This document is the third report of five on the evaluation of offset agreements in Sweden and will focus on the agreement with Springer called Springer Compact and its outcome during 2017.
The evaluation is conducted to examine the effects of Springer Compact regarding economy, administration, researcher attitudes and research dissemination, and make recommendations for future negotiations with Springer Nature and other publishers. The previous reports were written in Swedish, but the remaining reports will be written in English. Therefore, some of the sections from the previous reports are repeated here to provide a background for the international reader. In addition to this, there is also a section comparing the Swedish Springer Compact agreement to that of three other countries (Netherlands, United Kingdom and Austria) and one society (Max Planck Society).
The report is structured in the following way: below is a short summary. Then the first section presents an introduction, describing open access, offset agreements and the background to why such agreements have emerged, the aim of the evaluation and a brief overview of existing recommendations for negotiating open access with publishers. The next section explains the specific offset model of Springer Compact. The third section makes the comparison between different Springer Compact agreements. The fourth and fifth sections contain the evaluation and recommendations for future negotiations.
“Between 10-15% of respondents reported very frequent use of open access journals or publications, institutional portals and repositories, personal blogs or websites, and scholarly communities such as Academia and ResearchGate, to disseminate their work. A larger percentage, between 35-45%, use this ‘tetrad’ of dissemination channels regularly. On the other hand, eight out of ten state that they have used open content journals or publication, albeit seldom….”
“This report presents the first major comparative analysis of usage data for OA and non-OA scholarly books, and provides an informed view of how a book benefits from OA publication. It also highlights the challenges involved in measuring the impact of OA on scholarly books and suggests that there is much to do across the whole scholarly communications network in supporting authors and their funders.”
“This study investigates Kenyan scholars’ adoption of open access (OA). The authors used a questionnaire to collect data from academic researchers at selected Kenyan public universities. The findings of this study indicate that while Kenyan researchers have embraced the concept of OA, challenges such as a lack of mechanisms to guide academic researchers on where to publish, a dearth of funding mechanisms to cover article processing charges, and a lack of accreditation mechanisms for regional and national journals are exposing Kenyan academic researchers to unscrupulous journal publishers and predatory publishing outlets. OA advocates in Kenyan universities need to devise innovative ways of raising awareness about OA, and these universities should provide the environment, infrastructure, and capacity building needed to support OA.”
Abstract: Contemporary scholarly discourse follows many alternative routes in addition to the three-century old tradition of publication in peer-reviewed journals. The field of High- Energy Physics (HEP) has explored alternative communication strategies for decades, initially via the mass mailing of paper copies of preliminary manuscripts, then via the inception of the first online repositories and digital libraries.
This field is uniquely placed to answer recurrent questions raised by the current trends in scholarly communication: is there an advantage for scientists to make their work available through repositories, often in preliminary form? Is there an advantage to publishing in Open Access journals? Do scientists still read journals or do they use digital repositories?
The analysis of citation data demonstrates that free and immediate online dissemination of preprints creates an immense citation advantage in HEP, whereas publication in Open Access journals presents no discernible advantage. In addition, the analysis of clickstreams in the leading digital library of the field shows that HEP scientists seldom read journals, preferring preprints instead.
Abstract: This article reports on a project, spanning the years 2013 to 2015, that assisted living Icelandic authors in opening access to out-of-print books that they wished to make publicly available. While this effort was small in scale, it sheds light on the complexities of releasing still-in-copyright works by living authors under a Creative Commons license. The project worked primarily with books that had been digitized by Google and included in HathiTrust’s collections. The project showed that Icelandic authors of older scholarly works were generally very interested in releasing them to the public at no charge by changing their rights status in HathiTrust. Meanwhile, authors who wished to release works that had not already been scanned were sometimes frustrated in their efforts to do so. The article concludes with some reflections on the benefits and drawbacks of author-by-author rights clearance, as compared to other ways of increasing the accessibility of out-of-print titles
“This exploratory study was intended to shed light on Canadian academics’ participation in, knowledge of and attitudes towards Open Access (OA) journal publishing. The primary aim of the study was to inform the authors’ schools’ educational and outreach efforts to faculty regarding OA publishing. The survey was conducted at two Canadian comprehensive universities: Brock University (St. Catharines, Ontario) and Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario) in 2014. METHODS: A Web-based survey was distributed to faculty at each university. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. LIMITATIONS: Despite the excellent response rates, the results are not generalizable beyond these two institutions. RESULTS: The Brock response rate was 38 percent; the Laurier response rate was 23 percent from full-time faculty and five percent from part-time faculty. Brock and Laurier faculty members share common characteristics in both their publishing practices and attitudes towards OA. Science/health science researchers were the most positive about OA journal publishing; arts and humanities and social sciences respondents were more mixed in their perceptions; business participants were the least positive. Their concerns focused on OA journal quality and associated costs. CONCLUSION: While most survey respondents agreed that publicly available research is generally a good thing, this study has clearly identified obstacles that prevent faculty’s positive attitudes towards OA from translating into open publishing practices….”