“The University of Maryland has joined TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem), a national initiative to advance open-access publishing of monographs in the humanities and social sciences. TOME aims to make important long-form scholarship available to readers across the globe, without cost and permission barriers, by creating a system in which academic institutions subsidize the publication of open-access books.
For its initial two-year pilot program, TOME@UMD will sponsor the publication of open-access, digital monographs by UMD faculty members, awarding three grants of up to $15,000 each, with funding from University Libraries, the Office of the Provost and the College of Arts and Humanities. Funded monographs must be published by a participating university press under a Creative Commons license and must be made openly accessible through a digital repository such as the Digital Repository for University of Maryland (DRUM)….”
Abstract: While the movement for open research has gained momentum in recent years, there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination. Increasingly, universities are under pressure to transform themselves to engage with the wider community and to be more inclusive. Open knowledge institutions (OKIs) provide a framework that encourages universities to act with the principles of openness at their centre; not only should universities embrace digital open access (OA), but also lead actions in cultivating diversity, equity, transparency and positive changes in society. This leads to questions of whether we can evaluate the progress of OKIs and what are potential indicators for OKIs. As an exploratory study, this article reports on the collection and analysis of a list of potential OKI indicators. Data for these indicators are gathered for 43 Australian universities. The indicators provide high-dimensional and complex signals about university performances. They show evidence of large disparities in characteristics such as Indigenous employment and gender equity, and a preference for repository-mediated OA across Australian universities. We demonstrate use of the OKI evaluation framework to categorise these indicators into three platforms of diversity, communication and coordination. The analysis provides new insights into the Australian open knowledge landscape and ways of mapping different paths of OKIs.
“The University of Hull recognises open access publication as a valuable component of dissemination for research outputs. Open access publication channels for journal articles in particular now sit alongside more traditional publication channels as options: equivalent options are rapidly developing for monographs and research data. Open access dissemination of research outputs broadens the audience that can be reached and enables wider awareness of the research. This can generate more and quicker impact, with concomitant reputational benefits for future research.
Research funders are increasingly advocating and requiring consideration of open access as a means of publication to realise these advantages. Similarly, openness of research generally is now at the forefront of public research funding policy, and open access is a key component of this. This policy describes an approach to open access for the University of Hull that blends the advantages of open access with the requirements laid out by funders in following this path.
This revised and updated policy was agreed in May 2021….”
“As the state of Maryland’s flagship institution and one of the nation’s preeminent public research universities, we are committed to action that will make Maryland’s research more visible, accessible, affordable, and transparent….
Our current scholarly publishing and communication ecosystem is in crisis. University of Maryland researchers are on the front lines of developing innovative solutions to urgent problems that threaten the well-being and health of the planet and people across the globe. Yet, trends in international publishing make it increasingly difficult to provide equitable access to the publicly funded research that can help our communities thrive and make our lives better. Learn how you can take action and be part of the movement for open and equitable scholarship….”
This briefing paper aims to support decision makers at research organisations and research funders to develop new monitoring exercises or assess and improve existing processes to measure the Open Access status of publications.
The availability of data and information on the current state of scholarly publishing is invaluable to help advance Open Access. Given the complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this involves a multitude of decisions.
This briefing paper provides recommendations on the three main questions an organisation should answer to develop a monitoring exercise: Why, What, and How?
Examples of different monitoring exercises have been selected to represent different use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and strategies of interpretation.
Abstract: This paper looks closely at how data analytic providers leverage rankings as a part of their strategies to further extract rent and assets from the university beyond their traditional roles as publishers and citation data providers. Multinational publishers such as Elsevier, with over 2,500 journals in its portfolio, has transitioned to become a data analytic firm. Rankings expand their abilities to monetize further their existing journal holdings, as there is a strong association between publication in high-impact journals and improvement in rankings. The global academic publishing industry has become highly oligopolistic, and a small handful of legacy multinational firms are now publishing the majority of the world’s research output (See Larivière et. al. 2015; Fyfe et. al. 2017; Posada & Chen, 2018). It is therefore crucial that their roles and enormous market power in influencing university rankings be more closely scrutinized. We suggest that due to a combination of a lack of transparency regarding, for example, Elsevier’s data services and products and their self-positioning as a key intermediary in the commercial rankings business, they have managed to evade the social responsibilities and scrutiny that come with occupying such a critical public function in university evaluation. As the quest for ever-higher rankings often works in conflict with universities’ public missions, it is critical to raise questions about the governance of such private digital platforms and the compatibility between their private interests and the maintenance of universities’ public values.
From Google’s English: “One hundred percent open publishing, lower costs and a transparent pricing model. It is SUHF’s goal for the agreements between Swedish universities and scientific publishers that will replace the current ones that expire in 2024. A newly appointed inquiry will develop the strategy to get there….
We are afraid that the publishers want to permanently have the agreements we have today that we do not consider to be beneficial for the higher education institutions in the long term. If we get caught up in this, we are left to pay both to read and to publish articles and there will be hybrids, where some articles are open and others are not. We want a change in how publications are financed, says Wilhelm Widmark, who is chief librarian at Stockholm University Library and is part of the investigation group….”
“Utrecht University wants to promote open science as part of its promise to make science more open and even more reliable, efficient and relevant to society. In order to follow up on the ambition formulated in the strategic plan (pdf), the Rector Magnificus commissioned a task force, supported by a university library work group, to draft an Open Science Programme for the period 2018-2021.
Utrecht University aims to be at the forefront of open science. Therefore, the Executive Board has launched the Utrecht University Open Science Programme. A programme that aims to stimulate and facilitate researchers to put open science into practice. Read the most recent version (pdf)….”
“Open access enables anyone to read and make use of research products at no cost and with limited copyright restrictions. This makes access to research results more equitable and allows us as authors and researchers to reach a wider audience.
We adopted the first commitment to making our research publications as openly available as possible more than ten years ago in 2010. Much has changed since then! We have rebranded our institutional repository as HARVEST and opened it up for all USask researchers to self-archive their own publications OA for free; we have become more aware of the importance of making more products of our research (such as protocols and research data) openly available as well; and we now more clearly acknowledge our professional role in advocating for a more sustainable publishing system. These are several of the revisions that we approved in our new Open Access Commitment. There is also an acknowledgement that not all research products are appropriate to be shared openly for cultural, privacy, or ethical reasons.
USask librarians and archivists are not alone in adopting such statements. The Open Scholarship Policy Observatory at the University of Victoria tracks Canadian University Open Access Statements. Currently there are 14 university-level statements and 12 department or college-level statements, most of which are from libraries like ours!
To learn more about open access, please visit our guide.”