Pubfair, version 2 now available – COAR

“This is the 2nd version of a paper that was originally published and made open for community comment on the COAR website on September 3, 2019.

We received and reviewed over 25 comments from community members and there was a lot of very useful and valuable feedback which we have incorporated into the revised version.

One of the major revisions was to try to re-articlate Pubfair as a framework (rather than a platform). That is, to describe Pubfair as a distributed content layer, connected to a variety of diverse assessment and dissemination services. This is more in-line with the architecture envisioned through the NGR work.

We would like to thank all of those who provided their valuable input.

As a next step, COAR will continue to work with the NGR Expert Group and other partners on profiling and implementing Pubfair and other models that aim to develop value added services on the distributed repository network….”

Pubfair, version 2 now available – COAR

“This is the 2nd version of a paper that was originally published and made open for community comment on the COAR website on September 3, 2019.

We received and reviewed over 25 comments from community members and there was a lot of very useful and valuable feedback which we have incorporated into the revised version.

One of the major revisions was to try to re-articlate Pubfair as a framework (rather than a platform). That is, to describe Pubfair as a distributed content layer, connected to a variety of diverse assessment and dissemination services. This is more in-line with the architecture envisioned through the NGR work.

We would like to thank all of those who provided their valuable input.

As a next step, COAR will continue to work with the NGR Expert Group and other partners on profiling and implementing Pubfair and other models that aim to develop value added services on the distributed repository network….”

Open access dell’Università statale di Milano | Scienza in rete

The article presents the OA journal publishing platform owned and maintained by the University of Milan. All journals are no-fee OA journals and the majority of them deal with humanities.

In the extensive introduction, the key concepts related to OA (including Plan S, transformative agreements, self-archiving, etc.) are discussed.

CFP: Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing – OER + ScholComm

“We are pleased to announce a call for proposals for Unit 3 contributions (see more details below) in our upcoming edited open book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing, to be openly published by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in electronic and print formats. Authors retain copyright of their contributions, but commit to open publication in the CC-BY-NC book.

Proposals will be accepted in three areas:

Perspectives – situated and self-reflexive discussions of topics of importance in scholarly communication
Intersections – examples of and reflections on the intersection of scholarly communication with other areas of academic librarianship or other stakeholders
Case Studies – stories and lessons learned drawn from experience by librarians engaged in scholarly communication work…”

Open Access Market Sizing Update 2019 – Delta Think

“Delta Think’s OA Market Sizing shows that the open access market continues to grow faster than the underlying journals publishing market, and faster than we previously expected. (Market Size represents revenue generated by providers or, conversely, costs incurred to buyers of content.) We estimate it to have been worth $675m in 2018 and on track to grow to over $758m in 2019….”

Survey of Academic Library Leadership: Level of Support for Open Access Initiatives

“This 61-page report [$114 for one PDF copy] looks closely at academic library activity to support open access.  The study gives highly precise data on librarian perceptions of faculty support for open access, and for library activities in peer review, open access publishing and other ventures and activity to support open access, including the payment of author fees and development of institutional digital repositories.  The study helps its readers to answer questions such as:  What percentage of libraries are active in helping to develop peer review networks?  How much do libraries spend on author fees?  How many themselves publish open access journals? What percentage of faculty routinely deposit their scholarly articles in the institutional digital repository? How effective have librarians been in promoting the repository to faculty? How do librarians evaluate the current effectiveness of future probably impact of open access?  How do librarians view the level of support that they are getting from university management on open access issues? How many staff positions are largely devoted to various specified open access activities?

Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:

Public colleges were significantly more likely than private ones to report support from university or college administration for open access initiatives.
25% of respondents from research universities reported more than just modest progress over the past two years in convincing faculty to deposit their research articles into institutional digital repositories.
13.64% of the MA/PHD level colleges and universities in the sample published their own open access journals.
Nearly 24% of respondents from institutions with enrolment of greater than 10,000 FTE were active in developing peer review networks for open access publications.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables. 

Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.”

Simba Information: Scientific & Technical Publishing Bucked Headwinds, Posted Strong Growth in 2018

“The report Global Scientific & Technical Publishing 2019-2023 found that the global scientific and technical publishing market grew 3% to $10.3 billion in 2018. Currency exchange fluctuations inflated growth somewhat in 2018, but even taking that into account, this is the highest growth rate tracked by Simba since 2011 when market growth exceeded 4%.

