In publishing: Discover the latest on the open-source publishing platform Libero and how to get involved | Events | eLife

On Monday, March 11, we invite you to come and learn more about eLife’s Libero – a suite of services and applications that help scholarly content providers do more with everything they publish.

Libero encompasses the open-source, end-to-end publishing workflow that eLife is developing, both for its own purposes and to help other organisations looking to modernise and increase efficiency for their operations. Current projects that fall under the Libero umbrella include Libero Reviewer (being developed in concert with the Collaborative Knowledge Foundation (Coko) and others), the content production tool Texture (developed with Substance Software GmbH), and Libero Publisher (eLife’s content delivery platform)….”

The business of academic publishing: “a catastrophe” – ScienceDirect

Richard Smith, a former editor at BMJ, reviews Jason Schmitt’s film, Paywall.

As I watched Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, I was taken back 30 years to when I thought for the first time about the business aspects of academic publishing. I was an assistant editor at the BMJ, and the editor asked me to join a meeting with a group of rheumatologists who wanted a share in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases, a journal we owned. “We do the research published in the journal”, said one of the rheumatologists. “We do the peer review, we edit the journal, we read it, and we store it in our libraries. What do you do?” “Tell them what we do”, said the editor to me. I was at a complete loss….”

Building Capacity for Academy-Owned Publishing through the Library Publishing Coalition

Abstract:  Library publishing is both a growing area of interest in academic libraries and an increasingly visible subfield of scholarly publishing. This article introduces the field of library publishing—and the opportunities and values that make it unique—from the perspective of the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC). The LPC is an independent, community-led membership association of academic and research libraries and library consortia engaged in scholarly publishing, and it is the only professional association dedicated to this emerging area of librarianship. In its first five years, LPC has produced a robust set of resources to support library publishers, including the annual Library Publishing Forum, the annual Library Publishing Directory, and a variety of freely available professional development resources. It has also built a strong community of members and an extended network of affiliates. This paper presents and contextualizes these accomplishments and shares new developments and future directions for the Library Publishing Coalition.

News – Information Power to explore Plan S-compliant business models

Helping learned societies transition to Open Access and explore Plan S-compliant business models – 1 February 2019

Wellcome, in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), have engaged Information Power to explore a range of potential strategies and business models through which learned societies can transition to Open Access and adapt and thrive under Plan S.

Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet?era transformation of scholarly communications – Green – 2019 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born?free’, and half of all versions of record pay?walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12?months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply?side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay?wall to a ‘play?wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two?step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today.

 

Key points

 

  • We are still failing to deliver open access (OA); around a fifth of new articles will be born free in 2018, roughly the same as in 2017.
  • Librarians, funders, and negotiators are getting tougher with publishers, but offsetting, deals, and Plan S will not deliver OA or solve the serials crisis.
  • The authors of Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin OA declarations foresaw three changes with the coming of the internet, but flipping to a barrier to publish article processing charges from a barrier to read (subscriptions) was not one of them.
  • A digital transformation of scholarly communications based on internet?era principles is needed if OA is to succeed.
  • Accepting preprints into the reputation economy could be the catalyst to solve the serials crisis, afford OA, and drive out predatory journals.
  • A model where journal editors invite submissions from authors whose preprint articles have gained attention may offer a cost?effective model for OA….”

Is Open Access Affordable? More to the point, is scholarly publishing affordable?

Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born?free’. After two decades trying to flip to open access, one has to ask the question: why is it taking so long?

In this paper, I review what happened in 2017-2018: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is too expensive for today’s budgets. So, OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two?step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then journal editors invite authors to submit only those papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today….”

Academic-Led Publishing Day

“Academic-Led Publishing Day is a global digital event to foster discussions about how members of the scholarly community can develop and support academic-led publishing initiatives. Academic-Led publishing refers to scholarly publishing initiatives wherein one or more academic organizations control decisions pertaining to copyright, distribution, and publishing infrastructure. The goal of Academic-Led Publishing Day is to create an open dialogue about academic-led publishing programs and funding models – both current and potential – and to raise awareness about the roles and capabilities of different stakeholders in this space. The day will consist of virtual and in-person events, social media discussions, and a collection of blog posts and relevant resources….”

Creating ‘fundamental truth’ | Research Information

“I joined Springer Nature a year ago from bol.com, which I co-founded and led for 20 years.  During my time there, the company developed from a small start-up to being the largest online retail platform for Dutch speaking consumers around the world…

Some of the very core processes of publishing haven’t changed as much as I would have expected and, coming as I did, from a digital process business, this was surprising.

And the degree of cooperation and coordination is also significantly lower than I expected, leaving many opportunities untapped.

But most worrying is the fact that publishers are not seen as partners by some of our stakeholders, but as ‘the enemy’. This is extremely concerning given that there are many fundamental improvements that would create value for the research ecosystem and for which I can see no alternative other than for big publishers to be leading their implementation and playing a pivotal role in their delivery.

there are things we can and should be leading and implementing, both individually within our publishing houses and collectively as the academic publishing industry to create more value for the research ecosystem as a whole.

These include but are not limited to:

  • Helping researchers make their data, protocols and methods open and access the data sets of others. This has the potential to instigate a fundamental step change in enabling researchers to make use of existing information and build on it for the benefit of scientific advancement; 
  • Improving peer review quality and improved process to save time for all involved, including a vastly reduced time between submission and publication;
  • Driving change in the reputation and recognition models and metrics, for authors, researchers, members of our editorial boards and peer reviewers;
  • Publishing negative results and reproducibility studies at scale; and
  • Making usage easy: rather than fighting illegal use, we should create common standards and user-friendly interfaces that make it easy for every legally entitled user to search, discover, and consume the research information they need to advance discoveries….

Without a doubt the biggest challenge facing scholarly publishers over the next 10 years is need to rebuild trust between the research community (authors, researchers, funders, librarians) and publishers …

A further sentiment I’ve picked up is the negative feeling of dependency; researchers feel they are too dependent on publishers and they don’t like that….”

DOAJ Progress Report for 2018 – News Service

“With a revised set of Principles of Transparency and Best Practice and a new mission,  DOAJ started 2018 by publishing its strategy to show the community where DOAJ is focussing its efforts: a) funding and sustainability; b) functionality, stability and scalability; c) education and outreach. 

Financially, DOAJ has seen the benefits of the SCOSS initiative, with more than 60% of all monies being donated from the public sector….

For the first time since before 2013, we do not have a backlog of applications waiting to be triaged….

The introduction of an update function allowed us to make systematic journal entry reviews more focussed and more effective. These are undertaken as each update is submitted. Further reviews are taken across our larger multi-journal accounts where, as far as possible, we have tried to establish common metadata entries across all journals belonging to the same publishing entity….”

FINAL REPORT: A Grand Challenges-Based Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication and Information Science

“A global and multidisciplinary community of stakeholders came together in March 2018 to identify, scope, and prioritize a common vision for specific grand research challenges related to the fields of information science and scholarly communications. The participants included domain researchers in academia, practitioners, and those who are aiming to democratize scholarship. An explicit goal of the summit was to identify research needs related to barriers in the development of scalable, interoperable, socially beneficial, and equitable systems for scholarly information; and to explore the development of non-market approaches to governing the scholarly knowledge ecosystem.

To spur discussion and exploration, grand challenge provocations were suggested by participants and framed into one of three sections: scholarly discovery, digital curation and preservation, and open scholarship. A few people participated in three segments, but most only attended discussions around a single topic….”