scholarly journals Report from the "What Is Open?" Workgroup

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Anderson ◽  
Seth Denbo ◽  
Diane Graves ◽  
Susan Haigh ◽  
Steven Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Current Definition ◽  
Effective Dissemination ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework.OSI2016 workgroup questionThere is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?

scholarly journals What Is Open?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Anderson ◽  
Seth Denbo ◽  
Diane Graves ◽  
Susan Haigh ◽  
Steven Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Current Definition ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Many

There is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?

scholarly journals Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anson Parker ◽  
Abbey Heflin ◽  
Lucy Carr Jones
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Visualization ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
University Of Virginia ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Rest Api

As part of a larger project to understand the publishing choices of UVA Health authors and support open access publishing, a team from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library analyzed an open data set from Europe PMC, which includes metadata from PubMed records. We used the Europe PMC REST API to search for articles published in 2017–2020 with “University of Virginia” in the author affiliation field. Subsequently, we parsed the JSON metadata in Python and used Streamlit to create a data visualization from our public GitHub repository. At present, this shows the relative proportions of open access versus subscription-only articles published by UVA Health authors. Although subscription services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions allow users to do similar analyses, we believe this is a novel approach to doing this type of bibliometric research with open data and open source tools.  

scholarly journals How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Career Progression ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

scholarly journals EPS and Open Science: an update

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-28
Author(s):  
C. Rossel ◽  
L. van Dyck
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
The Way

The movement towards an Open Science is well engaged and irreversible. It includes Open Access publishing, Open Data and Open Collaborations with several new orientations, among which citizen science. Indeed, in the digital era, the way research is performed, its output shared and published is changing significantly, as are the expectations of policy makers and society at large.

scholarly journals OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING: ISSUES OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH COPYRIGHT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Валентина Троцька
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Network ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
Exclusive Right

The author in the article explores the issues of using publications available in Open Access on the digital network. The article describes the definition of the term «Open Access». This concept is based on the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2012) — this document contains one of the most widely used definitions of Open Access. The basic features of this term are established.A comparison is made between the free (fair) use of works and the use of publications available in Open Access. The difference between these concepts are established.The use of publications available in Open Access, except for works that have become public domain, may not be copyright free. Moral rights are reserved by the authors, and property rights belong to the person who acquired them in accordance with the law or the contract. These rights must be adhered when publishing and using this publication available in Open Access. The use of the term «Open» does not mean unlimited access to the works.The article explores that Open Access publishing is possible if there are not legal, financial, technical obstacles. It has been proven that overcoming these obstacles is directly or indirectly related to the need for compliance copyright law.The article explores the problematic issues of authors' payment for article publishing charge and the use of publications available in Open Access (Article processing charge) and ways solution these issues.This article gives an overview of examples of contracts where publication fees are paid not by institutional authors but by interested organizations. The article explores the different types of contracts that can be concluded when publishing works and the use of publications available in the Open Access. In particular, the agreements of the rights transfer, the public licenses for Creative Commons.Generally, the use of a published work may be permitted subject to the conditions, defined by the person, who has the exclusive right under law or contract to permission the use of the work, and may determine the conditions of access to that work. The article argues that the key issue is the compliance of copyright for works that are created, published, and made available to the public online under the Open Access. The author analyzes the others issues of application of the legislation in the sphereof copyright, gives examples from practices.

scholarly journals OPTIMETA – Strengthening the Open Access publishing system through open citations and spatiotemporal metadata 

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hauschke ◽  
Daniel Nüst ◽  
Anette Cordts ◽  
Svantje Lilienthal
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Needs Analysis ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Citation Networks ◽  
Temporal Properties ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Machine Readable

The BMBF project OPTIMETA aims to strengthen the Open Access publishing system by connecting open citations and spatiotemporal metadata from open access journals with openly accessible data sources. For this purpose, we will extend Open Journal Systems (OJS) to give it functionalities for collecting and distributing open data by developing two OJS plugins for capturing citation networks and articles' spatial and temporal properties as machine-readable and accessible metadata. We will ensure the target group-orientated design of the plugins by performing a comprehensive needs analysis for key stakeholders: the editors or operators of OA journals and the researchers, as authors and readers of articles. The developments will be designed and tested in cooperation with several independent journals and OA publishers. Overall, OPTIMETA supports the attraction of independent OA journals as publication venues by substantially improving the discoverability and visibility of OA publications through enrichment and interlinking of article metadata.

