“Thus, transformative Gold Open Access agreements do not necessarily produce win-win results for publishers and universities, since they likely demand capital investment, protracted inter-organizational negotiations, and expertise-related costs. This indicates the likely continued importance of Green and hybrid Open Access for the scholarly publishing market and a significant role for innovative business models in this sector.”
Abstract: The prestige ranking of scholarly journals is costly to science and to society. Researchers’ payoff in terms of career progress is determined largely from where they publish their findings, and less from the content of their scholarly work. This fact creates perverted incentives for the researchers. Valuable research time is spent in trying to satisfy reviewers and editors, rather than spending their time in the most productive direction. This in turn leads to unnecessary long time from research findings are made until they become public. This costly system is upheld by the scholarly community itself. Scholars supply the journals with time, serving as reviewers and editors without any paycheck asked, even though the bulk of scientific journals are published by big commercial enterprises enjoying super profit margins. The super profit results from expensive licensing deals with the scholarly institutions. The free labour offered, on top of the payment for the licensing deals, should be viewed as part of the payment to these publishers – a payment in kind. Why not use this as a negotiating chip towards the publishers? If a publisher asks more than acceptable for a licensing deal, rather than walk away with no deal, the scholarly institutions could pull out all the free labour offered by reviewers and editors.
Increasing interest in open access (OA) monographs is reflected by the publication of four reports in 2019.
The cost of transitioning monographs to OA is a constant source of concern among all stakeholders.
Print remains an important medium for monographs – but for how long?
The fully OA licences used for journals are considerably less popular within the monograph ecosystem.
The technical interoperability taken for granted among journals is not yet evident in digital monograph publishing….”
“What are the key features of this infrastructure of Toll Access Digital Collection Management?
Captive-Consumeristic. Libraries focus on paying for academic publications, more and more through non-OA licensing of electronic content rather than purchasing print books.
Price-Gouging. Libraries are often forced to pay more for access to electronic content than are members of the general public, and vendor offerings and sales platforms are set up in a way that prohibits or preempts price negotiations.
Opaque. Vendors typically disallow negotiations or contracts with libraries to be shared with others or publicly disclosed.
Divided. Purchasing is often done by individual libraries or (somewhat better) institutional or regional consortia.
Legalistic. Digital license terms and related negotiations are absurdly complicated and protecting university interests in such licenses is tremendously difficult.
Redundant. Acquisitions are almost always held by other libraries or consortia, but not as actual downloaded copies that keep the content safer.
Unoriginal. Catalog records are typically copied from other libraries or from vendor supplied records without substantive improvements, and libraries rely on vendors to describe and organize content as vendor-branded items and/or collections.
Insecure. Libraries are typically dependent on the whim of vendors for titles being continued as part of packages.
Restrictive. Acquisitions typically only benefit a limited pool of readers currently affiliated with a university or consortium, and even then often with additional restrictions on the number of simultaneous readers.
High Maintenance. Librarians have to spend a lot of time and energy troubleshooting Electronic Resource Management issues related to vendor systems, links, and proxy servers.
How about the key features of Open Access Digital Collection Management, as being practiced by the OADTL? ….”
“The Plan S guidelines require all scholarly publications or the results of research funded by public or private grants from national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies to be open access immediately on publication. This can be by openly publishing the work in compliant journals or on Open Access (OA) Platforms, or by making the author accepted manuscript (AAM) or version of record (VoR)immediately available in a repositories without embargo.
We are now asking you, as a Small or Medium Publisher (SMP), for feedback about the impact that these principles will have on you. We are interested to hear about:
How your scholarly publishing models will be affected.
The challenges you anticipate encountering as you work to become compliant with the principles.
The work you have done so far to support the scholarly community move towards open access….”
Abstract: Scholarly communication in science, technology and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests – publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal and ethical dilemmas that require solutions while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors’ perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.
Abstract: Recent reproducibility case studies have raised concerns showing that much of the deposited research has not been reproducible. One of their conclusions was that the way data repositories store research data and code cannot fully facilitate reproducibility due to the absence of a runtime environment needed for the code execution. New specialized reproducibility tools provide cloud-based computational environments for code encapsulation, thus enabling research portability and reproducibility. However, they do not often enable research discoverability, standardized data citation, or long-term archival like data repositories do. This paper addresses the shortcomings of data repositories and reproducibility tools and how they could be overcome to improve the current lack of computational reproducibility in published and archived research outputs.
Abstract: This article describes the design and development of an interoperable application that supports green open access with long-term sustainability and improved user experience of article deposit. The lack of library resources and the unfriendly repository user interface are two significant barriers that hinder green open access. Tasked to implement the open access mandate, librarians at an American research university developed a comprehensive system called Easy Deposit 2 to automate the support workflow of green open access. Easy Deposit 2 is a web application that is able to harvest new publications, to source manuscripts on behalf of the library, and to facilitate self-archiving to a university’s institutional repository. The article deposit rate increased from 7.40% to 25.60% with the launch of Easy Deposit 2. The results show that a computer system can implement routine tasks to support green open access with success. Recent developments in digital repository provide new opportunities for innovation, such as Easy Deposit 2, in supporting open access. Academic librarians are vital in promoting “openness” in scholarly communication, such as transparency and diversity in the sharing of publication data.
Data sharing presents new opportunities across the spectrum of research and is vital for science that is open, where data are easily discoverable, accessible, intelligible, reproducible, replicable and verifiable. Despite this, it is yet to become common practice. Global efforts to develop practical guidance for data sharing and open access initiatives are underway, however evidence-based studies to inform the development and implementation of effective strategies are lacking.
This study sought to determine the barriers and facilitators to data sharing among health researchers and to identify the target behaviours for designing a behaviour change intervention strategy.
Data were drawn from a cross-sectional survey of data management practices among health researchers from one Australian research institute. Determinants of behaviour were theoretically derived using well-established behavioural models.
Data sharing practices have been described for 77 researchers, and 6 barriers and 4 facilitators identified. The primary barriers to data sharing included perceived negative consequences and lack of competency to share data. The primary facilitators to data sharing included trust in others using the data and social influence related to public benefit. Intervention functions likely to be most effective at changing target behaviours were also identified.
Results of this study provide a theoretical and evidence-based process to understand the behavioural barriers and facilitators of data sharing among health researchers.
Designing interventions that specifically address target behaviours to promote data sharing are important for open researcher practices.
“Open access publishing of scientific research could have a significant impact on science, development, and health in LMICs, but it does need support. Established publishing companies could do more to make papers accessible to researchers in LMICs and improve the immediacy of the research. Funders and philanthropic organizations should support the work they fund being open access. Authors should be encouraged to publish in open access journals or those journals that allow free access to research conducted in LMICs, or at least ensure that other researchers and communities have access to their findings for the benefit of communities in these areas.”