From Google’s English: Open access means that scientific articles that are quality assured in peer review and included in a scientific journal must be able to be read and distributed without financial, technical or legal restrictions. Since 2018, Denmark has had a national strategy for open access to ensure that we get the maximum effect from the research via free access to research-based knowledge. From 2025, the goal is to promote unhindered, digital access to all peer-reviewed research articles from Danish research institutions – with a maximum of 12 months delay, what we today call green open …
“Over the last decade, many museums around the world have adopted an open access policy. From the US to Europe, the opening up of museums has meant that anybody can use, reuse, remix collections without any copyright restrictions. At the core of open access is the commitment to make heritage accessible for people regardless of conduct social or geographical barriers. For museums, this move has contributed immensely to brand-building and added social value. But how?
The National Gallery of Denmark (the Statens Museum for Kunst, aka SMK) in Copenhagen is one of the premier art museums of the country and home to several European art treasures. In this podcast, I spoke with Jonas Heide Smith – Head of Digital at SMK about their approach, learnings and challenges. Give it a listen or read on for the key takeaways….”
“The KE partner countries share the vision of Open Scholarship and immediate access to all publicly-funded research and have launched initiatives to help small publishers with their efforts to make a transition to Open Access and/or comply with the recommendations in Plan S. Below are some of the activities undertaken in five of the six partnering countries….”
Abstract: There are major challenges that need to be addressed in the world of scholarly communication, especially in the field of environmental studies and in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, Sonne et al. (2020) published an article in Science of the Total Environment discussing some of these challenges. However, we feel that many of the arguments misrepresent critical elements of Open Access (OA), Plan S, and broader issues in scholarly publishing. In our response, we focus on addressing key elements of their discussion on (i) OA and Plan S, as well as (ii) Open Access Predatory Journals (OAPJ). The authors describe OA and Plan S as restricting author choice, especially through the payment of article-processing charges. The reality is that ‘green OA’ self-archiving options alleviate virtually all of the risks they mention, and are even the preferred ‘routes’ to OA as stated by both institutional and national policies in Denmark. In alignment with this, Plan S is also taking a progressive stance on reforming research evaluation. The assumptions these authors make about OA in the “global south” also largely fail to acknowledge some of the progressive work being done in regions like Indonesia and Latin America. Finally, Sonne et al. (2020) highlight the threat that OAPJs face to our scholarly knowledge production system. While we agree generally that OAPJs are problematic, the authors simultaneously fail to mention many of the excellent initiatives helping to combat this threat (e.g., the Directory of Open Access Journals). We call for researchers to more effectively equip themselves with sufficient knowledge of relevant systems before making public statements about them, in order to prevent misinformation from polluting the debate about the future of scholarly communication.
“It’s alive. After months (ok years) of discussion, iteration, and intense testing we’ve now opened the digital door to SMK’s new online collection. We are truly thrilled to be able to contribute to SMK [Statens Museum for Kunst]— and openglam — goals of making cultural heritage easily available in friendly, open formats….”
“SMK [Statens Museum for Kunst] in Sølvgade in Copenhagen is an excellent frame for the art collection of the Danish people. But not everybody has easy acces to the physical museum and when you visit the building – and if you see all the artworks on display – you’ll only have experienced 0.7% of the entire collection.
This means there’s an enormous potential in digitizing and making available the collection in digital form. The digital versions obviously can’t replace the original artworks but they can
Be accessed independently of time and space
Be re-used for new work
Be studied in minute details
Be inserted in everything from books to research articles to school papers
Be printed on anything from posters to couch cushions
With support from Nordea-fonden the SMK Open project (2016-2020) aims to make the country’s art collection available for free use. Everyone should have the opportunity to explore the world of art on their own terms and draw information from SMK’s large collection of knowledge and additional material. With SMK Open, we’re turning the collection into a giant tool-box full of freely usable building blocks.
The project builds on a vision of making art available and relevant for far more Danes by turning it into a resource and tool that one may bring into one’s own life and use on one’s own terms….”
Abstract: The number of open access (OA) journals and their share of all scholarly journals are usually estimated based on indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOAJ’s coverage of OA journals from different regions of the world is, however, far from complete, particularly of journals publishing in languages other than English. Using alternative data sources for identification and manual verification, 437 scholarly OA journals published in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were identified, and some key characteristics were studied. Of these, only 184 were indexed in DOAJ. A vast majority of the journals was published by scholarly societies or universities. Social sciences and humanities dominated as topics, and few journals charge authors. National or university-specific OJS portals have played a major role in enabling OA publishing. Around a third of the Nordic scholarly journals are currently OA.
“The literature claims that mainly researchers from low-ranked universities in developing countries publish in predatory journals. We decided to challenge this claim using the University of Southern Denmark as a case. We ran the Beall’s List against our research registration database and identified 31 possibly predatory publications from a set of 6,851 publications within 2015-2016. A qualitative research interview revealed that experienced researchers from the developed world publish in predatory journals mainly for the same reasons as do researchers from developing countries: lack of awareness, speed and ease of the publication process, and a chance to get elsewhere rejected work published. However, our findings indicate that the Open Access potential and a larger readership outreach were also motives for publishing in open access journals with quick acceptance rates. …”
From Google’s English: “Danish Universities have together with universities from all over Europe just sent a letter of formal notice to the European Commission. The complaint is addressed to Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
It’s about universities paying enormous amounts of money to a few publishers every year to access scientific articles that their own researchers have contributed to writing …
… Which would answer if a farmer had to pay a high price for a carton of milk that he had milked from his own cows and delivered to the dairy company.
With the complaint, the universities now put their foot down to the monopoly-like conditions which, in their opinion, distort the market….”
Abstract: This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.