What does local use of Sci-Hub look like? – iNode

“Mindful of privacy issues, I asked a friend in campus IT to take a list of 6 or 7 domains and derive an extract file from the DNS query logs, providing just date, time and query string for anything that matched the domain information I provided.  Here’s an excerpt of the result: …

Producing this extract is now part of a weekly cron job so I’ll be able to monitor the relative use of these sites over the coming months.  In this one particular instance, I can’t wait for the Fall term to begin…

So what did I find by monitoring DNS queries between July 3rd and July 10th?

 

The graph shows activity for users on the campus network.  A better name for this post might be, “What does local use of ResearchGate look like?”…

Here are the numbers if you include off-campus traffic to subscription sites (DNS resolution happens here since our proxy server is on the campus network):

  • Sci-Hub (includes the .tw, .se, and .ren domains): 87
  • ResearchGate: 1186
  • Springer-Link: 551 (391 on-campus users; 160 via campus proxy server)
  • Google Scholar: 977
  • ScienceDirect: 1730 (1306 on-campus users; 424 via campus proxy server)
  • Engineering Village: 129 (111 on-campus users; 18 via campus proxy server)….”

Universities and knowledge sharing

Abstract : Universities are key sites of knowledge creation. Governments and research funders are increasingly interested in ensuring that their investments in the production of new knowledge deliver a quantifiable return on investment, including in the form of ‘impact’. Ensuring that research outputs are not locked behind paywalls, and that research data can be interrogated and built upon are increasingly central to efforts to improve the effectiveness of global research landscapes. We argue that mandating and promoting open access (OA) for published research outputs, as well as the sharing of research data are important elements of building a vibrant open knowledge system, but they are not enough. Supporting diversity within knowledge-making institutions; enabling collaboration across boundaries between universities and wider communities; and addressing inequalities in access to knowledge resources and in opportunities to contribute to knowledge making processes are also important. New tools are needed to help universities, funders, and communities to understand the extent to which a university is operating as an effective open knowledge institution; as well as the steps that might be taken to improve open knowledge performance. This paper discusses our team’s efforts to develop a model of Open Knowledge that is not confined to measures of OA and open data. The Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative is a project of the Centre for Culture and Technology at Curtin University. With funding from the university, we are exploring the extent to which universities are functioning as effective open knowledge institutions; as well as the types of information that universities, funders, and communities might need to understand an institution’s open knowledge performance and how it might be improved. The challenges of data collection on open knowledge practices at scale, and across national, cultural and linguistic boundaries are also discussed.

Easily record open access compliance and cost

A new service enabling institutions to record data relating to the publication of Open Access outputs by their academics, including both ‘Gold’ and ‘Green’ publication routes, which can then be used for reporting to funders….”

Easily record open access compliance and cost

A new service enabling institutions to record data relating to the publication of Open Access outputs by their academics, including both ‘Gold’ and ‘Green’ publication routes, which can then be used for reporting to funders….”

