A spreadsheet of OER on research methods.
Abstract: The growing number of known plants, and the need repeatedly to correct their names and their taxonomic attributions, demanded strategies for combining the static nature of a printed book with the fluctuating nature of the information it contained. From the second half of the seventeenth century botanists increasingly relied on publishing multiple updated editions of a book instead of attempting to correct, polish, and thus delay the appearance of a manuscript until, in the author’s opinion, it was finished. Provisional by nature, iterative books offered a solution. They were transient, open-ended and open to intervention, whether by one or multiple authors. Taking as an example the posthumous publication of orphaned material and manuscripts, a widespread phenomenon in eighteenth-century botany, this essay will focus on the sequence of iterative books that were published during the first half of the eighteenth century, based on the herbaria and papers left behind by the German botanist Paul Hermann (1646–95).
“When Plan S’ Journal Checker Tool (JCT) launches, some publishers might want to make sure that their journals’ entries in DOAJ include the most up-to-date information and, if not, submit updates to us. If you think that Plan S affects your journals, then here is how to submit an update.
For publishers with twenty or more journals in DOAJ
Over the next few days, we will email a CSV file to you. This file will contain a copy of your journal records, as they are in DOAJ today. You must check each field in the file and make updates where appropriate. For its first iteration, the JCT is using DOAJ to check for licensing information so you should check that the licensing information is correct, at the very least.
Once we receive the file back from you, we will check it against your journals’ websites, correct it if necessary and then load it into the database. The live journals records will be updated immediately….”
An FAQ on the PLOS Community Action Publishing (CAP) program.
“In the case of PLOS Medicine and PLOS Biology, the community goal is to cover the costs of the journals (plus a 10% capped margin) by equitably distributing cost, rather than have individual authors pay the high APCs required to cover the cost highly selective publishing. Members of the collective receive the “private benefit” of publishing in both journals with no fees. Authors from non-member institutions are subject to “non-member fees” which increase considerably year-on-year to encourage participation in the collective….”