Details on how to contribute to the Open Access Button doc of instructions on how authors can fetch the accepted author manuscript of one of their articles from the publisher’s journal-submission system.
“To make it easier for authors to self-archive simply, quickly, and correctly we’ve produced guides to turn the too often unsuccessful hunt for Author Accepted Manuscripts into a simple set of instructions that should always bring results….
The guides, available for most major journals, provide simple to follow instructions for authors to obtain an Author Accepted Manuscript from their Journal Submission System, where the AAM is stored during the publishing process….”
“Scientific publication is an essential tool for the dis- semination and transfer of knowledge. Free access to publications and “bibliodiversity” are fundamen- tal both to researchers, who wish to broadcast their work and thus secure funding for it, and for the sci- entific community, which is fuelled by the progress of each of its members. Researchers ensure that scien- tific discoveries can be replicated. Today, publishers, via their editorial choices, influence the direction of research, whereas this should be the prerogative of researchers. As evidenced in the “Appel de Jussieu”(1), research- ers are in favour of an Open Access model, yet the community is faced with one pressing problem: “Who will foot the bill?”. Within the current Open Access model, publishing is expensive for authors/ researchers (from €1000 to €5000 for one article), despite low added value provided by publishers in terms of editing, but also reviewing. Peer review and validation are performed by other researchers for free. There is a real need to create a more af- fordable, more diverse, and fairer Open Access solu- tion. Researchers’ work, especially as authors and reviewers, is financed by public funds with no com- pensation provided by private publishers. An innovative cooperative We propose a scientific publication platform led by the research community itself. For the collective in- terest to prevail, we want to set up the first coop- erative platform dedicated to scientific publication. In France there is a type of business entity that suits this purpose perfectly: the SCIC. Short for Société Coopérative d’Intérêt Collectif (public interest cooperative company), this type of entity lets each par- ticipant weigh in as a stakeholder: researchers (authors and reviewers), publishers, public institutions and investors….”
Six years ago, the Finch report set an objective of ‘better, faster access to research publications for the benefit of all.’(1) Funders (2) and government responded with policies which supported OA whilst recognising academic freedom, economic challenges and local considerations. Jisc Collections was tasked to ‘limit and constrain the negative financial impact on institutions of subscribing to journal content and paying for APCs with those same publishers’.(3) It led the development and testing of a range of ‘offsetting agreements’ for hybrid journals based on a set of principles.(4) The resulting agreements delivered savings (5) and, at their most effective, supported institutions in the administration and implementation of OA, but the transition remains slow, the costs are only partially constrained and APC spend is, for the most part, going to the same publishers who receive the most in subscription revenues.(6)
In 2017, the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group (UUK OAACG) report – Monitoring the Transition to Open Access (7) – confirmed that 70% of total spend on OA publishing is going to hybrid journals. In addition, between 2013 and 2016 the mean APC hybrid payment by UK universities increased by 19%. What has become clear is that, while progress towards open access has been made, progress has been at a cost and remains slow with only 37% of outputs available OA on publication. The newly formed UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is about to embark on an internal review of its OA policy (8) with a view to ensuring the policy is effective and the Wellcome Trust also have a review underway.
Internationally, targets are being set to increase the speed of transition, including the 2020 goal of the European Commission (9), and consortia are collaborating to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of OA models. Effecting a global move to OA requires the commitment of funders, publishers and institutions to work in unison to implement innovative and affordable agreements for hybrid journals which accelerate the transformation to full open access in the UK and beyond.
UK academic institutions and sector agencies, working alongside Jisc Collections, have established the following requirements which set out the measures required to accelerate open access in the UK, and ensure that journals agreements offer the maximum benefit with the minimum burden, on public finances, to researchers and for institutions.
“One of the world’s biggest research funders is to require research that could help to tackle disease outbreaks or other health emergencies to be published before peer review as part of a further step towards open science.
Releasing details of its new open-access policy, which comes into force in January 2020, the Wellcome Trust said that, “where there was a significant public health benefit to preprints being shared widely and rapidly”, the research must be placed “on an approved platform that supports immediate publication of the complete manuscript” prior to peer review.
Robert Kiley, head of open research at Wellcome, told Times Higher Education that it was “clearly necessary” to bypass traditional journal publication processes if that allowed potentially life-saving research to be shared more quickly….”
“Progress to open access has stalled. After two decades of trying, the proportion of born-free articles is stuck at 20%. Kicking off the Impact Blog’s Open Access Week coverage, Toby Green suggests the solution to our financially unsustainable scholarly publishing system may lie in rethinking traditional processes using internet-era norms. Embracing the principle of “fail fast”, all papers should first be published as freely available preprints to test whether they “succeed” or “fail”, with journals then competing to invite authors to publish. This would reduce the costs of the expensive, straining peer review system while ensuring all papers are available to all readers….”
“Authors lose time and effort when their manuscript is rejected by a journal and they have to repeat the submission process in subsequent journals. Plus, it is estimated that 15 million hours of researcher time is wasted each year repeating reviews. Both of these challenges could be addressed if journals and publishers could transfer manuscripts between publications using different submission-tracking systems. With the growth of cascading workflows, manuscripts are regularly transferred within a publishing group. But a growing challenge is to transfer the manuscript (and, optionally, peer-review data) across publishers and manuscript systems and even to and from preprint servers.
A group of manuscript-management suppliers has taken up this challenge and is working together with NISO to develop a common approach that can be adopted across the industry. …”
“Members of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) have approved the ‘Manuscript Exchange Common Approach’ (MECA) – a major new academic publishing initiative co-led by HighWire Founding Director John Sack. The project will see the industry’s leading technology providers work together on a more standardized approach to the transfer of manuscripts between and among manuscript systems, such as those in use at publishers and preprint servers….
Momentum has gathered pace since the project was first presented by John at the 2017 SSP Annual Meeting, with the first use case for the project now live….”
” “Publications in peer-review journals are hardly infallible,” Sharon Begley, senior science writer at STAT, reminded the audience, as she related instances of her own troubles with peer-reviewed research. Rather than rehashing the debate of whether preprints could be used for news stories, the session’s panelists described best approaches for reporters, editors, and PIOs to work with preprints.
To get the room familiar with preprints, Jessica Polka, director of ASAPBio, gave an overview of preprint history and how they foster collaboration. Polka noted that more direct feedback is given to authors to hone the research and development of their piece when it is put onto a preprint server. She highlighted another example of collaboration, in which graduate students start reading clubs to practice their review skills with pre-printed work freely available online.
Begley directed her talk toward science journalists. She pointed out that, when it comes to writing about preprints, “The train has already left the station.” It’s not a matter of if reporters should cover preprints, but of how to do so responsibly. No other news beat works with an embargo, she reminded the audience, “I’m at a loss for why science should be different.” …”