1. Few open-access journals meet requirements of Plan S, study says
Only a small proportion of open-access scientific journals fully meet the draft requirements of Plan S, the initiative primarily by European funders to make all papers developed with their support, free to read, a study has found. Compliance with the rules could cost the remaining journals, especially smaller ones, more than they can afford, discusses Jeffrey Brainard, in his post in the Science Blog.
The blog post says (quote): A lack of compliance does not necessarily signal a lack of quality. Only one of the nine criteria they reviewed relates to quality: the requirement for some form of peer review. Almost all journals registered in the DOAJ meet this criterion. The DOAJ is a large compendium of open-access journals that meet certain standards of quality control. The required technical fixes may be too expensive for some smaller open-access journals unless Plan S provides them deadline extensions, exempts them, or helps them develop open-source publishing software that meets the requirements, the study says. That is especially true for the many open-access journals that do not charge author fees. Larger publishers will probably find it easier to meet Plan S’s requirements. Their journals are closer to full compliance with Plan S than other journals are, thanks to economies of scale and higher revenues………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Guest Post: Encouraging Data Sharing: A Small Investment for Large Potential Gain
Data sharing and data management form the foundation of global academic collaboration, discovery and scientific advancement. Data Availability Statements are a powerful tool in promoting data sharing. In their post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Rebecca Grant, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz and Amy Bourke-Waite discuss the process of incorporating the DAS into the journal workflow.
The blog post says (quote): Submission-to-publication-time is an important metric, and anything that slows down publication could be seen as a negative for authors and readers – and the publisher. However, given the importance of data sharing and the value added by DASs, they believe the extra editorial time is well-invested, even (or especially) in the more complex case where the data are already publicly available. They also anticipate efficiency of incorporating DASs will improve as they become a more common editorial requirement. As editors and authors are more familiar with including them, and publishers continue to improve their guidance and procedures on providing them, they should benefit from increased experience and economies of scale. They have already used information from this pilot to inform the implementation of data policies by other Springer Nature journals. For example, they have developed in-house administrative support for academic editors, so that journals without professional editors can also introduce DASs consistently………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Information Overload? Not Necessarily the Case for Emerging Life Science Companies
Are researchers in emerging life science companies suffering from ‘information underload’? In her post in the CCC Blog, Jill Shuman reached out to scientific researchers to find out the answer.
The blog post says (quote): In small organisations, time is definitely money! And because abstracts sometimes do not accurately reflect the content of a scientific article, it behooves a small company to invest in subscriptions that offer researchers simple access to full-text articles. Non-compliance with copyright often occurs quite innocently in small companies. For example, most online college libraries restrict use to current students - even though their accounts are still active post-graduation. Because of this, many post-docs at small companies report routinely downloading journal articles in this manner. Others turn to online social sharing sites like ResearchGate to download articles without realising that more than a dozen academic publishers took ResearchGate to court in 2018, charging 'massive infringement of peer-reviewed published journal articles.' And while many people believe that all scientific articles can be shared freely among their colleagues, posted to blogs, or used in slide presentations, this is not the case………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Should academics share their presentations online?
Oral research presentations can be a persuasive and powerful medium for scientists to share their ideas and latest findings with an audience. In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Elie Diner presents arguments for and against sharing research presentations online, arguing that sharing research presentations should be seen as part of the mainstream of open scholarship and is a natural way for academics to present their preliminary findings.
The blog post says (quote): Open science is still developing, with some kinks yet to be worked out. For now, the degree to which researchers want to participate should be a personal one, left to individual researchers, their collaborators, and their research community. Alternatively, a change in the sensitivity that academics have about sharing early findings might be needed. Perhaps researchers should develop "fail fast" approach. Regardless, early findings and research presentations could be shared and discussed and their merits and faults evaluated in an open forum. Whether or not decided to share, it is important to consider the data being presented in the research presentations: it can be a powerful medium for driving scientific progress, collaborations, and community engagement………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply