“A major push by science funding agencies in Europe to make the research they back freely available at the point of publication is the world’s best chance of fundamentally altering scientific publishing, says the new coordinator of Plan S, Johan Rooryck.
Last month the Plan S consortium of funders named Rooryck, professor of French linguistics at Leiden University in the Netherlands, as its new champion, with a brief to promote and develop the plan worldwide.
Currently there are 19 – mostly European – funders involved in Plan S. The initiative represents, “the first time we see policymakers and the main funders pushing in the same direction,” said Rooryck.
“We’ve been talking about open access for 25 years but it never accelerated in the way people wanted,” he said.
In common with other backers of open access, Rooryck argues commercial publishers have made excessive profits from scientific research that has been paid for from public money. Most commercial publishers have paywalls erected around the journals they publish, which in effect means public and charitable bodies have to buy access to the outputs of research projects that would not have gone ahead without their grant money….”
“The biggest change is the one-year postponement of when the full open-access mandate of Plan S will take effect; it will now apply to 2021 research proposals, which will start to affect publications over the following years. In addition, Plan S organizers have scrapped the proposed limit to the amount of money funders will provide for journals’ OA article-processing charges (APCs). The new guidelines also discuss ways in which researchers can comply with Plan S and clarify the initiative’s stance on publishing practices such as hybrid journals that charge both subscription fees for readers and APCs for researchers who choose to publish OA articles….”
Abstract: Chemistry is among the last of the core natural sciences to embrace preprints, namely, the publication of non peer-reviewed scientific articles on the Internet. After a brief insight into the origins and the purpose of preprints in science, we conducted a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, aiming at providing an answer to several questions. Why has the chemistry community been late in embracing preprints? Is this in relation with the slow acceptance of open-access publishing by the same community? Will preprints become a common habit also for chemistry scholars?
“Senior North American faculty appear to be slow in adopting online tools for research collaboration, suggesting academics rather than their journals are the chief obstacle to open access.
An analysis by the non-profit Center for Open Science found that its main scientist-to-scientist sharing tool was getting relatively weak adoption in the US and among the nation’s highest-ranking professors.
By country, the US and Canada were among the nations slowest to participate, while the UK and Australia were among the most receptive, according to the study of tenure-track faculty usage rates in psychology, the six-year-old centre’s initial target group….
Funding agencies were “starting to do more” to encourage data-sharing practices, while “the farthest behind are the universities”, which were generally too decentralised to impose data-sharing practices on their faculty, [Brian Nosek] said….”
“Open Access (OA) is quickly becoming a ‘gold-standard’ for research quality internationally. A growing number of major research funders now require the outputs of the research that they support to be made OA. University libraries are playing a vital role in supporting this transition to open access. But in spite of early investment in library-based OA repositories, Australia continues to lag behind the United States and Western Europe in relation to the proportion of publications that its researchers make openly available. This project explores the intersection between cultural and implementation challenges facing libraries in Australia as they work to support a transition towards OA for research publications and data. Identifying practices and challenges specific to the Australian context, as well as opportunities to learn from international best practice in this space, will be a particular focus. Questions that the project will seek to answer include: * What do Australian librarians think researchers are doing in relation to OA? * What are Australian researchers actually doing? * How do the choices that Australian researchers make about where to deposit the OA version of their work compare to the choices made by researchers elsewhere in the world? * What do librarians think the barriers to open access are? * What do researchers think the barriers to open access are? * How do each of these groups frame their discussion of those barriers? * Where do non-institutional repositories and commercially supported services fit in? For example, are researchers using subject repositories (e.g. such as SSRN, H-Commons, or the Australian Policy Observatory) instead of institutional repositories? Are Universities choosing to pay for data deposit services like FigShare? Why? The project will draw on the large data sets and established data capabilities developed as part of the COKI project. This data provides new opportunities to explore patterns of repository choice and deposition at large scale, and to compare Australian patterns with those found elsewhere in the world. Quantitative approaches will be combined with qualitative perspectives, including surveys, interviews and ethnographic approaches….”
“From about 2012 until 2017, DOAJ was struggling to keep on top of the amount of applications being received.
Implementing new acceptance criteria and making 9900+ journals reapply exacerbated the problem and suddenly we had many reapplications and new applications coming in at the same time.
All applications go through an initial review to filter out incomplete or substandard applications. We call this process Triage. (From March 2015 to November 2017, Triage rejected 3112 sub-quality, incomplete or duplicate applications.) Today, the average turnaround on an application from submission to initial review is a few days at the most….”
“Today, the open-access, open-data journal GigaScience and the technology and publishing services company River Valley Technologies announce a new partnership to deliver a research publishing process that is extremely rapid, low-cost, and modular. As a pioneer of open data and open science publishing, GigaScience brings editorial expertise in publishing research that includes all components of the research process: data, source code, workflows, and more. River Valley Technologies, with 30 years of expertise in publishing production, delivers an end-to-end publishing solution, including manuscript submission, content management and hosting, using its collaborative online platforms. The collaboration is developing a publishing process that, in addition to providing on-the-fly article production, will create more interactive articles that can be versioned and forked….”
Abstract: The impact of published research is sometimes measured by the number of citations an individual article accumulates. However, the time from publication to citation can be extensive. Years may pass before authors are able to measure the impact of their publication. Social media provides individuals and organizations a powerful medium with which to share information. The power of social media is sometimes harnessed to share scholarly works, especially journal article citations and quotes. A non?traditional bibliometric is required to understand the impact social media has on disseminating scholarly works/research. The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing (IJMHN) appointed a social media editor as of 1 January 2017 to implement a strategy to increase the impact and reach of the journal’s articles. To measure the impact of the IJMHN social media strategy, quantitative data for the eighteen months prior to the social media editor start date, and the eighteen months after that date (i.e.: from 01 July 2015 to 30 June 2018) were acquired and analysed. Quantitative evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of one journal’s social media strategy in increasing the reach and readership of the articles it publishes. This information may be of interest to those considering where to publish their research, those wanting to amplify the reach of their research, those who fund research, and journal editors and boards.
“It is widely recognized that HSS and its publishing industry are different (and less profitable). As a publisher in those fields, one could easily be tempted to ask funders for exceptions to policies that push for a faster transition to OA – out of fear that we might become collateral damage in a process that hit us like a storm. One year after Plan S, I think to do so would be a huge mistake.
It is very simple: if we ask for exceptions for HSS, the research we publish will not be able to transition to open with the same speed as STM. As a consequence, HSS research would not be visible as much, would generate less impact and would be even more pushed to the background when budgets are distributed. HSS would be left behind.
We not only need to accelerate OA – increase the speed of transition – but, more importantly, we need to expand the possibilities to transition to OA beyond the APC model. HSS research is highly relevant and deserves to be open. By being more open, HSS can have a greater impact on society and contribute more efficiently to making this world a better place. As HSS publishers, we need to speak up for the communities we serve and help them defend their position in a competitive research landscape. With the right plan for a transition to more openness, HSS will not only survive but thrive in the future and unfold their full potential….”