The findings stand in stark contrast to media reports that the industry is facing a long-term decline due to the rise of open access publishing. There have been more reports of university libraries canceling their journal subscription packages in 2018 and 2019. The industry also faces threats from websites that freely share pirated copies of copyrighted research papers….”

Ownership, Control, Access and Possession in OA Publishing

“The issue of whose voices are represented—in print, online or on air—by whom and for whom, is particularly salient for under-represented and historically marginalized communities. Communities of colour and Indigenous peoples have more often found themselves to be objects of scholarly interest and academic scrutiny rather than recognized as co-creators of the research and equal partners in the publishing projects that follow. The phrase ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’—while historically associated with disability inclusion and empowerment—has greater relevance than ever, and offers us an opportunity to rethink how we share information in this digitally connected world.

For Indigenous communities in North America and beyond, the institutional momentum behind open access imperatives risks infringing (and even violating) long-held cultural protocols about who should be privy to certain forms of information and traditional knowledge, and when and how these are to be shared. The First Nations principles of OCAP®—Ownership, Control, Access and Possession—are important standards that all of us working in cultural heritage need to study with care….”

Decrypting the Big Deal Landscape: Follow-up of the 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report

“As of 2017, the European University Association (EUA) assembled a unique collection of ‘Big Deals’ data on agreements between scholarly publishers and (national) consortia of libraries, universities and research organisations. This was carried out in the light of mounting higher education institution concerns about the increasingly unsustainable cost of subscriptions to scholarly publications. In 2016, EUA committed to “establishing an evidence base about current agreements and on-going negotiations with publishers in collaboration with NRCs”.1 Subsequently, data collected by EUA has served as the basis for two reports released in 2018 and 2019, respectively.2 Big Deals now receive increased attention due to their potential to ‘flip’ entire segments of the scholarly publication market from closed to open access publications. Big deals have also been widely criticised for locking-in library budgets, due to constantly increasing subscription costs. The 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report surveyed covered 30 European countries and found that over €1 billion is spent on electronic resources each year, including at least €726 million spent on periodicals alone. Big Deals are said to limit competition and innovation in the scholarly publishing system3 and curb universities’ and consortia’s financial freedom to pursue other priorities. However, recently, several European negotiating consortia and scholarly publishers have concluded Big Deals that allow eligible authors to publish articles in open access formats in specific journals. Known as ‘transformative agreements’, these contracts are also supported as one way to comply with future funder requirements that will apply as of 2021 under Plan S.4 In a system that is largely defined by Big Deals, this report aims to inform the transition to open access debate, by providing additional insights and indicators on these agreements’ costs, publication volumes and timelines. This has been achieved by placing EUA Big Deals data into context….

Part 1 explains the methods used to obtain the underlying data as well as limitations and responsible use of the data. Part 2 links the publication outputs of journal articles and reviews to the large five publishers’ market share. It seeks to provide a bigger picture of the relation between subscription costs and publishing output. Part 3 sets out an analysis of the price-per-article for each country and publisher, calculated on the basis of subscription prices and publication volume. It provides European negotiators with comparative Big Deals price per article data in 26 countries. Part 4 takes a closer look at the timeline of Big Deal agreements collected by the EUA Big Deals Survey. It shows that the 2018-2020 period is crucial for negotiations with scholarly publishers (in terms of market volume). Negotiations that occur during this time may also be crucial for the further development of ‘transformative’ agreements and therefore compliance with Plan S requirements. Part 5 provides a brief summary of our main findings, contextualises them with current developments and provides policy recommendations….”

Decrypting the Big Deal Landscape: Follow-up of the 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report | EUA

by Lennart Stoy, Rita Morais and Lidia Borrell-Damián

Based on the data collected for the 2019 Big Deals Survey Report, this publication aims to deliver additional transparency of the dynamics of the scholarly publishing market by providing insights and indicators on the costs, publication volumes and timelines of Big Deal contracts. The report is part of EUA’s support to universities and consortia striving to create a transparent and sustainable open access publishing system, in particular in the context of Plan S.

This has been achieved by placing EUA Big Deals data into context. Specifically, this report uses aggregate data obtained from the Web of Science by Clarivate Analytics provided by the German Competence Center for Bibliometrics and correlates it with EUA data on Big Deals. The report uses data from 26 countries and contracts with the publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley and American Chemical Society collected in late 2018.