[Undated] From Google’s English:
Principles and values
[Undated] From Google’s English:
Principles and values
“At Springer Nature we want to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research. This blog describes a potential significant way to progress it and we are asking other interested stakeholders to read, consider and comment on this LinkedIn post so all can see if this would receive widespread support.
In February, along with many others, we responded to the consultation request from cOAlition S on its implementation guidance. In our submission, we expressed continued strong support for hybrid journals, given they currently publish most of the world’s research and their proven ability to enable growth in OA take-up, particularly as part of transformative read and publish deals where we have seen 73-90% success rates. In light of the evidence we presented, we asked Plan S to think again. Similarly, we explained why Plan S’s proposed zero embargo green OA, immediately utilising a CC-BY license, would not be a sustainable alternative.
Although we await the conclusions of cOAlition S’s consultation, we understand that their views haven’t changed and that Plan S will require hybrid journals to commit to flip to OA within a specified period….
What did we conclude? That as publishers, while we cannot force change upon researchers, institutions, and research funding bodies, we can move from being an enabler to being a driver of the OA transition. We can stimulate demand by advocating, promoting, educating, and making the technical changes needed to measure and showcase the benefits of OA, and ensure our pricing and fees leave no doubt about which articles are funded in which ways during the transition. We can work together to establish a set of standards that all agree to and that compliance is measured against to embed trust and confidence in all stakeholders – researchers, institutions and funding bodies. To make it easy to recognise compliance with this standard, those meeting the criteria could be called a Transformative Publisher. The full proposed requirements of this standard can be found in the attached document….
In the four European countries where Springer Nature’s transformative deals are most mature, well over 70% of authors published by us from those countries are now publishing OA. In one country this is over 90%. …”
“For some, this may seem better than the Wiley Deal in Germany: French universities and research institutions have agreed in principle, through their Couperin consortium, to renew their national licence with Elsevier. In a letter sent on April 11 to Elsevier by Lise Dumasy, president of Couperin, details of the agreement, which is valid for 4 years, effective as of January 1 this year, are revealed.
With this agreement, French universities and research institutions will have access to the publisher’s „Freedom complete edition“ journal bundle including e.g. The Lancet and Cell Press. However, the consortium does not guarantee to the publisher that all its members will adhere to the national licence….
Here are the main points:
“Embargo periods for sharing open access articles put up “unnecessary barriers” for authors and could be coming to an end, according to experts who argue that removing embargoes has no negative impact for publishers.
As academic and publishing communities around the globe await the results of a consultation review of the incoming Plan S guidelines, a recurring discussion point has been around the value of green open access models – whereby authors must wait a set period of time after publication to share their work on open repositories….
At a public forum in Westminster this month, Tom Merriweather, executive publisher (open access) at SAGE Publications, said he had found “no evidence to say zero embargo periods negatively affect subscriptions”. To remove them completely, he argued, was “a friendlier policy”….
In 2017, Emerald made the decision to scrap embargo periods across all its titles, allowing all accepted papers to be immediately distributed for free. Tony Roche, publishing and strategic relationships director at Emerald, said the decision had been “a great step in [the company’s] progression” and prompted positive feedback from authors.
Most recently, the Wellcome Trust announced in its updated open access guidelines that medical research papers funded by the organisation must be made immediately and freely available even before publication – through pre-print form – in the interests of international health….”
“Now an analysis shows that researchers in the UK are indeed posting their papers online earlier, as are their colleagues all over the world. The time researchers are taking to post papers online shrunk by an average of 472 days per country between 2013 and 2017, finds a study published on 17 April and to be presented at the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in June. Though the authors can’t definitively say what’s behind the trend, they suggest that the Research England policy and other funding eligibility requirements recently announced worldwide are pushing academics to rapidly make their work freely available….”
Abstract: Recent years have seen fast growth in the number of policies mandating Open Access (OA) to research outputs. We conduct a large-scale analysis of over 800 thousand papers from repositories around the world published over a period of 5 years to investigate: a) if the time lag between the date of publication and date of deposit in a repository can be effectively tracked across thousands of repositories globally, and b) if introducing deposit deadlines is associated with a reduction of time from acceptance to open public availability of research outputs. We show that after the introduction of the UK REF 2021 OA policy, this time lag has decreased significantly in the UK and that the policy introduction might have accelerated the UK’s move towards immediate OA compared to other countries. This supports the argument for the inclusion of a time-limited deposit requirement in OA policies.
“Unlike institutions Swedish and Norwegian or at universities such as California , academic institutions and research French have agreed in principle by the voice of their consortium Couperin, for the renewal of a national license with Elsevier.
In a letter sent April 11 to the scientific publisher that Sound Of Science has procured, Lise Dumasy, president of the consortium, details the terms of the agreement whose duration is 4 years, effective from January 1 2019.
With this agreement, French research institutions will have access to the publisher’s “Freeedom complete edition” magazine package, Lancet included, French Medical Library and Cell Press. However, the consortium does not guarantee the publisher that all its members will adhere to the national license….
This agreement provides for a gradual decrease in license costs of 13.3% spread over 4 years….
The agreement provides for Elsevier to make a 25% rebate on its Article processing charge ( APC ), which can be translated as an Item Processing Fee, which is the price paid by a researcher’s laboratory when it publishes in some journals in Open Access…
A highlight of the agreement is what is known as “green open access”. This term originally refers to how to force open publication of scientific articles by publishing “author” versions of scientific articles. Indeed, the law Republic digital provides that the researchers have the right to publish their article without the modifications that the editor has added (that it is corrections of form or form) after 6 months in STEM (science, technology , engineering and mathematics) and after 12 months in SHS (human and social sciences).
Here, the agreement provides for setting up automatic can access after 12 months’ author manuscript accepted “( MAA ) or postprint streaming directly Sciencedirect, the platform from Elsevier and a manual HAL ( the CNRS open archive ) which points to this streaming. Then, in a second time and after 24 months, the pdf file of this manuscript would be found directly on the HAL platform.
This agreement allows Elsevier to urge French researchers not to worry about the deposit of their articles in “green openaccess” by providing a service that does so but with a broader embargo than allowed by law and in streaming and no with the pdf file accessible directly….”
Abstract: The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.
“Little sympathy among scheme’s architects for suggestion that embargoed dissemination should continue to be supported…
The architects of Plan S are unlikely to back away from strict and rapidly approaching deadlines for a “big flip” to open access publishing despite mounting pressure for a longer transition period, Times Higher Education understands….
But THE understands that Plan S leaders are unlikely to back down, regarding “no paywall” as a key principle of the scheme. A source said that “no special allowances” would be made for funders or participants even in countries where a zero embargo period was perceived to be problematic….”
“That may soon change. Smaller-scale efforts are mixing with top-down decisions — through universities’ subscription negotiations and a major European plan that mandates open-access publication for certain research — to put unusual pressure on publishers.
Don’t think these battles are confined to the library or an individual discipline. The changes have the potential to alter nearly everything about how research is disseminated — and therefore how departments spend money, researchers collaborate, and faculty careers advance….”