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….”

Comments on “Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences” by Sonne et al. (2020) – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, we feel that many of the arguments misrepresent critical elements of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors describe OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially through the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that ‘green OA’ self-archiving options alleviate virtually all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred ‘routes’ to OA as stated by both institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the “global south” also largely fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.

 

Submitting, publishing and sharing articles | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

“Turning to Plan S, he said there are three routes: the Subscription model, Hybrid model, and Open Access model, each with various strengths and challenges.

The Subscription model—where the reader pays, and access is only for subscribers—has strengths such as maintaining a solid budget for editorial work but a weakness in dissemination of information.

A Hybrid model combines full access for subscribers and a paid open access option and offers good dissemination, high impact, and downloads.

Open Access, where the author pays a high submission fee, has the weakness of a restricted editorial budget and discriminates against contributions from low-income countries and could see a division of the publishing world….”

Submitting, publishing and sharing articles | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

“Turning to Plan S, he said there are three routes: the Subscription model, Hybrid model, and Open Access model, each with various strengths and challenges.

The Subscription model—where the reader pays, and access is only for subscribers—has strengths such as maintaining a solid budget for editorial work but a weakness in dissemination of information.

A Hybrid model combines full access for subscribers and a paid open access option and offers good dissemination, high impact, and downloads.

Open Access, where the author pays a high submission fee, has the weakness of a restricted editorial budget and discriminates against contributions from low-income countries and could see a division of the publishing world….”

Plan S for publishing science in an open access way: not everyone is likely to be happy | SpringerLink

“After this initiative, it will no longer be possible to publish in non-OA journals (e.g., the ACS journals, Science and Nature) for those receiving funding from the European Research Council or from other research councils or foundations that have joined the cOAlition S, unless journals, like those mentioned above, change their policies….

With Plan S, this model may be heavily shifted to payment by authors….”

 

Plan S: How Open Access Publishing Could Be Changing Academia | Biomedical Odyssey

“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….”

Boosting diversity in open access – Physics World

“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.”

A Deeper Dive into Open Educational Resources: Myths, Barriers, and Current Issues

“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….”

Myth-busting: Journals must meet the DOAJ Seal criteria to be indexed in DOAJ – News Service

“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….”