Publication models in scientific publishing: to open or not? | Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

“The process of scientific publication entails significant input, not only from the authors but also from the editors, reviewers and publishers. Journals may be published by commercial publishers or by scientific societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE), which publishes this journal. Such published information may be available only to subscribers of the journal (subscription-based model) or freely available to be accessed by anyone i.e. open access (OA) model.1 In this article, we provide an overview of various models of publication and also briefly analyse some recent developments….”

Publication models in scientific publishing: to open or not? | Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

“The process of scientific publication entails significant input, not only from the authors but also from the editors, reviewers and publishers. Journals may be published by commercial publishers or by scientific societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (RCPE), which publishes this journal. Such published information may be available only to subscribers of the journal (subscription-based model) or freely available to be accessed by anyone i.e. open access (OA) model.1 In this article, we provide an overview of various models of publication and also briefly analyse some recent developments….”

Four reports on the OA monograph: Review – Hill – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

Increasing interest in open access (OA) monographs is reflected by the publication of four reports in 2019.
The cost of transitioning monographs to OA is a constant source of concern among all stakeholders.
Print remains an important medium for monographs – but for how long?
The fully OA licences used for journals are considerably less popular within the monograph ecosystem.
The technical interoperability taken for granted among journals is not yet evident in digital monograph publishing….”

Wayback Machine Compare: An Ideal Digital-Professional Portfolio Tool – Cal schol.com

“Don’t know how I missed this, but Internet Archive back in October of 2019 released a new feature on its Wayback Machine to enable users easily to compare different versions of an archived web page. I’ve been hoping for such a feature for a while as a crucial tool for Digital History / Digital Humanities and even made inquires to private software companies about developing it. I’m elated that the adept and agile team at Wayback Machine built it directly into their UI.

This new feature has been highlighted in various tech blogs, and yesterday in a blog post by a journalist noting its importance for fact-checking.

The usefulness of the “Changes” (compare) feature in the Wayback Machine extends well beyond Digital History and Journalism. It should be considered an essential tool for vocational portfolios and professional files for anyone working on online content and web development….”

Preprinting a pandemic: the role of preprints in the COVID-19 pandemic | bioRxiv

Abstract:  The world continues to face an ongoing viral pandemic that presents a serious threat to human health. The virus underlying the COVID-19 disease, SARS-CoV-2, has caused over 3.2 million confirmed cases and 220,000 deaths between January and April 2020. Although the last pandemic of respiratory disease of viral origin swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a paradigm shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 16,000 COVID-19 related scientific articles within 4 months of the first confirmed case, of which at least 6,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, two growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, characteristics of their sharing on online platforms, and the relationship between preprints and their published articles. Our data provides evidence for increased scientific and public engagement (COVID-19 preprints are accessed and distributed at least 15 times more than non-COVID-19 preprints) and changes in journalistic practice with reference to preprints. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter, with fewer panels and tables, and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science, and the likely long-term impact of the pandemic on the scientific publishing landscape.

 

The Megajournal Lifecycle – The Scholarly Kitchen

“PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports have been very successful journals. Any publisher would be thankful to have them in their portfolio. Nonetheless, their unstable performance should also serve as a warning. In the year of their steepest decline, each journal shrunk by about 7,000 articles, which can translate to a loss of more than $10m year-on-year. That will reflect poorly on the balance sheet of any publisher.

The takeaways for publishers are simple:

Do not get carried away; the revenue of megajournals can be inconsistent, so avoid overselling their success to investors and avoid reckless investments
Invest heavily in marketing; if the journal is shedding 10% of citability every year, marketing should try plug this hole as well as possible
Build around their success; launch affiliated, higher impact journals that will absorb some of the eventual content loss
Do not put all your eggs in one basket; pursue a less risky, broad portfolio approach rather than a smaller, focused megajournal approach….”

2020 Update of the University Open Access Publication Fund

“We are fortunate in our campus’s commitment to open access publishing. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is the only institution offering such funding in the state. The University of Wisconsin-Madison closed its fund in 2014 after spending its initial $50,000 seed money. For comparison of levels of open access initiatives at other universities, we reviewed 15 UWM peeruniversities and found that only three offer such funds: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Temple University, and University of Illinois at Chicago. From our survey of their fund coordinators, we learned that only one fund (allocated annually at $20,000) was supported entirely from the library’s budget; and the two other funds included a partial contribution (one at $15,000) from the library’s budget along with money ($50,000-60,000 total per year) collected from schools, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. In writing this report (April 2020) we checked back on the status of OA funds at the three peer institutions and discovered that two were not currently active, either exhausted or being evaluated until the next fiscal year. After our survey of peer institutions in 2018, we added the UWM UOAP to two directories: Open Access Funds in Action hosted by SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)1 and Open Access Directory hosted by the School of Library and Information Science at Simmons College2 ….”