Faculty awareness continues to rise, with 46% percent of faculty now aware of OER, up from 34% three years ago.
The percent of faculty who use OER as a required course material in at least one course has more than doubled to 13% this year, up from 6% last year.
More than a fifth (22%) of faculty who teach introductory courses use OER as a required material in at least one course.
Of the faculty who do not use OER, nearly three-quarters (74%) were open to considering it.
Nearly three-quarters (73%) of department chairpersons and most (61%) of all faculty “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that the cost of course materials is a serious problem for their students.
For the first time, more faculty expressed a preference for digital course materials (40%) than print (25%). While faculty earlier in their careers tend to have a stronger preference for digital, all career stages showed an increase.
The majority of faculty report making changes to their textbooks, most commonly presenting material in a different order (70%), skipping sections (68%), and replacing content with their own (45%)….”
“Highlights: this edition of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access features charts that illustrate that 2018 showed the strongest growth to date for open access by number of documents searchable through BASE, PubMedCentral, arXiv, DOAJ, texts added to Internet Archive, and journals added to DOAJ….”
Financially, DOAJ has seen the benefits of the SCOSS initiative, with more than 60% of all monies being donated from the public sector….
For the first time since before 2013, we do not have a backlog of applications waiting to be triaged….
The introduction of an update function allowed us to make systematic journal entry reviews more focussed and more effective. These are undertaken as each update is submitted. Further reviews are taken across our larger multi-journal accounts where, as far as possible, we have tried to establish common metadata entries across all journals belonging to the same publishing entity….”
“As 2018 comes to an end, we would like to take a moment and recognize the significant efforts of our staff, authors, editors, reviewers, and many collaborators over this past year. And what a year it has been at PeerJ! We are proud to share it has been another landmark year publishing excellent science and contributing to the development of Open Science worldwide.
“Plan S reflects a more aggressive open access policy than FASTR does. FASTR requires that government agencies that fund scientific research require grantees to make their papers available to the public within a year of publication; the original publication can happen in a traditional, closed journal. (Most U.S. government agencies already have that requirement under a 2013 White House memo.)
Plan S takes that much further, requiring grantees to publish their research in an open access journal or repository from day one. What’s more, grantees must publish their papers under an open license allowing others to share and reuse them. In discussions on open access laws, EFF has long urged lawmakers to consider including open licensing mandates. Allowing the public to read the research is a great first step, but allowing the public to reuse and adapt it (even commercially) unlocks its true economic and educational potential. We hope to see more similarly strong open access reforms, both in the U.S. and around the world….”
“This was another productive year for the CORE team; our content providers have increased, along with our metadata and full text records. This makes CORE the world’s largest open access aggregator. More specifically, over the last 3 months CORE had more than 25 million users, tripling our usage compared to 2017. …
For the past six months we invested a lot of effort in migrating to a new infrastructure that is needed to support our usage and content growth. This has been a tremendous task and we more than tripled the processing and storage capacity of CORE. We are now in the final stages of this migration, which will be completed early next year and will increase the potential and stability of our systems and service….”
“Medknow is a commercial scholarly journal publisher based in India, which was acquired by Wolters Kluwer in 2011. The analysis of Medknow’s journals in 2018 shows that there has been a significant increase in number oftheir journals, with 23% increase comparing to 2017. It appears that most of Medknow’s journals are published in collaboration with different universities and societies in the filed of medical research….”
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content growth of institutional repositories (IR) in South India and analyse the type-wise growth of items available in these IRs and also discuss the traits and trends exposed by them.
With the help of Registry of Open Access Repositories and Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR), 39 repositories were located in south India. From these, Personal websites, the IRs that are currently not working and the repositories used for journal archiving were excluded. A total of 22 operational IRs at 21 institutions were identified for the study. Within a 15 month period, the data were collected from the 22 IRs twice for monitoring content growth.
The content of nearly all IRs have grown over the 15 month period, and the overall content growth rate was 7.82 per cent. Journal articles were the important content type of IRs, while thesis and conference papers were the next common. Moreover, item monographs exhibited the highest growth rate. Other categories, conference proceedings, and conference papers also exhibited a high growth rate. The present study revealed that Indian repositories were actively engaged in data curation activities, depositing a wide variety of items in their respective IRs. Overall, South Indian repositories exhibited a slow growth rate and tended to become inactive. Most South Indian Universities had not constituted the IRs, which led to the dominance of English language material in these IRs.
The study was conducted only in South Indian IRs.
This is the first study in India, attempting to determine the type-wise growth of items in IRs….”
“As introduced in aprevious blog post, COCI is the OpenCitations Index of Crossref open DOI-to-DOI references, all released asCC0material. It is our first OpenCitations Index of open citations, in which we have applied the concept of citations asfirst-class data entitiesto index the contents of one of the major databases ofopen scholarly citation information, namelyCrossref, and to render and make available this information in machine-readable RDF.
We are now proud to announce a new release of COCI, the second, which now contains almost 450 million DOI-to-DOI citation links coming from both ‘the ‘Open’ and the ‘Limited’ sets of Crossref reference data. This represents an increase of 42% in the number of indexed citations, compared with the initial release of COCI on 4th June 2018, which indexed 316,243,802 citations involving 45,145,889 bibliographic resources. In addition, the data model for COCI has now been extended so as to state directly the presence of journal self-citations and author self-citations….”
It’s the year 2024: a scientist in Sudan, the family member of a patient with a rare disease in the United States, a farmer in China – assuming they have access to the internet, they are all able to access the latest scientific findings at any time, without restriction and free of charge. On this basis, they can develop new energy supply options for their community, prepare for visits to the doctor or follow the latest research on seeds and breeds. A pipe dream? Or isn’t free access to academic literature something we should have had for a long time, three decades since the development of the world wide web?