1. Change ahead: How do smaller publishers perceive open access?
The Open Access Office at Graz University Library undertook a comprehensive survey across the German-speaking countries to specifically address publisher attitudes and practices regarding Open Access. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Christian Kaier and Karin Lackner explore the attitudes of smaller publishers towards open access, finding both rising levels of interest, but also ongoing uncertainty and resistance over making a transition to open access publishing.
The blog post says (quote): There are many reasons for this reluctance to embrace open access on the part of the publishers. Most expect a decline in sales as a consequence of the free availability of "their" works and associate Open Access with legal uncertainties, unclear business models and pressure from politicians and funders. However, a considerable number of publishers apparently have also not yet paid much attention to the issue. Only 67 percent of the participants state that they are familiar with the content of the "Berlin Declaration", a fundamental document of the Open Access movement, and 43 percent say the requirements for Open Access publications are unclear to them. Publishers also worry about a lack of appropriate funding and recognition of their services and hope for more standardisation, clarity and information, as well as administrative improvements in connection with Open Access publications. They would also like to see increased cooperation with universities, libraries and funding bodies. This suggests that support for small and medium sized publishers may be necessary in order to slow down the increasing market concentration in scholarly publishing………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. A Sneak Peek at Scholarly Communication on WeChat "Official Accounts"
Altmetrics sourced from social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and ResearchGate have been studied a lot to date. In her guest post in the Altmetric Blog, Shenmeng Xu describes how the design of China's largest social network, WeChat, may affect what we know about how science is communicated.
The blog post says (quote): Academic WOAs can span a wide range of disciplines, including biomedical & health sciences, life & earth sciences, physical sciences & engineering, mathematics & computer science, as well as the social sciences and humanities. WOAs are significantly different from each other in the kinds of content they share, in addition to the different functions and permissions they have based on whether they are a subscription or service account. The content and professionalism of posts also vary. On the one hand, an academic WOA can be run by individual enthusiasts of a specific scientific discipline with a small number of posts; on the other side of the spectrum, an academic WOA can be operated by a large team, consisting of not only professionals in academic sectors but also other professionals. In the latter case, WOA owners might additionally have their own official websites and mobile applications to communicate with readers; they might provide additional services such as conference connections, communications of recent technologies, research trend discussions, social and collaboration features, business opportunities, and so on………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Plan S: What About Researchers?
How do researchers feel about Plan S? They are broadly sympathetic to openness, be it in research or in access to their scholarship, but very few grasp how Plan S fits into the movement toward openness. In his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Robert Harington implores Plan S leaders and funders to take researcher needs to heart.
The blog post says (quote): Most publishers offer hybrid journals and some have launched what are called "Mirror" journals, essentially spin-offs of an existing title that shares the same editorial board and decision-making process but that operates under a gold OA business model. Plan S leaders see these models as inappropriate, largely due to financial concerns, and will not accept any articles published in these types of journals as compliant. The problem here for researchers is that they are being asked not just to make their article OA, but also to withdraw support for anything that may be connected to a subscription model – this is an authoritarian move, and restricts author choice. Indeed for "Mirror" journals, the only commonality with the parent journal is the editorial board – the intellectual leadership – which logically cannot and should not be confused with the business model in play………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply