Open data: Your questions answered | Microsoft On The Issues

“Open data: The name alone can cause some confusion. Then there are some myths and misconceptions associated with it.

Organizations have questions about how and why they should make data freely available, or open.

We talked to Jule Sigall, Associate General Counsel, Open Innovation, in Microsoft Corporate, External and Legal Affairs, to explore this topic. Here are five of the most commonly encountered open data misconceptions, and responses to them….”

Common Misconceptions About Open Access To Taxpayer-Funded Research

“The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is reportedly considering a policy that would provide taxpayers with fast, barrier-free access to the results of scientific research that their tax dollars have funded. Such a policy is widely supported by scientists, universities, students, libraries, funders, patients advocates, and the public, as it would accelerate discovery, fuel innovation and economic growth, and improve the public good. However, we are aware of several letters circulating that raise deeply misleading concerns about the potential effects of policy. Specifically, they claim: …”

Open access, open data and peer review | Genome Biology | Full Text

“Thus, the article processing charges (APCs) of the top tier journals would increase if they were to switch to full open access, which could shift from inequity in access to published work to inequity in access to publishing, as scientists and their funders in emerging economies may be less capable of shouldering such APC costs [3, 4]. Moreover, society journals and certain fields such as chemistry and humanities are particularly reliant on income from subscriptions to complement their relatively low APC revenues, and if they were less able to adapt, the full open access model could increase the monopoly of large publishing houses who can more easily change their business models [5, 6]….”

Open access, open data and peer review | Genome Biology | Full Text

“Thus, the article processing charges (APCs) of the top tier journals would increase if they were to switch to full open access, which could shift from inequity in access to published work to inequity in access to publishing, as scientists and their funders in emerging economies may be less capable of shouldering such APC costs [3, 4]. Moreover, society journals and certain fields such as chemistry and humanities are particularly reliant on income from subscriptions to complement their relatively low APC revenues, and if they were less able to adapt, the full open access model could increase the monopoly of large publishing houses who can more easily change their business models [5, 6]….”

Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals

Abstract:  In this study, the authors examine attitudes of researchers toward open access (OA) scholarly journals. Using two-step cluster analysis to explore survey data from faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at large North American research institutions, two different cluster types emerge: Those with a positive attitude toward OA and a desire to reach the nonscholarly audience groups who would most benefit from OA (“pro-OA”), and those with a more negative, skeptical attitude and less interest in reaching nonscholarly readers (“non-OA”). The article explores these cluster identities in terms of position type, subject discipline, and productivity, as well as implications for policy and practice.

 

Internet Archive removes controls on “lending” of bootleg e-books | NWU

“Using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse, the Internet Archive has — without permission or payment — removed all limits on how many people can simultaneously “borrow” digital copies of some of its bootleg e-book editions scanned from printed books….”

Internet Archive removes controls on “lending” of bootleg e-books | NWU

“Using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse, the Internet Archive has — without permission or payment — removed all limits on how many people can simultaneously “borrow” digital copies of some of its bootleg e-book editions scanned from printed books….”

Of Mythical Beasts and Zero-Embargo Mandates | Advancing Discovery | Springer Nature

“Springer Nature didn’t sign either letter [for or against the rumored Trump executive order], even though we also had our concerns about the rumored mandate. We’re very proud of the role that Springer Nature, the world’s most comprehensive Open Access publisher, has played – and continues to play – in making research more open, so we wholeheartedly agree with the end goal of immediate open access. But the means to this end has to be carefully thought out, and ultimately structured in a sustainable way. Our concerns about a potential zero-embargo mandate for subscription content from the OSTP were that it might prove counterproductive and unsustainable, by resulting in slower progress towards Gold OA and ultimately hampering the wider ‘open’ agenda – Gold OA being much more than a different business model but the doorway to open science….

Green OA, on the other hand – whether with a zero embargo or not –, is not citable or connected to the scientific record, so researchers can’t build on it. It also doesn’t provide access to the original data and so is neither replicable nor reusable, therefore limiting its usefulness for furthering academic discovery and public or commercial R&D initiatives. Moreover, it doesn’t give the general public access to many of the improvements publishers make to enhance the layout and understanding of the research, thereby making it more accessible to the lay person. And it still requires libraries and institutions to subscribe to access the version of record….”

Breaking down barriers | Research Information

“[ECRs are a community that has largely gone unheard and, fortunately, is one that Ciber has been studying and interacting with for three years during the Harbingers project (http://ciber-research.eu/harbingers.html), which sought to determine whether ECRs are the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications1. 

The project covered nearly 120 ECRs from seven countries (China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK, US) and, as part of it, annual, deep conversations were conducted with ECRs about open science and its component parts. It is well worth listening to ECRs on open science, not just because they are going to be the future, but also because they are the community who have the most to do with the scholarly communications system, because they are the research engine room: they do most of the discovery work and undertake many of the authorship and publishing practices. 

As we shall learn, the trouble with asking ECRs about open science is that, like so many other researchers, they either do not know at all what you are talking about, or simply misunderstand what it is all about. So, you have to tell them, but that is not easy because even those charged with coming up with definitions do not speak as one….”