From Google’s English: “Openly available research promotes knowledge exchange and is an important building block in democratic society. But an overly quick transition to open access in accordance with Plan S risks undermining both the quality of research and the opportunities for Swedish researchers for collaboration and impact internationally. It writes 133 social scientists and humanists at the Swedish universities in an open letter about Plan S.”
“As you may be aware, Swedish universities and government agencies through the National Library of Sweden and the Bibsam Consortium (the Swedish library consortium) cancelled their agreement with Elsevier 30 June 2018 (https://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/bibsamkonsortiet/qa-about-the-cancellation-of-the-agreement-with-elsevier-commencing-1-july/). Elsevier has not been able to meet the demands of the Bibsam Consortium:
- immediate open access to all articles published in Elsevier’s journals by researchers affiliated to one of the consortium’s participating organisations;
- reading access to Elsevier’s 1 900 journals for participating organisations, and
- a sustainable price model which makes a transition to open access possible.
How has this affected you?…”
English title: Open Access and Big Business: How Open Access Became a Part of Big Publishing
Article in Swedish with this English abstract: This study explores the Open Access phenomenon from the perspective of the commercial scientific publishing industry. Open Access has been appropriated by commercial publishers, once sceptical opponents of the concept, as a means among others of distributing scholarly publications. The aim of this study is to highlight a possible explanation as to how this has come about by looking at the internal and external communication of two of the main scholarly publishing industry organizations, the STM Association and the PSP division of the AAP. Via a thematic analysis of documents from these organizations, the dissertation aims to explore how the publishers’ communication regarding Open Access has changed over time. Furthermore, the study takes on how these questions are interlinked with notions of power and legitimacy within the system of scholarly communication. The analysis shows two main themes, one that represents a coercive course of restoring legitimacy, where publishers’ value-adding is stressed and at the same time warning of dangerous consequences of Open Access. The other theme represents a collaborative course of action that stresses the importance of building alliances and reaching consensus. Results show that there has been a slight change in how the publishing industry answers to public policies that enforce Open Access. One conclusion is that this is due to the changing nature of said policies.
From Google’s English: “At Dalarna University teachers and researchers no longer entitled to decide for themselves where their articles and books published. According to a new administrative system, researchers must deposit all their scientific works in full text version of the public database DiVA Open Access publishing. ARW estimates that the regulations means an intervention in the researchers’ copyright and academic freedom. Dalarna University are given a deadline of three weeks to conduct self-regulation….”
From Google’s English: “One of the issues we deal with in DigiTrust project – our specialization in issues related to trust in the digital context – is the issue of trust in knowledge organizations, how this confidence is established; but also, what happens when institutions linked to the creation of knowledge is questioned? …”