OSFair – open-access-tracking-project-the-most-comprehensive-tool-to-stay-up-to-date-with-the-most-recent-open-access-developments

“The Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) is a crowd-sourced project, aiming to provide a comprehensive Open Science (OS) feed, covering all OS subtopics, in all academic fields and regions of the world and in all languages. 

The project aims to tag new OS developments and disseminates this information to the end user in eight different types of feeds: 1) HTML, 2) RSS feed, 3) Atom, 4) JSONP, 5) Email, 6) Twitter, 7) PushBullet, and 8) Reddit. The OATP is the most comprehensive and easy to use tool where the whole OS community can contribute with tagging and capturing the open scholarly communications developments in open access, funders’ policies, copyright and open licenses, open data, research data management, and open tools and infrastructures, etc. 

Currently 80 taggers have tagged more than 77000 items in the OATP offering a comprehensive list of news items with self-sufficient summaries from experts, occasional comments, links to relevant developments and a searchable archive. Each tagged item offers also record metadata information, such as the date of the tag and the name of the tagger, while the tagged items range from blog posts, discussion forums, newspaper articles, open access books, journal articles, YouTube videos and many more. 

The OATP though is not merely an alert service, but also a classification system; it enables users to classify OS developments even when they are not new. The two most important facts about these “subtopic tags” is that they are all optional and they are all user-defined, which helps users track new items on the subtopics they care about. 

The OATP calls the OS community to become an OATP tagger by capturing OS related information that takes place in their own fields, countries and languages. …”

Open Peer Review: a Model & an Invitation (2019 update) | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

This is a 2019 update of a post originally published in 2005 on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics; the original is republished here. This version reflects experience with open peer review (mine and that of others), further reflection, and research conducted since 2005.

These are some ideas for open peer review that can be used today in experiments that may be helpful to shape future systemic approaches. The overall goal is to facilitate open research by opening up preprints, increase transparency in the peer review process, and to allow peer reviewers to take credit for their work. Interested authors and/or reviewers can experiment with this approach today. For example, an author can post a preprint in a repository, seek volunteer reviewers through a listserv or other social media service for a relevant scholarly community and/or ask a colleague to serve as an editor to coordinate the review process and/or serve as a contact for blind reviews….”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

What does the Web of Science tell us about Plan S? | Research Information

Only 120,000 (6.4 per cent) of papers indexed in the Web of Science acknowledge Plan S funders, but these are comparatively well-cited, published in high impact journals and as we have seen, often in journals from major publishing houses. They won’t just influence the publishing landscape – these are papers that will change their fields of scientific discovery. 

Post-Plan S, we would expect to see about 90,000 papers that are published in journals that are not compliant with Plan S move to Gold OA journals, which increase the number of papers in Gold OA journals by 29 per cent and, on the flipside, decrease the number of non-open access papers and Hybrid Open Access papers by 5 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. 

Unless there is confirmation from Plan S on whether ‘read and publish’ deals – such as Wiley’s recent agreement with Projekt DEAL – will be considered compliant in the long term, the market can be expected to change in response by ‘flipping’ existing hybrid journals to become fully OA, or Plan S papers being redirected to compliant Gold OA journals. There are only a few hybrid journals with a medium-to-high percentage of open access content that might easily flip, which implies that challenging business decisions lie ahead for publishers. …”

Transitioning Society Publications to OA

“A group of like-minded individuals from libraries, academic institutions, publishers, and consortia have organized to connect society journal editors and publishers (and any libraries or consortia that support them) with support and useful resources related to transitioning society publications to open access (OA). …”

Taking Stock of the Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance – The Scholarly Kitchen

“I thought it might be useful to share some of the themes that I have observed emerging across the feedback documents. These are impressionistic and not a systematic analysis….

Theme 1: Clear support for the transition to open access and the goals of Plan S….

Theme 2: Concern that the implementation guidance reflects models that work for STEM but will negatively impact HSS scholars….

Theme 3: The technical requirements for publication, repository, and other platforms are poorly thought out….

Theme 4: The predicted effects on small, independent, and society publishers raise concerns for the viability of these publishers….

Theme 5: Setting a fair and reasonable APC sounds fair and reasonable but it is also likely impossible….

Theme 6: Scholars and organizations in the Global South object to being told what they want….

Theme 7: The timelines are not feasible….”