Opening Access, Closing the Knowledge Gap? Analysing GC No. 25 on the Right to Science and Its Implications for the Global Science System in the Digital Age eBook (2021) / 0044-2348 | Nomos eLibrary

Abstract:  The Corona pandemic as never before shows the advantages of Open Science and Open Access (OA), understood as the unrestricted access to research data, software and publications over the internet. It might accelerate the long-predicted “access revolution” in the academic publishing system towards a system in which scientific publications are freely available for readers over the internet. This paradigm shift, for which the “flipping” of this journal is but one of many examples, is underway, with major research funding organisations at the national and international levels massively supporting it. The call for OA has now also been taken up by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its recent General Comment (GC) No. 25 explicitly asks states to promote OA. Following the line of argument of the OA movement, the Committee finds that OA is beneficial to democracy, scientific progress and furthermore a tool to bridge the “knowledge gap”. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the GC and its implications for the global science system in the digital age. It argues that the great merit of the GC lies in highlighting that “benefitting” from science includes access to science as such and not only to its material outcomes. This underscores the independent meaning of the right to science which so far was primarily seen as an enabler for other social rights. However, when it comes to OA, the GC has problematic flaws. It simply assumes that OA is beneficial to the right to science, overlooking that the OA model which is likely to become the global standard risks to benefit the already privileged, namely researchers and publishers of wealthy institutions in the Global North, further sidelining those at the margins. Rather than narrowing existing gaps, it risks to further deepen them. In order to remain meaningful in the face of the fundamental criticism it faces, human rights law needs to address systemic issues and inequalities in the science system and beyond.

 

Launching a fully OA society journal: How ASCO started the Journal of Global Oncology

“As societies grapple with questions around how to approach OA publishing, one of the best ways to identify viable options is to look to other societies with successful OA titles. A great example is the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The society launched its first fully open access journal, the Journal of Global Oncology (JGO), in 2015. The journal, which focuses on cancer research and care in low- and middle-income countries, has grown significantly over the last four years and is now a thriving publication for global oncology research….”

More to Open Access than research | Campus Morning Mail

“The advantages of open access (OA) publishing focussed on scientific publishing in 2020, the year of COVID-19. Can it benefit higher education teaching and learning practice too?…

As an example, the Student Success journal is the result of a simple question posed by a leading academic: How do we keep dynamic conference and symposia conversations related to teaching and learning going, outside events?…

Instead, the Journal pivots towards its strengths as an OA publication. Indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Student Success is only one of nine Australian OA journals that meet its specific criteria for best practice in OA publishing. There are no article processing charges  and authors retain copyright while articles are licenced via Creative Commons Attribution License, which ensures the content can be used and reused. Authors are encouraged to submit research on practice that clearly identifies elements transferable to other domains and detail how a specific initiative contributes to the broader knowledge base….”

Open Science and the emergence of preprints

“In the context of this journal, Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, the debate on the particularities regarding the new preprint model of publication has been a present topic and has stimulated intense debate in the scientific communication and editorial communities considering the contradictions that surround this model. At the same time, the editors have been consulted regarding the priority action lines of SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, in order to consolidate their own preprint repository, according to the international scientific publication trends towards Open Science, which has been integrating more and more the debate in forums and specific events (1-2….”

Attracting new users or business as usual? A case study of converting academic subscription-based journals to open access | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press

Abstract:  This paper studies a selection of 11 Norwegian journals in the humanities and social sciences and their conversion from subscription to open access, a move heavily incentivized by governmental mandates and open access policies. By investigating the journals’ visiting logs in the period 2014–2019, the study finds that a conversion to open access induces higher visiting numbers; all journals in the study had a significant increase, which can be attributed to the conversion. Converting a journal had no spillover in terms of increased visits to previously published articles still behind the paywall in the same journals. Visits from previously subscribing Norwegian higher education institutions did not account for the increase in visits, indicating that the increase must be accounted for by visitors from other sectors. The results could be relevant for policymakers concerning the effects of strict policies targeting economically vulnerable national journals, and could further inform journal owners and editors on the effects of converting to open access.

 

 

Attracting new users or business as usual? A case study of converting academic subscription-based journals to open access | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press

Abstract:  This paper studies a selection of 11 Norwegian journals in the humanities and social sciences and their conversion from subscription to open access, a move heavily incentivized by governmental mandates and open access policies. By investigating the journals’ visiting logs in the period 2014–2019, the study finds that a conversion to open access induces higher visiting numbers; all journals in the study had a significant increase, which can be attributed to the conversion. Converting a journal had no spillover in terms of increased visits to previously published articles still behind the paywall in the same journals. Visits from previously subscribing Norwegian higher education institutions did not account for the increase in visits, indicating that the increase must be accounted for by visitors from other sectors. The results could be relevant for policymakers concerning the effects of strict policies targeting economically vulnerable national journals, and could further inform journal owners and editors on the effects of converting to open access.

