To boldly grow: five new journals shaped by Open Science – The Official PLOS Blog

“We are extremely excited to announce the imminent launch of five new journals, our first new launches in fourteen years. These new journals are unified in addressing global health and environmental challenges and are rooted in the full values of Open Science:

PLOS Climate
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Water
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Global Public Health…”

It’s Time for Open Educational Resources

“Yet, in far too many cases, we are still requiring very expensive textbooks in our classes. Over the degree program, students are expending thousands of dollars for texts that many sell back to the bookstore for less than half of their original value. Much of the material embedded in the texts is either already available freely online or could be assembled by the instructor from open-access sources. At the same time, many instructors still complain that the text does not precisely fit their needs; they skip chapters and assign additional readings to update the material in the text that is already one or two years out of date before the book hits the students’ desks. Why not just create your own texts and update them as often as is needed?

During the first three semesters in COVID times, awareness of open educational resources (OER) has surged among faculty members. Faculty members who put their classes online through remote learning discovered more fully the range and timeliness of relevant materials that are available online. In a study by Bay View Analytics, sponsored by the William and Flora Hewitt Foundation, it was found that faculty who adopted OER rated their materials superior to the commercial alternatives, and while the percentage of required OER materials did not increase, the percentage of supplemental OER materials did….”

Crossref expects rapid growth in use of unique grant identifiers – Research Professional News

“A representative of Crossref has said that the not-for-profit scholarly communications organisation is expecting a rapid expansion in the number of research grants that are allocated unique identifiers to allow anyone to easily search for resulting papers or data.

Speaking at the annual conference of the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators on 15 April, Rachael Lammey, head of special programmes at Crossref, said the organisation had already labelled just under 17,000 grants with unique codes known as digital object identifiers….”

A Tale of Two Societies

“Conclusions

There are significant shifts in national patterns that can be associated with changes in funder policy and with the offerings of RSC and ACS
RSC took a significant lead in early open access provision for chemistry, particularly in the UK but has fallen back
National averages don’t tell the full picture. Specific institutions show very different and quite specific patterns. There are differential policy effects
Recent changes are strongly driven by read and publish agreements with substantial shifts in publisher choice corresponding to introduction of deals.
There is evidence of concentration of publishing in chemistry with two large publishers taking up an increasing percentage. Should we be concerned about diversity?”

Is MDPI a predatory publisher? – Paolo Crosetto

“So, is MDPI predatory or not? I think it has elements of both. I would name their methods aggressive rent extracting, rather than predatory. And I also think that their current methods & growth rate are likely to make them shift towards more predatory over time.

MDPI publishes good papers in good journals, but it also employs some strategies that are proper to predatory publishers. I think that the success of MDPI in recent years is due to the creative combination of these two apparently contradicting strategy. One — the good journals with high quality — creates a rent that the other — spamming hundreds of colleagues to solicit papers, an astonishing increase in Special Issues, publishing papers as fast as possible — exploits.This strategy makes a lot of sense for MDPI, who shows strong growth rates and is en route to become the largest open access publisher in the world. But I don’t think it is a sustainable strategy. It suffers from basic collective action problems, that might deal a lot of damage to MDPI first, and, most importantly, to scientific publishing in general….

A predatory publisher is a journal that would publish anything — usually in return for money. MDPI rejection rates make this argument hard to sustain. Yet, MDPI is using some of the same techniques of predatory journals….”

Is MDPI a predatory publisher? – Paolo Crosetto

“So, is MDPI predatory or not? I think it has elements of both. I would name their methods aggressive rent extracting, rather than predatory. And I also think that their current methods & growth rate are likely to make them shift towards more predatory over time.

MDPI publishes good papers in good journals, but it also employs some strategies that are proper to predatory publishers. I think that the success of MDPI in recent years is due to the creative combination of these two apparently contradicting strategy. One — the good journals with high quality — creates a rent that the other — spamming hundreds of colleagues to solicit papers, an astonishing increase in Special Issues, publishing papers as fast as possible — exploits.This strategy makes a lot of sense for MDPI, who shows strong growth rates and is en route to become the largest open access publisher in the world. But I don’t think it is a sustainable strategy. It suffers from basic collective action problems, that might deal a lot of damage to MDPI first, and, most importantly, to scientific publishing in general….

