Major OA Diamond Journals Study completed: Report emphasizes diversity and sustainable pathways for diamond Open Access – OASPA

OASPA is pleased to announce the publication of an in-depth report and associated recommendations arising from a study of open access journals across the world that are free for readers and authors, usually referred to as “OA diamond journals”. 

Funded by Science Europe and commissioned by cOAlition S in order to gain a better understanding of the OA diamond landscape, the publication of the study is the culmination of work undertaken from June 2020 to February 2021 by a consortium of 10 organisations (including OASPA) led by OPERAS. The study uncovers a vast archipelago of up to 29,000 journals, most of which (60%) are in the humanities and social sciences, serving the needs of multiple scientific communities across the world.

Librarians’ perceptions and motivations for supporting collaborative models for Open Access monographs · Commonplace

“While the survey revealed several discoveries regarding librarians’ confidence in collaborative OA models for monographs, one of the key findings was that librarians still support the basic principle of OA—despite the obstacles standing in the way—and are willing to support OA models for scholarly books via crowdfunding to help make them available worldwide. They also do not overlook the importance of local benefits (i.e., the benefits for their own communities) derived from their participation. Previous studies on OA already confirmed librarians’ positive attitudes about supporting OA monograph publishing: OAPEN-UK 2014 librarian survey, for example, revealed that 80 of librarians would support OA monograph publishing merely in principle (Collins & Milloy, 2016). The study did not focus on a particular model, but it did show librarians’ commitment to OA, not only in the context of journals but also monographs….”

The OA Switchboard Initiative

“Last week members of the OA Switchboard Books Working Group got together for the third time since its inception last year, to continue dialogues on how OA Switchboard can deliver on its ambition and commitment to support all types of scholarly output. Next to standing members from various stakeholder groups (Brill, Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, Now Publishers, OAPEN, Open Book Publishers), this meeting welcomed special guests from founding partners UKRI and Wellcome Trust to pay special attention to the point of view of research funders….

Our meeting participants shared a wealth of experiences and examples, so far mostly about covering the publication cost of individual OA Books. For instance, how some authors feel strongly that they want to be involved in finding and deciding on financial resources to cover the publication charges, and how some are adamant to publish OA, but have no idea where to find the funds. Both publishers and funders recognise an administrative and tax challenge in having a third party cover charges on an individual book….”

QUBES – Group: Sustainability Challenges for Open Resources to promote an Equitable Undergraduate Biology Education (SCORE-UBE) ~ Blog: Blog

“Please join a 6-session Learning Community series entitled Educating our Next Generation of Scientists: Open Educational Practices, Open Science and Social Justice Learning Community led by Dr. Karen Cangialosi in which participants will engage in discussions, short readings and mini-workshops to explore basic tools for OEP.  This learning community is designed for project and organizational leaders who are working with instructors who develop and/or implement STEM curriculum as well as policy makers and funders who want to learn more about the connections between open science and open education….”

Elsevier Negotiations – March Update | University of Houston Libraries

“The Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA) negotiations with academic publisher Elsevier that cover UH Libraries journal subscriptions and access to journal content are ongoing. We’ve seen progress on some issues and believe we are getting close to a final offer.

At the heart of the negotiations are three key issues:

Sustainable pricing models while maintaining title access
Journal pricing has been unsustainable for some time. The Coalition is trying to maintain as much access to currently subscribed titles as possible while significantly reducing overall expenditures.
 
Copyright retention/reversion for authors
Authors are often expected to sign over their copyright as part of the agreement with the publisher, which can impede how authors are able to re-use or re-publish their work in the future. The Coalition believes that ownership matters and that this must change; Elsevier has indicated a willingness to engage creatively on this topic.
 
Post-termination access to subscribed content
Post-termination access is the ability to access prior years’ content from subscribed journals in the future, regardless of the current status of the subscription. Much like with a print journal, where we can keep copies available to library users even after ending a subscription, we want to be able to retain access to journal articles that we subscribed to electronically after the subscription ends. We believe PTA is important to the preservation of knowledge and the creation of new scholarship….”

Mellon Foundation grant to support investigation into hidden costs of open infrastructure

“We are excited to announce that Invest in Open Infrastructure, a fiscally sponsored project of Code for Science and Society, has been awarded a grant of $135,125 USD from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to explore the costs and current funding patterns of open infrastructure. The grant will enable us to hire our first Research Data Analyst, building our capacity to investigate the underlying costs associated with open infrastructure projects and the current funding landscape.

This work will build on our efforts from this past fall to analyze philanthropic funding data in the sector, a dataset that pulls publicly available funding data together to examine for funding concentrations, gaps, and other trends.

In addition, this role will also lead research and analysis on the costs associated with leading open infrastructure projects through a series of focused use cases….”

Mellon Foundation grant to support investigation into hidden costs of open infrastructure

“We are excited to announce that Invest in Open Infrastructure, a fiscally sponsored project of Code for Science and Society, has been awarded a grant of $135,125 USD from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to explore the costs and current funding patterns of open infrastructure. The grant will enable us to hire our first Research Data Analyst, building our capacity to investigate the underlying costs associated with open infrastructure projects and the current funding landscape.

This work will build on our efforts from this past fall to analyze philanthropic funding data in the sector, a dataset that pulls publicly available funding data together to examine for funding concentrations, gaps, and other trends.

In addition, this role will also lead research and analysis on the costs associated with leading open infrastructure projects through a series of focused use cases….”

Gold Open Access Mandates May Be Associated with Publisher Revenue Losses and Library Cost Increases | Open Research Community

A recent analysis outlining alternative scenarios for the publishing market development in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests a strong likelihood of lose-lose outcomes for publishers and universities for mandate-driven transitions to Open Access.

Article processing charge may be a barrier to publishing

Abstract:  Recently most of the journals charge a fee known as article processing charge (APC) for publication of an article. These charges can vary from journal to journal. This publication fee is often paid by the author, the author’s institution, or their research funder organization. Though low- and middle-income countries are usually exempted from APC, India does not come under the category of waiver by most of the journals that ask for the APC. Most of the Indian institutes do not pay for publication and research thus individual researcher suffers huge financial burden due to APC. Hence, less affluent institutions, scholars, and students are unable to publish their work due to these barriers. These articles highlight the challenges faced by authors and solutions for publishers and journals to avoid APCs.

A Billion Dollar Donation: The Cost, and Inefficiency of, Researchers’ Time Spent on Peer Review

Abstract:  Background

 The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and publishing. However, it is rarely recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered. Methods In this paper, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the peer-review system, using publicly available data. Results We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2019, equivalent to over 12 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.1 billion USD in 2019. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, over 200 million USD. Conclusions While these results are only rough estimates, they highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to improve the return on investment of scholarly publishing.