“In our current system, journals need to charge researchers more to publish open access in order to offset the loss of income they would have acquired by having that article behind a paywall. Yet, some laboratories are not in the position to pay twice as much money to publish an article open access. Another factor slowing the progress of the open access movement is that scientists have a strong incentive to submit their papers to high-prestige subscription journals. In academia’s highly competitive job market, publishing a high impact paper can give you that crucial boost necessary to get a faculty position.
Supporters of Plan S often present the initiative in a moral light: As scientists, we have a duty to share our findings publicly for the benefit of all. However, if your career relies on that Nature paper, would you choose a moral high ground over the practical reality of ensuring your future career? The debate over open access publishing rages on, but the Plan S initiative shows that major changes could be coming soon to academic publishing….”
“A key part of equality in open access is enabling as many authors as possible to publish on an open-access basis. There is also a wider ambition to be more inclusive and remove barriers to wider participation in science. At IOP Publishing, we have established a diversity and inclusion committee to make sure that anyone can become an author, reviewer or editorial board member across all our journals. We have also introduced a double-blind peer-review option on several of our journals. This is where the identities of the authors, their organization and other details that could identify the authors, such as where the study was conducted, are masked from the reviewers. This assures authors that their submission will be evaluated solely on the quality of the science.”
“Open Educational Resources (OER), or learning objects that are explicitly licensed so that others can retain, reuse, and revise them, continue to gain traction in higher education, both as a potential solution to the rising cost of textbooks and as an impetus for improving pedagogy. As a result, several libraries have established incentive programs and outreach to raise instructor awareness of OER and increase OER adoption and creation on their campuses. In order to lead these programs, librarians must intentionally prepare for instructor misconceptions, gaps in knowledge, and questions. Building upon Lyrasis’ introductory course on OER offered in August 2019, this course will provide participants with an overview of common myths related to OER, including concerns about peer review and comprehensiveness, as well as barriers instructors face when adopting OER, including a lack of familiarity with Creative Commons and the need for ancillary materials. Potential solutions and talking points will be discussed. The session will conclude with a short overview of current issues that librarians working with OER should be familiar with. While some background on OER will be covered, this session is intended for librarians that already have a working knowledge of how OER are defined and why they are important….”
“There is a common misunderstanding that for a journal to have its application accepted and be indexed in DOAJ it must meet all the criteria for the DOAJ Seal. There is an assumption, born out of that misunderstanding, that journals in DOAJ without the Seal are of inferior quality. This is also a myth….”
“From about 2012 until 2017, DOAJ was struggling to keep on top of the amount of applications being received.
Implementing new acceptance criteria and making 9900+ journals reapply exacerbated the problem and suddenly we had many reapplications and new applications coming in at the same time.
All applications go through an initial review to filter out incomplete or substandard applications. We call this process Triage. (From March 2015 to November 2017, Triage rejected 3112 sub-quality, incomplete or duplicate applications.) Today, the average turnaround on an application from submission to initial review is a few days at the most….”
“Multiple studies indicate that open access research is significantly more likely to be cited than research published in non-open-access journals. There are two major open access models – those that charge authors to publish, and those funded under any of multiple other business models. Those charging authors are known as “gold open access”, and this article investigates the ethics of paying to publish. The primary concern is that objectivity in the peer-review process is compromised by profit motives. …”
“One of the main concerns regarding a fully open-access model is the quality of open-access journals. The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists 13,505 journals, with numbers increasing fast. While some are undoubtedly excellent, a massive majority and growing number are anything but.”
“The British Academy has responded to the revised Plan S consultation. It’s nice of them to grudgingly accept there have been some improvements but I remain dismayed by the continued misrepresentation of Plan S within their documents. I will here quote some of the elements of their response that I believe misread or misrepresent Plan S. This post is strictly my personal opinion based on my academic expertise….”
“Overall, the results of our survey give reason to be optimistic: the majority of faculty understand that OA is about making research accessible and available. However, they also point to persistent misconceptions about OA, like necessarily high costs and low quality. This raises questions: How might these misconceptions be affecting RPT [review, promotion, and tenure] evaluations? How should researchers who want to prioritise the public availability of their work guard against the potential that their peers hold one of these negative associations? And, as a community, how can we better communicate the complexities of OA without further diluting the central message of open access? Perhaps we can begin by adequately representing and incentivising the basic principles of openness in our RPT documents.”