The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform: Catching Up to Plan S and Going Further | The Official PLOS Blog

“It is worth pausing here for a brief aside about the distinction between open sharing, open publishing of research resources, and open access publishing of articles. All of these are important but for open science to be successful the distinction between them has to be clear.

Open sharing consists of making research resources available in a way they can be freely accessed and used. Sharing datasets in a repository or data sharing platform like Dryad, or code used for data analysis and visualization via a service like Github, are good examples. Sharing in this way rapidly disseminates resources and makes them available for use and adaptation by others as quickly as possible. Open publishing of research resources, however, involves the filtration of these resources through other researchers. These peer researchers make sure that the shared resource – whether it is data, code, single figures, or any of the plethora of resources developed throughout the scientific process – is in a form that is standard and easily usable by others, as well as presenting those resources in a curated form on a website or repository. Open access publishing of articles is the primary target of efforts like Plan S and relates to publishing scholarly articles in such a way that they are freely accessible and usable.

The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP), along with myriad other organizations, are developing the resources needed to enable open sharing, open publishing of research resources, and open publishing of articles. By doing so the CONP is helping open science and reduce the current inequalities in access to all of the tools and research outputs science needs to thrive….

Opening science requires the collective effort of funders, data sharing platforms, academic institutions, and individual scientists. Science doesn’t have to be opened all at once, but steps down the open road must be taken, and must be taken now. The CONP will provide tools and guidance, but scientific culture shift requires a concerted community effort.

Some first steps needed to enable the open publishing of all research resources include: (1) forging agreements and partnerships between journals and open science platforms to make it easy for scientists to share their data, publish it in a curated form, and link it to publications, (2) promotion and tenure policies at academic institutions that value the sharing and publishing of data on par with producing articles, (3) funding agencies that require (and enforce) sharing and publishing data, code, and materials associated with publications as a condition of receiving a grant, and (4) a commitment from scientists themselves to change the culture of science towards openly sharing and publishing as many of their resources as they can.”

 

Open Source Publishing Technologies: Current Status and Emerging Possibilities | NISO website

“This session will focus on discussions of open source publishing platforms and systems. What is the value proposition? What functionalities are commonplace? Where are the pitfalls in adoption and use by publishers or by libraries? What potential is there for scholarly societies who are similarly responsible for publication support and dissemination? Given the rising interest in open access and open educational resources, this session will offer professionals a sense of what is available, a sense of practical concerns and a general sense of their future direction….”

Open Access Investment Fund | University of Arizona Libraries

“As of July 1, 2019, the Library’s Open Access Publishing Fund has been repurposed as an Open Access Investment Fund. We feel that by shifting our focus toward the long-term transformation of the scholarly publication ecosystem, we can accelerate the progress of the global open access movement.

From 2014 to 2019, the Library was able to offer direct support to UA-affiliated authors in the form of subsidies to cover the article processing charges for open access publications. While this funding model helped support open access publication of almost 300 articles, it was not a sustainable or scalable model for changing the landscape of scholarly publication.

The current ecosystem of scholarly publication, largely dominated by commercial publishers and dependent upon rapidly rising costs for accessing content, is not sustainable. Transitioning expenditures from “pay to read” (traditional licensing agreements) to “pay to publish” (payment of article processing charges) does little to transform the current ecosystem or stem the flow of increasing amounts of money into the system. Disrupting the traditional scholarly publication system will take more than merely subsidizing a small, finite number of scholarly publications in academic journals. True and lasting change requires investment in new infrastructure models and a commitment to new community-based models of scholarly publishing.

The Library’s Open Access Investment Fund has a twofold purpose:

Support of UA-affiliated author publication costs: The Library will continue to support UA-affiliated authors who publish in open access journals, though in a more indirect way. Through the Library’s institutional memberships with specific publishers, UA authors benefit from pre-arranged discounts on article processing charges.
Support of initiatives and projects that advance open access: The Library will commit funding in memberships and initiatives that have wide potential global impact, such as projects that develop open publication infrastructure or that convert portfolios of subscription-based peer-reviewed journals to open access.

Transitioning the UA Library’s Open Publishing Fund away from its previous internal focus toward a more global focus has the potential for much greater impact in changing the landscape of scholarly publication. The University of Arizona Library remains committed to supporting open access to both scholarship globally and to the published work of the UA campus community….”

