‘Up to half’ of European papers to be open access under Plan S | Times Higher Education (THE)

European countries signed up to Plan S can expect to have about half their total research output published in open access format, according to new analysis that offers a snapshot of the scheme’s potential global impact.

The Plan S Footprint: Implications for the Scholarly Publishing Landscape, published by research data analysts Clarivate, examines the extent to which existing publications comply with the guidelines for Plan S, under which participating funders will require all the research that they had supported to be made freely available at the point of publication from next January….

While the papers funded by Plan S backers account for only about 6.4 per cent of total annual academic output, researchers found their impact to be much wider, with compliant papers racking up more citations on average, across all fields.

In molecular biology and genetics, for example, 2017 papers authored by one or more researchers supported by Plan S signatories received an average of 7.7 citations, compared with the total subject average of 4.7….

The paper estimates that about 90,000 papers funded by Plan S supporters which are currently published in hybrid or subscription journals would need to be “rehoused” if the titles did not flip to full open access.

“The relocation of content to open access titles would represent a 29 per cent overall movement in the volume of well-cited papers in the existing compliant venues,” the researchers add, which “could be disruptive in some subjects, and suitable compliant venues are not always available”. …”

 

‘Up to half’ of European papers to be open access under Plan S | Times Higher Education (THE)

European countries signed up to Plan S can expect to have about half their total research output published in open access format, according to new analysis that offers a snapshot of the scheme’s potential global impact.

The Plan S Footprint: Implications for the Scholarly Publishing Landscape, published by research data analysts Clarivate, examines the extent to which existing publications comply with the guidelines for Plan S, under which participating funders will require all the research that they had supported to be made freely available at the point of publication from next January….

While the papers funded by Plan S backers account for only about 6.4 per cent of total annual academic output, researchers found their impact to be much wider, with compliant papers racking up more citations on average, across all fields.

In molecular biology and genetics, for example, 2017 papers authored by one or more researchers supported by Plan S signatories received an average of 7.7 citations, compared with the total subject average of 4.7….

The paper estimates that about 90,000 papers funded by Plan S supporters which are currently published in hybrid or subscription journals would need to be “rehoused” if the titles did not flip to full open access.

“The relocation of content to open access titles would represent a 29 per cent overall movement in the volume of well-cited papers in the existing compliant venues,” the researchers add, which “could be disruptive in some subjects, and suitable compliant venues are not always available”. …”

 

The Plan S footprint: Implications for the scholarly publishing landscape – Clarivate

This report, the second in the Global Research series from the Institute for Scientific Information, examines recent patterns of publications funded by Plan S supporters, exploring potential impacts on funders, subjects, countries, publishers, and journals.

Based on journal data taken from Web of Science Core Collection, the report looks to provide an unbiased and data-driven background analysis to inform the debate around a potentially transformative change in research policy. ‘The Plan S Footprint’ raises several questions for consideration by funders, publishers and institutions when exploring possible ways to implement Plan S….”

A report about Plan S’s potential effects on journals marks a busy week for the open-access movement | Science | AAAS

The report on Plan S, released 1 March, examines several ways in which the proposal could affect and challenge journals. It comes from Clarivate, the analytics firm that tracks journals in its Web of Science database and assigns them journal impact factors. Clarivate examined 3700 journals that in 2017 published at least six articles acknowledging a Plan S funder; of these, 3200 are not in the Directory of Open Access Journals, a comprehensive listing, and so cannot be compliant with Plan S.

The Clarivate report describes how Plan S may have a significant effect on authors even in countries whose funders don’t sign on: It identified 40,000 articles published in 2017 that involved collaborations between researchers in a European country and those in the rest of the world. At several U.S. universities—including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena—more than 15% of papers listed Plan S funding. Papers produced with any Plan S funding would be required to publish in a Plan S–compliant journal….

The publisher Springer Nature in London began a pilot project allowing the networking website ResearchGate to post some full-text, freely accessible articles from select Nature-branded journals, including the flagship. The 3-month pilot will upload at least 6000 articles, published after November 2017 in 23 subscription-only journals, to the ResearchGate profiles of the scientists who authored the articles. Berlin-based ResearchGate, which counts 15 million scientists and researchers worldwide as members, has been sued by other publishers for copyright infringement for allowing its users to upload paywalled journal articles to their profiles.

In a 1 March news release, Springer Nature said the pilot will gather feedback from scientists and institutions to allow it to develop new models for providing access to articles; in another statement, ResearchGate said it hopes the experiment will increase collaborations among scientists. “This pilot project represents the first significant experiment with the syndication of publisher content to a content supercontinent,” writes Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, a librarian at the University of Illinois in Champaign, on The Scholarly Kitchen blog….”

Churchill Capital Corp and Clarivate Analytics Announce Merger Agreement – Clarivate

Churchill Capital Corp (“Churchill”) (NYSE: CCC), a public investment vehicle, and Clarivate Analytics (“Clarivate”), a global leader in providing trusted insights and analytics to accelerate the pace of innovation, announced they have entered into a definitive agreement to merge. The combined company will operate as Clarivate and will become publicly listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The transaction implies an initial enterprise value of approximately $4.2 billion1 with a multiple of approximately 12.5x Clarivate’s estimated 2019 Standalone Adjusted EBITDA before synergies at the time of close….”

I like the new Clarivate-Impactstory partnership for several reasons, but…

“I like the new Clarivate-Impactstory partnership for several reasons….However, the Clarivate PR team…inserted this passage into the press release: “Researchers conducting online searches for scholarly articles frequently get unreliable results that can compromise their work. This is typically because the results omit journal articles behind paid-subscription paywalls or because ‘web-scraping’ utilities return versions of articles that are not peer-reviewed or are in violation of copyright laws.” …

It’s true that search results can be unreliable because they omit paywalled articles. But there are a few problems with the rest of the passage….

* The sentence on web-scraping utilities is obscure. Because it mentions articles that are not peer-reviewed, it seems to be an oblique criticism of preprint repositories. But preprint repositories depend on voluntary author deposits, not web scraping. Moreover, finding preprints in a search is a feature for people who know how to use them, not a bug. It doesn’t make the search less reliable. The criticism misses the target. 

* Perhaps the reference to web scraping is an oblique criticism of Sci-Hub. But Sci-Hub focuses on refereed postprints, indeed versions of record, not unrefereed preprints. Moreover, it depends on downloads, even if illicit, not web scraping. The criticism misses the target.

* The final part implies that finding illegal copies of peer-reviewed articles in a search makes the search unreliable. This is false. The writer probably meant to criticize these copies for infringement, but instead criticizes them for unreliability. The criticism misses the target.”

Clarivate Analytics announces landmark partnership with Impactstory to make open access content

“Clarivate Analytics today announced a novel public/private strategic partnership with Impactstory that will remove a critical barrier for researchers: limited open access (OA) to high-quality, trusted peer-reviewed content. Under the terms of the partnership, Clarivate Analytics is providing a grant to Impactstory to build on its oaDOI service, making open access content more easily discoverable, and the research workflow more efficient from discovery through publishing….The oaDOI service is from Impactstory, a nonprofit creating online tools to make science more open and reusable. It currently indexes 90 million articles and delivers open-access full text versions over a free, fast, open API that is currently used by over 700 libraries worldwide and fulfills over 2 million requests daily. Impactstory has also built Unpaywall, a free browser extension that uses oaDOI to find full text whenever researchers come across paywalled articles….”