Freie Universität Berlin was the first university in Berlin to adopt an open access strategy for free access to scientific findings. It is intended to give all members of the university an opportunity to anchor open access publication in their day-to-day research. The new policy takes into account the publication cultures of the individual subjects. It aims to ensure that scholarly and scientific standards are met and high-quality publications are published.
“IOP Publishing has launched three high-impact open access journals. The scope of these journals will focus on research covering three aspects of the physical world that will shape the future of our planet: energy, materials and light.”
“Legislators rewrite bill that originally required use of freely accessible educational materials, amid criticism that legislation would have infringed academic freedom and harmed, not helped, the open-access movement.”
Frontiers and FWF not only signed an offsetting agreement, they made the agreement (contract) public.
“Enter a list of DOIs and this python program will determine how many are Gold or Hybrid open access and how much was spent on the article processing charge (APC) for these Gold and Hybrid articles.”
“Our leadership work will be concentrated in three program areas: Open Access, Open Data, and Open Education. Additionally, to maximize progress, SPARC will support efforts that champion intellectual freedom, a free and open Internet, privacy, confidentiality, and equitable copyright and intellectual property policies.”
0000-0002-6370-4254 Over the course of the past year we have celebrated PLOS ONE’s 10 year anniversary. It was exciting to use this opportunity to look back at our accomplishments so far and thank and celebrate
“Peter Suber is one of my role models as one of the clearest and therefore most compelling advocate of Openness. He collects almost comprehensive information if what is happening and reports it in a compellingly simple clear manner. He is one of those people whose prose is a joy to read. Where others’ thinking is muddled (or deliberately obfuscated) he cuts it apart clinically and compellingly….
He’s written a review of 2010 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-11.htm#2010, (long but compelling) and there are countless examples of organizations and people bringing in Open ideas, requirements, practices, content, tools. The involvement of governments is particularly welcome. This is mainly an account of the positive, though he also notes neutral (e.g. hybrid OA is stagnant at best [PMR – I never liked it anyway]) and some retrograde practices or vacillation of some organizations.
Without a denominator (or the true-negatives) it’s difficult to give absolute numbers to the growth in OA. For example how many governments did nothing. How many Universities don’t care about Openness (at least enough to spend money). And IMO Universities are the primary problem in much of this – publishers have built a 10-billion dollar market on the apathy of vice-chancellors and it’s now going to be hard to pull it back….”
“There are no valid reasons.”
“The F1000 platform is also being used by funders (Wellcome, Gates and others), which will no doubt boost the general level of comfort with this approach. Two key questions are whether single monolithic platforms are better suited to research communication than a more distributed system of interoperable services and whether the foundational infrastructure supporting research communication should itself be open (unlike the technology underpinning F1000)….
“For the research community, the strongest message I sensed was enthusiasm for early-career researchers to review preprints and share their critiques with the authors. If that takes hold, a massive community of talented reviewers could emerge habituated in the open sharing of their opinions and ideas – a tantalising prospect for those who hope for a more transparent and collaborative scientific culture….”