Archive for the 'Open Access' Category

Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey June 2014

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on July 1st, 2014

Taylor & Francis has released the Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey June 2014.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

In the first few months of 2014 Taylor & Francis carried out a worldwide survey, with the aim of exploring journal authors' views on open access.

Having previously conducted a survey on open access in 2013, we have been able to see how authors' opinions have developed, and whether the discussion and debate on open access has helped to inform and shape views.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"The Subversive Proposal at 20"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on July 1st, 2014

Richard Poynder has published "The Subversive Proposal at 20" in Open and Shut?

Here's an excerpt:

Twenty years ago yesterday, cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad posted a message on a mailing list, a message he headed "A Subversive Proposal." This called on all researchers to make copies of the papers they published in scholarly journals freely available on the Internet. . . .

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Subversive Proposal, I emailed Harnad nine questions yesterday. These questions are published below, with Harnad's answers attached.

Digital Scholarship | "A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher"

"The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Countries in the Mediterranean Open Access Network (MedOANet)"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Self-Archiving on June 26th, 2014

Thomas Eger et al. have self-archived "The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Countries in the Mediterranean Open Access Network (MedOANet)."

Here's an excerpt:

We discuss the results of a survey conducted between April 2013 and May 2014 in six Mediterranean countries and covering 2,528 researchers from Spain (1,291), Portugal (142), France (380), Italy (596), Turkey (131) and Greece (130). We compare the results to our German survey with 1,913 respondents. We show that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researcher's awareness of and experience with both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. Accordingly, the publishing culture (e.g. reputation, publishing language) but also other issues like age and certain policies (MedOANet) may explain why researchers make more frequent use of OA publishing in some countries and disciplines.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

A Quarter-Century as an Open Access Publisher

Posted in Bibliographies, Digital Scholarship Publications, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Books, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Journals, Social Media/Web 2.0 on June 23rd, 2014


Twenty-five years? It's hard to believe I've been doing this since Madonna's "Express Yourself" was in the top 40. I don't typically write about personal matters in DigitalKoans, but here's a mini-memoir, so please indulge me.

Here are the highlights of my open access publishing activities since June 1989. A full chronology is also available.

PACS-L and the The Public-Access Computer Systems Review

Twenty-five years ago I went to the ALA Annual Conference and passed out a few leaflets announcing the Public-Access Computer Systems Forum (PACS-L), a LISTSERV list intended to foster discussion on the then-revolutionary idea that library users could access digital information themselves instead of submitting database search requests to librarians. At the time, PCs were being used to provide access to databases on CD-ROMs and some avant-garde libraries were providing access to "locally-mounted databases" on minicomputers. In 1989, librarians were reading papers such as "Library Applications of CD-ROM"; "Loading Local Machine-Readable Data Files: Issues, Problems, and Answers"; and my "Public-Access Computer Systems: The Next Generation of Library Automation Systems."

I was particularly interested in the emergence of public-access computer systems because the University of Houston, where I worked as the library's Assistant Director for Systems, had a President who envisioned a bold new age of digital information access. One of my first tasks when I a took the job in 1987 was to flesh-out, in a couple of weeks, the details of this vision for a very substantial grant proposal. By the summer of 1989, I had spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the literature on "electronic publishing" and grappling with how to make the potential real. The library's visionary director, Robin N. Downes, was very supportive of my starting PACS-L (and of my subsequent digital publishing efforts at UH).

My expectations at ALA were modest; however, the timing was right and PACS-L was one of the first lists to focus on a broad topic rather than a single library automation system. Moreover, PACS-L soon morphed into a list that dealt with the nascent Internet and its implications for libraries and electronic publishing. Consequently, it grew rapidly, and, within a year, had over 1,400 subscribers (at its peak, it had over 10,000 subscribers).

In this uber-interactive age, it is difficult to convey the early excitement that the development of this new digital community held, especially as it became more international. In short order, I began to consider the possibility of launching an e-journal, and I floated the idea on PACS-L.

Although the technological infrastructure of the time was primitive at best, on August 16, 1989, I announced the The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, an e-journal whose articles would be distributed as ASCII text files using a LISTSERV server. Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The Public-Access Computer Systems Review will contain short articles (1 to 7 single-spaced pages), columns, and reviews. PACS Review will cover all computer systems that libraries make available to their patrons, including CAI and ICAI programs, CD-ROM databases, expert systems, hypermedia systems, information delivery systems, local databases, online catalogs, and remote end-user search systems. All types of short communications dealing with these subjects are welcome. Articles that present innovative projects in libraries, even those at an early stage of their development, are especially welcome. Proposals for regular (or irregular) columns will be considered on an ongoing basis. There will be a section for reviews of books, journal articles, reports, and software.

A call for papers was issued in October, and the first issue was announced in January 1990. The journal became peer-reviewed in November 1991.

Starting with its first issue, The Public-Access Computer Systems Review was freely available, allowed noncommercial use, and allowed authors to retain their copyrights. There was no established theoretical or legal context for doing so. The concept of "open access" wouldn't be articulated until the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration in February 2002, and the Creative Commons wouldn't release its first license until December 2002.

Needless to say, the journal was product of many hands, including its hardworking editorial staff, its very engaged editorial board, its risk-taking authors, and its columnists.

From 1994 through 2005 (the only years that data is available), The Public-Access Computer Systems Review had over 3.5 million file requests.

In the early 1990s, I also cofounded and coedited Public-Access Computer Systems News, which published short news items, and founded and moderated the PACS-P list, which announced new e-serials issues for publications such as Current Cites.

The Public-Access Computer Systems Review and Public-Access Computer Systems News are preserved in the Internet Archive. The University of Houston has a partial archive of the The Public-Access Computer Systems Review (only ASCII versions of articles, not the HTML website or HTML versions of articles published from 1995 onwards) and a complete archive of Public-Access Computer Systems News. After the University of Houston deleted the PACS-L archive in 2013, it is no longer publicly available.

For more details about PACS-L and The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, see:

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography evolved out of three bibliographies about "electronic publishing on networks" that I published in The Public-Access Computer Systems Review. I was motivated to write them because it was difficult to track this emerging trend using conventional indexes, and I thought that making this information more accessible would foster the further development of digital publishing.

The final bibliography in this series, "Network-Based Electronic Publishing of Scholarly Works: A Selective Bibliography," was the result of an experimental publishing strategy that I tried in the journal: the option for authors to update their articles. This article was updated 26 times between March 1995 and October 1996.

By its final version, the bibliography had outgrown the article format, and I transformed it into an electronic book: the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. Since the literature never stopped changing, I decided that the book wouldn't either: it would be updated periodically. And so it was: 80 times from October 1996 through October 2011. Always freely available, I put it under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License in July 2004.

Over the course of its evolution, it was distributed as PDF files, printed books, a website, and Word files. By the time the last print version was published in early 2011, it was over 460 pages long. Along the way, a directory of related resources ("Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources, which was published from 2000 though 2009) and a weblog that listed new works (the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog, which was published from 2001 through 2013) were added to the bibliography.

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography is archived at Digital Scholarship and the Internet Archive. The University of Houston Libraries no longer maintains an archive of the e-book.

From October 1996 through December 2005, the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography had over 5.5 million file requests.

For more information about the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, see:

Digital Scholarship

By 2005, I felt that the technological infrastructure had evolved to the point where it was feasible for a single individual to perform all the functions of a digital publisher, and I established my own open access digital press, Digital Scholarship. As you know, it provides information and commentary about digital copyright, digital curation, digital repositories, open access, scholarly communication, and other digital information issues. Its publications are under versions of the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-Noncommercial Licenses. I also established DigitalKoans that year to provide timely coverage of those topics.

In November 2006, I resigned my position as Assistant Dean for Digital Library Planning and Development at the University of Houston Libraries, and I migrated the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography to Digital Scholarship.

Until 2009, Digital Scholarship only published digital works. In May of that year, I published the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition as a low-cost paperback with an open access digital version.

To date, Digital Scholarship has published the following works:

Not unexpectedly, the most popular books, aside from the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, have been those about open access:

  • Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals: 0ver 627,000 file requests.
  • Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography: Over 637,000 file requests.

During the time it was published by Digital Scholarship, all digital versions of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography had over 7.1 million file requests, bringing the total number of file requests to over 12.6 million.

From April 2005 through May 2014, Digital Scholarship had over 13.7 million visitors from 230 counties and over 66.8 million file requests.

By analyzing Digital Scholarship log data with Weblog Expert, it is possible to separate out spider requests, to break out page views (a page view would be for a Epub, HTM, HTML, PDF, text, or Word file), to determine the number of unique IPs, and to gauge bandwidth use.

Here's the breakdown for the same period:

  • Total file requests: Over 66.8 million
  • Spider file requests: Over 26.2 million (about 39% of file requests)
  • Total page views: Over 47.7 million (about 71% of file requests)
  • Total unique IPs: 1.4 million
  • Total bandwidth: Over 1,700 GB


In the age of Google, bibliographies may seem antiquated. Digital Scholarship's use data argues otherwise. Certainly, the scholarly information that users are seeking is typically on search engines, but extracting it can be a time-consuming and vexing process. For example, in the early days of the open access movement, Google search results for this topic were replete with papers about surgical procedures, restricted access to beaches, and other false drops.

My publishing efforts have been driven by advocacy. I write to foster the development of causes that I care about. I hope that my contributions have had a positive impact on them.

As to the future of Digital Scholarship, I haven't taken a lengthy publishing vacation in 25 years, so it may be time for a sabbatical. I've become increasingly involved in creating digital art, and that taking up more of my time. We'll see.

Preservation-wise, I've put the major works in the Internet Archive, but, as an individual unaffiliated with a university, can't do much beyond that. As you would imagine, I have extensive digital work files and publication use data dating from the dawn of open access, but I'm not sure how to archive them.

So, onward, and, hopefully, upward. Thanks for your interest and support over the last quarter-century.

And a special thanks to the The Public-Access Computer Systems Review editorial staff, editorial board, and columnists:


  • Pat Ensor (1997-2000)
  • Thomas C. Wilson (1997-2000)


  • Leslie Dillon, Associate Editor (1990) and Associate Editor, Columns (1991-1997)
  • Elizabeth A. Dupuis, Associate Editor, Columns (1997-2000)
  • John E. Fadell, Copy Editor (1998-2000)
  • Andrea Bean Hough, Associate Editor, Communications (1997-2000)
  • Mike Ridley, Associate Editor (1989-1990) and Associate Editor, Reviews (1991)
  • Dana Rooks, Associate Editor, Communications (1991-1997)
  • Robert Spragg, Associate Editor, Technical Support (1996-2000)
  • Roy Tennant, Associate Editor, Reviews (1992-1993)
  • Ann Thornton, Associate Editor, Production (1995-2000)

Editorial Board:

  • Ralph Alberico (1992-2000)
  • George H. Brett II (1992-2000)
  • Priscilla Caplan (1994-2000)
  • Steve Cisler (1992-2000)
  • Walt Crawford (1989-2000)
  • Lorcan Dempsey (1992-2000)
  • Pat Ensor (1994-1996)
  • Nancy Evans (1989-2000)
  • Stephen Harter (1997-2000)
  • Charles Hildreth (1992-2000)
  • Ronald Larsen (1992-2000)
  • Clifford Lynch (1992-2000)
  • David R. McDonald (1989-2000)
  • R. Bruce Miller (1989-2000)
  • Ann Okerson (1997-2000)
  • Paul Evan Peters (1989-1996)
  • Mike Ridley (1992-2000)
  • Peggy Seiden (1995-2000)
  • Peter Stone (1989-2000)
  • John E. Ulmschneider (1992-2000)


  • Priscilla Caplan (1992-1998)
  • Walt Crawford (1989-1995)
  • Martin Halbert (1990-1993)

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Liberating the Publications of a Distinguished Scholar: A Pilot Project"

Posted in Copyright, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Research Libraries, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on June 20th, 2014

Julie Kelly has published "Liberating the Publications of a Distinguished Scholar: A Pilot Project" in Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.

Here's an excerpt:

Many distinguished scholars published the primary corpus of their work before the advent of online journals, which makes it more challenging to access. Upon being approached by a distinguished Emeritus Professor seeking advice about getting his work posted online, librarians at the University of Minnesota worked to gain copyright permissions to scan and upload older works to the University's Digital Conservancy (UDC). This project then uniquely took the process one step further, using the sharing option of RefWorks to make these works accessible to the widest possible audience while concurrently offering the sophisticated functionality of a citation manager. With open access repositories gaining acceptance as an authoritative long-term venue for making resources available online, including older content that can be digitized, the methods developed in this pilot project could easily be followed by others, thus greatly increasing access to older literature from distinguished scholars.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"The Dark Side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: The Case of Latin-American Repositories"

Posted in Google and Other Search Engines, Institutional Repositories, Open Access on June 19th, 2014

Enrique Orduña-Malea et al. have self-archived "The Dark Side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: The Case of Latin-American Repositories."

Here's an excerpt:

The main objective of this study is to ascertain the presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and visibility indicators. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of open access content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to open access, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of open access scholarly literature.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"Research Data Sharing: Developing a Stakeholder-Driven Model for Journal Policies"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on June 5th, 2014

Paul Sturges et al. have self-archived "Research Data Sharing: Developing a Stakeholder-Driven Model for Journal Policies."

