“The progress of scientific and technological knowledge is a cumulative process, one that depends in the long?run on the rapid and widespread disclosure of new findings, so that they may be rapidly discarded if unreliable, or confirmed and brought into fruitful conjunction with other bodies of reliable knowledge. “Open science” institutions provide an alternative to the intellectual property approach to dealing with difficult problems in the allocation of resources for the production and distribution of information. As a mode of generating reliable knowledge, “open science” depends upon a specific non-market reward system to solve a number of resource allocation problems that have their origins in the particular characteristics of information as an economic good. There are features of the collegiate reputational reward system — conventionally associated with open science practice in the academy and public research institutes – that create conflicts been the ostensible norms of ‘cooperation’ and the incentives for non-cooperative, rivalrous behavior on the part of individuals and research units who race to establish “priority.” These sources of inefficiency notwithstanding, open science is properly regarded as uniquely well suited to the goal of maximising the rate of growth of the stock of reliable knowledge.
High access charges imposed by holders of monopoly rights in intellectual property have overall consequences for the conduct of science that are particularly damaging to programs of exploratory research which are recognized to be vital for the long-term progress of knowledge-driven economies….”
“Since 2015, the Universities’ UK Open Access Co-ordination Group has commissioned a bi-annual exercise to monitor the UK’s transition to open access, including the financial health of learned societies. As part of this exercise, I have been working with Professor Robert Dingwall to assess how 30 UK learned societies have fared between 2011 and 2015.”
“Brazil stands out on the international landscape when it comes to open access, a movement launched in the early 2000s with the aim of making scientific output freely available online. According to data compiled by Spanish research group Scimago, 33.5% of the Brazilian articles indexed in the Scopus database in 2016 were published in journals whose content is free to read online as soon as it is published, under a model known as the “golden road.” This is the largest proportion among the 15 nations with the highest volume of scientific output recorded on Scopus. Brazil is also top of the list of nations with the highest number of open access scientific journals (see charts).”
“The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has awarded Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh an 18-month-long $60,000 grant to support a project known as “Digits.” …The aim of Digits is to optimize the software containers used in publishing scholarly research in order to make it easier and cheaper for scholars to publish their work and maintain it….“Hosting costs, maintenance, peer review, and preservation for non-traditional publications almost always fall upon the original authors; the equivalent duties for print scholarship, instead, are taken up by publishers, libraries, or scholarly organizations,” said the leaders of the project in a co-interview over email with The Tartan….The current digital publication system can lead to issues such as link rot, which happens when scholars change web hosts or let subscriptions expire, making the publications no longer available. “The responsibility of digital preservation needs to be shifted from individual researchers to journal publishers or university archives,” said Lavin in a university press release. Another feature of the project will allow scholars to update their work more easily. “It is often considered double-dipping or even cheating to publish nearly identical research as more data becomes available,” Weingart said in the press release. Thus, the leaders plan to incorporate an update feature into the software infrastructure they develop….”
“The Andrew. W. Mellon Foundation has awarded Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh an 18-month, $60,000 grant to research the development of a standardized platform for digital scholarship. The award will support “Digits,” a project that will explore how new technologies that make it increasingly easy to publish, share, reproduce and archive complex digital materials can be sustained in a unified and flexible way….Researchers currently invest countless time and resources creating interactive pieces and self-publishing them online. “But scholars might change web hosts or let subscriptions expire,” Lavin said. “This leads to something called link rot. The responsibility of digital preservation needs to be shifted from individual researchers to journal publishers or university archives.” Digits also will allow digital projects and small-scale work to be preserved and updated. “It is often considered double-dipping or even cheating to publish nearly identical research as more data becomes available,” Weingart said. “Digits would provide infrastructure for regularly updating publications, as with an article that relays perpetually current popular opinions about romance fiction based on a large-scale analysis of online reviews.” …”
Abstract: A major barrier to the greater take-up of an open access model for journal publishing has been the concern of many journal owners that they will not easily be able to migrate from the current subscription-based model to open access. This paper presents a potential migration path which should significantly reduce the financial risk to journal owners, while allowing them to offer open access to their authors.
“In 2016, within the FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot, a sub-project focused on Alternative Funding Mechanisms for APC-free Open Access Journals was launched. Approximately one year later, we would like to share the main results of this workline with the public – as we believe these findings can be of interest for other initiatives and publishing platforms.”
“How are authors of journal articles paying for Open Access (OA) fees or Article Processing Costs (APCs)? What is the administrative burden for authors? And do their research organisations have an accurate overview of all these payments?
A better understanding of such authors’ perspectives on APC payments will support the development of an optimal communication and administrative strategy with the aim of encouraging authors’ usage of existing APC-funding mechanisms.
For these purposes, Knowledge Exchange has carried out a study among authors at six research organisations. In total, 1,069 authors participated in online surveys focused on their 2015 articles published in OA journals or in subscription journals that offer the option of publishing individual articles on OA for an additional fee, so-called hybrid journals.”
“Background: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in understanding the potential effects of a policy requiring open access to peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research the foundation funds. Methods: We collected data on more than 2000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open access policies might have affected grantee publishing habits. Results: We found that 99.3% of the articles published by grantees would have complied with a policy that requires open access within 12 months of publication. We also estimated the maximum annual costs to GBMF for covering fees associated with “gold open access” to be between $400,000 and $2,600,000 annually. Discussion: Based in part on this study, GBMF has implemented a new open access policy that requires grantees make peer-reviewed publications fully available within 12 months.”