Not even an abstract of this article is OA.
“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.
“Article sharing that counts.
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.
- Stop content leakage to third-party sites
- Give your PDFs new life and importance
- Make your site a stronger community hub…”
“This paper describes a process to develop and publish a scorecard from an OAJ (Open Access Journal) on the Semantic Web using Linked Data technologies in such a way that it can be linked to related datasets. Furthermore, methodological guidelines are presented with activities related to each step of the process. The proposed process was applied to a university OAJ, including the definition of the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) linked to the institutional strategies, the extraction, cleaning and loading of data from the data sources into a data mart, the transformation of data into RDF (Resource Description Framework), and the publication of data by means of a SPARQL endpoint using the Virtuoso software. Additionally, the RDF data cube vocabulary has been used to publish the multidimensional data on the Web. The visualization was made using CubeViz, a faceted browser to present the KPIs in interactive charts.”
Abstract: Organizing scholarly publishing as a cooperative business has the promise of making journals more affordable and scholarly publishing more sustainable. The authors describe the development of the modern cooperative from its beginnings in England during the Industrial Revolution and highlight the great extent and diversity of business worldwide that is currently done cooperatively. Some of the current initiatives in scholarly publishing (SPARC, PLoS, German Academic Publishing, etc.) are analysed in light of cooperative business principles, and it is shown that, while these models often partially utilize cooperative business practices, none of them has adopted the cooperative model in totality.