Archive for the 'Open Access' Category

All Harvard Schools Now Have Open Access Policies

Posted in Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Self-Archiving on October 24th, 2014

With the adoption of an open access policy in June by the Harvard Medical School, all Harvard schools now have open access policies.

Here’s an excerpt from the announcement:

Harvard Medical School adopted an open-access policy on June 18, 2014, by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Council. The new policy covers both "quad"-based and clinical faculty. Now all Harvard schools have open-access policies.

Like the other Harvard policies, the Medical School policy insures that faculty members automatically retain a license to share their research papers freely through DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), the University’s open-access repository. Faculty also have the option to waive this license for any article, preserving their freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice. When faculty write articles covered by the Medical School policy and the policy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they need only deposit once to comply with both.

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

Be Sociable, Share!

    Purdue e-Pubs Repository Tops 8 Million Downloads

    Posted in Institutional Repositories, Open Access on October 24th, 2014

    The Purdue e-Pubs repository has had over 8 million downloads.

    Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

    To date, every college on Purdue's West Lafayette campus has a presence in the repository. Purdue e-Pubs continues to be a central place on campus advancing the impact of scholarship at the global, national and local level. Purdue University Libraries began providing the Purdue e-Pubs service to the campus community in 2006 as a means to openly share research and scholarship in a stable, open, and citable format.

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

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Library Publishing Directory, Second Edition

      Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Research Libraries on October 23rd, 2014

      Library Publishing Coalition has released the Library Publishing Directory, second edition .

      Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

      Published just in time for Open Access Week, the Directory illustrates the many ways in which libraries are actively transforming and advancing scholarly communications in partnership with scholars, students, university presses, and others.

      In documenting the breadth and depth of activities in this field, this resource aims to articulate the unique value of library publishing; establish it as a significant and growing community of practice; and to raise its visibility within a number of stakeholder communities, including administrators, funding agencies, other scholarly publishers, librarians, and content creators.

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

      Be Sociable, Share!

        "PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors"

        Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on October 22nd, 2014

        Phil Davis has published "PeerJ Grows Steadily With Papers, Authors" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

        Here's an excerpt:

        PeerJ is growing, publishing more papers and attracting more authors, although it is not clear whether the company is moving toward financial sustainability. In a crowded market of multidisciplinary open access journals, the success/failure of PeerJ may be determined when it receives its first Impact Factor.

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

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "The Open Access Advantage for American Law Reviews"

          Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on October 21st, 2014

          James M. Donovan et al. have self-archived "The Open Access Advantage for American Law Reviews."

          Here's an excerpt:

          Articles available in open access formats enjoy an advantage in citation by subsequent law review works of 53%. For every two citations an article would otherwise receive, it can expect a third when made freely available on the Internet. This benefit is not uniformly spread through the law school tiers. Higher tier journals experience a lower OA advantage (11.4%) due to the attention such prestigious works routinely receive regardless of the format. When focusing on the availability of new scholarship, as compared to creating retrospective collections, the aggregated advantage rises to 60.2%. While the first tier advantage rises to 16.8%, the mid-tiers skyrocket to 89.7%. The fourth tier OA advantage comes in at 81.2%.

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

          Be Sociable, Share!

            Data from Nature and Palgrave Macmillan’s Author Insights Survey

            Posted in Open Access, Publishing on October 21st, 2014

            Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan have released data from their Author Insights Survey.

            Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

            The survey, which contains views from 30,466 researchers, is the biggest publisher survey of authors' views to be made open access.

            NPG and Palgrave Macmillan are making this anonymised data available in order to achieve greater understanding between authors, funders and publishers, particularly with regard to open access.

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

            Be Sociable, Share!

              "Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score"

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

              Philippe Vincent-Lamarre et al. have self-archived Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score.

              Here's an excerpt:

              MELIBEA is a Spanish database that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the effectiveness of Open Access mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed 68 mandated institutions for publication years 2011-2013 to determine how well the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of published articles indexed by Web of Knowledge is deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when. We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between MELIBEA score and deposit percentage. We also found that for three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or deposit latency (immediate deposit required, deposit required for performance evaluation, unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula for mandate effectiveness to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power doubled (.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but these findings already suggest that it would be useful for future mandates to adopt these three conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

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

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "Exposing the Predators: Methods to Stop Predatory Journals"

                Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on October 15th, 2014

                Margot Wehrmeijer has self-archived "Exposing the Predators: Methods to Stop Predatory Journals."

                Here's an excerpt:

                This thesis looks at three possible methods to stop predatory journals: black-and white-lists, open peer review systems and new metrics. Black- and white-lists have set up rules and regulations that credible publishers and journals should follow. Open peer review systems should make it harder for predatory publishers to make false claims about their peer review process. Metrics should measure more aspects of research impact and become less liable to gaming. The question is, which of these three methods is the best candidate to stop predatory journals.

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

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Page 3 of 14212345...102030...Last »

                  DigitalKoans

                  DigitalKoans

                  Digital Scholarship

                  Copyright © 2005-2014 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

                  Creative Commons License

                  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.