[This work is not OA and not close. A single user license costs $1,995.]
“This report explains the origins of the open access movement, gives a timeline for its development, but most importantly, Simba Information quantifies open access book publishing as a market segment. Simba used the information it gathered through primary and secondary research to develop a financial outlook for open access book publishing with market projections through 2022. This research was conducted in conjunction with a larger study of the overall market for scholarly and professional publishing….
Examples of some of the issues discussed include:
The continued evolution of open access
The impact of open access in social science and humanities vs. scientific, technical and medical
Prevailing business models and experiments
Open access mandates spread to books
Opportunity for monographs and conference proceedings
Emerging markets fertile ground for open access….”
Abstract: Utah State University is home to a Digital Commons repository and an instance of the Digital Measures activity-reporting tool. The prospect of linking these two systems, such that content is automatically harvested from Digital Measures for upload into the Digital Commons, is alluring. Our initial efforts were abandoned due to lack of faculty permissions and low-quality metadata. However, with the passage of an Institutional Open Access Policy, we resumed investigation. We found that the process of harvesting from Digital Measures and uploading to Digital Commons could be streamlined, if not fully automated. Our initial harvest revealed that human-mediation is desirable.
Only a sample is available without charge, and one must turn over personal details to get it.
“The ongoing market trends of Open Access Journal market and the key factors impacting the growth prospects are elucidated. With increase in the trend, the factors affecting the trend are mentioned with perfect reasons. Top manufactures, price, revenue, market share are explained to give a depth of idea on the competitive side.”
“The negotiations between the German DEAL project and publishers have global implications for academic publishing beyond just Germany
Open access (OA) publication dates back at least 40 years in some fields such as computation research, but, for the past decade, has attracted increasing attention among scientists from all disciplines as an alternative to subscription?based journals as the main route for disseminating the results of research. The life sciences were rather slow to join the movement for OA, which took root early in the Millennium. One important step then was the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” in October 2003. It was inspired by Germany’s Max Planck Society and the European Cultural Heritage Online (ECHO) to support “[n]ew possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet” (openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin?Declaration). The declaration sets out two key principles, firstly that authors grant “to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship”. The second principle is that authors deposit copies of their work in a suitable OA repository. Back then, proponents of OA had hoped that the mandate would help to transform scientific publishing towards payment for publication rather than subscriptions, especially as it gained support from other major funding bodies, such as the UK’s Wellcome Trust and the US Howard Hughes Medical Institutes (HHMI). Yet, progress towards OA has been patchier and slower than expected. “I think that most people involved in the open access debates in the early years, including myself, did not expect that changing the scholarly publishing system would take that long”, commented Georg Botz, Coordinator for Open Access Policy at the Max Planck Society. …”
Abstract: Background Clinicians are increasingly using social media for professional development and education. In 2012, we developed the St.Emlyn’s blog, an open access resource dedicated to providing free education in the field of emergency medicine.
Objective To describe the development and growth of this international emergency medicine blog.
Method We present a narrative description of the development of St.Emlyn’s blog. Data on scope, impact and engagement were extracted from WordPress, Twitter and Google Analytics.
Results The St.Emlyn’s blog demonstrates a sustained growth in size and user engagement. Since inception in 2012, the site has been viewed over 1.25?million times with a linear year-on-year growth. We have published over 500 blog posts, each of which attracts a mean of 2466 views (range 382–69?671). The site has been viewed in nearly every country in the world, although the majority (>75%) of visitors come from the USA, UK and Australia.
Summary This case study of an emergency medicine blog quantifies the reach and engagement of social-media-enabled learning in emergency medicine.
“Electronic books are one of the fastest growing segments of scholarly and professional publishing. E-books offer creative possibilities for expanding access as well as changing learning behavior and academic research. Content can always be accessible, regardless of time or place, to be read on PCs or on portable book readers. Books need never go out of print, and new editions can be easily created. Scholarly & Professional E-Book Publishing 2018-2022 provides an overview and financial outlook for the global scholarly and professional e-book publishing markets based on specific research and analysis of the leading competitors’ performance. Company performance is projected through 2018. The overall market is divided into law, science and technology, medical, social science and humanities and business publishing. Market categories are projected through 2022….”
“The case for making publications accessible is so obvious and has been made so often that I won’t waste time here setting out those arguments. You know that accessibility is the right thing to do.
What you may not know is that making a publication accessible has recently become a whole lot more straightforward – and that your publications today are closer to being made properly accessible – than you realise….”
Abstract: Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal’s rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.
Let your users share articles with coworkers and colleagues, all while capturing the usage data associated with shared use. Remarq® refines recommendations based on sharing, as well, making your site a useful portal to the literature while keeping users engaged.