UC Press Supports University of California’s Stance on Elsevier – UC Press Blog

As the publishing arm of the University of California system, UC Press supports the UC libraries in their cancellation of the Elsevier “big deal” package. As small to medium-sized publishers of largely humanities and social sciences (HSS) journals, university presses (including UC Press) have had to compete for diminishing library resources to support our publishing programs. Due to the growing costs of these “big deal” packages, libraries cannot afford to subscribe to valuable journals from university presses with greater frequency. As a result, crucial HSS scholarship is difficult or impossible to access outside of R1 universities. (R1 is the classification for doctoral universities with “very high research activity” access)….”

Plan S may ‘consolidate power of big publishers’, academy warns | Times Higher Education (THE)

Speaking at London Book Fair, James Rivington, head of publications at the British Academy which funds humanities and social science research, said many journals run by learned societies may struggle to adapt to Plan S rules (which come into effect in January 2020) and may seek commercial alliances to survive….”

Plan S may ‘consolidate power of big publishers’, academy warns | Times Higher Education (THE)

Speaking at London Book Fair, James Rivington, head of publications at the British Academy which funds humanities and social science research, said many journals run by learned societies may struggle to adapt to Plan S rules (which come into effect in January 2020) and may seek commercial alliances to survive….”

A price to be paid for open-access academic publishing | Letters | Education | The Guardian

“[Sarah Kember:] Your analysis of the scandal of aspects of scientific publishing (Editorial, 5 March) was on point in highlighting that, despite the best intentions, open-access routes have thus far delivered little by way of savings for universities (and therefore the taxpayer).

The headlong rush towards further adoption of open-access models demands careful thought. While questions around access to scientific research tend to grab attention, the long tail of implications are a particular concern for those of us working in the arts and humanities….”

[I]n all but the most specialist institutions, the sciences will win out as a priority for acquisitions….

Openness: An interview with Daniel Hook, CEO of Digital Science – The Scholarly Kitchen

I think that biggest barrier is the existing system of incentives – people are not made professor for making their research openly available — that needs to change. The current system was never built to scale to the current size of the research world. I think that there will be some radical changes in scholarly communication and evaluation. Research, however, is quite rightly a conservative world. Systems need to be tried and tested – we can’t afford to switch to a system that is susceptible to effects like fake news.  So, I don’t think that change will happen quickly….

As a researcher, I want it to be simple. I don’t want to have to find money from different pots to publish my work. I don’t want to have to understand licensing and copyright law nor do I want to have to understand if my funder’s requirements are at odds with my institution’s requirements of me or indeed my government’s views on what constitutes open. I also really don’t want to have to go through the same thing with my data and my software as well as my journal article. So, in short, yes, I do think that there needs to be simplification. Not wanting to wade into the minefield that is Plan S, I will say that one thing that must be welcome to everyone is that there is now clear coordination going on between different stakeholders. Ideally this would lead to a framework or standard that allows stakeholders to adopt or to sign up to a standardized set of Open Access requirements that are internally consistent and easy to understand….”

Effect of Impact Factor and Discipline on Journal Data Sharing Policies: Accountability in Research: Vol 0, No ja

Abstract:  Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factor and discipline are associated the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.

Effect of Impact Factor and Discipline on Journal Data Sharing Policies: Accountability in Research: Vol 0, No ja

Abstract:  Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factor and discipline are associated the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.

Plan S and the UC-Elsevier negotiations—publication as part of research funding | ARL Policy Notes

What if universities collectively agreed to the same principles as the Plan S coalition and the UC—that fully funding research also means funding open, immediate dissemination? When we talk about academy-owned, or scholar-led publishing—inclusive of text, data, materials, software, etc.—we would do well to remember that nearly one quarter of R&D is funded by universities. And that’s just STEM. Universities fund a much higher percentage of research in the humanities and social sciences, where open access increases reach, readership, and impact in critical arenas such as policy and civic society.

Plan S and the UC-Elsevier negotiations—publication as part of research funding | ARL Policy Notes

What if universities collectively agreed to the same principles as the Plan S coalition and the UC—that fully funding research also means funding open, immediate dissemination? When we talk about academy-owned, or scholar-led publishing—inclusive of text, data, materials, software, etc.—we would do well to remember that nearly one quarter of R&D is funded by universities. And that’s just STEM. Universities fund a much higher percentage of research in the humanities and social sciences, where open access increases reach, readership, and impact in critical arenas such as policy and civic society.

First results of the crowdfunding OpenEdition Books Select experiment: Six titles published in open access – Open Electronic Publishing

“Six titles from the OpenEdition Books Select package have now been published in open access on OpenEdition Books and will soon be published on OAPEN….

OpenEdition Books Select is the first crowdfunding programme for scientific publishing in French. Launched in 2018 in partnership with Knowledge Unlatched and the Couperin consortium, this unprecedented project aims to publish in open access a bundle of books by major publishers in the humanities and social sciences. The crowdfunding campaign is aimed at libraries around the world, enabling them to offer any reader access to French-language content of the highest quality. This ethical and transparent model is based on a collaboration between publishers and libraries committed to open science….”