Announcing Fulcrum Integration Plans – Editoria

“The Editoria Community is very pleased to welcome Michigan Publishing into our circle of forward-thinking publishers architecting the future of books production workflow together.

Michigan Publishing, a division of the University of Michigan Library, is the hub of scholarly publishing for the University of Michigan Press and Maize imprints. Michigan Publishing also develops Fulcrum, the community-based, open source platform which supports publishers like Lever Press and aggregations such as the ACLS Humanities Ebook Collection.

“Together, Editoria and Fulcrum provide an open source, end-to-end solution for digital first monograph publishing,” says Charles Watkinson, Associate University Librarian for Michigan Publishing. “This is a revolutionary offering for library-based publishers committed to implementing an academy-owned tool chain.”…”

UBORA: an EU-African e-Infrastructure to develop innovative and collaborative health solutions | Digital Single Market

“UBORA aims at creating an EU-Africa e-Infrastructure enabling open source co-design of new solutions to face the current and future healthcare challenges of both continents. To do so the project brings together European and African universities and their associated technological hubs, biomedical prototyping laboratories and incubators, national and international policymakers, and committed stakeholders….”

Economics Nobel laureate Paul Romer is a Python programming convert — Quartz

“Romer believes in making research transparent. He argues that openness and clarity about methodology is important for scientific research to gain trust. As Romer explained in an April 2018 blog post, in an effort to make his own work transparent, he tried to use Mathematica to share one of his studies in a way that anyone could explore every detail of his data and methods. It didn’t work. He says that Mathematica’s owner, Wolfram Research, made it too difficult to share his work in a way that didn’t require other people to use the proprietary software, too. Readers also could not see all of the code he used for his equations.

Instead of using Mathematica, Romer discovered that he could use a Jupyter notebook for sharing his research. Jupyter notebooks are web applications that allow programmers and researchers to share documents that include code, charts, equations, and data. Jupyter notebooks allow for code written in dozens of programming languages. For his research, Romer used Python—the most popular language for data science and statistics.

Importantly, unlike notebooks made from Mathematica, Jupyter notebooks are open source, which means that anyone can look at all of the code that created them. …”

Publications | Special Issue : New Frontiers for Openness in Scholarly Publishing

Open Scholarship (also often called Open Science) is reshaping the scope and nature of scholarly publishing in its technological, social, legal, economic, and ethical dimensions. However, while more and more transparency is now often expected of researchers, major elements of scholarly publishing processes and the policies that govern them remain relatively opaque. Peer review and editorial selection remain largely hidden from view, business models and operating costs often lack transparency, proprietary platforms and technologies create walled gardens for research, licensing and metadata restrictions limit re-use, and data about all these processes are usually kept closed. How might the wider scholarly publishing ecosystem benefit from increased interoperability, transparency, and accessibility of processes and data?

Here, we welcome contributions that seek to investigate how increased interoperability, transparency, and accessibility of processes and data could aid scholarly publishing to best serve the needs of scholarship and wider society. Equally, critical views that engage with the benefits of ‘closed’ or proprietary systems are encouraged. Our intention is to increase the critical discourse surrounding this rapidly evolving landscape, and we encourage submissions from the global research community.

This issue especially welcomes contributions that address the following:

  • Open and interoperable infrastructure, platforms, services, and tools
  • De-centralisation, open-source or community-driven efforts
  • Benefits and drawbacks of transparency and harmonisation of policies for peer review, preprints, ethics, data-availability, licensing, etc.
  • Transparency of costs (e.g., APCs, subscriptions, big deals)
  • Business models for publishing
  • Openness in editorial processes, including peer review and editorial selection
  • Interoperable metadata, for instance, openness of citation data and other sources for metrics
  • Data-sharing to optimise editorial processes
  • Social, political, and economic arguments for the different aspects of ‘open scholarship’
  • Publishing’s place in the evolving scope of research in modern society
  • The intersection of scholarly publishing and (changing) research norms….”


Harvard WorldMap is an online, open source mapping platform developed to lower barriers for scholars who wish to explore, visualize, edit, and publish geospatial information.  The system attempts to address the gap between desktop GIS which is generally light on collaboration, and web-based mapping systems which often don’t support the inclusion of large datasets….

WorldMap is being developed by the Center for Geographic Analysis at Harvard University….”


“Coalition is a strategic partnership created by Érudit and the Public Knowledge Project in the spring of 2017. Coalition is dedicated to the advancement of research dissemination and digital publishing in the social sciences and humanities in Canada and abroad….”

Creators of tools for open data? Steal this – The ODI

“One of the goals of our data innovation programme is to support the creation of a healthier open data ecosystem. Our hypothesis was that the first step towards this healthier ecosystem is to look at the barriers people face when publishing data: technical, cultural and organisational.

Our report, What data publishers need: synthesis of user-research, formed the basis of what we know about the needs and problems of data publishers. Our team listened and talked to dozens of people to learn how we can help open data publishers do their job better, faster and more competitively.

We uncovered a range of open data publishers’ needs, and the issues keeping those needs unmet. For tools, these needs are:

  1. tools that are easier to use, especially for novices
  2. better tools for checking and ensuring quality of the published data
  3. better integration between tools in the publishing workflow.

We then used these insights to help develop resources to address some of those needs:

  1. register of tools for people starting their open data publishing journey,
  2. and a range of new or improved tools for open data publishers (in collaboration with Open Knowledge International and Lintol).

As we do not want to compete with other tool makers, we made sure that every output of this work is openly licensed in the hope that tool makers would sweep in, adopt our good ideas, learn from our mistakes and integrate some of our insights – and some of our open source code – into their offering….”

Movements and Models Supporting Open Access

“Open Access (OA) continues to gain momentum, present new opportunities, and is at the forefront of the open science movement. Although OA is only 30% of published research globally, it continues to shape the direction of how scholarly communications are evolving.

At the NFAIS 2018 Open Access conference, Movements and Models Supporting Open Access, all sectors of the industry will come together to explore the emerging trends and business models that drive OA forward—from funding to policies to best practices—as well as the role technology, funders, academia, and publishers play in support of OA.

You’ll learn about:

  • The growth of OA over the past several years, trends in article processing charges (APCs), and the market impact of hybrid journals.
  • The growing pressure for researchers to extend their reach beyond traditional academic peer audiences.
  • The “Read & Publish” and “Subscribe to Open” models, and how they meet the goals of academia, while remaining financially sustainable.
  • The use of Open Source technology for streamlining publisher workflows, and how publishers can sustainably adopt and support OA submissions.
  • The Government Purpose License, and how it is being used to provide public access to government-funded journal articles.
  • And much more!…”

Joint Statement on Open Access for Researchers via Plan S

“Plan S calls for all scientific publications on the results of research funded by national and European research councils and funding bodies to be published in compliant Open Access journals or on compliant Open Access platforms by 01 January 2020. The plan was initiated by the Open Access Envoy of the European Commission and Science Europe and will be implemented by cOAlition S. The coalition currently includes 11 national funders and is supported by the European Commission and European Research Council. Plan S consists of 10 principles to be enacted by coalition members. We, representatives of early-career and senior researchers in Europe, commend cOAlition S for taking this bold and ambitious step towards Open Access and offer our support as well as comments on implementing Plan S….

(4) We agree with immediate Open Access and that there should be no embargo periods on publications. We note a lack of explicit reference to the role of ‘green’ publishing and the relation between green and ‘gold’ publishing in Plan S. We understand that the green route in Plan S refers to self-archiving a final version of a publication without an embargo period whereby the author retains copyright under an open licence. We believe that such a green route is a viable and sustainable alternative to the fee-based gold route and could play a key role in the shift to immediate Open Access. We encourage RPOs and RFOs not to focus solely on the gold route but to adopt an ‘always green optionally gold’ publishing policy. We also encourage publishers to offer a green route option for publications as per criteria in Plan S….”


PKP and SciELO announce development of open source Preprint Server system | SciELO in Perspective

“In recognition of SciELO’s twentieth anniversary, the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) and SciELO Program are entering into an agreement to develop a Preprint Server system on the principles that have guided these two organizations over the last two decades.

These governing principles include recognizing the value of: (a) independent manuscript evaluation systems and related services that are open to the academic community on a global basis, (b) comprehensive workflows for scholarly publishing that include options for preprint and post-publication commentary; and (c) affordable open source software systems for the underlying infrastructure for scholarly communication.

PKP and SciELO plan to collaborate on the building of a Preprint Server system fully interoperable with Open Journal System (OJS) and other publishing systems that will serve SciELO Network journals and that will be made publicly available to other organizations to operate….