bjoern.brembs.blog » Minimizing the collective action problem

“Thus, researchers need to modernize the way they do their scholarship, institutions need to modernize their infrastructure such that researchers are enabled to modernize their scholarship. These have now had more than 30 years for this modernization and neither of them have acted. At this point it is fair to assume, barring some major catastrophe forcing their hands, that such modernization is not going to magically appear within the next three decades, either. Funders, therefore, are in a position to incentivize this long overdue modernization which institutions and hence researchers have been too complacent or too reticent to tackle.

If, as I would tend to agree, we are faced with a collective action problem and the size of the collective is the major determinant for effective problem solving, then it is a short step to realize that funders are in a uniquely suited position to start solving this collective action problem. Conversely, then, it is only legitimate to question the motives of those who seek to make the collective action problem unnecessary difficult by advocating to target individual researchers or institutions. What could possibly be the benefit of making the collective action problem numerically more difficult to solve?”

 

When free access is not open access | CCSD

“You have downloaded your article from the website of the journal and you think that, since it is available free, you can deposit this published version in HAL. Well, sometimes it is true but …. sometimes it is not.

Does the mention “Open Access” or “Open” is included in your file? or a Creative Common license (CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, etc) ? If so, you can deposit this publisher’s version in HAL. You sometimes need good eyes to find the licence: in the Elsevier’s files, it is at the bottom of the first page (example); idem for the articles published by Oxford University Press (example). On the other hand, for articles in journals published by Nature Publishing Group and MDPI, the licence is on the last page of the file (example).

But if these mentions are not included in the file, you cannot deposit the published version without first checking if the publisher approves it….”

JAMA Publishes Trial Results Delayed 5 Years. Here’s Why

“A treatment for shortening the painful episodes of sickle cell disease (SCD) is not effective, results published in JAMA indicate. But the effort it took to publish the findings is an important part of the story and reveal problems with data ownership, company motivations, and public resources that go well beyond a single clinical trial or experimental agent….”

Guest Post – Space and Grace in Open Access Publishing – The Scholarly Kitchen

“What I usually meant by defaulting to open was that you should look for an open option first. My co-authors and I did that and we ran out of [gold] options quickly. It reminded me that in some fields and in regard to some topics, defaulting to [gold] open might be a list of one or two journals, or it might still be a list of none — not to mention all the hurdles inherent with trying to get an article published in a single particular journal. My experience with this one article reminded me that I need to listen more carefully to the experiences of my colleagues and the pressures of their fields. It can indeed be that options for open publishing remain limited in particular fields or for those with no access to institutional or philanthropic funding….”

Open access publishing is the ethical choice | Wonkhe

“I had a stroke half a decade ago and found I couldn’t access the medical literature on my extremely rare vascular condition.

I’m a capable reader, but I couldn’t get past the paywalls – which seemed absurd, given most research is publicly funded. While I had, already, long been an open access advocate by that point, this strengthened my resolve.

The public is often underestimated. Keeping research locked behind paywalls under the assumption that most people won’t be interested in, or capable of, reading academic research is patronising….

While this moral quandary should not be passed to young researchers, there may be benefits to them in taking a firm stance. Early career researchers are less likely to have grants to pay for article processing charges to make their work open access compared to their senior colleagues. Early career researchers are also the ones who are inadvertently paying the extortionate subscription fees to publishers. According to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the amount of money UK universities fork out each year to access paywalled content from Elsevier – the largest academic publisher in the world – could pay 1,028 academic researchers a salary of £45,000 per year.

We know for-profit publishers, such as Elsevier, hold all the cards with respect to those prestigious titles. What we need are systematic “read and publish” deals that allow people to publish where they want without having to find funding for open access….

The current outlook for prospective researchers to secure an academic position at a university is compromised because so much money is spent propping up for-profit, commercial publishers. Rather than focusing on career damage to those who can’t publish with an Elsevier title, we should focus on the opportunity cost in hundreds of lost careers in academia….”

Guest Post by Jean-Claude Guédon: Scholarly Communication and Scholarly Publishing – OASPA

“In December, I responded to an “Open Post” signed by a diverse group of scholarly publishers: commercial, learned societies, and university presses. Despite differing perspectives and objectives, all the signatories opposed “immediate green OA”. Their unanimity apparently rested on one concept: the “version of record”. 

