cOAlition S chooses Shareyourpaper.org Permissions for Plan S Journal Checker Tool

“After an extensive competitive search, we’re proud to announce that cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders working towards making full and immediate Open Access a reality, has chosen Shareyourpaper.org Permissions to supply self-archiving policy data for their new Plan S Journal Checker Tool….”

cOAlition S chooses Shareyourpaper.org Permissions for Plan S Journal Checker Tool

“After an extensive competitive search, we’re proud to announce that cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders working towards making full and immediate Open Access a reality, has chosen Shareyourpaper.org Permissions to supply self-archiving policy data for their new Plan S Journal Checker Tool….”

Development of Plan S Journal Checker Tool: tender results | Plan S

“cOAlition S is pleased to announce that the tender process to develop the Plan S Journal Checker Tool has been successfully completed. The tender has been awarded to Cottage Labs, a UK data services and software company with solid experience in managing open access data for academia. Cottage Labs will deliver the work in partnership with Antleaf consultancy, using the data providers Open Access Button and DOAJ.

The Journal Checker Tool will help researchers who receive funding from cOAlition S organisations to easily identify journals or platforms that enable compliance with Plan S requirements. Based on the researcher’s funder and their institution, the tool will inform them of the available routes to Plan S compliance that the journal of their choice affords. The tool is planned to be available for use by the end of 2020, in time for the implementation of Plan S on 1 January 2021. The award was made following a competitive tender process, to which cOAlition S received a total of 7 proposals….”

Development of Plan S Journal Checker Tool: tender results | Plan S

“cOAlition S is pleased to announce that the tender process to develop the Plan S Journal Checker Tool has been successfully completed. The tender has been awarded to Cottage Labs, a UK data services and software company with solid experience in managing open access data for academia. Cottage Labs will deliver the work in partnership with Antleaf consultancy, using the data providers Open Access Button and DOAJ.

The Journal Checker Tool will help researchers who receive funding from cOAlition S organisations to easily identify journals or platforms that enable compliance with Plan S requirements. Based on the researcher’s funder and their institution, the tool will inform them of the available routes to Plan S compliance that the journal of their choice affords. The tool is planned to be available for use by the end of 2020, in time for the implementation of Plan S on 1 January 2021. The award was made following a competitive tender process, to which cOAlition S received a total of 7 proposals….”

Open Access is not just for Open Access Journals

“We’re pleased to offer our next free webinar tied to Delta Think’s popular News & Views column. Webinars will be discussion-oriented and seek to supplement consultant commentary with real-world examples from our community. All are welcome!

In this month’s issue of Delta Think News & Views, we explore how open access compares with other types of access and how the balance of output between access models is shifting in unexpected ways. You can read in full here: (https://deltathink.com/news-views-open-access-is-not-just-for-open-access-journals/). In this discussion forum, we again add a personal component to the research by opening up a conversation between the authors Ann Michael and Dan Pollock, and you – our colleagues and readers. Join us as we talk through the trends and invite attendees to participate in the discussion by offering your experience and predictions – for both your organization and the industry at large. We encourage you to participate actively, so please bring your ideas, your questions, and your vision for the future!…”

Open Access is not just for Open Access Journals

“We’re pleased to offer our next free webinar tied to Delta Think’s popular News & Views column. Webinars will be discussion-oriented and seek to supplement consultant commentary with real-world examples from our community. All are welcome!

In this month’s issue of Delta Think News & Views, we explore how open access compares with other types of access and how the balance of output between access models is shifting in unexpected ways. You can read in full here: (https://deltathink.com/news-views-open-access-is-not-just-for-open-access-journals/). In this discussion forum, we again add a personal component to the research by opening up a conversation between the authors Ann Michael and Dan Pollock, and you – our colleagues and readers. Join us as we talk through the trends and invite attendees to participate in the discussion by offering your experience and predictions – for both your organization and the industry at large. We encourage you to participate actively, so please bring your ideas, your questions, and your vision for the future!…”

Suppression as a form of liberation? – Ross Mounce

“On Monday 29th June 2020, I learned from Retraction Watch that Clarivate, the for-profit proprietor of Journal Impact Factor ™ has newly “suppressed” 33 journals from their indexing service. The immediate consequence of this “suppression” is that these 33 journals do not get assigned an official Clarivate Journal Impact Factor ™ . Clarivate justify this action on the basis of “anomalous citation patterns” but without much further detail given for each of the journals other than the overall “% Self-cites” of the journal, and the effect of those self-cites on Clarivate’s citation-based ranking of journals (% Distortion of category rank)….

