Heading for 100% Open access: NWO and ZonMw on the right track, but further steps are needed

“In 2018, 68% of the publications resulting from NWO funding were Open access. The percentage for ZonMw was 60%. These are the findings of an analysis published today by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). NWO and ZonMw are aiming for 100% Open access. Achieving this target will require an extra effort and further steps.

On behalf of NWO and ZonMw, CWTS analysed how many NWO and ZonMw publications were Open access between 2015 and 2018. The CWTS also looked at the different types of Open access (gold, green, hybrid, etc.). Since 2009, NWO has been committed to ensure all publications resulting from NWO funding are made available in Open access. In 2015, NWO made further agreements on this with the State Secretary at the time, Sander Dekker. CWTS used the bibliographic database Web of Science and Unpaywall for its analysis….”

News & Views: Open Access is not just for Open Access Journals – Delta Think

“We can also use this break-out to assess what might happen if hybrid journals flipped. Assuming submissions stay constant, the currently Paid Access proportion gives us our maximum additional APC-based income. The economics of the Public Access content depend on how much the market would pay to flip the license to an open access one given the content is already free to read. Pressure to reduce subscription prices (and even flip to OA) could be determined by adding the open and public access components, as neither require subscriptions. At a little over 20%, this is not insignificant….

Perhaps the most surprising finding in content outside fully OA journals, is that journals with no OA option make proportionally more content Open Access and Public Access than their hybrid counterparts….

Literature search strategies focus on finding articles, and so looking at per-article access options is useful and relevant for researchers. Here we see that the proportion of content that is Open Access and Public Access is growing, although the growth appears to be slowing….

Across the market as a whole, it seems that you are LESS likely to find OA content in a hybrid journal which offers OA options, than in a journal with no advertised OA options at all.”

News & Views: Open Access is not just for Open Access Journals – Delta Think

“We can also use this break-out to assess what might happen if hybrid journals flipped. Assuming submissions stay constant, the currently Paid Access proportion gives us our maximum additional APC-based income. The economics of the Public Access content depend on how much the market would pay to flip the license to an open access one given the content is already free to read. Pressure to reduce subscription prices (and even flip to OA) could be determined by adding the open and public access components, as neither require subscriptions. At a little over 20%, this is not insignificant….

Perhaps the most surprising finding in content outside fully OA journals, is that journals with no OA option make proportionally more content Open Access and Public Access than their hybrid counterparts….

Literature search strategies focus on finding articles, and so looking at per-article access options is useful and relevant for researchers. Here we see that the proportion of content that is Open Access and Public Access is growing, although the growth appears to be slowing….

Across the market as a whole, it seems that you are LESS likely to find OA content in a hybrid journal which offers OA options, than in a journal with no advertised OA options at all.”

David Worlock | Developing digital strategies for the information marketplace | Supporting the migration of information providers and content players into the networked services world of the future.

“MicroPublishing in this context means the publication of short , single experiment, peer reviewed OA articles , with DOIs and metadata to make them citable and discoverable. Typically this might be supplementary or ancillary material that might have been once grouped into a major research program report , delaying it and making it too dense or bulky . Or it might be work on reagents that has genuine scientific interest but, as an incidental finding , only clutters the main report . And MicroPublishing might be a first chance for a post grad or even a student doing lab support work to get their name onto a collaborative publication for the first time . And in all of this work of adding small pieces to the jigsaw and making sure they did not get lost or overlooked – curation is clearly at the heart of these efforts – I heard  nothing described in terms of workflows or process  that would not have been identical in a commercial environment . And that is important . There is a great deal of bogus hype around “ publishing expertise” . If you are clever enough to be a Professor of Genomics , then mastering publishing does not seem to be a huge intellectual challenge .And the digitally networked world has democratised all processes like publishing . We can all be publishers now – and we all are! …

And we should be attentive not just because of the competitive element . I have a 30 year record of saying that the competitor to the information provider in a digital network is the user doing it for himself , and I am not altering that view now . But we really need to pay attention because this is where and how innovation takes place . This is where and how needs are discovered . If granularity , discoverability and speed to market are the critical issues here., then those are the issues that we must attend to , instead of packing articles with greater amounts of supplemental material , holding articles in peer review until they are “complete”  or using citations to game journal impact factors . Above all , we have to remember that scholarly communication  is communication by and for scholars . They will , and are , re-inventing it all the time . Rather than propagandising the virtues of “ traditional publishing “ commercial publishers should be forming relationships  that help change take place cost-effectively and at scale .”

Reasons to Worry Less About the Explosion of Preprints – Absolutely Maybe

“Daniel Garisto published a good backgrounder late last year on the history of preprints, and the beginnings of their adoption in biomedicine. And I wrote a post about the pros and cons of preprints in biomed back in 2016. I don’t think anyone, though, had “the worst pandemic in 100 years will massively expand the use of preprints overnight” on their bingo cards. But we already have at least one preprint and at least one journal article about it! Ironically, it was a journal publication about preprints that appeared first.

It was by Maimuna Majumder and Kenneth Mandl, in March, analyzing media and other interest in preprints versus journal articles about the reproduction number for the new coronavirus. They concluded that because of the speed of release of preprints, they were driving the discourse, not journal articles. Decision-making can be informed quickly, they point out, but it can go badly wrong, too, as when a preprint had to be retracted after an outcry, because it “erroneously claimed that COVID-19 contained HIV ‘insertions’”….”

German universities report record number of clinical trial results

“German universities have uploaded the results of 76 clinical trials over the past six months. Universities have uploaded twice as many results over the past six months than during the preceding six years combined….”

The rise of preprints in chemistry | Nature Chemistry

“Chemistry is now starting to embrace preprints, with more and more researchers in chemical and materials sciences posting their manuscripts online prior to peer review. Preprints can speed up the dissemination of scientific results and lead to more informal exchanges between researchers, hopefully accelerating the pace of research as a whole….

Several bibliometric studies have shown that preprints also increase the visibility of the work being done5 by combining two distinct advantages: they are open access, and they appear online earlier than the final peer-reviewed publication. This typically translates into more views and higher impact than non-preprinted articles in the same field6,7: namely, preprinted articles typically have better online metrics, attention scores and number of citations8. …”

The Megajournal Lifecycle – The Scholarly Kitchen

“PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports have been very successful journals. Any publisher would be thankful to have them in their portfolio. Nonetheless, their unstable performance should also serve as a warning. In the year of their steepest decline, each journal shrunk by about 7,000 articles, which can translate to a loss of more than $10m year-on-year. That will reflect poorly on the balance sheet of any publisher.

The takeaways for publishers are simple:

Do not get carried away; the revenue of megajournals can be inconsistent, so avoid overselling their success to investors and avoid reckless investments
Invest heavily in marketing; if the journal is shedding 10% of citability every year, marketing should try plug this hole as well as possible
Build around their success; launch affiliated, higher impact journals that will absorb some of the eventual content loss
Do not put all your eggs in one basket; pursue a less risky, broad portfolio approach rather than a smaller, focused megajournal approach….”

How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research

“When Albert-László Barabási, a computational scientist at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, submitted a paper to the preprint server bioRxiv last month, he received an unexpected response. The biomedical repository would no longer accept manuscripts making predictions about treatments for COVID-19 solely on the basis of computational work. The bioRxiv team suggested that Barabási submit the study to a journal for rapid peer review, instead of posting it as a preprint.

Publication norms are changing rapidly for science related to the coronavirus pandemic, as scientists worldwide conduct research at breakneck speeds to tackle the crisis. Preprint servers — where scientists post manuscripts before peer review — have been flooded with studies. The two most most popular for coronavirus research, bioRxiv and medRxiv, have posted nearly 3,000 studies on the topic (see ‘Preprint surge’). The servers’ merits are clear: results can be disseminated quickly, potentially informing policy and speeding up research that could lead to the development of vaccines and treatments. But their popularity is spotlighting the scrutiny that these studies receive. Without peer review, it’s hard to check the quality of the work, and sharing poor science could be harmful, especially when research can have immediate effects on medical practice. That has led platforms including bioRxiv and medRxiv, to enhance their usual screening procedures….”