Principios y Valores – AmeliCA

[Undated] From Google’s English: 

Principles and values

one.
Scientific knowledge generated with public funds is a common good and access to it is a universal right.
two.
Open Access must be protected legally to avoid the appropriation of scientific knowledge for profit.
3.
Open Access has no future or meaning without an evolution in the systems of evaluation to research.
Four.
The consolidation of Open Access must consider the transition to digital scientific communication as an essential axis.
5.
The economic investment in Open Access must be consistent with its benefit to society, just as commercial solutions are paid.
 
6
The adverse economic scenarios that the AA faces must be overcome with work schemes based on collaboration and sustainability, favoring that the scientific publication continues sustained and led by the academy.
7
It is necessary to recognize the diversity of scientific journals and stop the pressures that seek to homogenize them. For their part, journals should support the strengthening of institutional repositories through the disappearance of embargo and assignment of rights policies.
8
The social impact of science is the basis of the existence of Open Access.
9
It is necessary to respect the different dynamics of generation and circulation of knowledge by area, especially the dynamics of Social Sciences and Humanities.
10
Open Access must be permanently conceptualized and defined accordingly. The three “B” homogenize the conditions of the development of science and the conditions of the South are different from those of the North….”

Better than the German Wiley DEAL? The Couperin Consortium reaches a price reduction of more than 13% over four years in an agreement with Elsevier » scidecode

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:

  • Most surprising: This agreement provides for a gradual 13.3% reduction in license costs over 4 years -5% in 2019, -4% in 2020, -3% in 2021 and -2% in 2022, in total -13.305% over four years.
  • There is 25% discount on article processing charges (APC). There will also be a compensatory clause if these APCs increase by more than 3.5%. Excluded from this discount are – as I understand it – only the society journals, e.g. The Lancet and the Cell Press titles. Included are all Open Access journals and hybrid journals. The 3.5% threshold refers to annual price increases.
  • Regarding Green Open Access the agreement allows automatic access 12 months after formal publication to the „accepted author manuscript“ (AAM) or post print directly on Elsevier’s service Sciencedirect. After 24 months the pdf file of this manuscript will be deposited on the HAL platform (the CNRS Open Access Repository). The license to make AAMs available is more restrictive than most Creative Commons licenses. It allows reading, downloading, printing, translating, text & data mining but does not allow redistribution or re-use (neither commercial or non-commercial)….”

Open access: ‘no evidence’ that zero embargo periods harm publishers | Times Higher Education (THE)

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….”

Study quantifies the growing traction of open access

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….”

Do Authors Deposit on Time? Tracking Open Access Policy Compliance – Open Research Online

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.

Un accord de 4 ans entre Elsevier et la recherche française – The Sound Of Science

“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….”

Ten myths around open scholarly publishing [PeerJ Preprints]

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.

Plan S leaders resist pressure for slower open access transition | Times Higher Education (THE)

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….”

Open-Access Is Going Mainstream. Here’s Why That Could Transform Academic Life. – The Chronicle of Higher Education

“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….”