Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals – Rowley – 2017 – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

“While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics’ behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.”


Mais de 400 ferramentas de gestão de pesquisa disponíveis para os pesquisadores – edição 2017 – SIBiUSP – Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas da Universidade de São Paulo.

From Google’s English: “In a continuing effort to chart the changing landscape of academic and scientific communication, scientists from the University of Utrecht , the Netherlands, conducted a survey among researchers [1] in 2015, focusing on the use of research management tools. In the edition of 2 015, 101 research tools / sites  – only those that represented an innovation – were selected based on the questionnaire applied to more than 20 thousand researchers from about 100 organizations (universities and publishers). Since then, the results have been presented at various conferences and webinars….Read, view, annotate  and manage references – Acrobat Reader , HTML view, MS Word ,  Mendeley, ReadCube , iAnnotate , , Papers , Annotated Books Online,  HistoryPin , PeerLibrary , TagTeam ,  Google Scholar Library , Zotero , EndNote Web , CiteUlike , Proquest Flow ,  RefBank , Stackly , Reference Manager ,  RefWorks , etc. …”

Can you Trust It? Using Open Access Materials in the Corporate World – Copyright Clearance Center

“How does the corporate researcher or library professional make sure that open access content is trustworthy? Here are some suggestions:’

Dear Martin… « Walt at Random

“Maybe I’m misreading Eve’s article; maybe he’s not actually suggesting that there hadn’t been much OA activity in the humanities. Because there has, starting from the very beginning (quite a few of the earliest OA journals were in the humanities, including PACS-L Review, Postmodern Culture, EJournal and New Horizons in Adult Education. I guess it bothers me to see all the work that’s been done to date somewhat minimized–and, again, I may be unfair in reading Eve that way. I’d much rather see a celebration of the enormous amount of work that’s been done in OA by humanities people (certainly including librarians) along with a call to do more and a recounting of innovations. But that’s just me, someone who’s been nattering on about ‘free electronic journals’ for at least 20+ years now.”

Beyond the Paywall: Examining Open Access and Data Sharing Practices Among Faculty at Virginia Tech Through the Lens of Social Exchange

“The movement towards open access has allowed academic researchers to communicate and share their scholarly content more widely by being freely available to Internet users. However, there are still issues of concern among faculty in regards to making their scholarly output open access. This study surveyed Virginia Tech faculty (N = 264) awareness and attitudes toward open access practices. In addition, faculty were asked to identify factors that inhibited or encouraged their participation in open access repositories. Findings indicate that while the majority of Virginia Tech faculty are seeking to publish in open access, many are unaware of the open access services provided by the university and even less are using the services available to them. Time, effort, and costs were identified as factors inhibiting open access and data sharing practices. Differences in awareness and attitudes towards open access were observed among faculty ranks and areas of research. Virginia Tech will need to increase faculty awareness of institutional open access repositories and maximize benefits over perceived costs if there is to be more faculty participation in open access practices.”


BCcampus welcomes two new Open Education Advisors | BCcampus

“BCcampus is delighted to announce the newest members to join our team.  Please help us in welcoming Open Education Advisors, Lucas Wright (UBC) and Rajiv Jhangiani (KPU). Lucas joins BCcampus from UBC, where he works as an Educational Consultant: Learning Technology, Teaching and Learning Professional Development, at the Centre for Teaching and Learning. Rajiv joins BCcampus from KPU, where he is the University Teaching Fellow in Open Studies and a Psychology professor. Both Lucas and Rajiv have tremendous experience in open education and the B.C. post-secondary environment. As Open Education Advisors, they will support open education projects, including the newest Zed Cred degrees, and OER grants, advocate for open education in B.C., and work with all B.C. post-secondary institutions to advance open education initiatives.”

Manifold v0.2.0 Released | Building Manifold

“On behalf of the entire Manifold team, I’m super excited to announce the release of Manifold v0.2.0! The release is up on Github now, and we’ll be rolling it out to our staging site later today. This release contains a number of new features and bugfixes, listed below. For the full list of revisions and pull requests, please consult the changelog.

Remember, Manifold is open source and freely available to all who are interested. While we have plans to build docker containers and OS packages, we’ve also written up installation instructions for all you early adopters out there. Take it for a spin and let us know how it goes.”

[Cancelling Elsevier journals had no impact at my university]

“In my instution [U of Bielefeld] we couldn´t afford more than 64 out of about 2,500 Elsevier journal [titles] in the end. The cancellation last year has no impact in our university, because since many years we as a library were not able to fulfill our task to provide academic content under the conditions of the subscription system anyway. Therefore we support OA2020 and therefore I´m looking forward to spend the Elsevier money that we save this year e.g. for open access publications in real open access journals. If Elsevier doesn´t want to change the business model for journals it is ok for us, there are enough alternatives to support the publication output of our university….”

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data : Palgrave Communications

Abstract:  Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online. Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines. We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively. We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.


“Scientific results are communicated visually in the literature through diagrams, visualizations, and photographs. These information-dense objects have been largely ignored in bibliometrics and scientometrics studies when compared to citations and text. In this project, we use techniques from computer vision and machine learning to classify more than 8 million figures from PubMed into 5 figure types and study the resulting patterns of visual information as they relate to impact. We find that the distribution of figures and figure types in the literature has remained relatively constant over time, but can vary widely across field and topic. We find a significant correlation between scientific impact and the use of visual information, where higher impact papers tend to include more diagrams, and to a lesser extent more plots and photographs. To explore these results and other ways of extracting this visual information, we have built a visual browser to illustrate the concept and explore design alternatives for supporting viziometric analysis and organizing visual information. We use these results to articulate a new research agenda – viziometrics – to study the organization and presentation of visual information in the scientific literature….”