“TheOpen Access Tracking Project(OATP) provides a constant stream of up-to-date information about open access issues in aprimary feedand in a number ofsecondary feedsthat focus onspecialized OA subtopics. It offers the primary feed in a variety of distribution options, includingemail,Google+,HTML,RSS,Twitter, and others. It is an invaluable source of information for open access advocates, research data specialists, and scholarly communication specialists, and it provides important support for the open access movement as a whole.
“Open access is growing across the industry, but it can be hard to know which articles are open and which are subscription. Being able to easily find and identify open access content saves researchers time and effort. With Elsevier’s new partnership with Impactstory, a nonprofit that creates online tools to make science more open and reusable, researchers will soon be able to find open access content on Scopus more efficiently. Meanwhile, for university research offices, the expansion of OA-identified content in Scopus will enable improved strategic analysis and benchmarking.
“The open access movement has done a great job of making content open, but it hasn’t always made this open content easy to find,” said Jason Priem, co-founder of Impactstory. “By partnering with Elsevier, we’re are able to get that OA content out there where it can be used. We think this is a key step toward a more powerful, universally open science communication ecosystem.” The agreement will enable Elsevier to integrate document-level OA data from Impactstory’s Unpaywall database with Scopus content; identification and tagging of Scopus’ OA peer-reviewed articles will begin in August and roll out through November 2018….”
“The American Association of Publishers and the anti-open access DC Principles group have sent letters to both houses of Congress outlining why they oppose the Federal Research Public Access Act, which would make the results of all federally funded research publicly available. They largely trot out the same tired “not all publishers are alike, so don’t impose a single model on all of us” baloney they’ve been using for years.
But one part of the letter really caught my eye:
[FRPAA] would also compel American taxpayers to subsidize the acquisition of important research information by foreign governments and corporations that compete in global markets with the public and private scientific enterprises conducted in the United States.
Huh? Think about what they’re saying: The US government should not make the results of taxpayer funded research available to all US citizens because it would also be made available to foreigners, which would give them a leg up over American companies in the competitive global marketplace. And how are the publishers going to protect us from this looming threat? By denying these nefarious foreign entities access to the information they are going to use to trounce us? No! The publishers want Congress to insist that these foreigners pay them a small fee to facilitate their fleecing of America….”
Abstract: The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP, the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured for articles in institutions’ repositories and compared to the total number of WoS-indexed articles published from those institutions. Average deposit rate was over four times as high for institutions with a mandatory policy. Six positive correlations were found between deposit rates and (1) Must-Deposit; (2) Cannot-Waive-Deposit; (3) Deposit-Linked-to-Research-Evaluation; (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention; (5) Must-Make-Deposit-OA (after allowable embargo) and (6) Can-Waive-OA. For deposit latency, there is a positive correlation between earlier deposit and (7) Must-Deposit-Immediately as well as with (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention and with mandate age. There are not yet enough OA policies to test whether still further policy conditions would contribute to mandate effectiveness but the present findings already suggest that it would be useful for current and future OA policies to adopt the seven positive conditions so as to accelerate and maximise the growth of OA.
“More than two decades of work towards liberating scholarly publishing from paywalled constraints has left many within the scholarly community exploring ways to accelerate the transition to open access. Not all institutions or author communities will agree upon which strategies or funding approaches to undertake, and nor do they need to. But whichever strategy is pursued, having university faculty lead the charge represents the most effective way forward. Rachael G. Samberg, Richard A. Schneider, Ivy Anderson and Jeff MacKie-Mason share the University of California’s range of open access policy and advocacy materials, and highlight some potential next steps that may be of use to faculty and author communities.”
“From Yojana Sharma in University World News (July 20, 2018): ‘China’s new regulations restricting the ‘export’ of scientific data collected within the country and asserting that any research for publication in international journals must first be approved by a new, yet to be set up authority, are causing uncertainty and concern for many researchers who are working in collaboration with China.’ …
But before Americans pile on, as if this kind of blunder could never occur in a country with a constitutional right to freedom of the press, recall a similar move by the George W. Bush administration during the height of paranoia after the 9/11 attacks….”
“The background to this story is that Germany and Sweden have been setting a great example to the rest of the world by refusing to let Elsevier walk all over them in negotiations. (My own country, the UK, talked tough and then meekly accepted a deal that basically changed nothing.) Interestingly, Elsevier decided at first not to cut off access to its journals. Why might they have done this? My interpretation, which could be wrong, is that they were afraid of the world seeing that an entire country can walk away from its expensive subscriptions to ScienceDirect, the Elsevier platform, and continue to function without any major inconvenience.
But of course, that left them in an awkward position: if they are letting you read their articles for no charge, then you have no incentive to reach a deal where you will start to pay for them — quite the reverse. So now they have done what I suppose they had to do and finally cut off access to their papers. This is a very important moment: please, Germans and Swedes, hold firm. If it becomes clear that your academics are suffering badly, then maybe you’ll have to do something, but it is in the interests of the whole world that you should do this experiment properly so that we get an idea of how serious the consequences are of not having access. Of course, I’m expecting that they will not be all that serious, which would, in principle at least, hugely improve the bargaining position of everyone who negotiates with Elsevier.”
“PHOENIX is both a new platform and token (PHX). We’re building on top of the original roadmap that was initially outlined in our whitepaper, adding a new cloud-based knowledge network that connects research consumers with content-producers. PHOENIX will utilize machine learning, natural language processing, and blockchain technology to power a more efficient ecosystem for matching industry experts to clients looking for insights….”