» Open letter on the White House public access directive The Occasional Pamphlet

“As has been widely reported, this past Friday the White House directed essentially all federal funding agencies to develop open access policies over the next few months. I wrote the letter below to be forwarded to faculty at the Harvard schools with open-access policies, to inform them of this important new directive and its relation to the existing Harvard policies….”

» Open letter on the White House public access directive The Occasional Pamphlet

“As has been widely reported, this past Friday the White House directed essentially all federal funding agencies to develop open access policies over the next few months. I wrote the letter below to be forwarded to faculty at the Harvard schools with open-access policies, to inform them of this important new directive and its relation to the existing Harvard policies….”

The Open Tide – How openness in research and communication is becoming the default setting | Impact of Social Sciences

“Open Access to research findings is often presented as an end unto itself. However, the ethos of open access, to enable a greater sharing and utilisation of research knowledge, suggests a more complex network of scholarly communication. Presenting the findings of a recent report on the development of Open Access, Daniel Hook explores how the open trajectories of the UK and the US have diverged and what this means for research collaboration and research systems in these countries….

Our recent report examined the rise of Open Access at national level since 2000.  Unsurprisingly, the world has changed significantly in this 16-year period. Notably, research is now more collaborative and funders are generally more actively supportive of Open Access than in 2000. Amongst a number of insights, a notable development has been the plateau in US Open Access production at around 41% of total, while the UK progressed from 40% to 52.5% in the same time (Figure 1)….

US funders have taken a less interventionist approach to Open Access. The US continues to produce more papers and Open Access by volume than any other country; it has the broadest range of international research collaborations and continues to invest heavily. Yet such a large ship is less easy to steer. It may be inappropriate to compare the speed of movement of the US to smaller countries, but it is clear that Open Access benefits from a firm direction being set by those with influence….”

Open Letter in Support of Funder Open Publishing Mandates

We, the undersigned, believe that the world’s scholarly literature is a public resource that only achieves its full value when it is freely available to all. For too long we have tolerated a pay-for-access business model for scholarly journals that is inequitable, impedes progress in our fields, and denies the public the full benefit of our work. We therefore welcome efforts on the part of public and private research funders to require that publications based on work they fund be made immediately freely and openly available without restrictions on access or use.

Funders are uniquely positioned to transform scholarly publishing by changing the explicit and implicit rules under which we all operate. We recognize that funder mandates may superficially limit our publishing options in the short term, but believe they will lead to a system that optimizes what we really care about: maximizing the reach of our scholarship and its value to the research community and public.

We understand that effective scholarly communication costs money, and support substantial investment in this endeavor, but only if it allows everyone to freely access and use the scholarly literature. We acknowledge that challenges remain, especially ensuring that all scholars everywhere have the unfettered ability to freely share their work and have their contributions recognized. And we therefore commit to continue working with funders, universities, research institutions and other stakeholders until we have created a stable, fair, effective and open system of scholarly communication….”

Open Letter in Support of Funder Open Publishing Mandates

We, the undersigned, believe that the world’s scholarly literature is a public resource that only achieves its full value when it is freely available to all. For too long we have tolerated a pay-for-access business model for scholarly journals that is inequitable, impedes progress in our fields, and denies the public the full benefit of our work. We therefore welcome efforts on the part of public and private research funders to require that publications based on work they fund be made immediately freely and openly available without restrictions on access or use.

Funders are uniquely positioned to transform scholarly publishing by changing the explicit and implicit rules under which we all operate. We recognize that funder mandates may superficially limit our publishing options in the short term, but believe they will lead to a system that optimizes what we really care about: maximizing the reach of our scholarship and its value to the research community and public.

We understand that effective scholarly communication costs money, and support substantial investment in this endeavor, but only if it allows everyone to freely access and use the scholarly literature. We acknowledge that challenges remain, especially ensuring that all scholars everywhere have the unfettered ability to freely share their work and have their contributions recognized. And we therefore commit to continue working with funders, universities, research institutions and other stakeholders until we have created a stable, fair, effective and open system of scholarly communication….”

Plan S: funders are committed to open access to scientific publication – Dal?Ré – – European Journal of Clinical Investigation – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Science is an accumulative activity: future studies are based on past observations. And this can only happen if scientific results are published. Everything that prevents or hinders its dissemination, hurts science and, ultimately, society. Subscription journals are an impediment to open access to scientific publications. cOAlition S, a consortium of national research agencies and Science Europe, an association of European Research Funding Organizations and Research Performing Organizations, with the support of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Commission, launched the Plan S whereby, starting in January 2020, all publications from the funded research will be accessible and free of charge to any citizen.

Plan S: funders are committed to open access to scientific publication – Dal?Ré – – European Journal of Clinical Investigation – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Science is an accumulative activity: future studies are based on past observations. And this can only happen if scientific results are published. Everything that prevents or hinders its dissemination, hurts science and, ultimately, society. Subscription journals are an impediment to open access to scientific publications. cOAlition S, a consortium of national research agencies and Science Europe, an association of European Research Funding Organizations and Research Performing Organizations, with the support of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Commission, launched the Plan S whereby, starting in January 2020, all publications from the funded research will be accessible and free of charge to any citizen.

Why does it cost millions to access publicly funded research papers? Blame the paywall | CBC News

Canada’s academic librarians are cheering from the sidelines now that the University of California has cancelled its subscriptions with the academic publishing giant Elsevier.

It was a clash of titans as the largest public university in the U.S. pushed back against a multi-million dollar paywall blocking open access to the world’s scientific knowledge.

“People were following it very closely,” said Mary-Jo Romaniuk, librarian and vice-provost at the University of Calgary. “This may be the start of things to come.”

Tension has been building for years over the gradual privatization of academic literature which has resulted in a handful of powerful international publishing companies controlling the dissemination of research. …
 

Increasingly, public funding agencies are requiring scientists to make their research freely available as a condition for receiving grants.

All three of Canada’s major research funding agencies — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) — have an open access requirement. Any research funded since 2015 must be freely available within 12 months.

So far, CIHR estimates that about 60 per cent of its researchers have complied.”

Why does it cost millions to access publicly funded research papers? Blame the paywall | CBC News

Canada’s academic librarians are cheering from the sidelines now that the University of California has cancelled its subscriptions with the academic publishing giant Elsevier.

It was a clash of titans as the largest public university in the U.S. pushed back against a multi-million dollar paywall blocking open access to the world’s scientific knowledge.

“People were following it very closely,” said Mary-Jo Romaniuk, librarian and vice-provost at the University of Calgary. “This may be the start of things to come.”

Tension has been building for years over the gradual privatization of academic literature which has resulted in a handful of powerful international publishing companies controlling the dissemination of research. …
 

Increasingly, public funding agencies are requiring scientists to make their research freely available as a condition for receiving grants.

All three of Canada’s major research funding agencies — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) — have an open access requirement. Any research funded since 2015 must be freely available within 12 months.

So far, CIHR estimates that about 60 per cent of its researchers have complied.”

Plan S and the UC-Elsevier negotiations—publication as part of research funding | ARL Policy Notes

What if universities collectively agreed to the same principles as the Plan S coalition and the UC—that fully funding research also means funding open, immediate dissemination? When we talk about academy-owned, or scholar-led publishing—inclusive of text, data, materials, software, etc.—we would do well to remember that nearly one quarter of R&D is funded by universities. And that’s just STEM. Universities fund a much higher percentage of research in the humanities and social sciences, where open access increases reach, readership, and impact in critical arenas such as policy and civic society.