Abstract: Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).
Abstract: “Open access” (“OA”) refers to research placed online free from all price barriers and from most permission barriers (Suber, 2015). OA may apply to research outputs published traditionally, such as books (Schwartz, 2012) and articles in academic journals (Suber, 2015), and non-traditionally, such as student dissertations and theses (Schöpfel & Prost). The lack of legal barriers is grounded in and given effect through the law of copyright and contract, and the submission of content by authors is often executed through a publication agreement. This paper studies the contract aspects of OA and the open publishing movement in library and information science (“LIS”) scholarly communication. To explore this phenomenon, it undertakes a case study of the publication agreements of five OA LIS journals. The sample consists of a brand-new open journal with an agreements drafted by copyright librarians (journal 1) and top-ranked LIS journals that converted to OA (journals 2 through 5) (Scimago, 2017). With a descriptive data analysis based on that in Lipinski and Copeland (2015; 2013) and Lipinski (2013; 2012), the case study investigates the similarities and differences in the agreements used by the sampled OA LIS journals. The study builds on the best practices from the Harvard Open Access Project (Shieber & Suber, 2016; 2013). It recommends best practices for the drafting and content of OA LIS publication agreements.
“University of Cambridge Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen J Toope, has become the 6,000th graduate of the 810-year-old university to make his thesis freely available to anyone, anywhere in the world, via Open Access …
The announcement of the 6,000th thesis also coincides with the ratification and publication of the University’s position statement on Open Research, which has been published here. The University statement sets out the key principles for the conduct and support of Open Research at the University of Cambridge, which aims to increase inclusivity and collaboration, unlock access to knowledge and improve the transparency and reproducibility of research….”
“Open Research Working Group – Position statement on Open Research: Approved by Research Policy Committee at its meeting on 22 November 2018 and by the General Board of the Faculties on 16 January 2019….
2.1 The University recognises contributions from researchers at all career stages, working collaboratively across a wide range of disciplines. Across the disciplinary spectrum there are a wide range of cultural settings that influence both capacity for and appropriateness of fully Open Research. Open publications and open data l take different forms, and require different approaches, in each of these settings. The University supports the academic freedom of researchers to pursue new knowledge, and to choose the means of dissemination; but within that free choice, the University encourages outputs of research, and where appropriate the accompanying data, to be ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’.
2.2 The University relies on its researchers to uphold principles of scholarly rigour so that open materials are of the highest research quality and, where appropriate, will aid reproducibility. This may include:
- where possible, ensuring all publications are Open Access;
- where appropriate and possible, making openly available the underlying data relating to these publications;
- sharing protocols openly;
- collaborative approaches including blogging, online editions, releasing teaching materials, pre-print deposit….”
“Replying to a recent blog post, Jonathan Poritz argues that lowering students’ costs by using open educational resources isn’t just a nicety in an era when many students are hungry and textbook “quality” is exaggerated….
[H]igh textbook costs mean that students:
- enroll in fewer courses — and consequently take longer to graduate,
- choose courses based on textbook price rather than for academic reasons, and
- don’t buy required textbooks — and consequently often do more poorly and more frequently fail or withdraw….
Green oddly misses the main takeaway from this study: it found a one-third reduction in DFW rates among minority and Pell-eligible students when courses switched from commercial textbooks to OER.
So not only are OER responsible for at least a modest academic improvement for all students while making a significant difference to one of the central issues of higher education in our time — skyrocketing costs and student debt — they also make a significant difference in the achievement gap between demographic groups….
- There is little actual reason to believe that commercial textbooks are of higher quality than OER — in fact, there is good evidence that they are not, at least by all reasonable metrics of quality — and to believe this is to have merely blind faith in a form of free-market fundamentalism that doesn’t even apply in the failed market of textbooks.”
“The ORCID in Repositories Task Force was charged with drafting recommendations for repository platform developers, intended to ensure a consistent base level of support for ORCID across different platforms. Their draft recommendations were shared for community comment, and that feedback has been incorporated into this document, which represents the group’s overall recommendations….”
“Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s Special Envoy for Open Access and one of the main architects of Plan S, finishes his mandate on 28 February. Robert Kiley of the Wellcome Trust is to act as interim coordinator of cOAlition S….
Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research at the Wellcome Trust, will act as cOAlition S coordinator until a new Plan S ‘Champion’ is appointed….”
“The ScholCommLab is an interdisciplinary team of researchers based in Vancouver and Ottawa, Canada, interested in all aspects of scholarly communication.
We explore a wide range of questions using a combination of computational techniques (including applied statistics, machine learning, network analysis, and natural language processing), innovative methods (such as Twitter bot surveys), and traditional qualitative methods (such as interviews, surveys, and focus groups) to investigate how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and used.
“The Library of the University of California, Berkeley seeks a creative, collaborative, and diligent individual to join a growing team of educators and service providers supporting UC Berkeley faculty, researchers, students, and staff with needs related to scholarly communication, copyright, and research-related information policy matters….
The Library’s Office of Scholarly Communication Services, established in 2016 and led by the Scholarly Communication Officer, helps scholars use, create, and publish scholarly information by providing guidance and support throughout the knowledge lifecycle. The program provides services that promote the open dissemination, discoverability, accessibility, and preservation of scholarly resources—while helping scholars navigate and maximize their impact in the changing scholarly publishing landscape….”
“In order to increase the contribution of Open Science to producing better science, the Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science will convene critical stakeholders from universities, funding agencies, societies, foundations, and industry to discuss the effectiveness of current incentives for adopting Open Science practices, current barriers and disincentives of all types, and ways to move forward to align incentives that support common missions and values and mitigate disincentives. The Roundtable will convene two times per year and create a venue for exchange of ideas and a mechanism for joint strategic planning among key stakeholders. …”