COAPI Report on Recent Activities and Ongoing Projects, July 2017- June 2019

“COAPI Activities, 2017-2019 ? Surpassed the 100-member milestone, with 109 member institutions as of June 2019 ? Also created documentation and workflows for onboarding new members ? Successful and ongoing engagement with SPARC, including conversations about effective collaboration with Nick Shockey ? Monthly COAPI Steering Committee meetings (8-member leadership group) ? Monthly reports from the SPARC liaison to the SPARC OA Working Group (Jere Odell for 2017-), following Ada Emmett ? COAPI Steering Committee chair representing COAPI on the SPARC International OA Week Advisory Committee (Laura Bowering Mullen 2017-2018, Devin Soper 2018-2019) ? Added new resources to the COAPI Toolkit, including a bibliography of relevant studies and publications ? Completed various updates to the COAPI website, including redesigning and creating new content for the “About” and “Resources” pages ? Migrated legacy steering committee documentation from Dropbox to Google Drive ? Introduced annual virtual meetings to supplement biennial in-person meetings (see agendas from April 2018 and April 2019) ? Organized panel presentation and biennial in-person meeting at ALA Annual 2018 in New Orleans ? Decided to hold biennial meeting at a library conference because the biennial SPARC meeting (our previous venue) was discontinued ? Created COAPI Backgrounder and swag items (stickers, buttons) to give away at events ? Panel presentation: “The Care and Feeding of an Open Access Policy: Adoption, Implementation, and Assessment,” with Anne Langley, Jamie Wittenberg, and Jere Odell ? In-person meeting agenda ? Updated COAPI Process and Procedure Document, notably to remove the Community Member category, which was unused and redundant relative to the Affiliate Member category ? Launched series of COAPI Community Calls to facilitate more discussion and engagement both within and beyond the COAPI membership ? Aug. 14, 2018 – Outreach Strategies ? Oct. 16, 2018 – Copyright & Rights-retention Policies ? Dec. 18, 2018 – COAPI Toolkit ? Feb. 18, 2019 – Implementation Models ? June 12, 2019 – Policy Assessment ? Launched new COAPI Twitter account, @coapioa, thus far used to advertise Community Calls and tweet out conversation during the events (using the hashtag #coapicomm) ? Published blog post for Open Access Week 2017, 2018 ? Formed three new COAPI working groups: ? Community Call WG ? Copyright WG ? Small College & University WG ? Updated and consolidated existing COAPI membership lists ? Signed letters of support for federal bills and regulations, including ? H.R. 6501, The Well-Informed, Scientific, and Efficient (WISE) Government Act ? S. 1701, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? AB 2192, the extension and expansion of the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act”

COAPI Report on Recent Activities and Ongoing Projects, July 2017- June 2019

“COAPI Activities, 2017-2019 ? Surpassed the 100-member milestone, with 109 member institutions as of June 2019 ? Also created documentation and workflows for onboarding new members ? Successful and ongoing engagement with SPARC, including conversations about effective collaboration with Nick Shockey ? Monthly COAPI Steering Committee meetings (8-member leadership group) ? Monthly reports from the SPARC liaison to the SPARC OA Working Group (Jere Odell for 2017-), following Ada Emmett ? COAPI Steering Committee chair representing COAPI on the SPARC International OA Week Advisory Committee (Laura Bowering Mullen 2017-2018, Devin Soper 2018-2019) ? Added new resources to the COAPI Toolkit, including a bibliography of relevant studies and publications ? Completed various updates to the COAPI website, including redesigning and creating new content for the “About” and “Resources” pages ? Migrated legacy steering committee documentation from Dropbox to Google Drive ? Introduced annual virtual meetings to supplement biennial in-person meetings (see agendas from April 2018 and April 2019) ? Organized panel presentation and biennial in-person meeting at ALA Annual 2018 in New Orleans ? Decided to hold biennial meeting at a library conference because the biennial SPARC meeting (our previous venue) was discontinued ? Created COAPI Backgrounder and swag items (stickers, buttons) to give away at events ? Panel presentation: “The Care and Feeding of an Open Access Policy: Adoption, Implementation, and Assessment,” with Anne Langley, Jamie Wittenberg, and Jere Odell ? In-person meeting agenda ? Updated COAPI Process and Procedure Document, notably to remove the Community Member category, which was unused and redundant relative to the Affiliate Member category ? Launched series of COAPI Community Calls to facilitate more discussion and engagement both within and beyond the COAPI membership ? Aug. 14, 2018 – Outreach Strategies ? Oct. 16, 2018 – Copyright & Rights-retention Policies ? Dec. 18, 2018 – COAPI Toolkit ? Feb. 18, 2019 – Implementation Models ? June 12, 2019 – Policy Assessment ? Launched new COAPI Twitter account, @coapioa, thus far used to advertise Community Calls and tweet out conversation during the events (using the hashtag #coapicomm) ? Published blog post for Open Access Week 2017, 2018 ? Formed three new COAPI working groups: ? Community Call WG ? Copyright WG ? Small College & University WG ? Updated and consolidated existing COAPI membership lists ? Signed letters of support for federal bills and regulations, including ? H.R. 6501, The Well-Informed, Scientific, and Efficient (WISE) Government Act ? S. 1701, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act ? AB 2192, the extension and expansion of the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act”

