eLife introduces first demonstration of the open-source publishing platform Libero Publisher | For the press | eLife

“eLife is pleased to announce the first working example of its open-source journal hosting and post-production publishing system, Libero Publisher.

The demo showcases some of the essential components of a journal on Libero Publisher, including a homepage and research articles with author lists and affiliations, figures and references. Additional features are being added weekly, sometimes daily, as the platform evolves quickly to accommodate increasingly complex content types.

Libero Publisher is designed to help publishers deliver beautifully presented content to readers on any device, wherever they are. It is just one component of Libero, a community-driven and open-source platform of services and applications being built to help content providers do more with everything they publish….”

Welcome to the Libero Demonstration Journal – eLife Libero

“The Libero community is pleased to present a demonstration of Libero Publisher to exhibit the progress we’ve made so far and to gather feedback as we continue to iteratively develop new features. Being an open-source platform for scholarly publishing, the components of Libero Publisher have always been available for use and downloadable from GitHub. But, if you’re not familiar with cloning code repositories and running software containers, it can be difficult to track the project’s progress due to the lack of visible milestones. This is why we’ve taken the time to showcase some great examples of compatible journal content on a brand new instance of Libero Publisher at https://demo.libero.pub.

We have selected examples from journals of different sizes and disciplines, and will continue to grow the example set as more publishers test their content on the platform or new features are added. You’ll recognise the examples as scholarly articles with titles, authors, keywords, abstracts, content and figures. Other elements will continue to be added, and you can keep track of what to expect next on our public roadmap: https://elifesci.org/roadmap….”

Guest Post – Library Publishers Convene in Vancouver to Discuss Open Platforms and Open Educational Resources – The Scholarly Kitchen

From May 8 to 10th of this year, about two hundred librarians, publishers, and all flavors in between gathered at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in Vancouver for the 6th annual Library Publishing Coalition Forum. The Pre-Conference on Wednesday, May 8th, focused on Open Educational Resources, had about 90 attendees. The open theme carried over into the main event with presentations on open publishing platforms of many kinds.

Increased interest in open platforms and open tools has grown after continuing industry consolidation of hosting and authoring tools — namely, Wiley’s acquisition of the Atypon platform and the latter’s subsequent purchase of the Authoria and Manuscript tools, along with Elsevier’s shift in emphasis on the researcher workflow with acquisitions of the Mendeley Scholarly Collaboration Network, Aries’ Editorial Manager, and the institutional repository provider, Bepress. Many posts here in the Scholarly Kitchen have focused on this trend and highlighted concern of vendor lock-in, as well as smaller publisher concerns of being “locked out.” 

With so many open platforms in the mix today, one focal point of the meeting was SFU’s own John Maxwell, who presented preliminary findings from an environmental scan of open source publishing conducted by MIT Press and funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. (Full disclosure: I currently work for the MIT Knowledge Futures Group, but I had agreed to present at this meeting while still employed by the open annotation tool creator Hypothesis.)

With a full report scheduled for later this summer, Maxwell detailed the scope and process of the scan, which hopes to create a catalog of approximately 50 open source projects itemized with their main approaches, key partners, codebases, and more….”

Introducing sci.pe Endeavour

“We are excited to announce that early access to Endeavour – the new sci.pe self-hosted offering – is now available upon request.

 
 
 

Endeavour complements sci.pe cloud publishing offerings Explorer and Voyager, by providing an open source solution that enables self-hosting.

 
 
 

Endeavour allows the following uses:

 
 
 
  • For publishers: upgrade technological infrastructure while having strong guarantees on the long-term perennity and control of the of the technology used.
  • For not-for-profit, open-access journals: operate with zero platform costs on open and standard-compliant infrastructure.
  • For journal service providers: build new business opportunities, either offering hosting solutions built on sci.pe or integrating services with the platform….”

Development sneak preview – Editoria

Editoria’s web-based word processor is being upgraded, along with the rest of the system, in response to the community’s most recent roadmap. In the current version of Editoria, Monemvasia, we have contextually sensitive styles. This means that once a component is recognized as a frontmatter item, for example, the ‘menu’ of style options available automatically updates to display only the styles relevant within the context of a front matter component. The same is true for parts, unnumbered components and chapters.

To take styling in the web-based word processor (via the Wax editor) to the next level, Christos Kokosias, Wax lead developer, is working up functionality (suggested by friends at punctum books) that adds the ability to customize tags at the chapter level. This will help with pagination as it improves the quality of the HTML available to export tools using CSS to automatically typeset content prepared in the browser….”

flashPub

“We focus on making micropubs visibile, citable, and usable in compelling research narratives that engage the community and inspire new lines of inquiry….

We will never charge subscription fees or APCs for academic users. All researchers are welcome to publish!…

All content is deposited in leading public repositories, ensuring your contributions are preserved and acessible forever….

Our peer review system balances the benefits of open review and the value of traditional review. It’s fast, easy, and to the point….”

 

Libraries in a computational age | Feral Librarian

Openness is a also a very important part of our culture and widely-shared value at MIT. We are one of the few private universities in the US with an open campus, including libraries that are open to all visitors. We are also committed to openly sharing our educational and research materials with the world.

MIT created Open Courseware in 2000, “a simple but bold idea that MIT should publish all of our course materials online and make them widely available to everyone.” To date Open Courseware has over 2 million visitors/month, and hosts 2400 courses.

In 2009, MIT passed one of the first campus-wide open access policies in the US, passed by a unanimous vote of the faculty. MIT turned to the libraries to implement the policy, and because of a commitment to provide adequate staffing and resources to collecting faculty research, we now share 45% of MIT faculty journal articles written since 2009 openly with the world through our OA repository….

The first conclusion was that although the initial digital turn in libraries was not yet complete, we were already on the cusp of a second, potentially  more profound one. The first, original digital shift in libraries was print to digital plus print, and was brought about by the internet, google, and e-books/journals….

Although this was a HUGE shift, it did not open up access to scholarly content the way many of us hoped it would. In large part because of the market power of many large commercial publishers, the advent of online journals did not democratize access to knowledge, and the potential for the rise of the internet and of online information and scholarship to create information equality has been stunted. None the less, the first digital turn in libraries and scholarly communication did make research and reading arguably more efficient for those who had access….

In describing the next evolution of libraries, the MIT future of libraries task force emphasized not only the technological shift, but also the importance of combining this shift with a renewed commitment to open science and open scholarship. What is the next shift? It is an evolution of libraries from service to platform, and is from not just digital and physical; but also to computational….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”

PEERS

From Google’s English: 

“PEERS is a non-profit scientific publishing platform built from the joint initiative of researchers in epistemology, metacognition and critical theory…

  • Posting and reading on PEERS is and will always be free.
  • All publications are available free of charge in .epub and .pdf versions
  • PEERS is a non-profit organization working to protect research and its accessibility
  • By publishing on PEERS, you make your data accessible to readers.
  • The project pages allow you to share data while your search is progressing.
  • All data sharing tools are automatically integrated into your documents
  • PEERS contains an evaluation mode for each reader. The reader can, anonymous or not, point out errors or raise questionable points. Authors can correct mistakes by reviewing their work in a dedicated thread 
  • For quantitative research, PEERS contains the tools to re-analyze the data contained in the product work….

We need open access. The most important research is becoming less and less acceptable for academics. Most of us would like to become more accessible. We want our students to-have access to all of the available literature, and we do not want public money to be spent just to make the research we-have written available.

We need open data. Back in the “paper era”, was not shared, but it was almost impossible to share. But now, there is no excuse for prohibiting the reader of an authoritative work to a workable data set. The practice of open data is slowly spreading through some academic disciplines, while others ignore it completely. Sharing open data lacks unity in formatting and in practices. Ideally, researchers would share their data as soon as the research starts, so be sure to follow the highest standards of transparency.

Sharing your data is scary, so this move must be valued by our community. Everybody makes mistakes. The faster we know it, the better is it. The generalization of open data, but it will also allow for a deep collective effort that can produce wonders.

We need open review . Reviews are essential for every actor of the research process. But we want them to be done openly, in front of everyone else….”

Who is Coko? An interview with Coko Co-founder and visionary Adam Hyde : Collaborative Knowledge Foundation

The Scholarly Communications sector can learn a lot from open source and open processes. For example, at Coko we don’t actually own anything. It is the community that owns it. We facilitate the communities success and their success is our success. We share everything we have with them – code, methods, processes, PR, expertise, funding, successes, coffee! – and they in turn share those things with us. We are the community, the community is us. That can only happen in an environment of trust and trust is what openness – the core ingredient to best practice open source – is all about. If more people within the Scholarly Communications sector at large can learn to work like this then they will benefit from it greatly….”