1. Open access critical for exchange of research, Stanford professor argues
Without access to journals via a university library or other institutional subscription, thousands of students and researchers are effectively excluded from the exchange of scientific ideas. Hence Sci-Hub, the Napster-like site that provides pirated journal papers free of charge, is now entangled in legal challenges with publisher Elsevier. Becky Bach, in her post in the Scope Blog, discusses a recent Times Higher Education essay by Stanford education professor John Willinsky, on the importance of open access and the Sci-Hub controversy.
The blog post says (quote): In the piece, Willinsky emphasizes that research is fundamentally different than music or other copyrighted goods, a point made by Alexandra Elbakyan, the researcher who started Sci-Hub. “This is not only because of the public and tax-exempt funding involved in its production and publication,” Willinsky writes. “It is because of how this work’s value and benefit is realised through others’ access to and use of this work.”..........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Should academics be paid for peer review?
A big part of being an academic is working for free. Not only do many researchers work beyond their contracted hours, as other employees do, but they also agree to review the work of their peers, unpaid, notes David Matthews, in his post in the Times Higher Education Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Another drive towards payment for peer review comes, as Ibraimova contends, from a sense of injustice at work going unrewarded. A common complaint from advocates of open access publishing is that big, for-profit publishers make huge amounts of money from this free labour while contributing little to the process themselves. At a conference last month, Alice Ellingham, director of Editorial Office, which handles peer review for 85 journals, revealed that organising the peer review of a paper takes at best about 45 to 50 minutes. Veruscript’s model is not unprecedented; Davis points out that top biomedical journals already routinely pay statisticians to review manuscripts..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Open Access Causes Disruption of Status Quo
Open access, or OA, journals - scholarly publications that are made available to all, free of charge and with unrestricted use - have shifted the paradigm when it comes to research.
Before the advent of the Internet, there was just one way to publish research, and that was through scholarly journals that charge a subscription fee to readers. Many, such as Nature and Science, still operate this way at present, notes Emily Litvack, in her post in The University Of Arizona Blog.
The blog post says (quote): "If someone is trying to download my manuscript and it is free versus 20-plus dollars, my open-access manuscript will be more likely to be cited," Amini concludes. At the same time, scholarly journals are assigned impact factors - another contentious subject in the world of academia. An impact factor is supposed to measure a given journal's relative importance in its field - although many call it a poor measure - and it is calculated based on the average number of citations received per paper published in the journal during the two previous years. "Because of the way the open-access journals work, it's very hard for them to get as high an impact factor as some of the closed-access journals," Burgess says. In some fields, including biology and bioinformatics, OA journals have some of the highest impact factors, but today this is the exception to the rule.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Why Is ClinicalTrials.gov Still Struggling?
With no clear benefits to researchers, a frustrating user experience, and no penalties for non-compliance, ClinicalTrials.gov is becoming increasingly irrelevant to clinical researchers and the world at large with each passing day. Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, looks at what this means for public access to research results? Is an obligation to patients putting themselves at risk in trials being breached? Why has it failed to live up to its potential?
The blog post says (quote): When depositing trial information and results in ClinicalTrials.gov was a single requirement around publication, it might have been feasible. Now, with so many more time sinks around published research, researchers have to pick and choose. While the time commitment to document trial results via ClinicalTrials.gov is a major barrier to compliance, it’s not the only barrier. The user interface and technology pose other barriers, as well. The site was last redesigned in 2012, and it doesn’t take much to make it throw an error. This means interrupted workflows that invite abandonment. It’s not robust technology that’s up to snuff with the latest models for ease of use or self-healing infrastructure..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Enabling authors to pay for open access – The Gold Open Access market and the role of an institutional central fund.
Having tracked and analysed the usage data of one university’s central open access fund over an eight year period, Stephen Pinfield, in his post in The Impact Blog, shares findings from a detailed case study of the paid-for Gold Open Access market. Mandates, particularly if accompanied by funding, have played a very important role in encouraging uptake of Gold OA. Communication was a crucial factor in making potential users of the fund aware of its existence and in helping to change perceptions of OA in general.
The blog post says (quote): Enabling authors to pay open-access (OA) article-processing charges (APCs) is one of the key challenges faced by institutions supporting so-called ‘Gold’ OA (that is, OA publication in journals). One response to this challenge is to set up an institutional central fund (or ‘faculty publication fund’) for payment of APCs. The University of Nottingham in the UK was one of the first institutions globally to set up such a fund, in 2006. In our recent study published in SAGE Open, my co-author, Chris Middleton, and I have analysed the usage of the Fund from 2006 to 2014 to try to understand how it has been used and what it use might tell us about the acceptance of OA in academic institutions..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Library-Institution Misalignment: One Real-World Example
There seems to be a significant disagreement between academic libraries and their own host institutions with regard to an important rule change proposed by the Department of Education. That disagreement has implications that go way beyond the rule itself, notes Rick Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Of course, at particular libraries this may not be much of an issue at all: the University of Kansas Libraries, for example, have a long history of strong open access advocacy, and (assuming it has been paying attention to the libraries’ public positions and pronouncements), no one in the university administration will likely be surprised that the libraries have taken a public stance in support of the DoE proposal. But at most other institutions, I can imagine a situation in which the administration is somewhat taken by surprise to see the library taking a public position at significant variance to its institutional stance, and a rather uncomfortable conversation between the provost and the library director ensuing........(Unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply