Znova nam je kolegica dr. Kotarjeva iz Univerzitetne službe za knjižnično dejavnost UL pripravila novosti o odprtem dostopu. Kopiram jih v zapis kot sem jih prejel:
· Deklaracije, politike, analize stanja, projekti
· ZDA: predloga zakonov Research Works Act in Federal Research Public Access Act of 2012
· Raziskovalci bojkotirajo Elsevier
· Avtorskopravni vidiki
· Odprte revije
· Zasledovanje odmevnosti objav
· Odprte monografije
· Odprti podatki raziskav
· Prosto in odprto dostopna učna ter študijska gradiva
Na Bledu štirje evropski ministri in 30 predstavnikov evropskih agencij o evropskem raziskovalnem prostoru
»… Na tokratni delavnici je poudarek na petih elementih, kjer je sodelovanje na nacionalni in evropski ravni ključno za ERA in napredek Evrope. To so: čezmejno sodelovanje, raziskovalne poklicne poti, mednarodno sodelovanje, diseminacija, prenos in uporaba raziskovalnih rezultatov, vključno z Odprtim dostopom (Open Access) ter raziskovalne infrastrukture.« http://www.mvzt.gov.si/nc/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/article/94/7222/f9a225adcd/
Kritike so sestavni del delovanja agencij
»… Tako smo se strinjali, da moramo na vseh ravneh olajšati dostop do znanstvenih publikacij.«
Članek v prilogi Znanost časnika Delo 26.1.2012
Izvedbeni načrt spletnega portala znanstvenih in literarnih revij
Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani je vzpostavila institucionalni repozitorij PeFprints. O zbirki: “PeFprints je institucionalni repozitorij znanstvenoraziskovalnih, umetniških in visokošolskih del Pedagoške fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. PeFprints je namenjen upravljanju, ohranitvi in dostopnosti akademskih del učiteljic in učiteljev in diplomantk in diplomantov Pedagoške fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.” Institucionalni repozitorij PeFprints je:
- evidentiran v OpenDOAR, http://www.opendoar.org/find.php?format=full&search=PeFprints&title=SUPPRESS
- evidentiran v ROAR, http://roar.eprints.org/4606/
- kompatibilen z navodili OpenAIRE, http://www.openaire.eu/en/component/openaire/ingestion1/default/381, vpišite Univerza v Ljubljani
Določilo o obvezni oddaji visokošolskih del: http://roarmap.eprints.org/567/
Analiza znanstvenih objav v slovenskem gradbeništvu in geodeziji na primeru UL FGG
KOLER POVH, Teja, JUŽNIČ, Primož, TURK, Žiga, TURK, Goran. Analiza znanstvenih objav v slovenskem gradbeništvu in geodeziji na primeru UL FGG. Geodetski vestnik, 2011, letn. 55, št. 4, str. 764-780.
DEKLARACIJE, POLITIKE, ANALIZE STANJA, PROJEKTI
Survey on open access in FP7
The European Commission launched in August 2008 the open access pilot in FP7. It concerns all new projects from that date in seven FP7 research areas. Grant beneficiaries are expected to deposit peer-reviewed research articles or final manuscripts resulting from their projects into an online repository and make their best efforts to ensure open access to those articles within a set period of time after publication. In addition to the pilot, FP7 rules of participation also allow all projects to have open access fees eligible for reimbursement during the time of the grant agreement. The EU-funded portal OpenAIRE (‘Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe’) has supported the pilot since 2009, with mechanisms for the identification, deposit, access to and monitoring of FP7-funded articles.
Results of the EC public consultation on scientific information in the digital age
“The public consultation on scientific information in the digital age, which was recently undertaken by the European Commission, spurred great interest among a variety of stakeholders, with 1140 responses received from 42 countries. Respondents identified a strong need for better access to scientific publications and scientific data in Europe. 90 % of respondents supported the idea that publications resulting from publicly funded research should as a matter of principle be in open access (OA) mode and that data from publicly funded research should be available for reuse free of charge on the internet. Furthermore, 83 % called for policy formulation at the EU level and 86 % agreed on the development of an EU network of repositories.
Asked about barriers to accessing scientific publications the high price of journals/subscriptions (89%) and the limited budget of libraries (85 %) were identified as key issues. The main barriers to access research data were identified as lack of funding to develop and maintain the necessary infrastructures (80 %); the insufficient credit given to researchers for making research data available (80 %); insufficient national/regional strategies/policies (79 %) as well as the lack of incentives for researchers (76.4%).
Self-archiving (‘green OA’) or a combination of self-archiving and OA publishing (‘gold OA’) were identified as the preferred ways for increasing the number and share of scientific publications available in OA mode. The majority (56% of respondents) prefer an embargo period (that is the period of time during which a publication is not yet open access) of 6 months.
Finally respondents were also concerned that the preservation of scientific information is currently insufficiently addressed.”
The survey on scientific information in the digital age is available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/survey-on-scientific-information-digital-age_en.pdf
(pdf document, 6MB) and on our open access website under "background documents" http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1294&lang=1.
