“Our most recent COVID-19 Collection has been created with the University College London library where we have made a collection indexing all UCL research related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This collection is automatically updated by pulling in records from the institutional repository UCL Discovery and affiliation metadata from records aggregated by the ScienceOpen platform. The automated setup easily manages the stream of new COVID-19 material being published and opens it up for exploration and interaction. In just the last week, there were 35 new publications added to the collection. Additional benefits of having all of the UCL published research relating to COVID-19 in one place is that it gives users easy and flexible tools for search and discovery such as changing the sort order from number of citations, AltmetricTM score or date. Users searching the contents of the collection, can narrow the number of articles in the collection by specific journals, publishers, or overlapping collections on the ScienceOpen platform. Thus, a user would be able to see publications that also appear in the Wiley: Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 and or in the UCL Press special issue Special series on COVID-19 interactions with our Environment collections. This encourages users to browse the content and supports easy discovery of related research. Follow the UCL COVID-19 Collection for updates on new content or interactions! …”
“Peer review is a key element of scholarly publishing, but for the past decade the research community has struggled to move beyond the black box and develop new open models of research evaluation. University College London and UCL Press would like to change that. Since the beginning, ScienceOpen has been committed to open peer review – now offering post-publication review options for over 62 million articles and preprints. So, with the vision of a university-led publishing platform based on open review principles, UCL Press teamed up with ScienceOpen to create the journal “UCL Open: Environment”. …”
“Even so, it is much easier to sign DORA than to deliver on the commitment that signing entails. And while I would always recommend that universities sign as soon as they are ready to commit, because doing so sends such a positive message to their researchers, they should not put pen to paper without a clear idea of how signing will impact their approach to research assessment, or how they are going to develop any changes with their staff….
Out went phrases such as “contributions to research papers that appear in high-impact journals” to be replaced by “contributions to high quality and impactful research.” The change is subtle but significant – the revised guidance makes it plain that ‘impactful research’ in this context is not a cypher for the JIF; rather it is work “that makes a significant contribution to the field and/or has impact beyond the immediate field of research.” …”
“UCL is pleased to post Robert Kiley’s response to the UCL Town Hall meeting and UCL’s Plan S consultation response as a contribution to the ongoing consultation over Plan S.
“As the cOAlition S representative at the UCL Town Hall meeting I’d like to thank UCL for their response to the Plan S guidance document and for giving me the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised.” …
I was disappointed by the UCL response to Plan S which calls for a “wholescale rethink of the strategy and timelines for moving to 100% Open Access”. …”
“At the Lis-Bibliometrics event, Katie Evans raised the important question as to how we can encourage openness in early-career colleagues when they face such pressures to publish in usually closed ‘high impact’ journals. David Price said that he felt senior colleagues had to lead the way. At UCL, Paul Ayris pointed out, promotion criteria now included openness metrics. The challenges of measuring openness, and open measures were acknowledged. Interestingly enough, Lis-Bibliometrics plans to take a look at this in more detail at a future event….”