“The EGU, through Copernicus Publications, publishes 19 peer-reviewed, open access journals that cover a wide range of topics within the Earth, planetary and space sciences. Not only are these EGU journals open access, but they also provide an open discussion forum that allows an open review, open discussion and transparent evaluation.
This webinar explains the interactive public peer review system, the role of the EGU Publication Committee, how researchers can effectively publish in an EGU Journal, and briefly describes the new EGUsphere….”
“EDP Sciences is pleased to announce an exciting development in its commitment to open access. Following the successful transition of Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena (MMNP) to open access under the Subscribe to Open (S2O) pilot earlier this year, a further five maths journals will transition to open access under this model from January 2021. The journals are:
ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations (COCV)
ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis (M2AN)
“This survey is being conducted by ASAPbio (a researcher-led non-profit working to promote the productive use of preprints, see asapbio.org) and attendees of #bioPreprints2020 (asapbio.org/building-trust-in-preprints-together) to understand perceptions of benefits and concerns of preprinting across a broad group of stakeholders. It should take less than 5 minutes to complete. No personally identifiable information will be collected unless you opt-in to discuss your opinions about preprints further. Responses (excluding any email addresses collected as a result of opting-in) will be shared publicly, aggregated across geographic, disciplinary, or professional categories.”
“In today’s global market, it’s more important than ever to understand the changing dynamics of scholarly and professional publishing. Rely on Simba Information’s Open Access Journal Publishing 2020-2024 to build your growth plan for this year and beyond.
This report explains the origins of the open access movement, gives a timeline for its development, but most importantly, Simba Information quantifies open access’ position as a fast growing subsegment of scholarly journal publishing. Simba used the information it gathered through primary and secondary research to develop a financial outlook for open access journal publishing including leading competitors’ performance through 2020 and market projections through 2024. This research was conducted in conjunction with a larger study of the overall market for scholarly and professional publishing.
Open Access Journal Publishing 2020-2024 contains separate chapters covering the market, key competitors, and issues and forecast that include:
Simba’s exclusive analysis of market size and structure
Revenue and market share rankings of 10 leading global publishers
Title and article growth metrics
A breakdown of players in the open access ecosystem including public and private research funders.
A breakdown open access publishing in key geographic regions: North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of World
Analysis of mergers and acquisitions
Simba’s exclusive market projections to 2024 and more….”
“In response to the current pandemic, a group of publishers and scholarly communication organizations came together to ensure research related to COVID-19 is reviewed and published as quickly as possible. They produced an Open Letter of Intent encouraging academics to sign up to a reviewer database, authors to use preprint servers, and calling other publishers to join the initiative as well as supporting through open data and encouraging preprints.
Join us on July 8, 2020 at 4pm BST for a Q&A roundtable on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cross-publisher collaboration, the benefits of having key research reviewed and published as quickly possible, as well as plans for the future.
Is large-scale collaboration among publishers and organizations sustainable for the long term?
What are the main constraints and how can we overcome these challenges?
The changes this pandemic has precipitated within the STM industry will hopefully turn out to be long-lasting, and push the ideas of Open Science and the boundaries of collaboration to the forefront of all publishers’ minds….”
“Many libraries have found a solution, at least when it comes to making physical books available digitally. This system is called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). Libraries have a strong argument that fair use makes it possible to make an electronic copy of a book, and allow someone to “borrow” it, to the extent that such copying simply replicates what would have been possible with physical books under first sale. Under CDL, a digital copy of a physical book can only be read and used by one person at a time. While it is being “lent” electronically, a library engaged in CDL would take the physical book out of circulation, and only one person can “borrow” an electronic book at once. Since any of the copies made under this system necessarily cannot have an effect any different than normal lending could, libraries are on pretty solid ground that these acts of copying are fair uses.
