Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

Statement on Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

“The extraordinary effort to speed the development of treatments and vaccines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into sharp relief the need for the global science community to share scientific data openly. As the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, NIH is addressing this need with a new NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing. This policy requires researchers to plan prospectively for managing and sharing scientific data generated with NIH funds. This policy also establishes the baseline expectation that data sharing is a fundamental component of the research process, which is in line with NIH’s longstanding commitment to making the research it funds available to the public….”

Data sharing policies of journals in life, health, and physical sciences indexed in Journal Citation Reports [PeerJ]

Abstract:  Many scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy.

Methods

From each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science’s 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals’ data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy.

Results

Of the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17–0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05–7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98–15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85–4.81]).

Conclusions

These findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers’ engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.

 

Updated Guidelines for Publication with Open Access – Forte (English)

“As of 1 October, a new version of Forte’s Guidelines for Publication with Open Access comes into force. The intention is that the changes will make the guidelines clearer and easier to follow.

It is the objective of both the Swedish government and the EU that publications resulting from publicly funded research must be published with open access as of 2020. It is a question of democracy. The government also emphasises that there continues to be a need for higher education institutions and research funding bodies to assume a shared responsibility for striving to ensure that the national objective for open access is achieved.

The revision of Forte’s guidelines for open access makes it clearer that the requirement for immediate open access applies to all research that is granted funds as of 2021, regardless of when the results are published.

One addition to the guidelines also stipulates that all publication must be undertaken with an open licence (CC-BY). This must be stated in all versions of manuscripts submitted for publication. This means that copyright remains with the author, and is not assigned to publishers who can then restrict the use or dissemination of the published article….”

bjoern.brembs.blog » How academic institutions neglect their duty

“As the technology for such an infrastructure is available off the shelf and institutions are spending multiple amounts of what would be required on legacy publishers, there remain only social obstacles as to why academic institutions keep neglecting their researchers. Given that institutions have now failed for about 30 years to overcome these obstacles, it is straightforward to propose that mandates and policies be put in place to force institutions (and not researchers!) to change their ways and implement such a basic infrastructure.”

Powerful US research funder unveils strict open-access policy

“One of the world’s richest biomedical research organizations, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), announced on 1 October that it will require scientists it funds to make papers open access (OA) as soon as they are published — a change to its current policy, which allows a delay of up to one year before results must be free to read.

The non-profit organization, based in Chevy Chase, Maryland, is only the second US funder to insist on immediate open access, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. As part of the policy change, HHMI has joined the coalition of funders and organizations behind Plan S, a European-led initiative that is pushing for research to be immediately accessible on publication, and is supported by national research agencies and charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust and the Gates foundation. The HHMI’s shift is a boost to Plan S, and having more US-based funders on board will help build momentum towards open access, says Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project and the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The HHMI spent US$763 million on biomedical research in 2019 and supports around 4,750 researchers, producing around 2,500 papers a year. Its new policy states that from 2022, HHMI scientists must either publish papers OA or deposit their accepted manuscripts in a repository openly under a liberal publishing licence….”

Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions | eLife

Abstract:The proportion of research outputs published in open access journals or made available on other freely-accessible platforms has increased over the past two decades, driven largely by funder mandates, institutional policies, grass-roots advocacy, and changing attitudes in the research community. However, the relative effectiveness of these different interventions has remained largely unexplored. Here we present a robust, transparent and updateable method for analysing how these interventions affect the open access performance of individual institutes. We studied 1,207 institutions from across the world, and found that, in 2017, the top-performing universities published around 80-90% of their research open access. The analysis also showed that publisher-mediated (gold) open access was popular in Latin American and African universities, whereas the growth of open access in Europe and North America has mostly been driven by repositories.

 

What Our New Open Science Policy Means for the Future of Research | by Dawid Potgieter | Templeton World | Sep, 2020 | Medium

“We are at the beginning of a new, five-year strategy to support scientific research on human flourishing, and as part of that, Templeton World Charity Foundation has revised its grant-making activities to incentivize open science best practices across all fields of inquiry which we support. Open science refers to a process whereby research data, methods and findings are made open and available to all researchers — regardless of affiliation — for free. This may sound like inside baseball, but it will affect all of us by radically changing the way scientists work, accelerating the pace of scientific breakthroughs, and making the upper echelons of science more global and more inclusive.

OUR NEW POLICIES

Our new commitment includes two policies. Our Open Access Policy requires that anyone who uses Foundation research dollars must make their final paper openly accessible to anyone with an internet connection. They can still publish in any journal they like, and our policy allows for a number of options to stay compliant. This policy aligns with Plan S, and we are delighted to also be joining cOAlition S. As a part of this new policy we will also commit more resources toward article processing charges to facilitate this transformation.

In support of this, we also launched a Research Assessment Policy, which seeks to increase fairness and scientific rigor. Researchers have typically been encouraged to publish in journals with a high impact factor, but they tend to have a paywall. Under our new research assessment policy, we put value on the quality of data, code and methodologies produced by the researcher, and we will not prioritize impact factor. These changes are the result of a long process of analysis and our core conviction that open science is a requirement for driving scientific breakthroughs in the future. This policy aligns with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)….”