“The Eurodoc Open Science Ambassador Training is a course designed by Gareth O’Neill and Ivo Grigorov to train researchers in key practices in Open Science. The course was initially aimed at representatives of early-career researchers from National Associations of Eurodoc to act as ambassadors in their networks and is now freely available for all interested researchers and policy makers. This course ran from March until August 2019 and was facilitated by Roberta Moscon on an Erasmus+ Staff Exchange. A total of 24 ambassadors successfully completed the course in 2019….”
“COAlition S and the Global Young Academy are joining forces to develop a Plan S Monitor Task Force. Plan S is a radical and controversial initiative for Open Access publishing that was launched in September 2018. The plan is supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders. Plan S requires that, from 2021, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms.
The aim of the Plan S Monitor Task Force is to provide robust indicators by which the impact of Plan S on the research and publication ecosystem can be continuously evaluated. The impact of major policy changes such as Plan S is hard to predict, so it is essential to closely follow their effect from the start. For this, the Task Force will develop key indicators that will allow it to monitor the current situation and every phase of the implementation of Plan S. This will enable lessons to be learned, shared and implemented in a timely fashion to enhance the positive effects and reduce any negative effects of Plan S.”
Abstract: In this article we discuss the five yearly screenings for publications in questionable journals which have been carried out in the context of the performance-based research funding model in Flanders, Belgium. The Flemish funding model expanded from 2010 onwards, with a comprehensive bibliographic database for research output in the social sciences and humanities. Along with an overview of the procedures followed during the screenings for articles in questionable journals submitted for inclusion in this database, we present a bibliographic analysis of the publications identified. First, we show how the yearly number of publications in questionable journals has evolved over the period 2003–2016. Second, we present a disciplinary classification of the identified journals. In the third part of the results section, three authorship characteristics are discussed: multi-authorship, the seniority–or experience level–of authors in general and of the first author in particular, and the relation of the disciplinary scope of the journal (cognitive classification) with the departmental affiliation of the authors (organizational classification). Our results regarding yearly rates of publications in questionable journals indicate that awareness of the risks of questionable journals does not lead to a turn away from open access in general. The number of publications in open access journals rises every year, while the number of publications in questionable journals decreases from 2012 onwards. We find further that both early career and more senior researchers publish in questionable journals. We show that the average proportion of senior authors contributing to publications in questionable journals is somewhat higher than that for publications in open access journals. In addition, this paper yields insight into the extent to which publications in questionable journals pose a threat to the public and political legitimacy of a performance-based research funding system of a western European region. We include concrete suggestions for those tasked with maintaining bibliographic databases and screening for publications in questionable journals.
“Scholarly communications must also play an active role in supporting researchers in trying to meet academic requirements. As the number of tenured positions decreases, along with drops in institutional funding, researchers will increasingly become hard-pressed to find funding to support their research goals. Libraries are expected to supply more access to materials for their universities despite smaller budgets. The APC model may cause OA initiatives to continue to struggle as a viable publishing option. I believe the question of funding, and the administration of funding, will take an increasingly important role. Federal and private funders have already stepped into the research ecosystem of scholarly communication, yet the increasing competitiveness of grant-funding suggests this cannot be an entirely dependable source for research communication.
The needs of emerging professionals and academics are likely to influence more open scholarly communication, yet to do this successfully suggests the changing of systems, workflows, partnerships, and economic models. Editorials in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication’s 2019 General Issue observe so eloquently a change of perspective: we must come together as a community. A community that interacts in ways “defined by those [communities of research professionals] so that it may become sustainable, culturally responsive, relevant, and accessible” (as cited in Gilliland, et al, 2019).”
