“Interview mit Prof. Lawrence Lessig zum Thema “Open Access für die Rechtswissenschaft”….
“The most important thing that can happen is that young people begin to rally together to say to their professors: What the hell are you doing? Why would you support a system that assures the developing world does not have access to information? Why don’t you make a commitment to publishing your work in a way that guarantees access by everybody? And if you don’t believe there should be access by everybody, then defend that principle. We shouldn’t allow the laziness of the ways things have been to block this fundamental opportunity we have right now to build an infrastructure of open access that guarantees that information and science and knowledge can be spread broadly and cheaply.”
“OATP isn’t my main job by a long shot. But my main job requires me to stay on top of what’s happening in the world of OA, which is fortuitous for OATP. My approach is to read all that I can, for my job, and then share what I read or learn by tagging it for OATP….
Some taggers systematically search for new developments in areas that matter to them, such as OA in their country, OA in their field, or OA on a certain subtopic such as OA policies, OA journals, OA repositories, OA books, open data, OER, or copyright. Others simply tag what they encounter, without taking special pains to encounter more than they already do. I welcome both kinds. As they join the project, in enough fields and countries, bringing their different interests and perspectives with them, OATP becomes more and more inclusive….”
“The newly-launched library serviced a temporary collection of books — about 4 million in total, many in the public domain — with a targeted focus of supporting remote teaching, research activities and independent scholarship. For this service, students paid nothing.
This Open Library is now at the center of a lawsuit filed by major publishing corporations, including HarperCollins, Hatchett, Wiley and Random House, against the Internet Archives, a nonprofit website, alleging that the Open Library concept is a “mass copyright infringement.”
The lawsuit is scheduled for a federal court trial in 2021. The publishers are seeking to have the Open Library permanently shut down….
In an op-ed written for The Nation, journalist and new media pioneer Maria Bustillos took a critical look at the lawsuit, the concept of an open library and what ownership means when major publishers seek to change what it means to own a book….”
“Open Access is spelled with a capital O and a capital A at the Public Library of Science (or PLOS, for short), a nonprofit Open Access publisher. Among PLOS’s suite of journals, PLOS One is the nonprofit’s largest in number of articles published and its broadest in coverage, ranging as it does over all topics in the natural sciences and medicine, to include, as well, some in the social sciences, too. PLOS One appears only online, a format the staff bring into service to foster Open Access Science, whether they do this through initiatives for Open Citations and Open Abstracts, or through Transparent Peer Review, or also through PLOS One’s newest endeavor, registered reports.
Since its inception in 2006, PLOS One has been at the forefront of Open Access publishing. And today, against the trend to equate Impact Factors with journal names, PLOS One does not promote their own Impact Factor because the measure has been shown to be, at best, only an approximate indicator of research significance. However, in true PLOS fashion, PLOS One offers an alternative in various Article-Level Metrics. These ALMs (as the abbreviation goes) make a closer, tighter fit between value of research and quantifiable measures.
Joerg Heber is Editor-in-Chief of PLOS One. When you track Joerg Heber’s career in publishing, you get the sense of a clear mission: (1) provide access to good science and (2) make providing that access not only viable, but enviable….”
Just lauched: 2 of 10 in-depth interviews with #OSinfrastructure services—Our Research & REDALYC. Dig in to discover what essential lessons these services have learned on their journey to sustainability.
“In general, language and literature scholars do not prioritize publishing in open access journals and are reluctant to pay article processing charges (APCs) to make their articles in hybrid journals open access. A few subfields, such as video game studies and digital humanities, have many open access journals and may represent exceptions to this trend.
Numerous interviewees expressed positive sentiments around the idea of their research being openly available, although they often conflated “open access”—free access to published, peer-reviewed articles—with other forms of online dissemination, such as digital archives and Academia.edu. However, these interviewees usually did not report having taken concrete actions to make their research open access. The pressure to publish in prestige journals—which are usually not open access—and the cost of article processing charges contravenes any desire to make their work open. As one unusually well-informed interviewee explained, “I would like [my work] to be copyrighted under a Creative Commons [open access copyright license] and I have absolutely no way of doing that because of the tenure system. . . . After I get tenure I’ll start to try to push that forward.” This resonates with findings from the Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2018, which showed that younger faculty members across disciplines place less of a priority on publishing in open access journals than older faculty members.
The continuing supremacy of the monograph within the field of languages and literature may also contribute to scholars’ ambivalence toward open access publishing, since the open access movement broadly focuses on journal articles. Although some publishers are experimenting with open access monographs—at least one interviewee reported having published a book both in print and in a free online version—this was not a priority for the scholars interviewed for this project.
Only a few interviewees reported that they had uploaded preprints of their articles to their campus repositories. Many scholars simply do not understand that they are able to do this or why they should. Others are confused about whether and how the copyright terms of their own work allow them to share it on platforms outside the publisher’s website. Several interviewees reported that they share PDFs of their articles on Academia.edu, Facebook groups, or, less commonly, their personal websites; only some of these scholars mentioned paying attention to the copyright status of their work when doing so….
Most interviewees who spoke about public humanities in relation to digital outputs did not articulate a vision for how they would measure or promote public engagement with these outputs, other than making them available. It is also important to note that language and literature scholars generally do not view open access publishing as a proxy for public engagement; there is an implicit sense that traditional scholarly research outputs are inappropriate for wider audiences….”
“This report shares a preliminary summary of the findings and top level insights of the Future of Open Scholarship stakeholder interviews, run by the authors from June 29 to August 24, 2020. Over 54 interviews were conducted (some individual, some group), with a total of 81 participants from 56 different institutions, scholarly societies, and supporting organizations. (There are an additional 18 participants as a part of this research effort who have not yet participated in an initial user interview at the time of this report).
Engagement in this work involves representatives from 18 countries and 5 continents around the world. These include Egypt, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Mali, Zimbabwe, Kenya, South Africa, Algeria, Sudan, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.
We invite feedback and comments directly in this document. This is primarily written for study participants, as well as other institutional leaders, infrastructure providers, and decision makers working to advance open scholarship….”
“In late March, when the European Commission asked the Research Data Alliance (RDA) to develop a set of global guidelines and recommendations for data sharing in response to the crisis, Kheeran Dharmawardena served as one of the moderators in the community participation theme.
Kheeran has been addressing the gap between information infrastructure and users over the past two decades. His background includes providing ICT services across the higher education and research sectors, including Monash University, the University of Melbourne, ARDC’s Nectar Research Cloud and the Atlas of Living Australia. He’s currently the principle consultant at Cytrax Consulting and also co-chairs the Virtual Research Environments and the Social Dynamics of Data Interoperability interest groups at the RDA. He also founded and co-chairs the Australian Geospatial Capabilities community of practice.
Following the RDA’s publication of its report, COVID-19 Recommendations and Guidelines for Data Sharing, Dharmawardena provided some insight on the project and the importance of data access….”