AmeliCA before Plan S – The Latin American Initiative to develop a cooperative, non-commercial, academic led, system of scholarly communication | Impact of Social Sciences

“Open access is often discussed as a process of flipping the existing closed subscription based model of scholarly communication to an open one. However, in Latin America an open access ecosystem for scholarly publishing has been in place for over a decade. In this post, Eduardo Aguado-López and Arianna Becerril-Garcia discuss open access developments in Latin America and the AmeliCA initiative to develop a cooperative infrastructure for scientific communication. They also reflect on how the recent proposals put forward by cOAlition S to foster open access publication in the Global North, could potentially negatively impact open access efforts in Latin America. …”

Announcing “Mind the Gap,” a major report on all available open-source publishing software | The MIT Press

“Mellon-funded report Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms catalogs and analyzes all available open-source software for publishing and warns that open publishing must grapple with the dual challenges of siloed development and organization of the community-owned ecosystem…

The MIT Press is pleased to release Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms (openly published at mindthegap.pubpub.org), a major report on the current state of all available open-source software for publishing. Funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the report “shed[s] light on the development and deployment of open-source publishing technologies in order to aid institutions’ and individuals’ decision-making and project planning.” It will be an unparalleled resource for the scholarly publishing community and complements the recently released Mapping the Scholarly Communication Landscape census….”

Mind the Gap

“The number of open source (OS) online publishing platforms, i.e. production and hosting systems for scholarly books and journals, launched or in development, has proliferated in the last decade. Many of these publishing infrastructure initiatives are well-developed, stable, and supported by a small but vigorous distributed community of developers, but promising new ventures have also recently launched.

The notable increase in the number of OS platforms suggest that an infrastructure ‘ecology’ is emerging around these systems. Distinguishing between systems that may evolve along competitive lines and those that will resolve into a service ‘stack’ of related, complementary service technologies will help potential adopters understand how these platforms can or should interoperate.

In 2018 the MIT Press secured a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to conduct a landscape analysis of open source publishing systems, suggest sustainability models that can be adopted to ensure that these systems fully support research communication and provide durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services. John Maxwell at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver conducted the environmental scan and compiled this report.

 

We are posting the final report on PubPub and invite readers to share their comments on the findings and recommendations….”

 

Mind the Gap

“The number of open source (OS) online publishing platforms, i.e. production and hosting systems for scholarly books and journals, launched or in development, has proliferated in the last decade. Many of these publishing infrastructure initiatives are well-developed, stable, and supported by a small but vigorous distributed community of developers, but promising new ventures have also recently launched.

The notable increase in the number of OS platforms suggest that an infrastructure ‘ecology’ is emerging around these systems. Distinguishing between systems that may evolve along competitive lines and those that will resolve into a service ‘stack’ of related, complementary service technologies will help potential adopters understand how these platforms can or should interoperate.

In 2018 the MIT Press secured a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to conduct a landscape analysis of open source publishing systems, suggest sustainability models that can be adopted to ensure that these systems fully support research communication and provide durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services. John Maxwell at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver conducted the environmental scan and compiled this report.

 

We are posting the final report on PubPub and invite readers to share their comments on the findings and recommendations….”

 

Open Source for Scholarly Publishing: An Inventory and Analysis – The Scholarly Kitchen

“But there is another field of activity, adjacent to or in some cases competing with this commercial marketplace, composed of open source products and initiatives. Open source brings many benefits and is used in many corporations, and CoKo has seemed like one especially promising initiative. But open source is not a silver bullet — at least in some arenas, waves of innovation and then consolidation overshadow the necessary ongoing work of steady maintenance and ongoing reinvestment, yielding all too limited impact and no shortage of personal and professional disruption.

Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms, by lead author John Maxwell of Simon Fraser University. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives. The study is bounded around open source: It is not intended to guide an organization seeking to make pragmatic decisions about which software to adopt or utilize among all the available options in a particular segment, but may be quite useful to those looking for a guide to the open source options that are available for example to address a digital humanities project or library publishing initiative. But even more than this, the study provides a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles. The report, which is published on the open source PubPub platform, is well worth reading. …”

Open Source for Scholarly Publishing: An Inventory and Analysis – The Scholarly Kitchen

“But there is another field of activity, adjacent to or in some cases competing with this commercial marketplace, composed of open source products and initiatives. Open source brings many benefits and is used in many corporations, and CoKo has seemed like one especially promising initiative. But open source is not a silver bullet — at least in some arenas, waves of innovation and then consolidation overshadow the necessary ongoing work of steady maintenance and ongoing reinvestment, yielding all too limited impact and no shortage of personal and professional disruption.

Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms, by lead author John Maxwell of Simon Fraser University. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives. The study is bounded around open source: It is not intended to guide an organization seeking to make pragmatic decisions about which software to adopt or utilize among all the available options in a particular segment, but may be quite useful to those looking for a guide to the open source options that are available for example to address a digital humanities project or library publishing initiative. But even more than this, the study provides a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles. The report, which is published on the open source PubPub platform, is well worth reading. …”