Invited to contribute something further to this discussion (and I thank OASPA for this opportunity), I propose exploring how scholarly publishing should relate to scholarly communication. Ostensibly aligned, publishing and communication have diverged. Journals and the concept of “version of record” are not only a legacy from print, but their roles have shifted to the point where some processes involved in scholarly publishing are getting in the way of optimal scholarly communication, as the present pandemic amply reveals. Taking full advantage of digital affordances requires moving in different directions. This is an opportunity, not a challenge. Platforms and “record of versions” will eventually supersede journals and their articles, and now is the time to make some fundamental choices….”

Guest Post by Jean-Claude Guédon: Scholarly Communication and Scholarly Publishing – OASPA

“In December, I responded to an “Open Post” signed by a diverse group of scholarly publishers: commercial, learned societies, and university presses. Despite differing perspectives and objectives, all the signatories opposed “immediate green OA”. Their unanimity apparently rested on one concept: the “version of record”. 

Invited to contribute something further to this discussion (and I thank OASPA for this opportunity), I propose exploring how scholarly publishing should relate to scholarly communication. Ostensibly aligned, publishing and communication have diverged. Journals and the concept of “version of record” are not only a legacy from print, but their roles have shifted to the point where some processes involved in scholarly publishing are getting in the way of optimal scholarly communication, as the present pandemic amply reveals. Taking full advantage of digital affordances requires moving in different directions. This is an opportunity, not a challenge. Platforms and “record of versions” will eventually supersede journals and their articles, and now is the time to make some fundamental choices….”

Open Knowledge and Social Justice: An Interview With SPARC’s Heather Joseph

“Heather Joseph, executive director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), was the 2021 recipient of the Miles Conrad Award from NISO (National Information Standards Organization), and she delivered the annual Miles Conrad lecture at this year’s NISO Plus conference (see image, below). Joseph, who has led SPARC since 2005, was commended by NISO executive director Todd Carpenter for her long-term leadership in the OA movement and “crucial role” in transforming the information industry. Her lecture, titled “In Pursuit of Open Knowledge,” was delivered live via Zoom on Feb. 24, and NISO has made the recording available here. We spoke shortly after the conclusion of the conference, and this is an edited and abridged version of our conversation….”

Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data

“Advancing public access to research data is important to improving transparency and reproducibility of scientific results, increasing scientific rigor and public trust in science, and — most importantly — accelerating the pace of discovery and innovation through the open sharing of research results. Additionally, it is vital that institutions develop and implement policies now to ensure consistency of data management plans across their campuses to guarantee full compliance with federal research agency data sharing requirements. Beyond the establishment of policies, universities must invest in the infrastructure and support necessary to achieve the desired aspirations and aims of the policies. The open sharing of the results of scientific research is a value our two associations have long fought to protect and preserve. It is also a value we must continue to uphold at all levels within our universities. This will mean overcoming the various institutional and cultural impediments which have, at times, hampered the open sharing of research data….”

Survey on Cross-Cultural Open Science

“In recent years, there has been growing interest in a new type of open and transparent research worldwide. More and more practices are emerging that not only change the research process, but have already become an integral part of research in some disciplines. Thereby, the spectrum of practices is broad. It ranges from the preliminary disclosure of all hypotheses and analytical steps to the detailed publication of conducted analyses and collected data. These practices are often summarized under the term “Open Science”. The use of these practices and attitudes towards them vary from person to person, subject to subject, and country to country. However, a global picture of use and attitudes has not yet been determined.

Therefore, essential questions about the integration of Open Science cannot be answered yet:

 

Which Open Science practices are used?
What are the obstacles to the use of certain practices?
Are some practices perceived as particularly positive or particularly difficult?
Are there any national trends and differences across countries?

Your answers to these questions should provide possible impulses for the future goals of scientific work and, thus, make a decisive contribution to the further development of scientific practice.

 

We appreciate your participation in this project! Whether you use Open Science practices frequently or you have never heard of them, whether you are an advocate or opponent of the Open Science movement, your opinion is important to us!…”