But CDL only gets you so far. While it works with physical books, electronic materials often come with licensing and contract terms, as well as copy-prevention technology, that set highly specific conditions on how the library can lend it out. Certainly, some libraries buy special library editions of books and have various library-specific arrangements with publishers — but they don’t have to. With physical books, libraries are free to buy a book at any bookstore, or take books via donation, and lend them out freely as part of their collection. With electronic materials, libraries generally have to buy licenses for special, restricted library editions, that carry significant usage restrictions and might even expire over time or cause the files to “self-destruct” after a set number of loans.
It’s time for Congress to step in and clarify that libraries should be as free to buy and lend books today as they have been for centuries. We need legislation that ensures that libraries are free to buy ebooks and other electronic materials and lend them out, just as they can with physical media. A library should have the right to simply purchase an ebook at its mass market retail price, and then check it out to patrons one at a time. Licenses for library ebooks shouldn’t expire, and they shouldn’t carry restrictions that prevent libraries from carrying out their educational and archival missions. This legislation should also clarify that existing CDL programs for physical media are lawful, to avoid costly litigation over the fair use arguments….”
“Knowledge Unlatched (KU) and OpenAPC, operated by the University of Bielefeld, are expanding the OpenAPC dataset to support the inclusion of Book Processing Charges (BPCs). The first deposit includes all of the payments made by KU to publishers for the KU Select programs, equalling almost 1,000 books. KU is also planning to share further transactional data for the other collections for which it collects funding….”
“This report proposes a series of goals, commitments, policies and actions for the adoption of Open Science in Greece.
It is intended to serve as a reference point for national policy makers towards the establishment of a national strategy for Open Science, assist national organizations in embracing Open Science principles, and ensure national alignment with the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC).
The report has been prepared by the ‘Open Science Task Force’, a collaborative bottom-up initiative of eleven national academic & research organizations and twenty-six research infrastructures & civic initiatives…..”
“More equitable alternatives are required, such as returning to the earlier model by which a research paper is not regarded as a for-profit commodity but as a public-serving good. However, there is a relatively simple, cost- and risk-free option: a majority of the journals in geochemistry have a green colour according to the SHERPA/RoMEO grading system (Fig. 1), indicating that pre-print and post-print articles submitted to journals can be archived in a repository. According to the Web of Science among the 885 articles published in Elements, only 56 were OA as Gold or Bronze (data accessed on 01/02/2020). The change started three years ago with an increase of up to 31% total OA articles in 2018. This change was mainly because author institutions required authors to publish articles as OA, and so paid for this….
Finally, in parallel to traditional journal publication, there is a clear role for self-archiving of peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts (post-print): the Green OA route. The policy of making research available to the wider public in some countries has essentially set up institutional repositories to do just this [e.g., the Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL) repository in France]. The Green route is cost-free for authors, and numerous platforms and collaborative tools for pre-prints (e.g., EarthArXiv) are available for researchers to pursue Green OA. However, the pre-print model remains little-known and is not being routinely used by geochemists. Another problem is that the current APC model has additional restrictions on the publication of research from developing countries where OA fees are beyond reach, resulting in authors seeking out the lower- or no-cost options found in “predatory journals”, i.e., those journals that lack the support from academic societies, use unvalidated review processes, and have a for-profit approach with little clear consideration for what is written. Unfortunately, there are ample opportunities to publish scientific research as OA papers in such journals. The publishing practices of these types of journal challenge the long-term future of full peer review and of publishing ethics. There is currently much discussion between professional and learned societies and academic publishers on this subject (e.g., the Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S project) (Wise and Estelle 2019). I encourage the geochemical community to be active; to consult and take action; and to prioritize our research with straightforward, open and rigorous peer review, and visibility…..”
“Open Science is increasingly seen as “Science for the Future” and the “Future of Science”. Science is not necessarily accessible by all, inclusive and readily available. Science can contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). UNESCO was tasked to lead a global dialogue on Open Science, to identify globally-agreed norms and practices in order to create a standard-setting instrument.
The session will address what open science means for Africa, the challenges and opportunities for making science accessible to all, assess the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, and identify concrete measures advance science in Africa…”