“The National Library of Luxembourg has a consortial section1 which is planning to transition its agreements to the new realities of Open Access. The past years have been spent setting up an integrated administrative structure that allows for flexible shifting of costs and devising entirely new models. We envision the transition to play on two levels: 1. Our subscriptions contain more and more Open Access content, hence the subscription costs should fall proportionally, the “Transition credit”; 2. Our consortial partners pay increasing amounts for Open Access publications, these costs should be covered by the savings of the subscription part. Goals for transition agreements: 1. Transparent and sustainable for both publishers and libraries 2. Long term commitment (3-5 years) 3. Data-driven…”
“UCL is pleased to post Robert Kiley’s response to the UCL Town Hall meeting and UCL’s Plan S consultation response as a contribution to the ongoing consultation over Plan S.
“As the cOAlition S representative at the UCL Town Hall meeting I’d like to thank UCL for their response to the Plan S guidance document and for giving me the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised.” …
I was disappointed by the UCL response to Plan S which calls for a “wholescale rethink of the strategy and timelines for moving to 100% Open Access”. …”
“At the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Summit in June 2017, I made a commitment to champion the alignment of research data management (RDM) among research funding organisations in Europe. This commitment was the origin of an initiative for that purpose, launched by Science Europe and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in January 2018. The aim of the initiative was to develop a set of core requirements for data management plans (DMPs), as well as a list of criteria for the selection of trustworthy repositories where researchers can store their data for sharing. In light of the development of the EOSC and an increasing tendency towards data sharing, these requirements and criteria should help to harmonise rules on data management throughout Europe. This will aid researchers in complying with RDM requirements even when working with different research funders and research organisations. Less than a year after its launch, I am pleased to introduce the results of this endeavour. These core requirements for DMPs and criteria for the selection of trustworthy repositories have been developed by experts from Science Europe’s Member Organisations, who have sought additional input from external stakeholders to ensure a broad consensus….”
“Article 13 relating to online content sharing services, has had wide coverage in the main stream media. An online petition targeting Article 13 has 4.5 million signatures already and, according to MEP Julia Reda, will become the largest ever online petition if it surpasses 4.9 million signatures.
The legislation is aimed at changing existing legal regimes and introducing new obligations on organisations who allow end users to upload content to their platforms. The drafting was firmly aimed at the likes of You Tube and Facebook but, as is common with copyright draft legislation, it failed to take into consideration many others who would be affected. These include platorms such as Wikipedia and GitHub through to educational organisations which host open platforms that allow upload by end users.
Working with other library and university groups such as SPARC Europe, IFLA, the European University Association and EBLIDA, we have repeatedly voiced our concerns that the provisions and core definitions also apply to platforms coming from the education and research sector such as Open Access Repositories and some Open Education Resources (OER)….”
From Google’s English: “Openly available research promotes knowledge exchange and is an important building block in democratic society. But an overly quick transition to open access in accordance with Plan S risks undermining both the quality of research and the opportunities for Swedish researchers for collaboration and impact internationally. It writes 133 social scientists and humanists at the Swedish universities in an open letter about Plan S.”
” “Not a single creative work has gone into the public domain since 1998,” said Jennifer Jenkins, clinical professor of law and director of Duke Law’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain. “So the works that entered the public domain this year were supposed to go into the public domain in 1999.”
But they didn’t, due to an act of Congress that Jenkins attributed to “very successful lobbying and the lack of a thorough cost-benefit analysis.” …
“After 75 years, only a tiny percentage of creative works is generating commercial value whatsoever. Maybe 1 percent, maybe less,” Jenkins said.
But if you want to tap into the other 99 percent, you’re in luck, thanks to the internet. HathiTrust digital library has added more than 50,000 titles from 1923 to its online holdings.
Beyond accessing the works, the public domain also allows users to take creative liberties with them.
“You can cut, you can paste, you can annotate, you can translate, you can do whatever you want with it,” Jenkins said….
For Jenkins, welcoming the works into the public domain also highlights what could have been 20 years ago.
“It’s great that these works are finally entering the public domain,” she said. “But it’s a bittersweet celebration, because under rational copyright terms the public domain would be much larger, much more robust.” …”
“In his role as Dean of the University of Denver Libraries, Professor Levine-Clark had been grappling with a problem his librarian audience understood all too well — that monitoring public access to federally funded research had reached a critical point. By 2017, D.U.’s steadily growing research budget was approaching $30 million. Professor Levine-Clark knew that a considerable portion of this money came from various government agencies, representing a risk to future funding. He also knew that using the Library’s two and a half full-time developers to build and maintain a D.U. technical solution would take up too much of their valuable time….”
“Shift focus from “tuition and fees” to “total cost of attendance,” and foster the adoption of OER at scale. Money not spent on textbooks can offset tuition increases from a student perspective, while still allowing needed operating revenue to flow to the institution.
In the right context, done well, OER represents the rare win-win. A student facing a tuition increase of, say, a hundred dollars a semester probably breaks even with a single course moving to OER, and comes out ahead if two or more courses do. Tuition may go up, but total cost of attendance — the meaningful number — remains flat or even drops. Even better, OER allows every single student to have the book from the first day of class, which can help with course completion and retention, and therefore enrollment. (One of the most powerful predictors of retention is GPA. Students with GPA’s below 2.0 drop out at much higher rates than students above 2.0. Not having the book affects academic performance; presumably, having the book may affect it in a positive way.) You can maintain a sustainable funding level for the college, keep costs down for students, and improve retention rates at the same time.
In essence, it redirects revenue from publishers to colleges and students. Yes, that takes a bite out of some commercial publishers, but that’s their problem. They should have thought of that before charging $300 for an Intro to Physics textbook, or before bundling non-transferable software codes with textbooks to short-circuit the used book market….
I ran some back-of-the-envelope numbers for Brookdale over the last few days, to see how much money OER has saved or will save students in the coming year. Based only on courses that have already committed to adopting it, we’re looking at over a million dollars per year in textbook cost savings….”
Abstract: Open access journals are playing an increasingly important role in scientific publishing. However, it is hard to find the right way in the huge amount of OA titles available on the net. In this respect DOAJ, a directory based on stringent qualitative selection criteria, represents a fundamental resource for authors, publishers and librarians. This article examines the characteristics of LIS journals listed in DOAJ, highlighting in particular their origin (born- digital or digitized) and the main topics they cover.
Abstract: Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born?free’, and half of all versions of record pay?walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12?months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply?side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay?wall to a ‘play?wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two?step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today.
- We are still failing to deliver open access (OA); around a fifth of new articles will be born free in 2018, roughly the same as in 2017.
- Librarians, funders, and negotiators are getting tougher with publishers, but offsetting, deals, and Plan S will not deliver OA or solve the serials crisis.
- The authors of Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin OA declarations foresaw three changes with the coming of the internet, but flipping to a barrier to publish article processing charges from a barrier to read (subscriptions) was not one of them.
- A digital transformation of scholarly communications based on internet?era principles is needed if OA is to succeed.
- Accepting preprints into the reputation economy could be the catalyst to solve the serials crisis, afford OA, and drive out predatory journals.
- A model where journal editors invite submissions from authors whose preprint articles have gained attention may offer a cost?effective model for OA….”