Here's an excerpt:

The Journal Research Data (JoRD) Project was a JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) funded feasibility study on the possible shape of a central service on journal research data policies. The objectives of the study included, amongst other considerations: to identify the current state of journal data sharing policies and to investigate the views and practices of stakeholders to data sharing. The project confirmed that a large percentage of journals do not have a policy on data sharing, and that there are inconsistencies between the traceable journal data sharing policies. Such a state leaves authors unsure of whether they should deposit data relating to articles and where and how to share that data. In the absence of a consolidated infrastructure for the easy sharing of data, a journal data sharing model policy was developed. The model policy was developed from comparing the quantitative information gathered from analysing existing journal data policies with qualitative data collected from the stakeholders concerned. This article summarises the information gathered, outlines the process by which the model was developed and presents the model journal data sharing policy in full.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"PLOS Data Policy: Catalyst for a Better Research Process"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on June 3rd, 2014

Emma Ganley has published "PLOS Data Policy: Catalyst for a Better Research Process" in College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

PLOS is seeking to ensure the ongoing utility of research, as making a paper openly accessible is enhanced enormously if that paper is linked seamlessly to the data from which it was constructed. In a time when post-publication peer review is more prevalent and data frequently come under intense public scrutiny, with whistle-blowers, blogs, and websites dedicated to investigating the validity and veracity of scientific publications, requiring access to the relevant data leads to a more rigorous scientific record.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Learned Society Attitudes towards Open Access: Report on Survey Results

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 28th, 2014

EDP Open has released Learned Society Attitudes towards Open Access: Report on Survey Results.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Key findings include:

  • Learned societies overwhelmingly agree that Open Access will inevitably place some learned societies' journals into financial jeopardy.
  • Competing with large Open Access specialist publishers was also considered a significant challenge for learned societies.
  • Gold Open Access is the Open Access method that is least offered by learned society journals, however nearly two-thirds of learned societies indicated that they would like to be offering this option.
  • More than ever before, with so many journals being published Open Access of dubious origin, learned societies should look to endorse content with a stamp of quality and authority.
  • Collaboration between learned societies could help in the transition to Open Access, by pooling resources and sharing complex tasks.
  • Two-thirds of all learned societies are also looking for support on best approach to OA, and compliance with funder mandates.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Open Access: Markup of Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act Reduces Embargo Period

Posted in Legislation and Government Regulation, Open Access, Publishing on May 26th, 2014

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has marked up the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act (FIRST Act), significantly reducing the embargo period for making works open access.

Here's an excerpt from "FIRST Act Amended to Make Open Access Provision Actually Pretty Good":

Calling this [Section 303 in the prior version of the bill] a "public access" section is a charitable reading: it extended embargo periods to up to three years, it allowed for simple linking to articles rather than the creation of an archive, and it delayed implementation unnecessarily long. (We've ranted about this bill time and again.)

But a glimmer of hope appeared at yesterday's markup. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Zoe Lofgren, introduced an amendment that radically changed Section 303. The new amendment [pdf] maps closely onto Sensenbrenner's Public Access to Public Science Act (H.R. 3157). It sets the embargo period at 12 months (like the NIH's current policy), though it allows stakeholders to extend this by 6 months if they can show a "substantial and unique harm." The amendment was also designed to facilitate long-term preservation, broad analysis of works, and closer investigation of broad copyright licenses. The current version is not perfect, but it is much improved—huge kudos to Sensenbrenner and Lofgren for standing up for open access.

Read more about it at "Revised FIRST Bill Would Give Science Agencies 1 Year to Make Papers Free."

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Canadian Researchers’ Publishing Attitudes and Behaviours

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers on May 16th, 2014

Canadian Science Publishing has released Canadian Researchers' Publishing Attitudes and Behaviours.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Some key findings described in the report:

  • Researchers agree with principle, not cost, of open access (OA)
  • Almost half of the researchers reported publishing more than half of their research in open access format in past 2 years, yet availability of open access was 8 times less important than impact factor and 13 times less important than journal reputation when selecting a journal
  • For those who have published OA, institutions and tri-agency funding typically cover cost, yet many researchers indicated they did not know whether Canada's major funding bodies support OA
  • Peer review, reach, and discoverability are considered most important journal features
  • Use of repositories differs widely across disciplines
  • Laboratory/institutional blogs or websites and social media are increasingly being used for research dissemination

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

"The Embargoes Don’t Work: The British Academy Provides the Best Evidence Yet"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Self-Archiving on May 15th, 2014

Cameron Neylon has "The Embargoes Don't Work: The British Academy Provides the Best Evidence Yet" in PLOS Opens.

Here's an excerpt:

Embargoes are an artificial monopoly created to make the competition a bit less fierce. But truly, if a publisher believes that they add value and wants to be competitive then why should they fear a Word doc sitting on the web? Indeed if they do it suggests a lack of confidence in the additional value that they offer in the version of record. The best way to give yourself that confidence is to be tough on yourself and take a good look at how and where you add value. And the best way to do that is to compete successfully with "free."

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Page 21 of 111« First...10...1920212223...304050...Last »



Digital Scholarship

Copyright © 2005-2017 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.