A new era for research publication: Will Open Access become the norm? – Hotta – – Journal of Diabetes Investigation – Wiley Online Library

“This new challenge [Plan S] causes some concerns to us. This program is unlikely to be equivalent between Europe and the United States8). because key US federal agencies such as National Institute of Health (NIH), mandate a ‘green’ Open Access policy, whereby articles in subscription journals are automatically made available after a 12-month embargo. This policy protects the existing ‘paywalled’ subscription business model. Also, ‘Plan S’ does not allow for scientists to publish their papers in hybrid journals….

One piece of bright news, however, is that Open Access publication fees would be covered by funders or research institutions, not by individual researchers. Although our journal is already Open Access, we have some concerns regarding the publication fee being covered by either researchers or institutions….”

Given that the publishing industry is approaching a new era in which 85% or more of journals are Open Access, it is necessary for us to develop a survival strategy against this coming fierce competition….

Announcing the Journal of the Medical Library Association’s data sharing policy | Akers | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  As librarians are generally advocates of open access and data sharing, it is a bit surprising that peer-reviewed journals in the field of librarianship have been slow to adopt data sharing policies. Starting October 1, 2019, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is taking a step forward and implementing a firm data sharing policy to increase the rigor and reproducibility of published research, enable data reuse, and promote open science. This editorial explains the data sharing policy, describes how compliance with the policy will fit into the journal’s workflow, and provides further guidance for preparing for data sharing.

 

Announcing the Journal of the Medical Library Association’s data sharing policy | Akers | Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract:  As librarians are generally advocates of open access and data sharing, it is a bit surprising that peer-reviewed journals in the field of librarianship have been slow to adopt data sharing policies. Starting October 1, 2019, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is taking a step forward and implementing a firm data sharing policy to increase the rigor and reproducibility of published research, enable data reuse, and promote open science. This editorial explains the data sharing policy, describes how compliance with the policy will fit into the journal’s workflow, and provides further guidance for preparing for data sharing.

 

Predatory Open Access Journals: Risks of Association | JALT Publications

“Multiple studies indicate that open access research is significantly more likely to be cited than research published in non-open-access journals. There are two major open access models – those that charge authors to publish, and those funded under any of multiple other business models. Those charging authors are known as “gold open access”, and this article investigates the ethics of paying to publish. The primary concern is that objectivity in the peer-review process is compromised by profit motives. …”

Opinion | The Law©? – The New York Times

No one owns the law, because the law belongs to everyone. It’s a principle that seems so obvious that most people wouldn’t give it a second thought. But that’s what is at issue in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, a case about whether the State of Georgia can assert copyright in its annotated state code. This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in its next term.

Americans deserve free and easy access to public records of all kinds, including court documents. But access to the law is the most important of all: Democracy depends on it. Keeping the law free of copyright is the first step….”

Acta Physiologica announces: publishing for nothing, open access for free for all German authors! – Persson – – Acta Physiologica – Wiley Online Library

“Dear authors, readers and friends of Acta Physiologica. How much has been written about the pros and cons of open access, also with regard to Acta?  Like it or not, the future may be  open access in one form, or another. Projekt DEAL may go into history as one of the first steps in this direction.  Germany, represented by the Max-Plank-Gesellschaft and Wiley, represented by Verlag Chemie reached an agreement to provide all authors from German institutions with open access at no [cost] to the authors. A milestone agreement in the eyes of many. What does this mean for Acta Physiologica? If you are currently affiliated with a German institution, you will be offered open access at no cost to you. In addition, in Acta authors of every country can enjoy free publishing.”

The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism | Editorial | Opinion | The Guardian

In California the state university system has been paying $11m (£8.3m) a year for access to Elsevier journals, but it has just announced that it won’t be renewing these subscriptions. In Britain and Europe the move towards open access publishing has been driven by funding bodies. In some ways it has been very successful. More than half of all British scientific research is now published under open access terms: either freely available from the moment of publication, or paywalled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release.

Yet, somehow, the new system has not yet worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their writers fees to cover the costs of preparing an article. These range from around £500 to $5,000, and apparently the work gets more expensive the more that publishers do it. A report last year from Professor Adam Tickell pointed out that the costs both of subscriptions and of these “article preparation costs” has been steadily rising at a rate above inflation ever since the UK’s open access policy was adopted in 2012. In some ways the scientific publishing model resembles the economy of the social internet: labour is provided free in exchange for the hope of status, while huge profits are made by a few big firms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power….”

Opinion | Public Records Belong to the Public – The New York Times

“There’s no reason for the federal government to profit from access to court documents….

Pacer, a 30-year-old relic that remains unwieldy to use, is a collection of online portals run by the administrative arm of the federal court system. It was designed, at least in principle, to provide online access to the more than one billion court documents that have been docketed in federal courts across the country since the advent of electronic case filing.

But the public can gain access to these public documents online only by paying significant fees. Pacer charges 10 cents per page to view electronic court documents — or up to $3 for documents exceeding 30 pages, which are common. It’s easy to burn up $10 just by looking up rudimentary information about a single case….

The E-Government Act of 2002 says that courts may impose fees “only to the extent necessary” to make public records available. That phrase is now at the center of a class-action lawsuit brought by nonprofit advocacy groups. The groups are challenging the fee structure of the Pacer system, which in 2016 took in $146 million, despite costing only a small fraction of that to operate….

There’s also an admirable bill that was introduced last year in Congress, the Electronic Court Records Reform Act, that goes a step further than what is being sought in the class-action suit. It would make all documents filed with the federal courts available free to the public. (In 2017, the Supreme Court, often a late adopter of new technologies, made virtually all of its new court filings freely available online.) The legislation also would mandate needed updates to Pacer, including making documents text-searchable and linkable from external websites….”

Opinion | Public Records Belong to the Public – The New York Times

“There’s no reason for the federal government to profit from access to court documents….

Pacer, a 30-year-old relic that remains unwieldy to use, is a collection of online portals run by the administrative arm of the federal court system. It was designed, at least in principle, to provide online access to the more than one billion court documents that have been docketed in federal courts across the country since the advent of electronic case filing.

But the public can gain access to these public documents online only by paying significant fees. Pacer charges 10 cents per page to view electronic court documents — or up to $3 for documents exceeding 30 pages, which are common. It’s easy to burn up $10 just by looking up rudimentary information about a single case….

The E-Government Act of 2002 says that courts may impose fees “only to the extent necessary” to make public records available. That phrase is now at the center of a class-action lawsuit brought by nonprofit advocacy groups. The groups are challenging the fee structure of the Pacer system, which in 2016 took in $146 million, despite costing only a small fraction of that to operate….

There’s also an admirable bill that was introduced last year in Congress, the Electronic Court Records Reform Act, that goes a step further than what is being sought in the class-action suit. It would make all documents filed with the federal courts available free to the public. (In 2017, the Supreme Court, often a late adopter of new technologies, made virtually all of its new court filings freely available online.) The legislation also would mandate needed updates to Pacer, including making documents text-searchable and linkable from external websites….”