“In March 2019, Springer Nature and ResearchGate entered a unique partnership to explore new ways for researchers to share content. The goal was to combine Springer Nature’s expertise in publishing high-quality research with ResearchGate’s online platform of millions of scientists, and deliver a better experience for the communities served by both organisations.
To evaluate the success of the partnership, we carried out an author survey of nearly 700 researchers after the first phase of the pilot partnership in April 2019. Following the second pilot phase, we also conducted in-depth interviews with librarians from North America and Europe. Furthermore, we analysed usage data of the content from Springer Nature that was syndicated to ResearchGate and compared authentication data from ResearchGate with that of Springer Nature. Having now entered a long-term content sharing partnership and we’re thrilled to share what we’ve learnt so far. This white paper informs you about:
How the unique partnership works and its goals
Benefits to researchers, authors, librarians and others identified so far
Areas for further analysis, discussion, and future developments….”
Today, ResearchGate and Springer Nature are jointly announcing the findings of their syndication pilot. In this partnership, as we have previously analyzed, Springer Nature distributes the version of record of articles from several dozen journals to ResearchGate for access. Users with institutional entitlements can download the PDF, while other users are presented with a read-only version. Today’s white paper from the partners reports positive responses from authors and plan to transition this pilot into an ongoing service. From the publisher perspective, article usage is up and leakage is contained. And, ResearchGate, which added a partnership with Wiley during the Springer Nature pilot, emerges as a stronger identity and access platform and a potential counterweight to Elsevier….
The success of this pilot shows convincingly that we should anticipate future syndication partnerships — as the report itself states emphatically. We look forward to seeing which other publishers elect to syndicate their content to ResearchGate; we certainly expect to see Wiley do so before Elsevier! But equally, we await seeing whether publishers will begin to syndicate their content to any other scholarly collaboration networks, discovery services, courseware systems, research workflow tools, or other platforms. The details of such arrangements are likely to vary both across different types of publishers as well as different types of syndication platforms. Over time we expect to see a few predominant models and related standards and principles emerge. ”
“The new project comprises the digitisation of philosophy books written by APA authors and the posting of time-limited links to the complete books online through Exact Editions’ innovative Reading Room technology….”
“The University of Michigan Press is pleased to announce the launch of “Dialogues in Democracy,” a collection of at least 25 free-to-read books contextualized by multimedia resources including author podcasts and videos. Ideal for students and the engaged voter alike, these resources illustrate the core tensions in American political culture—tensions that erupt every four years during the presidential election and are particularly apparent during these unusual times….”
Abstract: In the last decade Open Science principles, such as Open Access, study preregistration, use of preprints, making available data and code, and open peer review, have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in many different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of some of these Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/.
“IOP Publishing has joined Research4Life, a multi-organisation partnership aiming to reduce the knowledge gap between high-income and low-and middle-income countries by making scholarly, professional and research information more accessible.
It means that IOPP’s journals – which span more than 40 subject areas reaching beyond physics and into materials science, biosciences, environmental sciences, mathematics, engineering and education– will be accessible to institutions and organisations in 120 lower income countries….”
“Under the pressure of a global health crisis, the argument for open access has sunk in. Following calls from the World Health Organization and government leaders, over 150 publishers, companies, and research institutions have agreed to temporarily make all content related to COVID-19 free to read, ensuring efforts to understand the virus can go forth undeterred….
Is this the catalyst that breaks up the bonds of an old publishing model once and for all? …”
Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has made funders, researchers and publishers agree to have research publications, as well as other research outputs, such as data, become openly available. In this extraordinary research context of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, publishers are announcing that their coronavirus-related articles will be made immediately accessible in appropriate open repositories, like PubMed Central, agreeing upon funders’ and researchers’ instigation.
Methods: This work uses Unpaywall, OpenRefine and PubMed to analyse the level of openness of articles about COVID-19, published during the first quarter of 2020. It also analyses Open Access (OA) articles published about previous coronavirus (SARS CoV-1 and MERS CoV) as a means of comparison.
Results: A total of 5,611 COVID-19-related articles were analysed from PubMed. This is a much higher amount for a period of 4 months compared to those found for SARS CoV-1 and MERS during the first year of their first outbreaks (335 and 116 articles, respectively). Regarding the levels of openness, 88.8% of the SARS CoV-2 papers are freely available; similar rates were found for the other coronaviruses. Deeper analysis showed that (i) 67.4% of articles belong to an undefined Bronze category; (ii) 76.4% of all OA papers don’t carry any license, followed by 10.4% which display restricted licensing. These patterns were found to be repeated in the three most frequent publishers: Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.
Conclusions: Our results suggest that, although scientific production is much higher than during previous epidemics and is open, there is a caveat to this opening, characterized by the absence of fundamental elements and values ??on which Open Science is based, such as licensing.
“The Exact Editions platform for making magazine issues and printed books available individually available in a Reading Room will allow the publishers of reviews to give a close up but temporary experience of the book under review. How should this work? The key point is that the Reading Room technology allows a complete book to be made temporarily available to co-incide with the appearance of the review. It will only work if publishers decide that such intimate but temporary access to books is good for sales, and if the reviewers decide that book reviews are even more useful when the audience actually enjoys sampling the goods
Reading Rooms are tools for a publisher to enable free but temporary access to a complete digital representation of a book. Once a book has been uploaded and databased at Exact Editions, the publisher can make links with a pre-set time limit for free access. Anyone who has the link or follows it will have access to the digital book. The links will stop working after a while, and the publisher chooses the length of the open period when the Reading Room is made: 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week or 30 days are the options….”