“As publishers and funders have used various methods or requirements to stimulate the adoption of open access, academic libraries have sought to alter their role in further supporting their authors and researchers. Evolving from supporting the mechanisms to OA with institutional repositories or Article Processing Charge (APC) Funds, universities like Carnegie Mellon have taken the responsibility to take direct action upon themselves through replacing the ‘Big Deal’ agreement with models focused on “read and publish” that see scholarly publishing as a single service covering both readership and publishing. As one of the world’s leading universities, the University Libraries at Carnegie Mellon shifted in 2020 towards licensing agreements that would allow CMU authors publishing with Elsevier, ACM, and PLoS, to focus on publishing their works open access by default.
Our university bears the name of business titan and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, whose personal donations defined the library of the 20th century. Carnegie was driven by his desire to make knowledge and education accessible to the working class, so they would have the tools to better their own condition.
This Open Access Week 2020 event will present a brief history of open access at CMU, followed by a lively discussion with faculty and graduate student authors supported by the recent agreements, the CMU APC Fund, and other open access initiatives and services at CMU. Panelists will discuss their individual and disciplinary insights and perspectives. The event will conclude with Dean Keith Webster presenting a brief perspective on the future of advocacy and leadership in open access at CMU, as we seek to build upon our founder’s legacy and define the library of the 21st century.”
In January 2016, the three journals of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) transitioned to gold open access.
Increased author charges were introduced to partially offset the loss of subscription revenue.
Submissions to the two established journals initially dropped by almost 15% but have now stabilized.
The transition has not impacted acceptance rates and impact factors, and article pageviews and downloads may have increased as a result of open access.
“However, with the current trends toward depositing new scientific work on pre-print servers, the proliferation of opportunistic for-profit open access journals, and the dizzying array of social media platforms that provide information in real time, I believe that it will be increasingly hard for journals to be all things to all people all of the time. However, that does not mean we should not lean in….
Accordingly, there is still a need today for a medical journal that is completely dedicated to bringing the fruits of fundamental scientific discoveries to patients….”
Abstract: In academia, decisions on promotions are influenced by the citation impact of the works published by the candidates. The Medical Faculty of the University of Bern used a measure based on the journal impact factor (JIF) for this purpose: the JIF of the papers submitted for promotion should rank in the upper third of journals in the relevant discipline (JIF rank >0.66). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) aims to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics in academic promotion. We examined whether the JIF rank could be replaced with the relative citation ratio (RCR), an article-level measure of citation impact developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An RCR percentile >0.66 corresponds to the upper third of citation impact of articles from NIH-sponsored research. We examined 1525 publications submitted by 64 candidates for academic promotion at University of Bern. There was only a moderate correlation between the JIF rank and RCR percentile (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.38). Among the 1,199 articles (78.6%) published in journals ranking >0.66 for the JIF, less than half (509, 42.5%) were in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Conversely, among the 326 articles published in journals ranking <0.66 regarding the JIF, 72 (22.1%) ranked in the upper third of the RCR percentile. Our study demonstrates that the rank of the JIF is a bad proxy measure for the actual citation impact of individual articles. The Medical Faculty of University of Bern has signed DORA and replaced the JIF rank with the RCR percentile to assess the citation impact of papers submitted for academic promotion.
“We [at Global Health] are committed to removing publication barriers that can disproportionately impact authors based in LMICs. Recognizing that journal fees can be a major impediment to article submission and publication, especially for researchers in LMICs,11 we continue to make GHSP a no-fee, open-access journal. Furthermore, in instances where English language barriers could hinder publication opportunities, our editorial team has worked with authors to address language barriers and is committed to continuing this practice.”
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine the cultural change needed by universities, as identified by LERU in its report Open Science and its role in universities: a roadmap for cultural change.1 It begins by illustrating the nature of that cultural change. Linked to that transformation is a necessary management change to the way in which organizations perform research. Competition is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to conduct this transformation. Open science brings to the fore the values of collaboration and sharing. Building on a number of Focus on Open Science Workshops held over five years across Europe, the article identifies best practice in changing current research practices, which will then contribute to the culture change necessary to deliver open science. Four case studies, delivered at Focus on Open Science Workshops or other conferences in Europe, illustrate the advances that are being made: the findings of a Workshop on Collaboration and Competition at the OAI 11 meeting in Geneva in June 2019; alternative publishing platforms, exemplified by UCL Press; open data, FAIR data and reproducibility; and a Citizen Science Workshop held at the LIBER Conference in Dublin in June 2019.
How do researchers who have made their work openly available as a condition of their grant funding feel about their experiences? What advice would they give to their peers, and to philanthropic organizations considering the adoption of open policies? “Profiles in Open” present real world stories of open in action, as told by the researchers themselves….
Abstract: Infrastructure is a crucial consideration for creating code that can be reused and repurposed. Infrastructures of data are highly rhetorical, because they structure how others interact with information and reflect hierarchies of information, people, and things. Those creating open source and open science projects, in particular, must consider how they structure their data according to principles of accessibility, reusability, and replicability. Failure to consider the design of publicly available code and insufficient user documentation lead to issues with transparency, learnability, and usability within open source science projects.
This paper explores the decision-making processes of two open science researchers as they design their data according to the principles of open science. Using interviews and document analysis, I analyze the rhetorical coding choices of researchers and how these choices encourage or discourage accessibility for different audiences. Ultimately, I examine what accessibility means for these researchers working under the umbrella of open science.
Abstract: Open Access (OA) is a widely debated issue in the scientific community as well as in the publishing industry. Although people in all walks of life are greatly benefitted by the OA philosophy, libraries and information centres have been the prime beneficiaries of the new model of information access and delivery. The main objective of the OA ventures is to make ther ecorded scholarly output freely available to all readers over the Internet. The paper is a case study of E-LIS repository which provides open access LIS literature worldwide. The study found that India is the highest contributor to the repository among all the 42 Asian countries with 658 submissions followed by Turkey and China. M. S. Sridhar, former librarian of ISRO Satellite Centre, Bangalore found to be the highest individual contributors to E-LIS from India with 106 (234%) papers.
Abstract: Open Access is a simple idea that has resulted in a confusing landscape of business models, competing policy prescriptions, and vested interests. Academic debates about the pros and cons of Open Access publishing often lack insights into the operational needs for setting up an Open Access publication. This is true particularly for the social sciences, where experiences with Open Access from the production side still seem sparse. Covering the period between 2010 and 2015, this article recapitulates one of the few cases where an existing academic journal in political science has been converted to an Open Access publication. The Austrian Journal of Political Science (OZP) is an Open Access journal since 2015; and it was the academic community that conducted the conversion process. Remaking the OZP may thus entail some broader lessons for the social sciences communities about what is important in Open Access publishing.