Responsible metrics: where it’s at? – The Bibliomagician

“At the Lis-Bibliometrics event, Katie Evans raised the important question as to how we can encourage openness in early-career colleagues when they face such pressures to publish in usually closed ‘high impact’ journals.  David Price said that he felt senior colleagues had to lead the way.  At UCL, Paul Ayris pointed out, promotion criteria now included openness metrics.  The challenges of measuring openness, and open measures were acknowledged.  Interestingly enough, Lis-Bibliometrics plans to take a look at this in more detail at a future event….”

Open Textbook Faculty Incentive Program – 2017-2018 Awardees | UIC Today

“The Office of the Provost and the University Library are proud to announce the awardees for the first year of the Open Textbook Faculty Incentive Program.  This new program encourages faculty to use and develop open educational resources (OER) as alternatives to traditional textbooks for undergraduate courses.”

Open and Shut?: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber’s Advice

Peter Suber’s high-priority recommendations for advancing OA.

BOAI: leading the charge on open access publishing

“Now celebrating its 15th anniversary, at the turn of the millennium the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) put forward a seminal statement defining ‘open access’ as the free online availability of peer reviewed research. Despite little support for the BOAI initially, open access publishing is now commonplace and an estimated 28% of scientific literature is now predicted to be published in this way. In our interview with Melissa Hagemann, Senior Program Manager of the Open Society Foundations, and co-organiser of the meeting in Budapest, we talk about the history of the movement and the challenges it still faces today….”

The Open Research Pilot project | Open Research: Adventures from the front line

“The Open Research Pilot project is a two year experiment where researchers at Cambridge University are trying to work as openly as possible. The project is a collaboration with the Wellcome Trust Open Research team and the exchange of experiences and ideas is helping both sides of the collaboration….

The researchers, Wellcome Trust and Cambridge open research teams met for a kick off meeting on 27 January 2017 to officially start the two-year project. Each research group was appointed a facilitator – a dedicated member of the Cambridge open research team to support researchers throughout the project. Research groups will meet with their facilitators on a monthly basis in order to discuss shareable research outputs and to decide on best ways to disseminate them. Every six months all project members will meet to discuss barriers to sharing outputs that have been identified through the pilot and to assess the progress of the Project.

One of the main goals of the project is to learn what the barriers and incentives are for open research and to share these findings with others interested in the subject to inform policy development. Therefore, we will be regularly publishing blog posts with case studies describing what we have discovered while working together. There will also be an update from each research group every six months….”

Peter Suber, Half a dozen reasons why I support the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibl…

“1. I support its call to move beyond PDFs. This is necessary to bypass publisher locks and facilitate reuse, text mining, access by the visually impaired, and access in bandwidth-poor parts of the world. 

2. I applaud its recognition of no-fee or no-APC open-access journals, their existence, their value, and the fact that a significant number of authors will always depend on them. 

3. I join its call for redirecting funds now spent on subscription journals to support OA alternatives. 

4. I endorse its call to reform methods of research evaluation. If we want to assess quality, we must stop assuming that impact and prestige are good proxies for quality. If we want to assess impact, we must stop using metrics that measure it badly and create perverse incentives to put prestige ahead of both quality and access.

5. I support its call for infrastructures that are proof against privatization. No matter how good proprietary and closed-source platforms may initially be, they are subject to acquisition and harmful mutation beyond the control of the non-profit academic world. Even without acquisition, their commitment to OA is contingent on the market, and they carry a permanent risk of trapping rather than liberating knowledge. The research community cannot afford to entrust its research to platforms carrying that risk. 

6. Finally I support what it terms bibliodiversity. While we must steer clear of closed-source infrastructure, subject to privatization and enclosure, we must also steer clear of platform monocultures, subject to rigidity, stagnation, and breakage. Again, no matter how good a monoculture platform may initially be, in the long run it cannot be better than an ecosystem of free and open-source, interoperable components, compliant with open standards, offering robustness, modularity, flexibility, freedom to create better modules without rewriting the whole system, freedom to pick modules that best meet local needs, and freedom to scale up to meet global needs without first overcoming centralized constraints or unresponsive decision-makers. …”

New white paper asks, “How can we reform promotion and tenure practices to promote open access?” – Digital Science

“George Mason University Press and the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) have just published the OSI 2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform Workgroup Report, which explores how professional advancement scenarios–promotion and tenure, grant applications, and so on–might be reimagined to better incentivize open access, open data, and other “open” scholarly practices. My coauthors and I explored current systemic barriers to change, and propose concrete steps that OSI organizers can take to further study those challenges and find solutions.”

Journal: Publish here, and we’ll pay you $500 – Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

“A new journal is offering something we’ve never seen before: A cash reward to corresponding authors of papers it publishes. Normally, in the case of open-access journals, researchers have to pay article processing charges (APCs). But Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, an open-access journal launched at the end of last year, flips the typical narrative — it will pay corresponding authors $500 for every original or review article it accepts. If any author joins the editorial board, the payment — which the journal dubs “royalties” — increases to $600.”