Creating More Visibility for Canadian Journals’ Self-Archiving Policies: An Open Access Week 2020 Crowdsourcing Project – Canadian Association of Research Libraries

“Researchers frequently need to know where and when they can share a copy of their submitted, accepted and/or published journal articles in order to: meet the requirements of a funder policy, share their research more widely through their institutional repository or a subject repository, or, decide where to publish. Most frequently, they look up the journal in question using the Sherpa RoMEO tool. However, many Canadian journals are not yet reflected in this leading international database, and for those that are, the information contained there can be old or incomplete.

CARL is therefore asking Canadian librarians, researchers, and journals to help us collect key information about these missing and incomplete journal entries to make it easier for researchers in Canada and beyond to find Canadian scholarly publication venues using this tool….”

Improving access and delivery of academic content – a survey of current & emerging trends | Musings about librarianship

“While allowing users to gain access to paywalled academic content aka delivery services is often seen to be less sexy than discovery it is still an important part of the researcher workflow that is worth looking at. In particular, I will argue that in the past few years we have seen a renewed interest in this part of the workflow and may potentially start to see some big changes in the way we provide access to academic content in the near future.

Note: The OA discovery and delivery front has changed a lot since 2017, with Unpaywall been a big part of the story, but for this blog post I will focus on delivery aspects of paywalled content. 1.0 Access and delivery – an age old problem


1.1 RA21, Seamless Access and getFTR


1.2 Campus Activated Subscriber Access (CASA)

1.3 Browser extensions/”Access Brokers” 1.4 Content syndication partnership between Springer Nature and ResearchGate (new) 1.5 Is the sun slowing setting on library link resolvers? 1.6 The Sci-hub effect?

1.7 Privacy implications …”

What is the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)? – Open Access Books Network Blog

A post from the Open Access Books Network about the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) and how it can be used by anyone interested in Open Access books. Includes details of a Q&A with Peter Suber and Milica Ševkuši? on Tuesday 20th October at 10am EDT / 3pm BST.

DOAB milestones: 30,000 OA books, 400 publishers

“We are pleased to share that the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) recently reached three key milestones in terms of book coverage, unique publishers and future financial sustainability. 

Over 30,000 books from more than 400 publishers 

The number of open access books included in DOAB has grown impressively from just over 10,000 books in 2018 to 31,917 as of today. In terms of publishers, we are happy to see that over 400 publishers are included in DOAB as we strive to improve the coverage of the directory….”

Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI)

“COKI seeks to be the world’s leading hub for analysis and evaluation of open knowledge in higher education.

Founded at Curtin University in Perth, Australia in 2017, the COKI project team collaborate with national and international partners to create fresh insights into Open Knowledge practice around the world.

COKI has developed the world’s leading open knowledge data set, drawing together more than 12 trillion data elements, providing a comprehensive understanding of open knowledge practices and impact.

The COKI project team is has developed insights, analysis and tools which can enable universities to become Open Knowledge Institutions….”

Project Aims to Move Higher Education Incentives Towards Open – SPARC

“Imagine a world where higher educational institutions were ranked, not by their selectivity or prestige, but by their willingness to openly share knowledge and engage with their communities.

Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) is using big data and cloud computing to measure how colleges and universities operate as open and equitable players in the scholarly ecosystem. Launched in 2017, the idea for the project grew from a frustration that Lucy Montgomery and Cameron Neylon say they faced trying to elevate conversations about investing in open access and open science. 

Too often, leaders on campuses didn’t see open as a priority. The pair wanted to provide data to make their case and provide an incentive for higher education to become more coordinated in its efforts to share knowledge and to change how the information eco-system works….

The project set out to develop a model for an “open knowledge institution.” More than simply focusing on producing open scholarship, COKI looks to measure how institutions bring different groups productively together to make progress and reach consensus, says Neylon. The measures places value on openly communicating research and commitments to building cross-cultural connections. By tracking these efforts, COKI aims to support university efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education and research….”

The next generation discovery citation indexes — a review of the landscape in 2020 (I) | by Aaron Tay | Academic librarians and open access | Oct, 2020 | Medium

“In terms of cross disciplinary citation indexes that are used for discovery, everyone knows of the two incumbants — Web of Science and Scopus(2004). Joined by the large web scale Google Scholar (2004), these three reigned as the “Big 3” of citation indexes for roughly a decade more or less unchallenged.

However 10 years later, around 2015 and in the years after, a new generation of citation indexes started to emerge to challenge the big 3 in a variety of ways .

As of time of writing in 2020, some of these new challengers have had a couple of years of development. How do things look now?

First off, using newer techniques and paradigms, we have for-profit companies like Digital Science launching Dimensions (2018) which strike me as challengers to Scopus and Web of Science in the arena of citation/bibliometric assessment, just as Scopus itself was a challenge to the older Web of Science back in 2004.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the rise of more “open” citation indexes . In particular, a very important player in this area is the relaunched Microsoft Academic(2016) which not only uses web crawling style technologies like Google Scholar to scour the web, applies the latest in Natural Language Processing (NLP) /“semantic” technologies and makes the dataset dubbed Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) available with open licenses.

Semantic Scholar(2015) is yet another project with Microsoft ties ( funded by the Allen Institute for AI) that play in the same area and releases data with open licenses. One of the more “Semantic” features of this search engine is that it types citations into whether the cite is for citing of background, methods or results using machine learning.

While scite (2018) a new citation index by a startup does not provide open data, it’s selling point is the use of NLP to type citation relationships into “Supporting”, “Disputing” and “Neutral” cites which is yet another way of contextualizing research by describin citation relationships.

Besides the two above mentioned well funded think tanks projects, we also see more grassroot like movements like 2017’s I4OC (Intiative for open Citations) — an amazingly successful push to get publishers to deposit and make references open in Crossref as well as efforts by (a founding member of I4OC) to extract citations from open access papers from PMC to produce the OpenCitations Corpus (OCC), which have served to further increase the pool of Scholarly meta-data and citations that are available in the public domain/CCO….”

Preprints South Asia Survey 2020: A Report

Abstract:  A survey on conducted to know the status of awareness and attitude particularly towards preprints among the research scholars, scientists and librarians in the South Asian region during the months of April and May 2020 had maximum responses from India (83.71%) and majority of Agricultural Sciences (54%) discipline. Respondents ranked ‘Journal’s Impact Factor’ at the top factor for selecting journals to publish. Seventy five percent had at least 25% of their publications in Open Access and had paid the APCs (65.33%) for publications and the source of funds are personal pooling (30.34%). While 61.72% read preprints, 27.03% have not heard about preprints and 11.26% never read the preprints. However, those read, 64.42% trust the preprints. And why they share preprints is because of ‘belief in open access’ (39.91%), ‘rapid feedback’ (23.53%) and ‘timely sharing results’ (21.72%). With regard to citing preprints, 60.36% never cited any preprints and 79.73% respondent’s preprints were never cited. However, the respondents mentioned that indexing, citing, visibility, consideration in assessment & evaluation will motivate the authors to share preprints.