Public consultation on the European Research Area Framework, Preliminary Report
From the Executive summary: The public consultation on the 'ERA Framework: Areas of untapped potential for the development of the European Research Area' (launched on 13 September 2010) closed on 30 November 2011. This report synthesises the responses to the consultation based on the 590 responses received to the on-line questionnaire as well as the 101 ad hoc contributions received by the end of December 2011 submitted mostly as position papers by national and European research organisations and in the form of official positions of Members States/Associated countries from ministries or national governments. The responses from national and European organisations which represent the interests and views of significant numbers of research stakeholders as well as the official responses from member states point to cross-border operations, Open Access and international co-operation as priorities on a similar footing as researcher-related issues. Open Access: - Open Access to scientific publications and data enhances knowledge circulation and needs to be improved. - National Open Access policies and their coordination in the ERA are insufficient. - In addition, researchers are not sufficiently aware of Open Access to research results. - The actions suggested at EU level to remedy existing barriers include increasing stakeholders' awareness, facilitating the exchange of best practices and setting standards for the establishment of repositories and data-sharing practices. Respondents see a key role for the European Commission in co-ordinating national initiatives, and in monitoring and promoting Open Access policies to publications and data.
Open Access to Scientific Information - POST Note - UK Parliament
A new report from the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: “...The Open Access (OA) movement seeks to make scientific (and other scholarly) publications freely available online. A drive for greater transparency and more effective exploitation of public funds has also led to demand for OA to publicly-funded research data, to support research and innovation... Expanding access to scientific publications and data could deliver widespread social and economic benefits. There are several ways of achieving this. In March 2011 the Minister for Universities and Science held a round table discussion to explore the issues. At this meeting the government committed to supporting efforts to expand access to both research publications and data as part of its wider ‘Transparency Agenda’. Overview: (1) Open Access (OA) to scientific publications could provide more effective dissemination of research and thus increase its impact. (2) The costs and benefits of different models of providing OA to publications need to be considered if a comprehensive shift to OA is to be financially sustainable. (3) OA to research data could enable others to validate findings and re-use data to advance knowledge and promote innovation. (4) Sharing data openly requires effective data management and archiving. It also presents challenges relating to protecting intellectual property and privacy. Expanding access to scientific information requires researchers, librarians, higher education institutions, funding agencies and publishers, to continue to work together...”
Public Access to Scholarly Publications: Public Comment | The White House
"On November 3, 2011, OSTP released a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting public input on long-term preservation of, and public access to, the results of federally funded research, including peer-reviewed scholarly publications as required in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Below are the public comments received by OSTP during the comment period. You can read the RFI on public access to scholarly publications here. Comments on the questions in the RFI were accepted through January 12, 2012. OSTP previously conducted a public consultation about policy options for expanding public access to federally funded peer-reviewed scholarly articles (the full set of comments is here). This RFI takes that process another step, seeking further guidance on access to scientific publications. OSTP has established an interagency policy group under the National Science and Technology Council—the Task Force on Public Access to Scholarly Publications—to identify the specific objectives and public interests that need to be addressed by any policies in this area. The group will take into account the varying missions, types of data, standards, and dissemination models associated with the range of Federal science agencies and scientific disciplines, and will help OSTP address other public access requirements in the COMPETES Act...."
Free research needs the free circulation of ideas: on the current development of Open Access at the Austrian Science Fund
The paper primarily addresses the Austrian scientific community and research policy but could be also of interest elsewhere.
The NIH public access policy (February 2012)
The NIH released a new (February 2012) document summarizing its public access policy. "WHAT IS AT STAKE UNDER THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY: Opening up to the public 90,000 new scientific articles each year reporting research that U.S. taxpayers have funded through NIH’s annual 32 billion dollar investment in biomedical research....HOW IT WORKS: The NIH policy honors, and is consistent with, U.S. copyright law. The author, as the creator of the work, holds the copyright in the original paper. The author gives NIH a non-exclusive right to distribute the paper in PMC and may transfer to the publisher the balance of his rights, including an exclusive copyright for the final published version of the paper....SUPPORT FROM PUBLISHERS:...Publishers representing about 1000 journals voluntarily submit the full content of their journals to PMC, regardless of whether the issue contains an article subject to the NIH Public Access Policy....NO HARM TO PUBLISHERS IS EVIDENT:...The Public Access requirement took effect in 2008. While the U.S. economy has suffered a downturn during the time period 2007 to 2011, scientific publishing has grown:  The number of journals dedicated to publishing biological sciences/agriculture articles and medicine/health articles increased 15% and 19%, respectively.  The average subscription prices of biology journals and health sciences journals increased 26% and 23%, respectively.  Publishers forecast increases to the rate of growth of the medical journal market, from 4.5% in 2011 to 6.3% in 2014...."
The Influence of the National Institutes of Health Public-Access Policy on the Publishing Habits of Principal Investigators - Athanasia (Nancy) Pontika
New doctoral dissertation on OA now available.
Full text available here; poster presented at the Berlin9 conference available here.
The European Research Area: Priorities for research universities
Open Access: Impact for Researchers, Universities and Society
Harvard Open Access Project
The goals of the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP) are "[t]o foster OA within Harvard, foster OA beyond Harvard, undertake research and policy analysis on OA, and provide OA to timely and accurate information about OA itself...." [The project was launched at the start of the 2011-12 academic year, but this project wiki was launched yesterday.]
Harvard response to the White House RFI on OA publications | Office for Scholarly Communication
"In summary, we strongly support White House action to require and enhance public access to government-funded research. We provide our general recommendations, as well as more detailed responses to the eight particular questions that were called out in the RFI below. However, we emphasize that decisions on many of the detailed issues under discussion here and in the other responses to the RFI are secondary to the general principle of requiring public access. We endorse the view that every federal agency funding non-classified research should require free online access to the full-text, peer-reviewed results of that research as soon as possible after its publication. There are three powerful reasons to take such a step. First, taxpayers deserve access to the results of taxpayer-funded research. It is their right. Second, public access maximizes the visibility and usefulness of this research, which in turn maximizes the return on the public’s enormous investment in that research. Third, public access accelerates research and all the benefits that depend on research, from public health to economic development, manufacturing, and jobs...."
