“Horizon Europe is expected to mandate that grant recipients publish their results according to the principles of open science.
In particular, immediate open-access publishing will become mandatory for all recipients of Horizon Europe research grants, including those from the ERC, says Kütt. Scientists will be required to post an accepted, peer-reviewed version of their papers online at a ‘trusted repository’, according to a draft of the instructions for applicants, but it is unclear at this time which repositories will be acceptable. Grants will cover publishing costs for pure open-access journals, but not for hybrid publications. Authors must also retain intellectual-property rights for their papers….”
Cambia today announced a $2M USD grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support scaling its prominent open knowledge platform, The Lens, as it launches its institutional toolkits to encourage shared evidence and open data to guide partnering and action for science-based problem solving by institutions….”
“Over the last two-and-a-half years, we have been working as part of the EU-funded HIRMEOS (High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science Infrastructure) project to create open source software and databases to collectively gather and host usage data from various platforms for multiple publishers. As part of this work, we have been thinking deeply about what the data we collect actually means. Open Access books are read on, and downloaded from, many different platforms – this availability is one of the benefits of making work available Open Access, after all – but each platform has a different way of counting up the number of times a book has been viewed or downloaded.
Some platforms count a group of visits made to a book by the same user within a continuous time frame (known as a session) as one ‘view’ – we measure usage in this way ourselves on our own website – but the length of a session might vary from platform to platform. For example, on our website we use Google Analytics, according to which one session (or ‘view’) lasts until there is thirty minutes of inactivity. But platforms that use COUNTER-compliant figures (the standard that libraries prefer) have a much shorter time-frame for a single session – and such a platform would record more ‘views’ than a platform that uses Google Analytics, even if it was measuring the exact same pattern of use.
Other platforms simply count each time a book is accessed (known as a visit) as one ‘view’. There might be multiple visits by the same user within a short time frame – which our site would count as one session, or one ‘view’ – but which a platform counting visits rather than sessions would record as multiple ‘views’.
Downloads (which we also used to include in the number of ‘views’) also present problems. For example, many sites only allow chapter downloads (e.g. JSTOR), others only whole book downloads (e.g. OAPEN), and some allow both (e.g. our own website). How do you combine these different types of data? Somebody who wants to read the whole book would need only one download from OAPEN, but as many downloads as there are chapters from JSTOR – thus inflating the number of downloads for a book that has many chapters.
So aggregating this data into a single figure for ‘views’ isn’t only comparing apples with oranges – it’s mixing apples, oranges, grapes, kiwi fruit and pears. It’s a fruit salad….”
Abstract: The open access (OA) publication movement aims to present research literature to the public at no cost and with no restrictions. While the democratization of access to scholarly literature is a primary focus of the movement, it remains unclear whether OA has uniformly democratized the corpus of freely available research, or whether authors who choose to publish in OA venues represent a particular subset of scholars—those with access to resources enabling them to afford article processing charges (APCs). We investigated the number of OA articles with article processing charges (APC OA) authored by 182,320 scholars with known demographic and institutional characteristics at American research universities across 11 broad fields of study. The results show, in general, that the likelihood for a scholar to author an APC OA article increases with male gender, employment at a prestigious institution (AAU member universities), association with a STEM discipline, greater federal research funding, and more advanced career stage (i.e., higher professorial rank). Participation in APC OA publishing appears to be skewed toward scholars with greater access to resources and job security.
From Google’s English: “Brill is one of the leading international science publishers in the fields of humanities, social sciences and international law, headquartered in Leiden, the Netherlands. After reaching an agreement with the shareholders of the traditional publishing house Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, founded in 1735 , Brill announced the takeover of the group today.”
“Direct to Open harnesses collective action to support open access to excellent scholarship. Developed over two years with the generous support of the Arcadia Fund, in close collaboration with the library community, the model will:
Open access to all new MIT Press scholarly monographs and edited collections (~90 titles per year) from 2022 via recurring participation fees.
Provide participating libraries with term access to backlist/archives (~2,300 titles), which will otherwise remain gated. Participating libraries will receive access even if the model is not successful.
Cover partial direct costs for the publication of high-quality works that are also available for print purchase….”
“Join us for this live interactive webinar, organised in partnership by the Young Academy of Europe and ENYAs in EU13 and Associated Countries: Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Albania, Israel, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey and Belarus….”
“This report and the accompanying online repository1 bring together case studies in responsible academic career assessment. Gathered by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA),2 European University Association (EUA),3 and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Europe, 4 the case studies independently serve as a source of inspiration for institutions looking to improve their academic career assessment practices. Following the publication of guidelines and recommendations on more responsible evaluation approaches, such as DORA,5 the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics, 6 and the Metric Tide, 7 more and more institutions have begun to consider how to implement a range of practical changes and innovations in recent years. However, information about the creation and development of new practices in academic career assessment are not always easy to find. Collectively, the case studies will further facilitate this “practical turn” toward implementation by providing a structured overview and conceptual clarity on key characteristics and contextual factors. In doing so, the report examines emerging pathways of institutional reform of academic career assessment…”
Predatory journals pose a significant problem to academic publishing. In the past, a number of attempts have been made to identify them. This blog post presents a novel approach towards a predatory-free academic publishing landscape: Bona Fide Journals.