A predatory publisher is a journal that would publish anything — usually in return for money. MDPI rejection rates make this argument hard to sustain. Yet, MDPI is using some of the same techniques of predatory journals….”

MARKET WATCH – ESAC Initiative

“The scholarly journal publishing market is in transition. While a great portion of publishers still operate their journals under the subscription paywall business model, open access publishing is keenly on the rise, as fully OA publishers and platforms are launched and come into maturity, scholarly publishers experiment a variety of new open access business models, and, not least, the number of research institutions and library consortia negotiating transformative agreements proliferates.

The visualizations below aim to inform the broader community of a number of key trends in the demographics and distribution of scholarly journal publishing in transition:

the relevance of publishers for scholars and scientists, as expressed in their share of scholarly articles published,
the growth of open access via transformative agreements and the impact these agreements have in enabling universal open access to the research articles produced on a local (country) and global (publisher) level, and
the costs and price points of article processing charges….”

Plan S Effects 2021 – Part 1, Article Volumes – Delta Think

“In January 2021, the implementation of Plan S began in earnest. This month we take a look at the effect Plan S might have on the volumes of output in the scholarly publishing market. We also examine the potential effects of the OSTP and UKRI agencies adopting Plan S policies. Next month we will look at the effect on market value….

For the full year 2020, we estimate that:

cOAlition S funders accounted for around 5.2% of all publications (or over 130,000 papers) that would fall under Plan S policy if it had been in place during that year.
The proportion of cOAlition S funded OA papers in hybrid journals is over twice that of the average (12.7% or over 28,000 papers). This represents the proportion of output that would notionally need to be “rehomed” in Fully OA journals once transformative policies expire….”

We also consider what might happen if Plan S principles were adopted globally. The variation in policies around the world suggest that this is unlikely in the short term at least. However a couple of key funding groups stand out.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), which oversees the UK’s highly centralized publicly funded research, is currently reviewing its position on Plan S. It accounts for 1.3% of global output.
Similarly, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is thought to be reviewing its public access policy. Should it adopt Plan S principles, they would cover another 13.4% of global output.
The effects on highly-cited papers are less profound for the UK’s funding bodies, probably reflecting their early adopter position in driving OA. These effects are notably more profound for funding agencies under the OSTP’s umbrella.
Note: The numbers vary slightly compared with previous analyses, as the sample now covers different funders. In 2018 (not shown above), we estimated around 6.25% of output was covered by current Plan S and UK funders, compared with 6.4% of 2018 output in the analysis carried out by ISI in March 2019.
To put this in context, our market sizing suggest that at least 25% of all content is published in fully OA journals. We might deem this as already Plan S compliant assuming things such as licenses and rights retention are appropriate. The remaining three quarters of all papers would be affected if Plan S principles were adopted globally….”

Advancing Open Access in the Netherlands after 2020: from quantity to quality | Zenodo

Abstract:  The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The paper first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest to broaden the agenda by involving more types of actors and involve other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest to deepen the open access agenda by including several open access characteristics: immediacy, open licenses, open metadata, open peer review and diamond open access. To facilitate discussion,a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how/when/where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders), and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.

A live version of this spreadsheet with the framework described in this article is available at https://tinyurl.com/dutchoapolicies

 

Baromètre français de la Science Ouverte 2020

From Google’s English: “According to the 2020 edition of the Open Science Barometer (BSO), 56% of the 156,000 French scientific publications published in 2019 are available opened in December 2020. The rate observed in December 2019, relating to publications produced in 2018, was only 49%. The rate therefore increased by 7 points in one year. From one discipline to another, the proportion of open access varies greatly, from 75% for publications in Mathematics to 40% in Engineering Sciences. In addition, scientific publications published in 2018 or in previous years have an open rate increasing over time. In particular, those published in 2018 are now 54% open (+5 points compared to December 2019), and the increase, which concerns all disciplines, is greater in those less open….”