20 things you need to know before you self-publish
"There is no lack of intellectual integrity in open access or self-publishing: The perceived lack of elite positioning in self-publishing is rapidly changing. My biggest argument for self-publishing and for open access in the academic community, is this: Would you rather wait two years for your work to appear in a learned journal locked behind a firewall and read by few, or would you like to get your fantastic arguments out to the public in a month and accessible to many? I'm on the editorial board of Learned Publishing and we've published papers that demonstrate that impact has far more to do with access than with peer review...."
Open Access (OA) – Some experiences and conclusions
Presented at Open Access (OA) seminar, Falun, 30 Nov 2011. Contents: Case 1: Journal of Official Statistics (JOS); Case 2: International Journal of Public Information Systems (IJPIS); Case 3: Researcher – user of the works of others; Case 4: Researcher – publishing own works; Why do some researchers still hesitate to use Open Access? The Publisher Paradox; The future.
Open Access, UKPMC and PubMed: how are we doing?
"For articles published in 2010, using the ~925K articles in PubMed published in 2010 as 100%, UKPMC is about 18% of the size of PubMed, with [libre] Open Access articles around 7%. A key factor to maintain this growth will be for the research community to improve compliance with the UKPMC Funder mandates, to ensure all articles resulting from those funds can be found in UKPMC...."
Illustrations of the global reach of the open access movement
Two charts, based on data from DOAJ and OpenDOAR, illustrate the global reach of the open access movement. Both show Europe with the largest share (40% range), followed by North America (20% range). Third place is South America for journals, Asia for repositories.
The impact of open access on research and scholarship: Reflections on the Berlin 9 Open Access Conference
Studies on Subject-Specific Requirements for Open Access Infrastructure
OpenAIRE has recently released its "Studies on Subject-Specific Requirements for Open Access Infrastructure". Designed as a comparative study covering five disciplines (Health, Climate, Agriculture, ICT,
e-infrastructures) it provides in-depth insight into researchers' behaviour and current practices. With a focus on research workflows, literature and data management the case studies address key questions on how subject-specific needs can be represented in an Open Access infrastructure. Moreover, each case study provides a vision and principles for future information services to further exploit OA principles from a disciplinary perspective as well as advices to future directions for funding agencies.
C. Meier zu Verl, & W. Horstmann (Eds.). 2011. Studies on Subject-Specific Requirements for Open Access Infrastructure. Bielefeld : Universitätsbibliothek.
DARIAH-EU: Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities
Royal Society OA membership
"The Royal Society has this week confirmed that it is at the leading edge of open access in scientific publishing by launching two innovative new open access membership programmes. The programmes allow institutions to support open access for their researchers by giving them a discount of 25% when they publish open access articles in the Royal Society’s renowned international scientific journals. The Excellence in Science Membership is relevant for institutions publishing across all areas of science and Open Biology Membership for those who wish to just support researchers in the biological sciences at the cellular and molecular level. Institutions are given a personalised webpage on the Royal Society publishing site, showcasing their research and linking through to the full text of the article...."
University of Zurich signs up for Wiley Open Access Partnership deal
"The University of Zurich, Switzerland has now signed up for a partnership deal with Wiley Open Access. This will allow its researchers to qualify for a 15% discount on the Wiley Open Access and OnlineOpen article publication charges. When authors submit a paper to a Wiley Open Access journal or opt for OnlineOpen they need to state their affiliation in order to qualify for the discount. Other funders who have Wiley Open Access accounts or discounts can be found in our listing...."
Sharing: Culture and the Economy in the Internet Age
By Philippe Aigrain, with contribution of Suzanne Aigrain. Sharing is also available as a living book on www.sharing-thebook.net. The author will update it on an ongoing basis, and readers are welcome
to join the debate and update it with the author. Sharing is available as a print book and online through Open Access under the Creative Commons licence.
Download your FREE copy of Sharing here http://www.sharing-thebook.com/content/download and share with other interested parties.
Figshare: a carrot for sharing
"Figshare, a tool designed to enable researchers to release all of their research outputs quickly, and in an easily citable, sharable and discoverable manner, has just launched a significantly upgraded site today. Originally launched in March 2011, Figshare has since received support from Nature’s sister company, Digital Science. The tool provides an interesting way to quickly publish all file formats, including videos and datasets that are often demoted to the supplemental materials section in current publishing models. Files that aren’t ready for publication can be stored privately for free in the cloud. Figshare uses creative commons licensing (CC0 for the datasets; CC-BY for everything else) so others can re-use the data whilst allowing authors to maintain their ownership...."
UAHuntsville business faculty investigate research ethics; Results are published in Science magazine
"Two UAHuntsville faculty members from the College of Business were published today in the prestigious journal Science for their investigation of an important issue in research ethics. Dr. Allen W. Wilhite, and Dr. Eric A. Fong co-authored a paper on the unethical practices of some journal publications, articulating results from their research to show that some editors coerce authors into adding unnecessary citations to articles in the same journal that is considering publishing the submitted work. Journal editors want to increase the number of times articles within their journals are cited by researchers – because it raises the journal ranking and is used to make claims of prestige and importance. "When we first learned about coercion we were stunned, but after asking around we found that several people were aware of this behavior." said Dr. Wilhite, "At that point we decided to look into the extent and consequences of the practice." The duo analyzed 6,672 responses from a survey that was sent to researchers in the fields of economics, sociology, psychology, and business. According to their research, Wilhite and Fong determined that many journal editors engage in the practice of coercion, requiring authors to add citations to the journal that is considering publishing the work. They require additional citation of articles in the journal that will publish the work - without (1) indicating that the article was actually deficient in attribution, 2) suggesting particular articles, authors, or bodies of work, or 3) guiding authors to add citations from the other journals. Furthermore, the work of Wilhite and Fong indicates that many journal editors appear to even strategically target certain authors, such as assistant and associate professors, rather than full professors, relying on the fact that lower ranking authors may be more willing to add the unnecessary citations. They also found that while the majority of authors disapprove of the practice, most acquiesce and add citations when coerced...."
