martin Paul Eve, Prof. Margot Finn, Hannah Hope and Prof. Roger Kain
Perspectives from Cambridge University Press – Ben Denne, Matt Day, Helen Barton and Chris Harrison

Definitions of Open? – Matt Day
Open Access monograph publishing: Benefits and Challenges – Helen Barton
Sharing Knowledge is Cool: OA experiments in context – Chris Harrison

Innovations in open monograph publishing – panel discussion featuring Patricia Killiard (chair), Janneke Adema, Ben Denne, Dr Rupert Gatti, Rosalind Pyne and Lara Speicher

Radical Open Access – Janneke Adema

Reflections of the day – Dr Ruper Gatti, Dr Steven Hill, Prof. Roger Kain and Dr Helen Snaith
Closing remarks – Niamh Tumelty….”

Daring to dream of Universal Open Access

Abstract:  This talk will discuss recent developments with an amalgamated model for open access based on library and funder support that holds out some promise for addressing the current need for universal open access. The talk will consider the calculus underlying the model; in relation to precursors (e.g., SCOAP3, OLH, Knowledge Unlatched, Gates’ Chronos) and its advantages of the model for researchers, libraries, funders, societies, and publishers. The talk will also take into account the global dimensions of such a model; it will report on current initiatives in implementing it in the social sciences while considering its implications for the sciences.

 

Ownership, Control, Access and Possession in OA Publishing

“The issue of whose voices are represented—in print, online or on air—by whom and for whom, is particularly salient for under-represented and historically marginalized communities. Communities of colour and Indigenous peoples have more often found themselves to be objects of scholarly interest and academic scrutiny rather than recognized as co-creators of the research and equal partners in the publishing projects that follow. The phrase ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’—while historically associated with disability inclusion and empowerment—has greater relevance than ever, and offers us an opportunity to rethink how we share information in this digitally connected world.

For Indigenous communities in North America and beyond, the institutional momentum behind open access imperatives risks infringing (and even violating) long-held cultural protocols about who should be privy to certain forms of information and traditional knowledge, and when and how these are to be shared. The First Nations principles of OCAP®—Ownership, Control, Access and Possession—are important standards that all of us working in cultural heritage need to study with care….”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”