scholarly journals Beyond Open Access to Open Publication and Open Scholarship

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
John W Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
The Public

This article explores a moment of opportunity to imagine a new humanities scholarship based on radical openness, beyond the level of access to scholarly content that the open access movement has so far championed, to a culture of transformation that can actively include the public(s) beyond the community of scholars. The possibilities for enhancing scholarly and research practices are intriguing, but even greater may be the generative opportunity to engage audiences beyond the scholarly community – particularly online, where the humanities connects to broader cultural currents.

scholarly journals A brief saga about open access books

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Stern
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Book Publishing ◽  
Personal Account ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Focus Point

Monographs and academic books are increasingly becoming a focus point in the open access debate and policy developments. This article gives a personal account of the rationale behind open access book publishing and open infrastructures for books. It elaborates on the need for collaboration between the actors in the community in order to sustain open access book publishing to the benefit of the scholarly community and the public at large.

ATTITUDE TO OPEN ACCESS IN RUSSIAN SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY: 2018. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. K. Razumova ◽  
N. N. Litvinova ◽  
M. E. Shvartsman ◽  
A. Yu. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level ◽  
Access Policies

Introduction. The paper presents survey results on the awareness towards and practice of Open Access scholarly publishing among Russian academics.Materials and Methods. We employed methods of statistical analysis of survey results. Materials comprise results of data processing of Russian survey conducted in 2018 and published results of the latest international surveys. The survey comprised 1383 respondents from 182 organizations. We performed comparative studies of the responses from academics and research institutions as well as different research areas. The study compares results obtained in Russia with the recently published results of surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe.Results. Our findings show that 95% of Russian respondents support open access, 94% agree to post their publications in open repositories and 75% have experience in open access publishing. We did not find any difference in the awareness and attitude towards open access among seven reference groups. Our analysis revealed the difference in the structure of open access publications of the authors from universities and research institutes. Discussion andConclusions. Results reveal a high level of awareness and support to open access and succeful practice in the open access publications in the Russian scholarly community. The results for Russia demonstrate close similarity with the results of the UK academics. The governmental open access policies and programs would foster the practical realization of the open access in Russia.

Editorial: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Klaff
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Labour Party ◽  
Research Note ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Exciting Development

I am pleased to publish an open-access online preprint of two articles and a research note that will appear in the forthcoming issue of the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism 3, no. 2 (Fall 2020). This preprint is a new and exciting development for the Journal. It has been made possible by the generous donations from sponsors, including BICOM's co-chairman, David Cohen, whose support for the work of the Journal allows for timely scholarly analysis to be put into the public sphere.

scholarly journals Yes, There is no Crisis

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosi Braidotti
Keyword(s):  
Public Concern ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Major Process ◽  
Ability And Willingness

There is widespread consensus in the Humanities scholarly community that it is inappropriate to speak of a “crisis” of our field, yet we do spend a disproportionate amount of time actually justifying or defending our existence to the public. I want to argue that this is a constitutive contradiction of the Humanities today and that it reflects not only public concern about our relevance, but also significant internal fractures within the Humanities. In this paper, I want to look more closely at some of these inner fractures. I will argue that the Humanities can and will survive their present predicament and contradictions to the extent that they will show the ability and willingness to undergo a major process of transformation in response to both technological advances and geo-political developments.

scholarly journals Recovering and Reanimating ‘Lost’ Traces: The Digital Archiving of the Rehearsal Process in Siobhan Davies RePlay

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Whatley
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Cultural Capital ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Digital Archiving ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Intelligent Process ◽  
The Relationship

Siobhan Davies RePlay provides open access to a significant collection of performances, photographs, and text-based materials, and includes a large number of rehearsal tapes that offer a unique insight to the dance making process. Following the development of simple capture technologies, Davies’ dancers have recorded and reviewed their own movement experiments or ‘scratches’. These previously private memory objects enter the public domain via the archive. Though raw and unedited captures they become traces of an intelligent process that is rarely available for public scrutiny. When made available alongside films and other documents relating to performances, these scratches offer a unique insight to the choices made by the artists; what is left out and what is featured. It might be argued that these scratches accrue cultural capital through their inclusion in the archive, and when distributed online. This article examines the extent to which the tapes generate new readings of dance, transmit new knowledge, create new kinds of tools for reconstruction and/or prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between dancer, choreographer and audience to re-conceptualise the dance-making process. It will be argued that the tapes broaden expectations of what is traditionally held within an archive, revealing the rich potential for dance archives to enhance and enrich our understanding of dance.

Knowledge in the Shrinking Commons

2016 ◽  
pp. 358-379
Author(s):  
Luke Bassuener
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Physical Space ◽  
Economic Environment ◽  
Market Forces ◽  
Self Directed Learning ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Face ◽  
Directed Learning ◽  
Market Driven

Libraries and Open Access function in a variety of ways to make information freely available to the public, but the current era of market-driven globalization has reshaped the economic environment, and threatens to undermine their principle mission. The defining characteristic of this threat is the treatment of knowledge as a commodity. The idea of open access and the institution of the library exist as sources of self-directed learning and as representatives of the shrinking commons in the face of encroaching market forces. Libraries face challenges of relevance in regard to technology, budgets, privatization, and physical space. Open Access must find ways to define itself coherently—as publishers, researchers, libraries and businesses all try to manipulate the concept to fit their needs. This chapter looks at the shared obstacles and objectives of libraries and the open access movement, and analyzes some of the efforts being made to address current challenges and work toward a future of collaboration and continued relevance.

scholarly journals Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Knöchelmann
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

scholarly journals ‘No comment’? A study of commenting on PLOS articles

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Peter Willett ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Community Perceptions ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Broad Scope ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Academic Discussion

Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.

scholarly journals Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Alperin ◽  
Charles J Gomez ◽  
Stefanie Haustein
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Limited Diffusion

The growing presence of research shared on social media, coupled with the increase in freely available research, invites us to ask whether scientific articles shared on platforms like Twitter diffuse beyond the academic community. We explore a new method for answering this question by identifying 11 articles from two open access biology journals that were shared on Twitter at least 50 times and by analyzing the follower network of users who tweeted each article. We find that diffusion patterns of scientific articles can take very different forms, even when the number of times they are tweeted is similar. Our small case study suggests that most articles are shared within single-connected communities with limited diffusion to the public. The proposed approach and indicators can serve those interested in the public understanding of science, science communication, or research evaluation to identify when research diffuses beyond insular communities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document