“Between 10-15% of respondents reported very frequent use of open access journals or publications, institutional portals and repositories, personal blogs or websites, and scholarly communities such as Academia and ResearchGate, to disseminate their work. A larger percentage, between 35-45%, use this ‘tetrad’ of dissemination channels regularly. On the other hand, eight out of ten state that they have used open content journals or publication, albeit seldom….”
“We would like to make sharing of subscription and licensed content simple and seamless for academic researchers so that it is consistent with access and usage rights associated with articles while enhancing collaboration. We believe publishers and scholarly collaboration networks can work together to facilitate sharing, which benefits researchers, institutions, and society as a whole, with a core set of principles that maximize this experience for all. Open Access publication provides one route to enable sharing but does not address sharing of subscription and licensed content. These voluntary principles are intended to address that gap, and be complementary to, not as a substitute for, Open Access publication or self-archiving. They are also not meant to address sharing by and between commercial organizations….Sharing should be allowed within research collaboration groups, namely groups of scholars or researchers invited to participate in specific research collaborations….”
“The growing use of SCNs [Scholarly Collaboration Networks], copyright issues aside, is equally troubling. The current business models available for networks that hope to survive outside of just being a feature of some other company’s product, are all based around surveillance and advertising. ResearchGate and Academia.edu want to spy on users to use that data to promote ad sales (or to sell that surveillance data to anyone interested, if such a market exists). As is the case with Facebook, this creates incentives that are at odds with the best interests of their users, who, once again, should not be confused with either site’s real customers.
Do you want your scholarly reading material being chosen based on serving advertiser’s needs? We know Twitter and Facebook have been used to target particular populations and sway their opinions. Will we end up gamifying scholarly articles, including mentions of particular products or ideas in our papers in order to increase our likelihood of visibility and impact?…”
“So how do we strike a balance between advocating for online open public scholarship and supporting the psychological and professional safety of those people who are more likely to be subjected to the trauma of online harassment? I don’t know the answer yet, but I think one direction may lie in creating new options for academic publishing. I imagine a cooperative and collaborative online open access journal, run via each institution, which supports anonymous or pseudonymous research sharing by members of the academic community. A publication in which researchers can submit plain language blog posts which can be cross posted to social media by the institution and which represents the output of the research. Once submitted, the academic who wrote the post does not assume the responsibility of moderating the post, rather the responsibility lies with the institution. And the benefit of such a system would be that the work itself would be removed from the identity of the person who wrote about the work. In this case, it’s the research dissemination equivalent of musicians auditioning for the symphony behind a screen – and it thus could have a levelling effect….”
“Exeley Inc. a New York based company established in 2015 that focuses on offering innovative publishing services to Open Access publications worldwide.
The company is run by Dawid Cecula, an experienced manager in the publishing industry. In the last decade, Dawid has built one of the world’s largest collections of Open Access journals. He gained his experience from working for leading international publishers and delivering professional publishing and consulting services to universities, research centers and societies based in Europe, America and Asia.
Exeley Inc. offers journal owners a well-designed and technologically advanced publishing platform that integrates publications with online content, social media, databases and libraries. Users benefit from such solutions as: allocation of DOI numbers and live reference links via cooperation with Crossref; articles enhanced by graphical abstracts and extra supplementary files (including videos, sound files and power point presentations); advanced article metrics powered by PlumX, and responsive web design….”
“The SCA is experimenting with new ways of making our content accessible beyond the echo chamber of our discipline. As a section, we consider the accessibility of our work to be crucial aspects of public engagement and worlding anthropology, especially in contentious political moments. Our strategy centers on our efforts to make Cultural Anthropology a fully open-access journal, promote the ongoing series on our lively website, and generate buzz surrounding our social media that currently reach over 40,000 followers. All of this is made possible by a large team of student and postdoctoral contributing editors who make up the discipline’s next generation. Here, we highlight a sample of these activities in order to invite more scholars and students to the SCA.”
On July 12th, 2017, OASPA hosted a Twitter chat with Caroline Sutton (Head of Open Scholarship Development at Taylor & Francis and member of the OASPA Board), Rebecca Kennison (Principal of K|N Consultants and the co-founder of the Open Access Network), Dr Jennifer Edmond (Research Fellow and Director of Strategic Projects for the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Trinity College Dublin and co-director of the Trinity Center for Digital Humanities) and Ron Dekker (Director of CESSDA). Our panelists answered questions from the Open Access community and the general public on the future of open scholarship in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and we were lucky to have a lively and wide-ranging discussion
“None of this is to deny that if you have strong primary research to report it is better to push it out in journals wherever feasible. But book chapters can have valuable exploratory, discursive, synoptic and review roles. And they can carry new findings too, especially in start-up fields and with good editors and editing. The old problems from the early digital phase, when for a while chapter texts became literally unfindable, and authors passively left things to publishers to promote their work, no longer apply with much of their previous force. However conservative your editors and publishers may be, you can get your chapter noticed, read and cited in the communities that matter to you.”
“The Open Science Federation is a nonprofit alliance working to improve the conduct and communication of science. We are scientists and citizen scientists, writers, journalists, and educators, and makers of and advocates for Open Data, Open Access, and Open Source and Standards.
Get to know us at @openscience on Twitter, or in Google+, and elsewhere, with which we have connected the largest Open Science network in the world. We recently took up a count, deduplicated, and identified over 40,000 people and groups across our social network.
We do not intend to be at the centre of the Open Science community per se, though analyses often place us there….A network can be stronger than any one organization, and a federation of networks, stronger still. Thus we share access to our social media accounts with many individuals and organisations….”