1. Scientific Research Shouldn’t Sit behind a Paywall
Most of the scientific research conducted in the U.S. and abroad is supported by federal government funds — that is to say, by taxpayer dollars. Yet much of the information that results from such funding is not publicly available outside of research institutions that can afford expensive scientific journal subscriptions, notes Randy Schekman in this post in the Scientific American.
The blog post says (quote): Universities and research institutes in countries such as Germany, Sweden and Hungary have come to a similar impasse in their negotiations with Elsevier. Private funding agencies such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Britain’s Wellcome Trust have mandated open access publication for the scholars they fund. And the European Union has proposed a plan that calls for the wide introduction of this model..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Guest Post: Do Authors Have Any Power Over Publishers?
In the open access world, it is still the case that many authors are not getting what they want with copyright. Around a third of authors would prefer to restrict commercial use of their work. Yet, large open access publishers will only publish works under a Creative Commons Attribution license that permits commercial use. While this might please Plan S funders, it means that even when authors are paying customers, they do not have the leverage to change the terms of their publishing agreements. In this guest post in The Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Shaun Khoo questions whether authors will exercise their market power to put downward pressure on article processing charges.
The blog post says (quote): To the extent that authors have the power of choice in the scholarly publishing market, we are not using it to drive down APCs. In a recent study, I found no evidence that journals that increase or introduce an APC lose business in terms of article volume. In fact, tracking APCs at major commercial publishers from 2012-2018 showed that higher APCs tended to predict higher article volumes – consistent with how the majority of open access papers are published in a minority of fee-charging journals ..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Sharing and Attention in the Academic Gig Economy
Today, Big Academic Publishing seems to have grudgingly accepted the inevitability of open access and has been developing new business models to preserve their profits, by publishing large volumes of open access articles and launching new OA journals funded by author-side fees and by creating workflow infrastructures that will provide publishers with fees and data. Defending toll-access publishing has proven increasingly unpopular with the authors they depend on, funders are increasingly insisting on public access to research results, and it turns out making research sharable is good for business – not just for publishers, who want content they can publish for a fee and plenty of marketing, but for authors living in a world where sharing is the natural state of things. Everyone wants to be an influencer these days, notes Barbara Fister in this post in the Inside Higher ED Blog.
The blog post says (quote): I am an open access advocate, and have been for years, but I’m worried about the idea of sharing knowledge being reframed around the assumptions of that problematic euphemism, the “sharing economy.” Isn’t it great to share your guest bedroom with strangers or pick up people who need a ride in your own car? Yeah, but it turns out that kind of sharing, at vast scale and without regulation, worker protections, or any kind of public planning input causes a lot of problems..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Open and Equitable Scholarly Communication: An ACRL Research Agenda
ACRL’s latest report identifies needed areas of research to help foster a more open, inclusive and equitable scholarly communications system. Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, in her post in The Scholarly Kitchen Blog, discusses this report in which ACRL encourages the community to make the scholarly communications system more open, inclusive, and equitable by outlining trends, encouraging practical actions, and clearly identifying the most strategic research questions to pursue.
The blog post says (quote): I’m pleased to see the association continuing its approach of developing robust reports that not only provide a comprehensive review of the state of the field but also set a direction and strategy for continuing to develop and shape the field. Academic librarians will find the areas of progress and practical actions a source of inspiration, while the next directions will guide useful inquiry and be particularly useful for librarians who are tenure-track and working on establishing research agendas to pursue during their careers.........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Have we really had enough of experts – What evidence is there for public attitudes towards experts?
Following the Brexit vote and US presidential elections in 2016, it has frequently been argued that the current period is defined by a lack of trust in experts and expertise. But is there any empirical evidence to confirm or deny this assertion? In this post in The LSE Impact Blog, Kate Dommett and Warren Pearce analyse the available data on public perceptions of expertise and argue that ultimately we cannot categorically state how the public perceive experts.
The blog post says (quote): we are also living in a time when the meta-category of ‘expert’ is assuming increased prominence in the media and political debate, and is the subject of broad claims by a range of motivated actors. For example, experts were a key focus of debate during the EU referendum as experts were marshalled (notably by Remain) to support political positions, and experts have become increasingly powerful in key areas of public policy such as climate change and monetary policy. Social media has opened up new ways to challenge expertise, but has given rise not to a ‘post-truth era’, but instead has shifted dynamics and norms in how experts establish and maintain trust..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply