Abstract: In April of 2015, Canadian Science Publishing (CSP) in partnership with the University of Toronto Libraries launched an automated manuscript deposit service. Upon author’s opt-in, an automated workflow transfers their accepted manuscript from the publisher system into the University of Toronto research repository, TSpace, where it is made openly available with a reference to the final version on the journal website. This free service is available to authors publishing their work in CSP’s NRC Research Press journals and is of particular interest to grant recipients looking to comply with the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications that came into effect in 2015. This paper provides an overview of the partnership and the workflow that makes over 1,200 manuscripts openly available annually. It also shares the script that can be adopted by other libraries and publishers looking to provide automated deposit service to authors for the purpose of funder mandate compliance, green OA, or preservation.
“The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) aims to bring together many of the country’s leading scientists in basic and clinical neuroscience to form an interactive network of collaborations in brain research, interdisciplinary student training, international partnerships, clinical translation and open publishing. The platform will provide a unified interface to the research community and will propel Canadian neuroscience research into a new era of open neuroscience research with the sharing of both data and methods, the creation of large-scale databases, the development of standards for sharing, the facilitation of advanced analytic strategies, the open dissemination to the global community of both neuroscience data and methods, and the establishment of training programs for the next generation of computational neuroscience researchers. CONP aims to remove the technical barriers to practicing open science and improve the accessibility and reusability of neuroscience research to accelerate the pace of discovery….”
“When EIFL organized the first-ever workshop on open access in Kenya in 2010, there were just seven institutional open access repositories in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Awareness about OA was limited, and very few universities had open access policies.
Seven years later, in 2017, over 50 new repositories had been set up and 33 institutions had adopted open access policies. There were almost 200,000 documents available in the repositories, and download numbers had run into the millions.
This two-page case study tells how EIFL, in collaboration with our partner library consortia, the Kenya Libraries and Information Services Consortium (KLISC), the Consortium of Tanzania Universities and Research Libraries (COTUL) and the Consortium of Uganda University Libraries (CUUL), helped open up East African research to the world….”
“When following a conference on Twitter last week, one attendee tweeted about Unpaywall. It was the first time they had heard of it, which surprised me at first. I was equally surprised that the Open Access Button had not been mentioned at the same time. I realize now that I have had the benefit of attending OpenCon and following many people active in Open for a while now. Below I will list some of the open tools and resources, which hopefully, someone will find useful.”
“Today, Research England released Monitoring sector progress towards compliance with funder open access policies the results of a survey they ran in August last year in conjunction with RCUK, Wellcome Trust and Jisc.
Cambridge University was one of the 113 institutions that answered a significant number of questions about how we were managing compliance with various open access policies, what systems we were using and our decision making processes.”
“We do not want people to think that HAU [Journal of Ethnographic Theory] failed because it was unviable as an Open Access model. HAU failed because of the misconduct of one key individual and because senior staff and colleagues did nothing to stop him, effectively enabling his misconduct and abuse….HAU is now a new kind of project. It is no longer OA and it belongs to the University of Chicago Press….
GDC [Giovanni Da Col] failed to consult the EAB [External Advisory Board] on key decisions affecting HAU and its future direction. Of most concern to us is his decision to ask authors, after their manuscripts have been accepted to HAU, to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs). This was a major policy change that deeply affected the principle of Open Access with which HAU began, and yet the EAB was in no way consulted. GDC took it upon himself to decide that HAU would no longer be Open Access and consulted no one before implementing this new policy direction….”
“The MIT Libraries and the Royal Society of Chemistry have signed a groundbreaking license agreement that incorporates elements of a traditional subscription purchase and open access to scholarly articles. The experimental two-year agreement is seen as an important step on the path toward making more research freely and openly available to the world.
The new agreement combines traditional subscription-based access to Royal Society of Chemistry articles for the MIT community with immediate open access to MIT-authored articles, making them freely available to all audiences at the time of publication. It is the first of its kind among North American institutions….
In order to encourage this overall transition to open access, MIT and the Royal Society of Chemistry collaborated on significant new language in the agreement, signaling the Royal Society of Chemistry ’s commitment to a fully open access publishing model in the future. The agreement affirms that the current read and publish model is a “transitional business model whose aim is to provide a mechanism to shift over time to full open access.” Making this successful transition to full open access will require collaborations across universities.”
“The EU’s 2021-27 R&D programme will not pay for articles to be published in hybrid open-access journals under proposals published by the European Commission.
Horizon Europe will pay article processing charges only “for purely open-access publishing venues (i.e. not ‘hybrid’ journals)” under Commission proposals published on 7 June. The current programme Horizon 2020 does support hybrid journals. The change would be controversial as it could prevent researchers from publishing in their first-choice locations….
A Commission source told Research Europe that the Commission is dropping its support for hybrid journals in part because they “do not currently appear to support a transition towards full open-access publishing models”. The source added that national funders are better placed to negotiate with publishers on the offsetting of subscription fees in hybrid models….
The Commission’s move will force researchers funded by Horizon Europe to publish either in fully open-access journals or through the green model if they want the programme to foot the bill.
Steven Inchcoombe, chief publishing officer at Springer Nature, said the decision was “likely to decrease open-access publication overall and risk a significant regression in open-access uptake” because hybrid journals “play an important role in aiding the transition to open access”. Springer Nature reported last month that it published about 3,900 articles with UK-based corresponding authors in its hybrid journals in 2017, compared with about 4,450 articles in its fully open-access journals….”