“Today is the one-year anniversary of the launch of our collaborative interpretative and digitisation project with the Bibliothèque nationale de France, The Polonsky Foundation England and France Project: Manuscripts from the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, 700-1200. A year ago we met in Paris as part of a three-day international conference to celebrate two new bilingual websites that provide unprecedented access to some of the riches of our two national collections. Thanks to generous funding from The Polonsky Foundation, each Library digitised 400 manuscripts made in either England or France before the year 1200. You can view all 800 of them on a website hosted by the BnF, and if you wish, select two or more to examine side by side (view the digitised manuscripts on the BnF website). …”
“Five years ago, we commented that “open access to medical research has become more complicated than just choosing an idealistic new journal over regressive old ones”, referring to the labyrinth of hybrid subscription and article processing charge publishing models that exists, often disingenuously crafted so as to protect the business models of for-profit publishers. This unhelpful situation prevails today and prevents access in a fashion that could honestly be described as “open”, for many readers, to a large proportion of newly published research papers. We hope that the ongoing initiative Plan S—supported by the research funder group cOAlition S—will be able to resolve this issue by 2021….”
” “In an unprecedented initiative called ‘Electronic Information for Libraries’ (EIFL Direct), libraries in 39 countries will have access to a wealth of electronic full-text scholarly journals.” This announcement, by press release, marked the birth of EIFL 20 years ago, on 5 October 1999.
At that time I was working at the Open Society Institute, part of the Soros foundations network. We were receiving applications from ex-Soviet Union university libraries requesting grants to subscribe to print journals. There was a dilemma: the subscriptions were not cheap, and they only lasted for one year. So these grants were not sustainable in the long term, and we knew that there were thousands of libraries in other developing countries that also needed, and wanted, to have access to the latest scholarly information. A few years later, the shift from print to digital in the publishing industry began and we saw an opportunity to solve the problem. The Open Society Institute negotiated with EBSCO, a large content aggregator, for a 99% discount to online journals for all libraries in countries where Soros foundations existed, as well as free delivery of the content on DVD-ROM to those libraries with poor internet connectivity. At last we were able to provide access to more than 3,500 full-text journals. …”
“We celebrated our 20th anniversary in October by sharing our achievements, memories and the many messages of support we received from friends, partners and colleagues from across the world.
In a blog marking EIFL’s anniversary, Rima Kupryte, EIFL Director, looked back at two decades of working towards a world in which all people have the knowledge they need to achieve their full potential.
We highlighted some of the main EIFL achievements over the past 20 years and birthday messages from our partners. …”
“January of 2020 marks 20 years since the incorporation of Crossref. This platinum anniversary is an opportune time to look back and take stock of how far the organization has come in the intervening decades, and ponder where its strengths and achievements might lead it in the future. The visionary publishers who formed Crossref, and the staff who have run it from the start, should feel extremely proud of the organization they created – not least for its success as technical infrastructure, but also, arguably, as the scholarly information community’s most extensive, impactful, and stable consortium. That said, it is unlikely that the founding publishers envisioned at the outset the diverse, multi-stakeholder federation that the organization is today. As an early staff member myself, and now a member of the Board, I share a sense of pride in how far Crossref has come, and care deeply about its future….
By dint of its vast coverage of scholarly literature, along with its ability both (1) to associate ever richer metadata with any DOI-identified object and (2) to convene – or rally – the scholarly information community around new initiatives, practices, and standards, Crossref is in a truly unique position to “scaffold” enriched representations of digital scholarship. That is, Crossref is better placed than any other organization to support community-driven efforts to improve discovery and navigation, and our ability to capture and assess contributions to science and scholarship. The pressing questions at this juncture, to my mind, are: will Crossref rise to this opportunity; who gets to decide whether or not it does; and do the governance and sustainability models it started with 20 years ago still serve the organization today, and into the future? …
I would go so far as to say that Crossref’s success was, if indirectly, a significant forcing function for open access as well. The experience of hitting a paywall after clicking on a DOI-powered link was and is a source of significant frustration for readers and libraries, especially when also encountering high fees for access to individual articles. The lucrative “article economy” envisioned in the 2000s never quite reached publishers’ expectations….
With the growth of open access, some of the larger and more progressive commercial publishers have pivoted on strategy, and are banking increasingly on their data, technology, and analytics businesses (see, for example, the 2019 SPARC Landscape Analysis authored by Claudio Aspesi). It behooves the leaders of today’s research institutions to explore fully the implications of commercial control of research data, analytics, and infrastructure, along with the potential for community-owned alternatives. The prospect of an open metadata commons for digital scholarship, and open infrastructure for computing over that data, may be less exciting for entities who intend to grow revenues from their technology and analytics products than it is for other publishers, because of how it might compete with their current and future offerings. It would be foolhardy to ignore this fact as Crossref’s membership, staff, and Board work together to help the organization realize its full promise….”
“To kick off the celebration of PLOS Medicine‘s 15th Anniversary, Specialty Consulting Editor Sanjay Basu discusses the journal’s contributions to scientific communication and his favorite article from the past 15 years.
It’s fitting that one of PLOS Medicine’s most viewed and cited articles remains the cult classic, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005). The article codifies the challenge taken up as a mantle by the contributors and editors of PLOS Medicine for the last 15 years: to make science more transparent, reproducible, and trustworthy….”
Abstract: AoB PLANTS is a not-for-profit, open access, plant science journal and one of three peer-reviewed journals owned and managed by the Annals of Botany Company. This article explains events and thinking that led to the starting of AoB PLANTS and how the unique features of the Journal came to be formalized prior to its launch in September 2009. The article also describes how the Journal’s management developed over the first 10 years and summarizes the Journal’s achievements in a decade where open access journals have proliferated despite subscription journals continuing to dominate the publishing of peer-reviewed botanical science.
“As Hindawi turned 20 on May 15, we wanted to reflect on how far we have come. How did an Egyptian startup break into a market dominated by centuries-old conglomerates protected by moats of prestige? …
Hindawi’s first decade was spent building a global publishing business and learning to compete with much larger companies. Our second was spent defining and promoting OA publishing models. We look forward to many more years of applying the same rigorous attention to detail to the craft of scholarly publishing, contributing to a more open and connected world….”
“DORA turns 6 years old this week. Or, as we like to say, this year DORA reached 14,000—that’s how many people have signed DORA, and they come from more than 100 countries! Each signature represents an individual committed to improving research assessment in their community, in their corner of the world. And 1,300 organizations in more than 75 countries, in signing DORA, have publicly committed to improving their practices in research evaluation and to encouraging positive change in research culture….”