Re-skilling for Research
As research activities evolve, research support must evolve with them. RLUK has been keen to determine what the new requirements of researchers are, and how best these needs can be met by the library. We want to place the needs of researchers in the context of the libraries current offering, and look at how we must change to fulfil the new demands placed upon us.
This report, Re-skilling for Research, takes us a long way to mapping these requirements. It looks in detail at researchers’ information needs and begins to outline the skills and knowledge that are required to meet those needs. The Report offers a comparison of different models of library support for researchers, with valuable comparisons of current job descriptions. Finally, issues around the training opportunities for subject librarians to acquire the additional skills and knowledge they will need to fulfill their new roles are explored.
Libraries save academics time, says new report
ZDA: PREDLOGA ZAKONOV RESEARCH WORKS ACT IN FEDERAL RESEARCH PUBLIC ACCESS ACT OF 2012
H.R.3699 - Research Works Act: A bill to ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by private sector
The Research Works Act (HR 3699) is a new bill to repeal the open-access policy at the NIH and block similar policies at other federal agencies. Co-sponsored by Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), it was introduced on December 16, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The main section is brief: "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."
Behind the Research Works Act: Which U.S. Representatives are Receiving Cash from Reed Elsevier? (5. 1. 2012)
MapLight – Find Contributions: Reed Elsevier Inc
For the full list of Elsevier recipients, see http://maplight.org/us-congress/contributions?sort=asc&order=Recipient&s=1&office_party=House%2CDemocrat%2CRepublican%2CIndependent&election=2012&string=Elsevier&business_sector=any&business_industry=any&source=All
Elsevier-funded NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Wants to Deny Americans Access to Taxpayer Funded Research (5. 1. 2012)
"The [NIH] policy has been popular – especially among disease and patient advocacy groups fighting to empower the people they represent to make wise healthcare decision, and teachers educating the next generation of researchers and caregivers. But the policy has been quite unpopular with a powerful publishing cartels that are hellbent on denying US taxpayers access to and benefits from research they paid to produce. This industry already makes generous profits charging universities and hospitals for access to the biomedical research journals they publish. But unsatisfied with feeding at the public trough only once (the vast majority of the estimated $10 billion dollar revenue of biomedical publishers already comes from public funds), they are seeking to squeeze cancer patients and high school students for an additional $25 every time they want to read about the latest work of America’s scientists. Unable to convince the NIH to support their schemes, the powerful publishing lobby group – the Association of American Publishers – has sought Congressional relief. In 2009, the AAP induced Michigan Rep John Conyers to introduce the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” which would have ended the NIH Public Access Policy before it even got off the ground. Fortunately, that bill never left committee. But they are back at it....Why, you might ask, would Carolyn Maloney, representing a liberal Democratic district in New York City that is home to many research institutions, sponsor such a reactionary piece of legislation that benefits a group of wealthy publishers at the expense of the American public? Hmm. Wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with the fact that she’s the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the publishing industry, would it? ...It is inexcusable that a simple idea – that no American should be denied access to biomedical research their tax dollars paid to produce – could be scuttled by a greedy publisher who bought access to a member of Congress. So I urge you to call/write/email/tweet Representative Maloney today, and tell her you support taxpayer access to biomedical research results. Ask her why she wants cancer patients to pay Elsevier $25 to access articles they’ve already paid for. And demand that she withdraw H.R. 3699."
The Research Works Act: asking the public to pay twice for scientific knowledge (6. 1. 2012)
"Let’s take this at the most basic level. If public money is used to fund scientific research, does the public have a legitimate expectation that the knowledge produced by that research will be shared with the public? If not, why not? (Is the public allocating scarce public funds to scientific knowledge-building simply to prop up that sector of the economy and/or keep the scientists off the streets?) Assuming that the public has the right to share in the knowledge built on the public’s dime, should the public have to pay to access that knowledge (at around $30 per article) from a private sector journal? The text of the Research Works Act suggests that such private sector journals add value to the research that they publish in the form of peer review and editing. Note, however, that peer review for scientific journals is generally done by other scientists in the relevant field for free...."
Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again (8. 1. 2012)
A vast new potential for research has been opened up by the Web. It would be a great mistake, economically speaking, if research, researchers, the R&D industry and the US tax-paying public all had to renounce this newfound potential so as to protect and preserve the current revenue streams and M.O. of the publishing industry. That M.O. evolved for the technology and economics of the bygone Gutenberg era of print on paper. H.R.3699 would prevent evolution from continuing, to allow research to reap the full benefit of the PostGutenberg era.
IP Contributions to Scientific Papers by Publishers: An open letter to Rep Maloney and Issa (8. 1. 2012)
"Methodology: I examined the final submitted version (i.e. the version accepted for publication) of the ten most recent research papers on which I was an author along with the referee and editorial comments received from the publisher....Results: The contribution of IP by publishers to the final submitted versions of these ten papers, after peer review had been completed, was zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch....HR3699 prohibits federal agencies from supporting publishers to move to a transparent service based model....We recognise the importance of the services that scholarly publishers provide. We want to pay publishers for the services they provide because we want those services to continue to be available and to improve over time. Help us to help them make that change. Drop the Research Works Act...."
