Two charts. One shows that full (non-hybrid) OA journals use CC-BY far more often than they use any other open license, and far more often hybrid journals use CC-BY. The other shows that even among hybrid journals, CC-BY is more common than any other open license.
“Publishers say that tens of thousands of copyright-infringing research papers are still being uploaded to the online academic network ResearchGate every month, making it easier for universities to ditch their journal subscription contacts because so many articles are now available for free.
Since October 2017, the Coalition for Responsible Sharing, which includes Wiley, Elsevier and Oxford University Press, have tried to pressure ResearchGate into taking down what they say are millions of copyrighted articles on the platform, including launching legal action in the US and Germany.
But their latest report shows that since then, close to 1 million copyright-infringing articles have been uploaded to ResearchGate, an average of 58,000 a month….”
“Publishing for free is great, but when journals start charging researchers fees, they don’t lose business. A new journal might introduce a fee after a free introductory period. For example, when eLife introduced a US$2,500 publication fee in 2017, it still published more articles in 2017 and 2018 than it had in 2016. Similarly, Royal Society Open Scienceintroduced a US$1,260 fee in 2018 and continued to grow….
I then looked at the four biggest commercial open-access publishers that relied on publication fees: BMC, Frontiers, MDPI and Hindawi. I tracked 319 of their journals, their listed prices and the number of research articles they published between 2012 and 2018. I fed this data into a statistical model and it showed academics preferred to publish in more expensive journals.
The two publishers who raised their prices the most, Frontiers and MDPI, also saw the most growth in the average number of articles in each journal….”
“AmeliCA has reached its first six months of experience seeking to consolidate a collaborative, sustainable, protected and non-commercial Open Access solution for Latin America and the Global South. AmeliCA’s goal —as well as the organizations’ that take part in it— is to build a sustained, academy-led and academy-owned communication system. AmeliCA is a mutual agreement, where Latin America and the Global South shape strategies. Its achievements are presented in this First biannual report….”
From Google’s English: “In view of the importance of open access (OA), the project investigates the question of how the publication output of German universities has changed in the direction of open access and what role disciplinary and organizational factors play in taking up OA. The aim is to describe the state of development of OA publishing for all universities in Germany and to develop empirical explanatory models. The collaborative partners work cooperatively on the following questions: While SUB Göttingen develops novel OA detection sources such as Unpaywall Data for bibliometric analyzes, the I²SoS subproject investigates determinants of OA publication behavior.
The project is scientifically-reflective-oriented in its aims and thus differs from initiatives aimed at the infrastructural implementation of Open Access (OA). The research design identifies three workspaces that are processed across all locations: 1) University OA publication profiles, 2) Determinants of university OA profiles, 3) Results assurance by means of guided expert interviews. The quantitative data basis is provided by the data infrastructure of the Competence Center Bibliometrics (section Web of Science) and novel OA detection sources. The explanatory models are also based on established data sources of science research and university reporting.
The project aims to improve understanding of current change processes of the scientific publishing system. It therefore addresses current challenges in the areas of scientific literacy and social participation in the scientific cognitive process. The results, including the data and analytical routines, are prepared for specific target groups and, if legally possible, published under an open license….”
“Open science is on the rise. Across disciplines, there are increasing rates of sharing data, making available underlying materials and protocols, and preregistering studies and analysis plans. Hundreds of services have emerged to support open science behaviors at every stage of the research lifecycle. But, what proportion of the research community is practicing open science? Where is penetration of these behaviors strongest and weakest? Answers to these questions are important for evaluating progress in culture reform and for strategic planning of where to invest resources next.
The hardest part of getting meaningful answers to these questions is quantifying the population that is NOT doing the behaviors. For example, in a recent post, Nici Pfeiffer summarized the accelerating growth of OSF users on the occasion of hitting 150,000 registered users. That number and non-linear growth suggests cultural movement associated with this one service, but how much movement?…”
“This book is the fourth full study of serious gold open access—open access articles in open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. This and previous editions are available as free PDF ebooks or paperbacks priced to cover production costs.
Thanks to SPARC’s continued support, I was able to update the database to include all journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of very early January 1, 2019 and to add 2018 counts and earlier counts as needed (and sometimes refine subject assignments).
This book follows the pattern of the previous versions but includes some notable changes for clarity and meaningfulness. These changes are discussed in Chapter 1; the most obvious ones are an increased emphasis on articles, decreased emphasis on percentages of no-fee journals, and the change from “APC” to “fee” and “free” to “no-fee.” Additionally, the OAWorld/APCLand split has been abandoned since it never caught on—and “visibility” was abandoned as a not-very-useful measure. A new Key Facts table replaces the old Journals and Articles table, providing a more useful quick look at any subset of journals.
Gold Open Access by Country 2013-2018 will appear a few weeks after this book appears. tShird book, Gold Open Access 2013-2018: Subject and Publisher Profiles, will appear a few weeks after that. Part or all of some books will appear as issues of what’s left of Cites & Insights….”
“As Hindawi turned 20 on May 15, we wanted to reflect on how far we have come. How did an Egyptian startup break into a market dominated by centuries-old conglomerates protected by moats of prestige? …
Hindawi’s first decade was spent building a global publishing business and learning to compete with much larger companies. Our second was spent defining and promoting OA publishing models. We look forward to many more years of applying the same rigorous attention to detail to the craft of scholarly publishing, contributing to a more open and connected world….”
“DORA turns 6 years old this week. Or, as we like to say, this year DORA reached 14,000—that’s how many people have signed DORA, and they come from more than 100 countries! Each signature represents an individual committed to improving research assessment in their community, in their corner of the world. And 1,300 organizations in more than 75 countries, in signing DORA, have publicly committed to improving their practices in research evaluation and to encouraging positive change in research culture….”
European funders have been leading a charge under ‘Plan S’ to make more of the scientific literature free to read. Yet the nations that publish the highest proportion of their research papers open access (OA) aren’t in Europe, according to a preliminary analysis shared with Nature. Instead, countries in southeast Asia, Africa and South America are leading the way — thanks to a flourishing network of local open-access journals and publishing portals….”