Blogs selected for Week October 21, 2019 to October 27, 2019 -



1. Guest Post — the future of open access business models: APCs are not the only way

There is still a significant lack of awareness of what OA is or means in the research community, particularly in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). Even in STEM fields, where awareness is far greater, authors are faced with a dilemma: to publish in a fully open journal, or in an established subscription or hybrid journal which may fall outside the scope of Plan S. In this guest post in the in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Highwire’s Byron Russell reports on this year’s OASPA Conference, and future paths to sustainable open access business models.

The Blog post says (quote): Such collaborative initiatives are surely to be encouraged; as mentioned earlier, the transition to OA is more likely to negatively affect small-to-medium sized publishers; particularly those involved in HSS monograph and book publishing. This problem was widely acknowledged at the recent OASPA conference, where Paul Peters (CEO, Hindawi) suggested an OA switchboard whereby a central agency would choreograph APC payments and automate repository deposition, thereby freeing both funders and smaller publishers from the burden of administration. OASPA itself is looking to kick start this project with $10k in funding from 10-20 initial stakeholders. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

2. Opinion: Boycotting Elsevier Is Not Enough

All of this has happened before. A group of scientists, upset with the extraordinarily profitable Elsevier, have announced its intention to boycott the publisher. In 2012, mathematicians led the Cost of Knowledge boycott. This time, it’s University of California (UC) scientists upset about the breakdown of negotiations that sought to combine journal subscriptions with open-access publishing. Unfortunately, on its own, this boycott will do little to change science publishing, notes Shaun Khoo in this post in TheScientist Blog.

The Blog post says (quote): Scientists already have many of the tools needed to change science publishing. There is a plethora of free open source software for running journals and typesetting articles, which leaves us with very minimal costs. Our main challenge is cultural—convincing scientists it doesn’t have to cost $3,000 to publish an article and to take a risk with a new and unproven outlet. A fair and equitable system is possible if scientists push to change our system of science publishing and career advancement. But if they just boycott one publisher without changing the systemic roots of the problem, in six or seven years, all of this will happen again. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

3. The layered cake of FAIR coordination: how many is too many?

Science is living in the era of data – the reuse of other people’s data can drive new research questions and products, and inspire new scientific discoveries. This was the motivation behind the FAIR Principles (published in 2016), which provide researchers with a framework to improve the quality of their research: making their data more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. To turn these aspirational principles into reality, however, we need to provide researchers with FAIR-enabling tools and services that make frictionless the (complex) technical machinery of (meta)data standards and identifiers that underpins FAIR, notes Alastair Dunning, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, and Marta Teperek in this guest post in the Scientificdataupdates Blog.

The Blog post says (quote): It is essential that coordination efforts do not become echo chambers. In this layer cake of FAIR coordination, the higher you go, the further away you are from the researchers. So something needs to change. Whatever option is taken, it’s clear that solving the current profusion of FAIR coordination projects simply by adding another layer of coordination might not be the best solution. While an extra layer may seem to offer a sweet way of bringing various ingredients together, the result can be a gooey mess. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

4. Guest Post — Crossref at a Crossroads: All Roads Lead to Crossref

January of 2020 marks 20 years since the incorporation of Crossref. This platinum anniversary is an opportune time to look back and take stock of how far the organization has come in the intervening decades, and ponder where its strengths and achievements might lead it in the future. In this post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Amy Brand from MIT Press and the Crossref Board of Directors offers her thought on this crucial moment in the evolution of Crossref and the scholarly communications infrastructure.

The Blog post says (quote): Crossref’s value proposition for its members, though, has indisputably shifted, as scholarly publishing proceeds down the path towards default open access models. In particular, the business benefit of link-based traffic to a purchase or subscription interface is significantly diminished with open access. This raises the question of whether Crossref’s revenue models should continue to be closely pegged to deposit transactions and the volume of publisher outputs. Well over half of Crossref’s annual revenues derive from deposit fees – charges for registering DOIs and deposing associated metadata. Membership dues reflect a much smaller percentage of the annual income, and metadata subscriber fees an even smaller proportion. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

5. The open access needle in the discovery haystack

The transition towards making scholarly communication openly available and accessible for all is a high priority for funding organisations. A tremendous amount of work is underway by libraries to disclose new sets of data to ensure that their collections can be searched and found. In this post in the Jisc Blog, Neil Grindley, head of resource discovery, discusses the obstacles for libraries to earmark freely available, open access content.

The Blog post says (quote): As part of the Jisc library hub roadmap, they have plans to build and release a tool that will help smaller libraries and open access publishers to more easily create good quality bibliographic records that will be optimised for visibility in discovery systems. ‘Library hub creates’ will be an easy-to-use cataloguing tool for creating new records in a variety of formats. It will be developed alongside ‘library hub contribute’ which is another tool that will enable libraries, publishers and other contributors to more easily upload records and to keep track of their data as it flows into the national bibliographic knowledgebase. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

6. Welcome to Open Access Week 2019!

APC models have dominated the space from the launch of the first Open Access journals in the early 2000s. The model assumes researchers funding can help pay for the costs of publishing in order to make the work immediately and freely available to the public. While this model has gained widespread recognition from funders, and even become a mandate of taxpayer-funded research and policies like Plan S, not all authors who want to publish Open Access have the funding to do so, notes Madison Crystal in this post in the Plos Blog.

The Blog post says (quote): Many journals, like PLOS, offer fee-assistance programs for authors who lack the funding, particularly for researchers in low and middle-income countries. But these programs don’t cover every researcher or every paper. We need to look beyond APCs to partner with libraries, institutions, and funders to ensure authors can choose where to publish and how to share it with the world. ……. (Unquote)

The full entry can be read: Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here