Anti-Open Access Rises Again (9. 1. 2012)
Elsevier under fire from American OA advocates (10. 1. 2012)
Dutch-Anglo publisher Elsevier has received serious criticism from scientists in the USA and the OA movement in general. Cause of the pain is the recently proposed Research Works Act H.R. 3699. The post has some more extensive financial details of the links between Elsevier and de representatives Malloney and Issa.
Research Bought, Then Paid For (10. 1. 2012)
"The [Research Works Act] is backed by the powerful Association of American Publishers and sponsored by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Darrell Issa, a Republican from California. The publishers argue that they add value to the finished product, and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation. After all, they claim, while the research may be publicly funded, the journals are not. But in fact, the journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments derived largely from public funds. The value they say they add lies primarily in peer review, the process through which works are assessed for validity and significance before publication. But while the journals manage that process, it is carried out almost entirely by researchers who volunteer their time. Scientists are expected to participate in peer review as part of their employment, and thus the publicly funded salaries most of them draw through universities or research organizations are yet another way in which taxpayers already subsidize the publishing process. "Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it....But it is not just Congress that should act. For too long scientists, libraries and research institutions have supported the publishing status quo out of a combination of tradition and convenience. But the latest effort to overturn the N.I.H.’s public access policy should dispel any remaining illusions that commercial publishers are serving the interests of the scientific community and public...."
Research Works Act - Publishing Industry Tries Again to Make You Pay Twice (16. 1. 2012)
Cracks Form in Anti-Open Access Push (18. 1. 2012)http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/18/cracks-form-in-anti-open-access-push/
Hot Type: Who Gets to See Published Research? (22. 1. 2012)
"The battle over public access to federally financed research is heating up again. The basic question is this: When taxpayers help pay for scholarly research, should those taxpayers get to see the results in the form of free access to the resulting journal articles? Actions in Washington this month highlight how far from settled the question is, even among publishers. A major trade group, the Association of American Publishers, has thrown its weight behind proposed new legislative limits on requiring public access, while several of its members, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's press, have publicly disagreed with that position. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy just closed a period of public comment on public access to what it called "peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research." ...The MIT Press was the first to say it didn't agree with the association's endorsement of the bill. Other academic presses, including California's, have said the same. The Nature Publishing Group and Digital Science issued a joint statement last week saying that they do not support the Research Works Act....The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science, also issued a statement saying it is not in favor of the bill...."
A small bill in the US, a giant impact for research worldwide (27. 1. 2012)
"But the real reason why Australians should care about the Research Works Act is because research is a global endeavour. Australian researchers currently rely on articles being available through PubMed Central or other open access means so they can continue their own research. If this source of research articles is cut off, then the quality of research that people can undertake here will be diminished...."
The Research Works Act is a Distraction that Works (27. 1. 2012)
“You only have to search for ‘Research Works Act’ or look for the #rwa hashtag on Twitter or follow the increasing number of people signing on to the petitions against RWA... Given this opposition, it seems unlikely that this legislation will pass... The RWA is a distraction that works: for weeks now have open access supporters from all walks of science spent countless hours in opposition to this legislation. All these hours could have been spent developing an alternative scholarly communication system... convincing librarians to withdraw their funds from these publishers by cutting their subscriptions...investing the saved funds from these canceled subscriptions into a system that hosts and makes accessible all scholarly literature and data via our libraries... The corporate publishers make an annual profit of about 4 billion US dollars, or just under 11 million every single day of the year. Elsevier, in 2010, made a profit of about 3 million US$ per day... Hence,from now on, I will try to reduce the amount of opposition to publishers and instead focus my efforts more on convincing librarians to skip commercial publishers altogether and use the funds currently tied up in subscriptions to buy some servers to host all the literature and data... Let's bring our scholarly communication system back into our hands! Hit the publishers where it hurts: their pocketbooks...”
The Open Access Interviews: Jan Velterop (2. 2. 2012)
"In the world of scholarly publishing, Jan Velterop is a well-regarded “old hand”. But an old hand who has shown himself to be very receptive to new ways of doing things....While at Academic Press in the mid-1990s, Velterop was one of the architects of what was to become known as the Big Deal — an arrangement by which large bundles of electronic journals are sold on multi-year “all you can eat” contracts. While the Big Deal has now fallen into disfavour, it was a revolutionary development in the world of scholarly publishing, and remains a very significant part of the landscape. In 2000, Velterop joined BioMed Central, the first commercial open-access science publisher, and in 2001 he was one of a small group of people who gathered together in Budapest to discuss, “the international effort to make research articles in all academic fields freely available on the internet.” It was at that meeting that the Open Access movement was born, along with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and the BOAI statement — “the clearest and most generic of what Open Access means and should mean”, suggests Velterop....It is, therefore, unsurprising that Velterop takes the view that publishers have made a serious error of judgment in pushing for the controversial Research Works Act (RWA) — a new bill introduced into the US House of Representatives at the end of last year that would roll back the Public Access Policy introduced by the US National Institutes of Health. “I truly don’t understand how a sophisticated industry could get itself into a PR disaster like the RWA,” he says. More of Velterop’s views on these and other aspects of scholarly publishing can be read in the attached interview...."
FRPAA Introduced in House and Senate: Bipartisan measure supports public access to research, February 9, 2012
In a move that signals the growing momentum toward openness, transparency, and accessibility to publicly funded information, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2012 (FRPAA) has been introduced today in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
RAZISKOVALCI BOJKOTIRAJO ELSEVIER
V Elsevierjevih revijah ne objavljajo člankov, ne opravljajo recenzij in uredniškega dela. Razlogi: naraščanje cen revij, Big Deals (združevanje revij v pakete, v sklopu katerih so knjižnice primorane naročiti tudi revije, ki jih njihovi raziskovalci ne potrebujejo), sofinanciranje ameriških kongresnikov za podporo Research Works Act.
The Cost of Knowledge: Researchers taking a stand against Elsevier
"For many years, academics have protested against the business practices of Elsevier. If you would like to declare publicly that you will not support any Elsevier journal unless they radically change how they operate, then you can do so by filling in your details in the box below...."
Should you boycott academic publishers?
"There is a growing list of famous scientists who have pledged to boycott Elsevier as a publisher. If I were in charge of Elsevier, I would be very nervous: academic publishers need famous authors more than the famous authors need the publishers. After all, famous scientists could simply post their work online, and people would still read it....Focusing solely on database-related journals, I decided to look at how much journals charge per article....[The prices range from $61.50 to zero.] The price distribution appears almost random. I can see no relation between prestige or paper length and prices. Elsevier is hardly alone at charging high prices for papers. Wiley and Springer are just as expensive....The evidence is strong that high-quality inexpensive journals are possible. Current journals are up to an order of magnitude too expensive...."
A Fistful Of Dollars: Why Corporate Publishers Have No Place In Scholarly Communication
"With roughly four billion US$ in profit every year, the corporate scholarly publishing industry is a lucrative business. One of the largest of these publishers is Anglo-Dutch Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier. According to their website, their mission is to 'publish trusted, leading-edge Scientific, Technical and Medical (STM) information – pushing the frontiers and fueling a continuous cycle of exploration, discovery and application.' However, Elsevier recently admitted to publishing a set of six fake journals, aimed to promote medical products and drugs by the company Merck, but with the appearance of peer-reviewed, scholarly literature. Clearly, trust is not Elsevier's top priority. What is Elsevier's top priority, though, is making money...."
Elsevier: thy name is hypocrisy
"The Elsevier Foundation just announced on the Liblicense list $650,000 in grants. Generous? Hang on a second - at the same time that the Elsevier Foundation is assessing medical library needs for an Eritrean future, helping Kenyan libraries serve health workers, and translating knowledge into practice for Uganda's rural health clinics, Elsevier is doing its utmost to take down PubMedCentral, which would be a tremendous loss of medical research information in the U.S. and everywhere else....When interpreting the enormous profits of STM publishers like Elsevier, it is important to take into account that the 36% profit margin comes AFTER graft pay-out, not before. This may help to explain how we can transition the whole of scholarly communication to a fully open access system - and save LOTS of money, too...."
Boycott Elsevier for Supporting SOPA
"[T]he author, Guillaume Aupy, opposes the controversial US bill SOPA, and encourages readers to boycott Elsevier for its support of the passage of SOPA...."
Amongst the many supporter is Elsevier, which I imagine many of you know as a publisher of a lot of TCS journals. It is time for us, the scientific community to raise our voice. A good way may be to
1. Refusing to serve as peer reviewers to Elsevier journals.
2. Not submitting papers to Elsevier journals.
3. If you are an Editor-in-Chief or in the editorial board, let the right people hear about your opinion.
And if this is not enough an argument to boycott Elsevier, you may also want to remember the 2009 scandal where Elsevier published fake journals as covert advertisements for pharmaceutical companies.
Elsevier tries to block institutional OA mandates
"Elsevier obviously is trying to block institutions from adopting open access mandates by its policy of demanding separate agreements. The kind of agreements with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) proposed by Elsevier represent a huge step backwards concerning author rights....The Steering Committee of the OpenAccess.se in May 2011 made a statement critical to Elsevier’s policy on author rights, which now requires specific agreements with universities or research funders if they have an open access mandate. The committee urged Elsevier to withdraw the new clause and recommended ”that Swedish universities with open access mandates refrain from concluding separate agreements with Elsevier. Instead, this issue should be managed along with negotiations over national license agreements with Elsevier”. The statement was commented by Alicia Wise, Director of Universal Access from Elsevier, to which I responded. You will find our exchange of comments here. Alicia had written ”we are still in test-and-learn mode for institutional agreements.” We also had a number of questions. So when Elsevier proposed a pilot for manuscript posting in Sweden involving a number of institutions we were prepared to take a closer look at it....This proposal has now been discussed by the Steering Committees of the Swedish BIBSAM (licensing) consortium and of the OpenAccess.se. Both steering committees came to the conclusion that we should withdraw from further negotiations on this proposal. In a Response to Elsevier’s OA pilot proposal for Sweden the position of these committees is explained: ”The main objection is that the embargo times – varying from 12 to 48 months – in the proposal will severely restrict and deteriorate the rights of authors to deposit copies of their articles in their institutional repositories....We want researchers at all HEIs – irrespective of their institution having an OA mandate or not – to have the right to post at least the accepted author version of their articles in Elsevier journals in their institutional repository immediately after publication....When other publishers try to adapt their policies to OA mandates Elsevier instead seems to have chosen the alternative of trying to block OA mandates. We do not think this is a wise policy in the long run.” ..."
Scientific publishing: The price of information | The Economist
"SOMETIMES it takes but a single pebble to start an avalanche. On January 21st Timothy Gowers, a mathematician at Cambridge University, wrote a blog post outlining the reasons for his longstanding boycott of research journals published by Elsevier....It did. More than 2,700 researchers from around the world have so far signed an online pledge set up by Tyler Neylon, a fellow-mathematician who was inspired by Dr Gowers’s post, promising not to submit their work to Elsevier’s journals, or to referee or edit papers appearing in them....This situation has been simmering for years....To many, it is surprising things have taken so long to boil over....Commercial publishers have begun to experiment with open-access ideas, such as charging authors for publication rather than readers for reading. But if the boycott continues to grow, things could become more urgent. After all, publishers need academics more than academics need publishers. And incumbents often look invulnerable until they suddenly fall. Beware, then, the Academic spring."
Open and Shut?: Elsevier’s Alicia Wise on the RWA, the West Wing, and Universal Access
"[T]he boycott has at least got Elsevier’s attention. Conscious of the potential harm that it could have on its business were it to escalate, Elsevier has been stung into responding to the campaign of vilification. In early January, for instance, Elsevier’s vice president of global corporate relations Tom Reller posted several rebuttals on Eisen’s blog, and Elsevier’s director of universal access Alicia Wise posted a defence of the company on the Liblicense mailing list. And as the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the boycott, Reller has been compelled to respond not only on mailing lists and blogs (e.g. the Scholarly Kitchen), but in the pages of prestigious print publications like The Chronicle of Higher Education. Meanwhile, Elsevier’s director of global academic relations Nick Fowler has found himself having to defend the company’s pricing policy in the Economist, and the company’s senior vice president for physical sciences David Clark has had to do the same in The Scientist. Elsewhere, Chrysanne Lowe, Elsevier’s VP global marketing communications, has been helping in the pushback on Liblicense. In short, Elsevier now appears to understand that it needs to talk to the world....As I suggested recently, the challenge for Elsevier is that this new willingness to engage with the outside world may prove to be too little too late — a point I made to Reller and Alicia Wise when I met them in London earlier this year. To their credit, they acknowledged my point, and promised to arrange for me to do a formal interview with Alicia...."
A Message to the Research Community: Elsevier, Access, and the Research Works Act
Unsigned and undated (but c. 2/6/12). "Why then do we support this legislation? We are against unwarranted and potentially harmful government laws that could undermine the sustainability of the peer-review publishing system. The RWA’s purpose is simply to ensure that the US government cannot enshrine in law how journal articles or accepted manuscripts are disseminated without involving publishers. We oppose in principle the notion that governments should be able to dictate the terms by which products of private sector investments are distributed, especially if they are to be distributed for free. And private sector means not just commercial publishers like Elsevier, but also not-for-profit and society publishers...."
Licences of publishers do not cover new developments
New developments in higher education and research are not sufficiently covered by provisions in journal licences. Examples are demands for perpetual access to articles, usage of licensed content in course packs or virtual research environments, text mining and open access to publications.
Journal publishing reform
The PolyMath wiki launched a page on journal publishing reform focusing on (but not limited to) Elsevier journals and mathematics.
An arXiv for all of science? F1000 launches new immediate publication journal
Retraction Watch, (30 Jan 2012)
“Late last year, we published an invited commentary in Nature calling for science to more formally embrace post-publication peer review, and stop fetishizing the published paper. One of the models we cited was Faculty of 1000 (F1000), ‘in which experts flag important papers in their field.’ So it’s not surprising that F1000 is announcing today that they’re launching a new journal, F1000 Research, intended to address three major issues afflicting scientific publishing today: timely dissemination of research, peer review and sharing of data... It no longer makes sense to wait months or years to read, comment, or build upon another lab’s work, and similarly to hold back your own data and insights until the archival version is released, without the benefit of wider peer feedback. I asked F1000′s Rebecca Lawrence...the new journal’s approach meshed with the ideas we — and others — have proposed for post-publication peer review: What we are planning to do fits well with that general idea – i.e. inclusion of all comments, referee reports, author responses, corrections, updates etc, as well as trying to pull together metrics and relevant discussion around the paper that is hosted elsewhere e.g. blogs, tweets etc. The idea is that the paper never finishes refereeing...”
NISO and NFAIS Issue Draft for Public Comment of Recommended Practice on Supplemental Materials for Journal Articles
"The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and the National Federation for Advanced Information Services (NFAIS) have issued a new Recommended Practice on Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials, Part A: Business Policies and Practices (NISO RP-15-201x) for public comment ending on February 29, 2012. Although supplemental materials are increasingly being added to journal articles, there is no recognized set of practices to guide in the selection, delivery, discovery, or preservation of these materials. To address this gap, NISO and NFAIS jointly sponsored a working group to establish best practices that would provide guidance to publishers and authors for management of supplemental materials and would solve related problems for librarians, abstracting and indexing services, and repository administrators. The Supplemental Materials project has two groups working in tandem: one to address business practices and one to focus on technical issues. The draft currently available for comment includes the recommendations from the Business Working Group...."
The PKP Europe Network for the benefit of individual and library OA publishers
ZASLEDOVANJE ODMEVNOSTI OBJAV
As Scholarship Goes Digital, Academics Seek New Ways to Measure Their Impact
"An approach called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—aims to measure Web-driven scholarly interactions, such as how often research is tweeted, blogged about, or bookmarked. "There's a gold mine of data that hasn't been harnessed yet about impact outside the traditional citation-based impact," says Dario Taraborelli, a senior research analyst with the Strategy Team at the Wikimedia Foundation and a proponent of the idea....Jason Priem, a third-year graduate student at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a leader in this push to track impact via the social Web. Scholarly workflows are moving online, leaving traces that can be documented—not just in articles but on social networks and reference sites such as Mendeley and Zotero, where researchers store and annotate scholarship of interest....Mr. Priem helped write a manifesto, posted on the Web site altmetrics.org, which articulates the problems with traditional evaluation schemes...."
ACUMEN: Academic Careers Understood through Measurement and Norms
How to make your repository OpenAIRE compliant
You can see the session recording at http://www.instantpresenter.com/eifl/E955DB848048
You can find the slides to download at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10000257/OpenAIREcompliance%20_Webinar_DSPACE%28Pedro%26Jose%29.pdf.
You can see the session recording at http://www.instantpresenter.com/eifl/E955DB84814C
You can find the slides to download at www.openaire.eu/en/about-openaire/publications-presentations/public-project-documents/doc_download/342-how-to-make-your-repository-openaire-compliant-eprints
A visit to the Digital Repository Federation in Japan
"...the Digital Repository Federation (DRF) in Japan... is a federation of universities and research institutions which have established institutional repositories. I met with them to share information about the work of the [Repositories Support Project, UK] RSP and the DRF. The meeting involved presentations about our work, in particular the events we run for repository staff. I was struck by the similarities... In Japan and the UK, persuading authors to deposit in the repository is a big issue and support and training in advocacy work features on the DRF and RSP programmes. And librarians often deposit on behalf of authors in Japan...the DRF... has 127 members and there is no charge to participate. You’ll see similarities with UKCoRR here (United Kingdom Council of Research Repositories). It receives funding from the National Institute of Informatics to provide training. They run events all over Japan for library staff and have held two international conferences... I went into some detail about the events we run, sharing some examples such as the activities on the Communication Skills for Advocacy workshop (see my presentation and notes). I also discovered some interesting techniques used in training by the DRF which I’m going to explore further for use in the UK. The DRF has produced a really good report into its activities “Hita-hita: institutional OA advocacy in Japan” which is well worth reading.”
" In the OAPEN-NL pilot, we have asked the publishers to share their costs with us. We received the results from several Dutch publishers; about 35 books.... In order to publish a monograph, publishers need to invest an average amount of about €16000. More than half of the costs are directly connected to paper; one third of all costs consist of printing and distributing paper books....This is the rationale behind book publishing in Open Access: make the monograph available online, without any restrictions. The information is better used in this way, and not restricted to 300 libraries. Of course, the costs are less high. Good news for funders, good news for scientists and maybe even good news for publishers: a new business model that will allow them to keep on publishing monographs...."
ODPRTI PODATKI RAZISKAV
JISC Managing Research Data Programme
"JISC has today release a Grant Funding Call 01/12. The Call for Proposals comes from JISC’s Digital Infrastructure Team and contains four elements which are part of the Managing Research Data Programm....The deadline for submission is 12.00 noon on 16 March 2012....The specific Calls for Proposals...seek:  to encourage the publication of research data, and the integration of research data publication with other components of scholarly communications; and  to encourage the development of high quality training materials in research data management, targeted at various important stakeholders...."
"DataFlow is creating a two-stage data management infrastructure that makes it easy for you and your research group to manage your research data. You manage this locally using your own instance of DataStage, while allowing your institution to deploy DataBank easily to preserve and publish your most valuable datasets. Published datasets have assigned DOIs to make them citable and to gain you academic credit...."
Digital research data sharing and management
US National Science Foundation (NSF)http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/nsb1124.pdf
Recommendations for further actions arise from workshop on research data management
A workshop on research data management refined the actions proposed in the ‘Surfboard for "Riding the Wave"’ and proposed further actions in the realm of incentives, training, infrastructure and funding. It was recommended to work on awareness raising and getting into the researcher´s workflow.
Business | Data.gov Communities
"American businesses need to be equipped with the best tools and information available to support innovation and job growth. This site is your front door to the data, apps, and tools the government has to offer your business...."
PROSTO IN ODPRTO DOSTOPNA UČNA TER ŠTUDIJSKA GRADIVA
Open Education Week
Join your colleagues around the world to increase understanding about open education! Open Education Week will take place from 5-10 March 2012 online (http://www.openeducationweek.org/) and in locally hosted events around the world. The OCW Consortium is coordinating this community run event to explore open education projects, resources and institutions around the world. Events will engage you in discussions and presentations about how open sharing in education can foster improvements in teaching and learning globally, make education more accessible, and create opportunities for collaboration and innovation. All live and virtual activities will be free and open to the public.
Open education seeks to reduce barriers to learning for everyone while providing tools and resources that facilitate success. Initiatives in open education include open sharing of high-quality educational materials (Open Educational Resources), flexible and free learning formats that make use of open content, alternative pathways to assessment and certification of learning, and projects that support improvements in educational systems.
Open Educational Resources (OER) are high-quality, free and open educational materials that offer opportunities for people anywhere in the world to share, use and reuse knowledge. OER include course materials, videos, textbooks, podcasts, and other materials that have been produced for educational purposes. OER are openly licensed to allow for free use by anyone. Many open licenses also allow for adaptations or modifications of materials, and some allow for commercial use. The most commonly used licenses are Creative Commons licenses. http://www.openeducationweek.org/
North Carolina Learning Object Repository
Testing the Feasibility of OER-Course Certification | OERtest
"The OERtest project is a two year (Oct. 2010 - Sep. 2012) project funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of European Commision. Its aim is to support the mainstreaming of OERs within Higher Education and to test the feasibility of assessing learning exclusively achieved through the use of Open Educational Resources...."