“On behalf of the entire Manifold team, I’m super excited to announce the release of Manifold v0.2.0! The release is up on Github now, and we’ll be rolling it out to our staging site later today. This release contains a number of new features and bugfixes, listed below. For the full list of revisions and pull requests, please consult the changelog.
Remember, Manifold is open source and freely available to all who are interested. While we have plans to build docker containers and OS packages, we’ve also written up installation instructions for all you early adopters out there. Take it for a spin and let us know how it goes.”
“Digital scholarly book files should be open and flexible. This is as much a design question as it is a business question for publishers and libraries. The working group returned several times to the importance of scholarly book files being available in nonproprietary formats that allow for a variety of uses and re-uses…. Another pointed out that the backlist corpus of scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences is an invaluable resource for text-mining, but the ability to carry out that research at scale means that the underlying text of the books has to be easy to extract. “It’s so important to be able to ‘scrape’ the text,” one participant said, using a common term for gathering machine-readable characters from a human-readable artifact (for example, a scanned page image)….Whether a wider group of publishers and technology vendors will feel that they can enable these more expansive uses of a book file without upending the sustainability of the scholarly publishing system is a larger question than this project sought to answer….Our working group also pointed to other challenges for the future of the monograph that have little to do with its visual representation in a user interface: for example, what might be a viable long-term business model for monographs, and whether a greater share of the publishing of monographs in a free-to-read, open-access model can be made sustainable….As interest continues to grow in extending the open-access publishing model from journals to scholarly books, publishers and librarians are working to understand better the upfront costs that must be covered in order to operate a self-sustaining open-access monograph publishing program—costs that have been complicated to pin down because the production of any given scholarly book depends on partial allocations of staff time from many different staff members at a press, and different presses have different cost bases, as well….”
“In this unflinchingly candid manifesto, Chris Chambers draws on his own experiences as a working scientist to reveal a dark side to psychology that few of us ever see. Using the seven deadly sins as a metaphor, he shows how practitioners are vulnerable to powerful biases that undercut the scientific method, how they routinely torture data until it produces outcomes that can be published in prestigious journals, and how studies are much less reliable than advertised. He reveals how a culture of secrecy denies the public and other researchers access to the results of psychology experiments, how fraudulent academics can operate with impunity, and how an obsession with bean counting creates perverse incentives for academics. Left unchecked, these problems threaten the very future of psychology as a science–but help is here.
Outlining a core set of best practices that can be applied across the sciences, Chambers demonstrates how all these sins can be corrected by embracing open science, an emerging philosophy that seeks to make research and its outcomes as transparent as possible….”
English Translation (Google): Open Access Monographs
“Es wirkt ja schon widersprüchlich, wenn eine Monographie zu Open Access zunächst geschlossen publiziert wird und erst in einem Jahr unter einer CC-BY-Lizenz freigegeben wird. Ich kenne allerdings dieses Dilemma auch aus Autorensicht und möchte mich vor diesem Hintergrund zur aktuellen Kritik am Praxishandbuch Open Access äussern.”
English Translation (Google): “It is already contradictory if a monograph on Open Access is first published in a closed version and is only released in a year under a CC-BY license. I know, however, this dilemma also from authoring and would like to express myself against this background to the current criticism of the Praxishandbuch Open Access.”
“Several projects, especially in Europe, pursue the aim of publishing Open Access research monographs. However, not enough has been done yet to integrate Open Access monographs into the open science ecosystem in a systematic and coordinated fashion. That’s the main goal of High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS) project. The project addresses the particularities of academic monographs as a specific support for scientific communication in the Social Sciences and the Humanities and tackles the main obstacles of the full integration of monographs into the European Open Science Cloud. It aims at prototyping innovative services for monographs in support of Open Science infrastructure by providing additional data, links and interactions to the documents, at the same time paving the way to new potential tools for research assessment, which is still a major challenge in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
By improving already existing publishing platforms and repositories participating in the OpenAIRE infrastructure, the HIRMEOS project will increase its impact and help including more disciplines into the Open Science paradigm, widening its boundaries towards the Humanities and Social Sciences and to reach out new fields up to now poorly integrated….”
“Fulcrum is a publishing platform currently under development that helps publishers present the full richness of their authors’ research outputs in a durable, discoverable, and flexible form….By adopting an agile development approach and working in partnership with the Hydra open source community, Fulcrum is responsive to the changing needs of digital scholars….Built on research university library infrastructure specifically designed to curate digital objects, Fulcrum is a trusted steward committed to preservation and stability….Interoperable with other publishing tools and integrated into the information supply chain, Fulcrum ensures that content is discovered by readers and impact is tracked….”
“The debate about access to scientific research raises questions about the current effectiveness of scholarly communication processes. This [Nov 2015] book explores, from an independent point of view, the current state of the STM publishing market, new publishing technologies and business models as well as the information habit of researchers, the politics of research funders, and the demand for scientific research as a public good. The book also investigates the democratisation of science including how the information needs of knowledge workers outside academia can be embraced in future….”
“University of Michigan Press recently did a study of our http://www.digitalculture.org/books/ imprint — started a decade ago as an OA-to-read-online, purchase print or downloadable ebook “freemium” model like MIT Press’s approach. We found that while some books lost money and others made money the overall picture was one where the “direct” costs of production could be covered by the sales of print and downloadable ebooks.
These “direct” costs are around half of the actual costs of publishing books (they don’t take account acquisitions editorial activity, for example) so the picture was not ultimately of a sustainable approach for high investment university press books, but workable for titles with a more lightweight workflow. Of course electronic reading behavior keeps changing so assuming that readers of an OA book on screen might still buy print is a risky proposition.
This is perhaps a rather convoluted reply, but I think it illustrates that the question about sustainability of “freemium” models conducted without subventions doesn’t have an easy answer. There are case studies where it may seem to work, but there are others which tell a more nuanced story….”
“In conclusion, screen reading interfaces may contain an array of pros and cons, but the assumption that online information and publishing are always free is false. Internet access, electricity use and production, manufacturing of electronic devices, and the labor of writing and editing all come at a cost. Open access publishing is a solution created to solve this problem, which aimed to remove a portion of these costs from consumers and instead have the authors pay to become published. However, this model also contains many pros and cons, being very controversial in the publishing domain. Open access publishing may widen the audiences of articles, yet it can also lead to lower quality in articles and to legal issues. The future of open access publishing relies on authors themselves, because they make their own decision to publish their articles in open access, or to publish their article in an academic journal.”