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 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 The ScholarLed Consortium

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Barnes ◽  
Rupert Gatti
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Digital Learning ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Open Content ◽  
Book Publishers

ScholarLed, a consortium of five not-for-profit, scholar-led OA book publishers, was founded in 2018 in order to develop powerful, practical ways for small-scale, scholar-led Open Access presses to grow and flourish in a publishing landscape that is changing rapidly. We comprise Mattering Press, meson press, Open Book Publishers, Open Humanities Press, and punctum books: five publishers with different business models and publishing practices, but with a shared commitment to making high-quality research available OA without levying Book Processing Charges (BPCs). We have approached this task with the philosophy of ‘scaling small’; in other words, rather than seeking to grow our reach by any one of us becoming exponentially larger, we want to create systems that allow a large number of diverse, small-scale scholarly publishing initiatives to operate collaboratively, and so to foster a robust, inclusive and community-managed publishing ecosystem in partnership with all actors in the scholarly publishing ecosystem (including scholars, libraries, and funders). Collectively the ScholarLed presses have now published over 500 books, and expect to publish over 80 new titles in the coming year. What would the publishing landscape look like if, rather than 5 presses, we were 25, 50, or 100 in number? Accordingly, in our first year we became key partners in the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project, which we developed along with organisations including Coventry University; Loughborough University Library; University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Library; Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB); Jisc Collections; and the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC). In June of this year, this project successfully secured funding of £2.2 million from Research England to build the necessary open infrastructure over the next three years to transform open access book publishing, by moving away from a model of competing commercial service operations to a more horizontal and cooperative, knowledge-sharing approach. In this presentation, we will discuss the ‘scaling small’ philosophy that underlies ScholarLed, and how this chimes with growing international movements such as the Invest in Open Infrastructure initiative. We will also explore how this impacts the COPIM project and our firm conviction that, in order for open access publishing initiatives to thrive, we have to develop more robust definitions of ‘open’ that go beyond releasing content from behind paywalls. COPIM will pilot a range of interventions, from developing open, transparent, sustainable, and community-governed infrastructures for the curation, dissemination, discovery, and long-term preservation of open content and open data, to helping publishers transition away from a BPC-based business model, to following the best practices for integrating open content into institutional library, digital learning, and repository systems. COPIM prepares the ground for OA publishing to thrive, increasing its strength and heterogeneity within a robust, inclusive and community-managed publishing ecosystem: Scaling Small. Keywords: scholar-led; community-driven; open access publishing.

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 Scholarly publishing initiatives at the International Rice Research Institute: Linking users to public goods via open access

First Monday ◽  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Borrero ◽  
Mila Ramos ◽  
Anna Arsenal ◽  
Katherine Lopez ◽  
Gene Hettel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Rice Research Institute ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Research Institute

Scientists at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, generate a large volume of research results emanating from donor-funded projects. The main objective is to disseminate, as widely as possible, the results of IRRI's research. There is also a strong push to provide free open access to these information resources through modes convenient to researchers in both developing and developed countries. Certain instruments for open access (OA) are already in place at IRRI, including links to full-text publications posted on the Institute's Web site (http://www.irri.org/), especially via the Library branch site (http://ricelib.irri.cgiar.org/), the Rice Knowledge Bank (http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/), and Rice Publications Archive (http://rice-publications.irri.org/). The joint initiatives of the Library and the Institute's main science publishing units, particularly Communication and Publications Services and the Training Center, typify a convergence of practices to overcome hurdles to OA implementation. This paper explores how the links in IRRI's scholarly publishing chain, bridging information management and publishing, can effectively deliver public goods (knowledge about rice, in this case) to the intended primary users -- researchers and extensionists in the national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) in developing countries. It also discusses publishing models for delivering public goods generated by an international research organization. To meet its mission, IRRI must employ various demand-supply models to disseminate information. Open access publishing is one model to adopt but first, the onus is on the Institute to overcome issues such as intellectual property rights, funding, and connectivity. IRRI's donors, NARES partners, governments, and rice farmers and consumers expect it to create and share information for the common good, and it strives to convert its resources into electronic format for delivery over the Internet. However, not all its stakeholders are connected. To create impact, IRRI must deliver information through whatever appropriate form, be it cutting-edge digital versions or traditional hard-copy books. This paper discusses this dilemma and hopes to encourage further research and thought on open access publishing.

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 Cost of Open access publishing in the light of global developments in scholarly publishing: Springer’s Open access initiative

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Biomed Central ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Wide Range

>> See video of presentation (25 min.)BioMed Central is the open access publisher who pioneered this publishing model and has been part of Springer since 2008. We launched our first journal in the year 2000, and have since seen several positive global developments which have helped establish open access as an important trend in the evolvement of scholarly communication.  We have consequently observed a steady increase in awareness of open access and specifically, of our wide range of specialist as well as broad interest titles which is reflected in our growing submission numbers.BioMed Central as one of the main open access publishers has helped to establish open access as a new way of making academic research available to researchers and the public, and to introduce a change of the subscription business model in academic publishing and libraries. While BioMed Central also offers a solution for the Green Route of open access (“Open Repository”) the main part of our publishing activity is centred around our fully or “gold” open access journals. BioMed Central and SpringerOpen practise the “author pays” model, whereby the author is asked to pay a fee to cover the publisher’s cost of publishing and distributing the article. While the awareness of open access is growing among the academics, there is still uncertainty among many of how open access works and why they are asked to pay a fee. To cover that fee can still be a major obstacle for a researcher attempting to publish an article in an open access journal, as the SOAP report stated in 2011.I will present an analysis of the most recent open access developments and studies globally; as well as the effect that this has had on a number of factors that play a role in scholarly publishing, such as Impact Factors, citations and awareness of open access among academics. I will give an update on BioMed Central and Springer’s own development in the arena of open access and visibility of research, including  experimenting with alternative methods of evaluating research such as Altmetric and the SCImago Journal & Country Rank.  I will conclude with an overview of how we are working with research organisations and universities to offer financial support to their researchers in order to cover the fee for publishing in BioMed Central and SpringerOpen journals in the context of our institutional membership program.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document