“We announce our collective resignation from the Editorial Board of the Journal of K-Theory, effective after volume 14, at the end of 2014. We invite librarians to reconsider their subscriptions in view of the situation and we invite our colleagues to forward this letter as widely as possible. We present our sincere apologies to all authors who might be impacted by these events. We are currently working hard to minimize the fallout. A new journal, called Annals of K-Theory, is being set up. Further announcements will follow in due course….”
“A new economic model for analysis of scholarly publishing—journal publishing in particular—is proposed that draws on club theory. The standard approach builds on market failure in the private production (by research scholars) of a public good (new scholarly knowledge). In that model publishing is communication, as the dissemination of information. But a club model views publishing differently: namely as group formation, where members form groups in order to confer externalities on each other, subject to congestion. A journal is a self-constituted group, endeavouring to create new knowledge. In this sense ‘a journal is a club’. The knowledge club model of a journal seeks to balance the positive externalities due to a shared resource (readers, citations, referees) against negative externalities due to crowding (decreased prospect of publishing in that journal). A new economic model of a journal as a ‘knowledge club’ is elaborated. We suggest some consequences for the management of journals and financial models that might be developed to support them.”
“In my last post on the lack of accessibility of Gold Open Access for early career researchers (ECRs), I mentioned that in my opinion Green Open Access was a very imperfect solution – in fact, hardly a solution at all. I expand here on why that is the case, and why a focus on green OA presents new challenges for publication practices which compound the – already many – challenges of moving towards a greater accessibility of research. Not all OA initiatives are equal. Green Open Access, by far the commonest kind, refers to the depositing of a non-final version of the published manuscript into a research repository – generally either an institutional repository (managed by the university with which the researcher is affiliated), a subject-specific repository (such as ArXiv/SocArXiv), an academic networking website such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate, or Mendeley, or a personal website. Various publishers have rules on what version can be posted where and when, with the most common being that accepted manuscripts (after peer-review, but before proofreading and typesetting) can be made public in repositories after an embargo period, while the “version of record” – the published version – may not be shared publicly for free. The published article remains accessible only with paid access (with publishers either explicitly authorizing (SAGE) or tacitly tolerating the private sharing of full articles.”
“A partnership of the American Folklore Society and the Indiana University Libraries, Open Folklore is a scholarly resource devoted to increasing the number and variety of open access resources, published and unpublished, that are available for the field of folklore studies and the communities with whom folklore scholars partner….”
“In deciding where to publish our research, we have to consider why we do research. While some of us would probably undertake research for the intellectual challenge or excitement of discovery alone, for many of us it is important that our research will impact society in some way. This may be from contributing to the advance of our scientific discipline, or through the use of our research by the public, policymakers or industry. For all of these to come to pass, there is a basic premise that our publications can be found and accessed by those who can make use of the information they contain. Hence one of the key decisions around choice of where to publish is to think of the audience that reads the journal, and whether to make your paper Open Access.”
“Every study since the first in 2005 has shown that a significant majority of peer-reviewed journals charge no APCs. Most have put that majority at about 70%.
I just looked up today’s numbers at the Directory of Open Access Journals, and the number is still 70%.
Total number of journals listed in DOAJ = 10,279
No-fee = 7,193 = 69.97%
Fee-based = 2,980 = 28.99%
No info = 106 = 1.03% …”
“From the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) meeting in 2002 to the present day, Open Access has come a long way, and this week we celebrate the 10th annual Open Access Week! This year’s focus spearheaded by SPARC is around “Open in order to…“ with the goal of highlighting the benefits of Open Access. PLOS has published another post on our efforts for Open Access Week, and so here it seems a good time to consider the nuances of the various flavours (colours) of Open Access available to researchers today and what they are Open in order to achieve.”
“DPubS (Digital Publishing System) is an open-source software system designed to enable the organization, presentation, and delivery of scholarly journals, monographs, conference proceedings, and other common and evolving means of academic discourse. DPubS was conceived by Cornell University Library to aid colleges and universities in managing and disseminating the intellectual discoveries and writing of scholars and researchers.
Since no two electronic publishers’ needs are alike, DPubS was developed to be uniquely customizable. Its modular architecture provides flexibility—the system can be extensively customized to meet local needs. Because it has abundant Web-presentation capabilities, the presentation of each publication can be individually tailored, allowing for creative branding opportunities. Publishers can configure DPubS to deliver full-text content as well as to accept metadata in any file format. Publishers can also set the access controls to support subscription, open-access, or pay-per-view options and can configure DPubS to interoperate with institutional repositories such as Fedora. Finally, DPubS was designed to be extensible and scalable to support various publishing environments….”
“ABOUT THE COLLECTIVE
Formed in 2015, the Radical Open Access Collective is a community of scholar-led, not-for-profit presses, journals and other open access projects. Now consisting of over twenty members, we promote a progressive vision for open publishing in the humanities and social sciences. What we have in common is an understanding of open access as being characterised by a spirit of ongoing creative experimentation. We also share a willingness to subject some of our most established scholarly communication practices to creative critique, together with the institutions that sustain them (the university, the library, the publishing house and so on). The collective thus offers a radical ‘alternative’ to the conservative versions of open access that are currently being put forward by commercially-oriented presses, funders and policy makers….”
“Oxford University Press (OUP) is mission-driven to facilitate the widest possible dissemination of high-quality research. We embrace both green and gold open access (OA) publishing to support this mission.
A proven track record of success
OUP has been publishing OA content since 2004. Since that time, ‘gold’ OA has grown dramatically and proven effective in some disciplines. For example, Nucleic Acids Researchmoved from a subscription publication to an OA model in 2005 and has gone from strength to strength, earning its highest impact factor ever in 2013.
We have also successfully launched or taken over high-quality OA titles, including: Genome Biology and Evolution, Journal of Legal Analysis,Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, and Database.
OUP facilitates green OA either by allowing authors to deposit versions of their manuscripts in institutional or subject repositories after a specified time period, or depositing the version of record on their behalf….”