Research Associate in Archiving and Preserving Open Access Books at Loughborough University

“Research Associate in Archiving and Preserving Open Access Books – Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) Project.

1.0 FTE, fixed-term appointment for 12 months ending no later than 31 October 2022.

A full-time Research Associate (1.0 FTE) is required to contribute to the Research England and Arcadia Foundation funded COPIM project (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs), which is composed of 10 main partners including Universities, libraries, publishers, and infrastructure providers. The post is for a full-term contract of 12 months at 1.0 FTE.

The Research Associate will lead Loughborough University contributions to the COPIM project and collaborate closely with project partners to in identifying the metadata and other information required by preservation services as well as repository platforms used by libraries and universities; manage the creation of a Toolkit to assist authors, publishers, and Librarians in archiving open access books; and build relationships with projects working in similar areas….”

Global Trends in Open Access: Themes from Africa, Asia and Latin America – The Scholarly Kitchen %

“The opportunity for researchers to share their findings and draw on the research findings of others is vital for researchers, policymakers and wider society. But all too often, the way that this process works is decided by relatively small numbers of countries and people –- often those based in the global North, in “elite” institutions or in large, commercial publishers.

Important voices can be missed and, as a result, important learning about what people have found already works around the world is not reflected in academia, policy decisions, and practice. 

In a recent Scholarly Kitchen webinar, I was delighted to be joined by great speakers from three continents, who are all experts in open access with different perspectives. This post summarizes some of the key themes discussed by Arianna Becerril García, who is based in Mexico, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou, who is based in Cameroon, and Vrushali Dandawate, who is in India….”

Are stakeholders measuring the publishing metrics that matter?: Putting research into context

“Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of compiling and implementing more meaningful research metrics that the NISO panelists discussed is the importance of putting data into context. And, as the speakers noted, there are multiple facets of context to consider, including:

The strengths and limitations of different metrics by discipline/subject matter (e.g., some metrics are better suited to certain types of research)
The intended uses and overall strengths and limitations of particular data points (e.g., altmetrics are “indicators” of impact, not measures of quality and the JIF was never meant to be used to measure the impact of individual articles or scholars)
The cultural context that a researcher is operating within and the opportunities, challenges, and biases they have experienced
How and where a research output fits within scholars’ other professional contributions (e.g., recognizing how individual research outputs are part of broader bodies of work and also measuring the impacts of scholarly outputs that do not fit within traditional publication-based assessment systems) …”

An easy access dashboard now provides links to scientific discussion and evaluation of bioRxiv preprints.

“Part of our mission at bioRxiv is to alert readers to reviews and discussion of preprints and support the different ways readers provide feedback to authors on their work. These include tweets, comments on preprints and community- or journal-organized peer reviews. bioRxiv improves discoverability of such efforts by linking to peer reviews, community discussions and mentions of the preprint in social and traditional media. By aggregating this information in a new dashboard, we are now making these even easier for readers to find and access.

A series of new icons now appears in the dashboard launch bar, above each Abstract, representing different sources of preprint discussion or evaluation; the numbers of each evaluation or interaction are shown, and clicking on one of the icons opens a dashboard with details of the entries in that section….”

Introduction to the Open Research Library for International Librarians. | Open Research Community

“2  AMICAL Libraries are part of the KU  Selection Committee • The KU SelectCommittee consists of librarians from all over  the world  who make the selection of books  to be included in  our KU  Select Books  model,  ensuring the most relevant content for  users worldwide is included. • Librarians  in  the  fields  of  Humanities  and  Social  Sciences,  selecting  the  most  relevant content  for  KU  Select  2022  HSS  Books: titles for  KU  Select are  not chosen by us or publishers but by the library community,  through the KU  Selection Committee • Thisyear’s voting process closed on 9  April,  we will announce the result and  the new collections at the beginning of May • It  is free to participate!   …”

Contracter à l’heure de la publication en accès ouvert. Une analyse systématique des accords transformants – HAL-SHS – Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société