The zoology section of the Chilean Society of Biology has already petitioned Clarivate to unsuppress Zootaxa, to give it back its Journal Impact Factor ™ . I understand why they would do this but I would actually call for something quite different and more far-reaching.

I would encourage all systematists, taxonomists, zoologists, microbiologists, and biologists in general to see the real problem here: Clarivate, a for-profit analytics company, should never be so relied-upon by research evaluation committees to arbitrarily decide the value of a research output. Especially given that the Journal Impact Factor ™ is untransparent, irreproducible, and fundamentally statistically illiterate.

 

Thus to bring us back to my title. I wonder if Clarivate’s wacky “suppression” might actually be a pathway to liberation from the inappropriate stupidity of using Journal Impact Factor ™ to evaluate individual research outputs. Given we have all now witnessed just how brainless some of Clarivate’s decision making is, I would ask Clarivate to please “suppress” all journals thereby removing the harmful stupidity of Journal Impact Factor ™ from the lives of researchers.”

Suppression as a form of liberation? – Ross Mounce

“On Monday 29th June 2020, I learned from Retraction Watch that Clarivate, the for-profit proprietor of Journal Impact Factor ™ has newly “suppressed” 33 journals from their indexing service. The immediate consequence of this “suppression” is that these 33 journals do not get assigned an official Clarivate Journal Impact Factor ™ . Clarivate justify this action on the basis of “anomalous citation patterns” but without much further detail given for each of the journals other than the overall “% Self-cites” of the journal, and the effect of those self-cites on Clarivate’s citation-based ranking of journals (% Distortion of category rank)….

The zoology section of the Chilean Society of Biology has already petitioned Clarivate to unsuppress Zootaxa, to give it back its Journal Impact Factor ™ . I understand why they would do this but I would actually call for something quite different and more far-reaching.

I would encourage all systematists, taxonomists, zoologists, microbiologists, and biologists in general to see the real problem here: Clarivate, a for-profit analytics company, should never be so relied-upon by research evaluation committees to arbitrarily decide the value of a research output. Especially given that the Journal Impact Factor ™ is untransparent, irreproducible, and fundamentally statistically illiterate.

 

Thus to bring us back to my title. I wonder if Clarivate’s wacky “suppression” might actually be a pathway to liberation from the inappropriate stupidity of using Journal Impact Factor ™ to evaluate individual research outputs. Given we have all now witnessed just how brainless some of Clarivate’s decision making is, I would ask Clarivate to please “suppress” all journals thereby removing the harmful stupidity of Journal Impact Factor ™ from the lives of researchers.”

EMS Press | EMS Press launches Subscribe To Open for 10 journals

“EMS Press, the publishing house of the European Mathematical Society, is today announcing the launch of its Subscribe To Open (S2O) programme. 10 journals, including the European Mathematical Society’s flagship journal Journal of the European Mathematical Society, have been selected for the initial S2O round which, if successful, will see those titles flip to open access in January 2021….”

Covid-19 Shows Scientific Journals Like Elsevier Need to Open Up – Bloomberg

“One big change brought on by Covid-19 is that virtually all the scientific research being produced about it is free to read. Anyone can access the many preliminary findings that scholars are posting on “preprint servers.” Data are shared openly via a multitude of different channels. Scientific journals that normally keep their articles behind formidable paywalls have been making an exception for new research about the virus, as well as much (if not all) older work relevant to it.

This response to a global pandemic is heartening and may well speed that pandemic to its end. But after that, what happens with scientific communication? Will everything go back behind the journal paywalls?

 

 

Well, no. Open-access advocates in academia have been pushing for decades to make more of their work publicly available and paywall-free, and in recent years they’ve been joined by the government agencies and large foundations that fund much scientific research. Covid-19 has accelerated this shift. I’m pretty sure there’s no going back. …”