“Currently: ? We publish two fully-OA journals, and one of these is currently sustained by article publishing charges (APC) at an article-by-article level; in addition, we publish five hybrid journals where authors may opt to pay an APC to have their article published OA. ? For titles on the hybrid model we avoid ‘double dipping’ (charging twice for the same articles) through two routes: APCs are discounted for corresponding authors based at subscribing institutions; in addition, subscription prices are set, each year, based on the number of paywalled articles in the preceding years to account for OA content published in hybrid titles. ? There are a variety of mechanisms employed by different publishers to avoid double-dipping. We are supportive of efforts to standardize and agree common principles around transparent pricing of hybrid journals that demonstrate, objectively, the avoidance of double dipping….
Looking ahead: ? We are seeking to transition our hybrid journals to full-OA in a way that supports researchers and keeps the Society financially viable. ? We strongly believe that the ability to publish research should not be linked to individual researchers’ ability to pay; we are enthusiastic about all opportunities to remove author-facing invoices from OA publishing. To enable a transition away from paywalls, we seek to offer as much APC-free OA as possible that will be supported though continuing and new partnerships with institutions, consortia and funders….
“The Open Life Science program helps early stage researchers and potential academic leaders in becoming Open Science ambassadors.
Through personal mentorship and cohort-based training, participants of this 15-week program:
learn essential knowledge required to create, lead, and sustain an Open Science project
connect with members across different communities, backgrounds, and identities by sharing their experiences and expertise
are empowered to become effective Open Science ambassadors in their communities.
We are recruiting for our first cohort to start in January 2020….”
“So this was this year’s Open Access Week. We hope you all enjoyed it and gave the development of open access (OA) a special thought. This time the theme for the week was “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge”, certainly a relevant question for ECRs around the world. As a not yet established researcher with own funding and projects, the cost for publishing in respected OA journals can be quite high, while it’s for free (at least for the individual researcher) in a traditional subscription based journal. Publishing in a renowned OA journal may cost over $5000 per paper. Some institution have publisher agreements with OA journals to publish for free, but otherwise it’s a high cost for the individual researchers to bear, especially in smaller research projects without majors grants. This has become even more problematic where OA publishing in many cases have become a mandate of taxpayer-funded research and in policies like Plan S. Of the about 3 million articles published every year around one third is now available through open access in over 33 000 peer reviewed English language journals. OA research has surged from as few as 523 articles in 2001 to as much as 45% of all new research publications….”
“Those in the 20-29 year old age group were most likely to agree that open access journals have a larger readership than subscription journals (58% either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement) and that open access journals are more heavily cited. Across all other age groups agreement with these statements decreased with age, with just 15% of those who were 70 or over expressing the same level of agreement on citations. Authors in their sixties and seventies offered the opposite opinion to those in their twenties, being the least likely to agree that open access publication increased readership and citations, and most likely to agree with the statement that there is ‘no fundamental benefit to open access’. …
And what of their future intentions on publishing gold or green open access? Younger authors are consistently the highest proportion of any age group saying they would choose to publish their work open access, whether gold (37%) or green (51%). When it comes to being mandated to publish open access though, those in their twenties were the most unsure, with 61% unclear on whether they would be mandated to publish gold open access in the future….”
“In order to survive in the modern scientific environment researchers need to publish. Jobs, grants and opportunities all hinge on publications, which impacts acutely upon early career researchers (ECRs), such as PhD students, who do not tend to have guaranteed employment. How is this publish or perish dilemma impacted by developments in research such as those offered by Open Science (OS)? OS presents an enormous shift in the way science is conducted and comprises a range of practices that promote transparency and reliability of research. These include data sharing and study preregistration. Although OS can offer new ways to publish, considerable resources are often required to complete studies using OS methods, that can limit or delay publications. At present, formal recognition of such efforts is sparse and the pressure to publish may be greater for ECRs who engage with OS. We discuss this challenge in light of different OS methods from our perspective as ECRs at different stages….
OS research practices might help to address the publish or perish dilemma for ECRs, if alternative ways of publishing are promoted. For example, OS practices allow ECRs to demonstrate productivity and research skills using preregistrations and RRs before final publication. Even code and materials are citable if researchers assign them digital object identifiers, ensuring recognisable research outputs. We make the following recommendations: …”