Narrowing the Gap Between Publication and Access: Is a Mandate Enough to Get Us Closer?[v1] | Preprints

Abstract:  Changes brought about by the Internet to Scholarly Communication and the spread of Open Access movement, have made it possible to increase the number of potential readers of published research dramatically. This two-phase study aims, at first, to assert the satisfaction of the potential for increased open access to articles published by authors at the University of Coimbra, in a context when there was no stimulus for the openness of published science other than an institutional mandate set by the University policy on Open Access (“Acesso Livre”). The satisfaction of the access openness was measured by observing the actual archiving behavior of researchers (either directly or through their agents). We started by selecting the top journal titles used to publish the STEM research of the University of Coimbra (2004-2013) by using Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index (SCI). These titles were available at the University libraries or through online subscriptions, some of them in open access (21%). By checking the journals’ policy at the time regarding self-archiving at the SHERPA/RoMEO service, we found that the percentage of articles in Open Access (OA) could rise to 80% if deposited at Estudo Geral, the Institutional Repository of the University of Coimbra, as prescribed by the Open Access Policy of the University. As we concluded by verifying the deposit status of every single paper of researchers of the University that published in those journals, this potential was far from being fulfilled, despite the existence of the institutional mandate and favorable editorial conditions. We concluded, therefore, that an institutional mandate was not sufficient by itself to fully implement an open access policy and to close the gap between publication and access. The second phase of the study, to follow, will rescan the status of published papers in a context where the Portuguese public funding agency, the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, introduced in 2014 a new significant stimulus for open access in science. The FCT Open Access Policy stipulates that publicly funded published research must be available as soon as possible in a repository of the Portuguese network of scientific repositories, RCAAP, which integrates the Estudo Geral.

Guest Post: Evaluating Open Access in a Consortial Context – The Scholarly Kitchen

“OhioLINK has 188 member libraries from 89 higher education institutions plus the State Library of Ohio: 16 public universities, 51 independent university and college libraries, 23 two-year college libraries, 16 regional campus libraries, 8 law school libraries, and 5 medical school libraries. Membership includes three R1 institutions, five ARL libraries, and the Cleveland Clinic. Given the makeup of the institutional membership, sometimes OhioLINK can serve as a microcosm of the U.S. higher educational library market as a whole. (For an OhioLINK-specific analysis of institutional type and library alignment within the context of the University Futures, Library Futures OCLC Research/Ithaka S+R research report, see Constance Malpas’ presentation “University Futures, Library Futures: institutional and library directions in OhioLINK.”)

These are OhioLINK publishing and usage figures for one major STEM publisher in 2018. OhioLINK institutions published approximately 1,000 articles in the 900+ titles for which OhioLINK had a subscription. “Publish” activity from OhioLINK researchers accounted for about 0.4% of the total articles for which members had subscription access. “Read” activity was 1,900,000+ full text downloads. One institution accounted for 34% of all published articles in these titles; another group of three institutions accounted for a further 36% for a total of 70% output from the top four publishing institutions; 22 institutions made up the rest of the publishing activity out of a consortium of 90 institutions. The top four publishing institutions published between 10% and 12% of their articles in any kind of OA form (not by consortial agreement or subsidy, but acting individually either at the institutional or author level.) In total, OhioLINK-affiliated authors paid APCs for approximately 100 OA articles: 80% fully OA journals, 20% OA in hybrid journals….

We would expect any Read and Publish deals from publishers to conform to our particular publishing profile, rather than to a California Digital Library profile or a Projekt Deal profile. For some consortia, such as those composed of mostly private colleges, there is even less publishing activity. There is no standard deal that will fit all consortia; some consortia may not be offered certain OA deals at all, or the OA deals on offer will not be financially viable without significant outside sources of funding. Our collective question is: Given that much of the revenue coming from our members is, and always will be, from “Read” = subscription funding, what are the implications for the future financial burden of “Publish” consortia as more institutions become free riders? How will “Read” institutions/consortia participate in OA funding initiatives?: