Alternative Funding Mechanisms for APC-free Open Access Journals: results of the first call : OpenAIRE blog

“In 2016, within the FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot, a sub-project focused on Alternative Funding Mechanisms for APC-free Open Access Journals was launched. Approximately one year later, we would like to share the main results of this workline with the public – as we believe these findings can be of interest for other initiatives and publishing platforms.”

How Post-publication peer review is improving the quality of Science – labfolder

“Now with the rise of the online open source movement, an informal shared feedback system is again possible. Referred to as ‘post-publication peer review’ (PPPR), this relatively new, additional stage in the process permits the scientific community to buffer itself against flawed, damaging or dishonest research.”

OA Dashboard feasibility study: Our findings and conclusions | Jisc scholarly communications

“As work comes to a close on the OA Dashboard project, we wanted to share our findings and conclusions and give an outline of what we are planning to do next in this space. Taken forward by Research Consulting in partnership with Pleiade Management and Consultancy and Digirati, the project aimed to assess the feasibility of a dashboard that would support institutions by combining and visualising data on OA. Such a system has the potential to improve institutional workflows by providing easier access to information on OA….

We reached the conclusion that a full business case cannot be built at this time, as the strength of the available evidence is, on average, low, and does not enable a strong case for further investment to be made. A key factor is that, although there is a gap in terms of analysing data on OA, open data sources are not mature enough to power a dashboard and may undermine the validity of its outputs.Whilst it is recommended that the development of a dashboard of this nature is put on hold and re-evaluated in the future, Jisc recognises the importance of centralised systems that enable libraries in being able to monitor their OA activity, encourage the discovery of OA content and support decision-making relating to their library holdings more generally. Therefore, the sector should be assured that work will continue in earnest to investigate new, innovative ways of working in this area….”

Why Beall’s List Died — and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“Publicly, Mr. Beall has put most of the blame on his own university [for the demise of his blacklist of predatory journals]. As his professional home, that’s where he felt the longest and most direct pressure. Despite being a tenured associate professor of library science, Mr. Beall has spent the past two years working out of a small cubicle similar to a student’s study carrel, in daily fear, he says, of a new supervisor’s threats to make his conditions much worse.

The university, for its part, has said it values Mr. Beall’s work on his list, has spent many years defending it, and provides him a work space similar to that of other librarians. “There have been no documented cases of internal threats against him that leadership or university counsel is aware of,” says Emily Williams, a university spokeswoman.

“They’re trying to make me as uncomfortable as possible.” Mr. Beall insists otherwise. “They’re trying to make me as uncomfortable as possible,” he said in an interview from an empty room down the hall, where he escapes for private conversations.

But the Swiss publisher angry that it had showed up on his blacklist, Frontiers Media, may have played an even bigger role….” 

1science Becomes a Strategic Partner to the Max Planck Digital Library

“Prestigious Max Planck Society gained access to 1science revolutionary 1science comprehensive access database. Eighty Max Planck centers can now find all that is relevant to their research projects from among 85 million bibliographic records including 30 million free open access articles in all fields, all languages, and from all over the world.”

2.5% for Open: An inventory of investment opportunities – Google Docs

“David Lewis has recently proposed that libraries devote 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons….In the early stages of exploring this idea, we want to come to some level agreement about what would in fact count as such an investment, and then build a registry that would allow libraries to record their investments in this area, track their investments over time, and compare their investments with like institutions. The registry would also serve as a guide for those looking for ideas for how to make the best investments for their institution, providing a listing of all ‘approved’ ways to invest in open, and as a place for those seeking investment to be discovered. As a first step towards building such a thing, we are crowdsourcing the creation of the inventory of ways to invest….”