scholarly journals INTACT – Collecting data on fee-based Open Access publishing

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Pieper
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Research Society ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
German Research Foundation ◽  
Open Access Journals

See video of the presentation.The transformation from a subscription based journal market to a fee-based Open Access publishing requires a monitoring of  APC expenditures. This is not only necessary to ensure price transparency on a developing APC market. In fact funding organizations, library consortia and other stakeholders need a valid data base to be able to evaluate Open Access funding policies or transformation strategies.The presentation will give a short overview about existing initiatives to collect APC data and will then introduce the new project “INTACT  - Transparent Infrastructure for fee-based Open Access publishing”. The project, which is funded by the “German Research Foundation” (DFG) and supported by the “DINI working group Electronic Publishing” is a cooperation of Bielefeld University Library, the “Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Science” (I2SoS) at Bielefeld University and the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL). The INTACT approach combines a bibliometric analysis of fee-based Open Access publishing in academic institutions with establishing a standardised reporting and open data service for APC data. By working together with the ESAC initiative (http://esac-initiative.org/), the project wants to increase the efficiency of Open Access publishing workflows in universities and research organizations together with leading Open Access publishers.INTACT uses Open Science workflows for aggregation, use and reuse of APC data. Even before  the official start, 21 german universities and 5 research society funds are providing their data into a GitHub-Repository (http://openapc.github.io/), the datasets are available under a Open Database License. Due to DFG funding policy for Open Access publication funds in Germany, the whole dataset releases  currently information on more than 3.200 articles in real open access journals, which charge publication fees, and total expenditures for more than 4 million EURO. But information about Open Access articles in toll-access journals ("hybrid") are provided as well. Further more, the presentation discusses basic requirements for creating an international network for analyzing and monitoring fee-based Open Access publishing.

scholarly journals Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy C Wyatt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Internet Research ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Online Publishing ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Many

UNSTRUCTURED The <italic>Journal of Medical Internet Research</italic> (JMIR) was an early pioneer of open access online publishing, and two decades later, some readers and authors may have forgotten the challenges of previous scientific publishing models. This commentary summarizes the many advantages of open access publishing for each of the main stakeholders in scientific publishing and reminds us that, like every innovation, there are disadvantages that we need to guard against, such as the problem of fraudulent journals. This paper then reviews the potential impact of some current initiatives, such as Plan S and JMIRx, concluding with some suggestions to help new open-access publishers ensure that the advantages of open access publishing outweigh the challenges.

scholarly journals Behind the Wall: An Exploration of Public Access to Research Articles in Social Work Journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Pendell
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Open Access Journals

Despite implicit and explicit expectations that research inform their practice, social workers are unlikely to have access to published research articles. The traditional publishing model does not support public access (i.e., no publisher paywall barrier) to scholarly journals. Newer models of publishing allow free access to research including open access publishing and deposit of scholarship in institutional or disciplinary repositories. This study examined public access to articles in the top 25 social work journals. A random sample of article citations from a total of 1,587 was assessed, with the result that 52% of citations had no full-text access. Of the remaining 48% of citations with full-text access, it is questionable most will remain available long term due to possible copyright violations. Citations from the random sample show only minimal usage of institutional or disciplinary repositories as a means of sharing research. Establishing this baseline measure of access to research is an important first step in understanding the barriers for social workers in accessing research to inform practice. Recommendations for increasing access to research include publishing in open access journals and utilizing full text repositories.

scholarly journals Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin O’Hanlon ◽  
Jeanine McSweeney ◽  
Samuel Stabler
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Reading Program ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Research Dissemination ◽  
Flat Rate

Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.Results: The total percentage of fellows’ publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.Conclusions: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professional could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document