Abstract:  Abstract : This study focuses on one of the contemporary innovations linked to the economy of academic publishing: the so-called transformative agreements, a relatively circumscribed object within the relations between library consortia and academic publishers, and temporally situated between 2015 and 2020. The stated objective of this type of agreement is to organise the transition from the traditional model of subscription to journals (often proposed by thematic groupings or collections) to that of open access by reallocating the budgets devoted to it. Our sociological analysis work constitutes a first systematic study of this object, based on a review of 197 agreements. The corpus thus constituted includes agreements characterised by the co-presence of a subscription component and an open access publication component, even minimal (publication “tokens” offered, reduction on APCs, etc.). As a result, agreements that only concern centralised funding for open access publishing were excluded from the analysis, whether with publishers that only offer journals with payment by the author (PLOS, Frontiers, MDPI, etc.) or publishers whose catalogue includes open access journals. The oldest agreement in our corpus was signed in 2010, the most recent ones in 2020 – agreements starting only in 2021, even announced during the study, were not retained. Several results emerge from our analysis. First of all, there is a great diversity of actors involved with 22 countries and 39 publishers, even if some consortia (Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Germany) and publishers (CUP, Elsevier, RSC, Springer) signed many more than others. Secondly, the duration of the agreements, ranging from one to six years, reveals a very unequal distribution, with more than half of the agreements (103) signed for 3 years, and a small proportion for 4 years or more (22 agreements). Finally, despite repeated calls for transparency, less than half of the agreements (96) have an accessible text at the time of this study, with no recent trend towards greater availability. The analysis also shows widely varying degrees of openness, ranging from simple information on the ESAC directory through the provision of an open format to the allocation of a DOI and a reuse licence (CC-BY), including details of monetary amounts. Of the 96 agreements available, 47 of which were signed in 2020, 62 have been analysed in depth. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis on this scale, on a type of material that was not only unpublished, but which was previously subject to confidentiality clauses. Based on a careful reading, the study describes in detail their properties, from the materiality of the document to the financial formulas, including their morphology and all the rights and duties of the parties. We therefore analysed the content of the agreements as a collection, looking for commonalities and variations through an explicit coding of their characteristics. The study also points out some uncertainties, in particular their “transitional” character, which remains strongly debated. From a morphological point of view, the agreements show a great diversity in size (from 7 to 488 pages) and structure. Nevertheless, by definition, they both articulate two essential objects: on the one hand, the conditions for carrying out a reading of journal articles, in the form of a subscription, combining concerns of access and security; on the other hand, the modalities of open access publication, articulating the management of a new type of workflow with a whole series of possible options. These options include the scope of the journals considered (hybrid and/or open access), the licences available, the degree of obligation to publish, the eligible authors or the volume of publishable articles. One of the most important results of this in-depth analysis is the discovery of an almost complete decoupling, within the agreements themselves, between the subscription object and the publication object. Of course, subscription is systematically configured in a closed world, subject to payment, which triggers series of identification of legitimate circulations of both information content and users. In particular, it insists on prohibitions on the reuse or even copying of academic articles. On the other hand, open access publishing is attached to a world governed by free access to content, which leads to concerns about workflow management and accessibility modalities. Moreover, the different elements that make up these contractual objects are not interconnected: on one side, the readers are all members of the subscribing institutions, on the other, only the corresponding authors are concerned; the lists of journals accessible to the reader and those reserved for open access publication are usually distinct; the workflows have totally different objectives and material organisations, etc. The articulation between the two contractual objects is solely a matter of a financial distribution formula which, in addition to particular combinations between one an

FREE UKSG webinar – Back to the Future: Lessons learned from the Jisc OA Textbook project | UKSG

“With eTextbooks high on library and publisher agendas and the controversy over costs and access raging, OA textbooks could be a solution. What are the considerations for initiating, and sustaining an open access textbook directly linked to teaching at one institution, but open to all? The 2014-2018 Jisc Institution as eTextbook Publisher project funded OA textbook pilots and created a toolkit. Liverpool published 2 titles, in a partnership with the Library and Liverpool University Press. In this webinar we will revisit the project and look forward, considering resource and expertise requirements for a sustainable OA textbook model….”

Open-access publisher PLOS pushes to extend clout beyond biomedicine

“Non-profit life-sciences publisher PLOS is gunning for a bigger share of science beyond the biomedical realm with the launch of five journals in fields where open science is less widely adopted. They will be its first new titles in 14 years. It is also piloting a new open-access business model, in a bid to spread the cost of publishing more equally among researchers….

The new business model is the first shake-up at the publisher for a while, and has been eagerly anticipated….

 The publisher’s financial history is chequered. It first broke even in 2010. In recent years it has fallen into deficit, with 2019 the first year that it made an operating surplus since 2015….

The idea behind the new model is that the cost of publishing a paper is spread more equally across all of the authors’ institutions, rather than the corresponding author’s institution or funder footing the bill, as is standard with an article processing charge. PLOS says that as more members join the scheme, it will become cheaper for researchers to publish papers. So far, more than 75 institutions in 8 countries have signed up….

PLOS’s chief publishing officer, Niamh O’Connor, says that PLOS hopes to circumvent the idea that open access moves the cost of publishing a paper from the reader to the author. “While the article-processing model has allowed open access to develop, we don’t see that as the future,” she says. “We are working to a future where those barriers are removed.” …”

Radical Collaboration: Library Publisher Partnerships to Advance the Global Knowledge Commons | CRL

“The present and future of research libraries and scholarly publishers are inextricably aligned. Both exist to advance the creation, dissemination, and preservation of a diverse scholarly record; and both are facing existential challenges, particularly in finding sustainable business models to advance open scholarship.  

Join us on May 25th, 2021 from 12 p.m. – 1 p.m. Central to explore the shared aims and challenges of research libraries and scholarly publishers and discover how partnerships across professional and disciplinary boundaries are working to find sustainable models to support an open knowledge ecosystem. After an introduction by CRL President Greg Eow, this webinar will look at two innovative library-publisher collaborations, assessing the challenges and opportunities in this space, and ideating future directions….”

Datasets on arXiv. We’re excited to announce our… | by Robert Stojnic | PapersWithCode | May, 2021 | Medium

“We’re excited to announce our partnership with arXiv to support links to datasets on arXiv!

Machine learning articles on arXiv now have a Code & Data tab to link to datasets that are used or introduced in a paper….

This makes it much easier to track dataset usage across the community and quickly find other papers using the same dataset. From Papers with Code you can discover other papers using the same dataset, track usage over time, compare models and find similar datasets….”