Abstract: The number of open access (OA) journals and their share of all scholarly journals are usually estimated based on indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOAJ’s coverage of OA journals from different regions of the world is, however, far from complete, particularly of journals publishing in languages other than English. Using alternative data sources for identification and manual verification, 437 scholarly OA journals published in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were identified, and some key characteristics were studied. Of these, only 184 were indexed in DOAJ. A vast majority of the journals was published by scholarly societies or universities. Social sciences and humanities dominated as topics, and few journals charge authors. National or university-specific OJS portals have played a major role in enabling OA publishing. Around a third of the Nordic scholarly journals are currently OA.
“The Open Preservation Foundation is delighted to welcome CSC – IT Center for Science, Finland as its newest Charter member.
CSC is a Finnish non-profit state enterprise with an important role to steer and develop education, science and cultural policy elements for Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture. CSC offers technology and service development solutions for research, education, culture and public administration….”
“I’d say that the majority of the work that went into the report was a literature review. We were bringing together hundreds of different articles and reports about journals converting to OA. We used that from the outset to get an initial frame for understanding how, why, and when journals have converted to OA. We then approached a sample of stakeholders that we knew had interesting insights and experiences in observing and supporting these journal flips or conversions. We tried to cover most of the key areas that play a role in shaping the larger scholarly publishing landscape, so we got someone from the commercial publishing side, the research funder side, people who have been in positions in journals, and so on….
They are definitely rethinking economic models. For example, in Finland we’ve had an interesting proposal for a consortium model for funding society journals so that the flipped journals would be covered by the consortium of libraries or universities, but so far it’s been hard to get all libraries on board even though they all subscribe to opening science and they are all unified in the struggle against commercial publishers. It’s been difficult to kind of convince them that there needs to be a shift in their cost structure for supporting smaller society journals. I know that Canada is looking to do something similar, to have a consortium for flipping journals….
I personally do not think that author facing APCs are the future. That is not an effective use of time or money, and it puts many parts of the world and people at a disadvantage if they are not grant-funded or part of an academic institution….”
”We can make science more efficient by making research based knowledge available to everybody”
Universities Finland UNIFI considers it to be important that Open Access principles will be implemented quickly and therefore gives its full support to the FinELib consortium’s goals in the negotiations with international science publishers.
“The Academy of Finland supports Plan S. The Academy acknowledges planned joint actions by research funders and the need for further international cooperation paving the way towards the vision of science without publication paywalls.
Riitta Maijala, Vice President for Research, said: “The Academy of Finland believes that joint actions by research funders and the scientific community can significantly change the situation. Such actions can foster an environment where full open access to scientific publications will be easy and economically feasible for researchers without concerns about the quality or credibility of the platform.” …”
Most of the 100+ Finnish scholarly journals are published by small learned societies. Since 2015, the National Library of Finland and the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies have been working on a joint project which aims to provide the journals with the support they need for making a transition to open access. The project has launched an OJS-based shared publication platform (Journal.fi), which is already used by 50 journals. It has also been developing a new funding model for the journals. Since the subscription and licensing costs paid by the research libraries for these journals have been very small, it is not possible to simply use these funds to pay for open access. Instead, the project has been working on a consortium-based model, under which the Finnish research organizations and funders would commit themselves to providing long-term funding to the journals. In return, the journals would pledge to follow strict standards in openness, licensing, peer review and infrastructure.
Google English: “The network of young European research universities YERUN (Young European Research Universities Network) has just published YERUN Statement on Open Science
The YERUN network is constituted by the following universities: Bremen, Konstanz and Ulm (Germany); Antwerpen (Belgium); Southern Denmark (Denmark); Autonomous University of Barcelona, Autonomous University of Madrid, Carlos III of Madrid and Pompeu Fabra (Spain); Eastern Finland (Finland); Paris Dauphine (France); Dublin City University (Ireland); University of Rome Tor Vergata (Italy); Maastricht (The Netherlands); New Lisbon (Portugal); Brunel and Essex (United Kingdom); Linköping (Sweden)….”
“Although I have not lived in Finland since 2013, I’ve kept in touch with the open science community there as well as with current open access discussions. On January 17, I got a rather unpleasant birthday present in the form of an announced three-year, 27 M€ deal between FinELib, a consortium of Finnish research institutions, and Elsevier, perhaps the most egregious of the big publishers. The deal was reached after two years of hard negotiations, supported by almost 3000 Finnish researchers who had committed in the #nodealnoreview boycott to refuse reviewing for Elsevier if the negotiations fail.
The glowing press release, seemingly written purely by Elsevier, compounded with an almost complete lack of details, left an immediate bad taste in my mouth. My opinion did not much improve through discussions in the Finnish Open Science Facebook group, and with journalist Richard Poynder whom I urged to try and get more details. He just published his Q&A with FinELib, which I warmly recommend you read. I have two principal concerns with the deal: the lack of transparency over the actual terms, and the hybrid OA discount option — especially as it was immediately implemented at the University of Helsinki….”