 

 

Increasing transparency through open science badges

“Authors who adopt transparent practices for an article in Conservation Biology are now able to select from 3 open science badges: open data, open materials, and preregistration. Badges appear on published articles as visible recognition and highlight these efforts to the research community. There is an emerging body of literature regarding the influences of badges, for example, an increased number of articles with open data (Kidwell et al 2016) and increased rate of data sharing (Rowhani?Farid et al. 2018). However, in another study, Rowhani?Farid et al. (2020) found that badges did not “noticeably motivate” researchers to share data. Badges, as far as we know, are the only data?sharing incentive that has been tested empirically (Rowhani?Farid et al. 2017).

Rates of data and code sharing are typically low (Herold 2015; Roche et al 2015; Archmiller et al 2020; Culina et al 2020). Since 2016, we have asked authors of contributed papers, reviews, method papers, practice and policy papers, and research notes to tell us whether they “provided complete machine and human?readable data and computer code in Supporting Information or on a public archive.” Authors of 31% of these articles published in Conservation Biology said they shared their data or code, and all authors provide human?survey instruments in Supporting Information or via a citation or online link (i.e., shared materials)….”

Open Access Publishing in the EJVES: a Hybrid Solution for a Hybrid Specialty (and How ‘Hybrid’ Helped the Dinosaurs Survive) – European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

“Scientific publishing in scientific media such as the EJVES faces similar challenges. Funding of publishing mechanisms and accessibility of research findings have become moving targets asking for (hybrid) survival tactics.

Many of our readers may not be aware that the EJVES is already a Hybrid Journal!…

 

Where does the money come from to cover these ‘technical costs’? We have three main income streams. First, individual subscribers: Most are members of the ESVS, or of other vascular surgery societies with a linked membership with the ESVS, such as the Vascular societies of Australia/New Zealand, India, Lebanon or South Africa. Second, institutional subscribers (mainly university libraries): They subscribe to journals on behalf of their associated researchers. Such agreements may be quite complex since hundreds of scientific journals may be involved. Individual journals receive subscription fees, depending, amongst other factors, on the number of published articles and the journal impact factor (JIF). The EJVES 2019 JIF increased by 46% to 5.328,
5
 the 2020 JIF will be released in June 2021.

The third is Open Access publishing. What is this, and who can benefit from it? Under a subscription model, newly published articles are reserved for paying subscribers (individual or institutional, see above). Although all articles are transferred eventually to an open archive, which is free to access (for the EJVES one year after being paper published in a print issue of the journal), contents remain exclusive often for up to the 18 months that may pass between e-publication and transfer to the open archive. Many papers are “hot” and are most interesting when recently published which drives the subscription model and the motivation to become an ESVS member, for example….”

 

Attracting new users or business as usual? A case study of converting academic subscription based journals to open access | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press Journals

Abstract:  This paper studies a selection of eleven Norwegian journals in the humanities and social sciences and their conversion from subscription to open access, a move heavily incentivized by governmental mandates and open access policies. By investigating the journals’ visiting logs in the period 2014-2019, the study finds that a conversion to open access induces higher visiting numbers; all journals in the study had a significant increase which can be attributed to the conversion. Converting a journal had no spillover in terms of increased visits to previously published articles still behind the paywall in the same journals. Visits from previously subscribing Norwegian higher education institutions did not account for the increase in visits, indicating that the increase must be accounted for by visitors from other sectors. The results could be relevant for policymakers concerning the effects of strict polices targeting economically vulnerable national journals, and could further inform journal owners and editors on the effects of converting to open access.

 

Transparency and Open Science at the Journal of Personality – Wright – – Journal of Personality – Wiley Online Library

“Changes are afoot in the way the scientific community is approaching the practice and reporting of research. Spurred by concerns about the fundamental reliability (i.e., replicability), or rather lack thereof, of contemporary psychological science (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015), as well as how we go about our business (e.g., Gelman & Loken, 2014), several recommendations have been furthered for increasing the rigor of the published research through openness and transparency. The Journal has long prized and published the type of research with features, like large sample sizes (Fraley & Vazire, 2014), that has fared well by replicability standards (Soto, 2019). The type of work traditionally published here, often relying on longitudinal samples, large public datasets (e.g., Midlife in the United States Study), or complex data collection designs (e.g., ambulatory assessment and behavioral coding) did not seem to fit neatly into the template of the emerging transparency practices. However, as thinking in the open science movement has progressed and matured, we have decided to full?throatedly endorse these practices and join the growing chorus of voices that are encouraging and rewarding more transparent work in psychological science. We believe this can be achieved while maintaining the “big tent” spirit of personality research at the Journal with a broad scope in content, methods, and analytical tools that has made it so special and successful all of these years. Moving forward, we will be rigorously implementing a number of procedures for openness and transparency consistent with the Transparency and Open Science Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.

The TOP Guidelines are organized into eight standards, each of which can be implemented at three levels of stringency (Nosek et al., 2015). In what follows, we outline the initial TOP Standards Levels adopted by the Journal and the associated rationale. Generally, we have adopted Level 2 standards, as we believe these strike a desirable balance between compelling a high degree of openness and transparency while not being overly onerous and a deterrent for authors interested in the Journal as an outlet for their work….”