In "More on Academic Freedom and OA Funds," Stuart Shieber discusses whether subsidizing open access fees conflicts with academic freedom.

Here's an excerpt:

Kent says "libraries can't control the disbursement of open access fees precisely because of academic freedom." The premise here is that any method an OA fund uses to control disbursement must if effective necessarily cause a change in behavior of authors, for instance encouraging them to publish in less expensive journals over more expensive ones ceteris paribus. This much is true. Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that any such policy that causes behavioral changes in where authors publish is coercive and a violation of academic freedom. They are not "free" to publish in any location because some are financially more attractive to them than others.

But no. Academic freedom means that faculty can study what they want, and publish the results where they want. It doesn't mean that the university must cover all costs for doing so, nor does it mean the university cannot cover some costs and not others in ways that redound to what the university sees as the benefit of its constituencies.

College & Research Libraries has released a preprint of "The Open Access Availability of Library and Information Science Literature" by Doug Way.

Here's an excerpt:

To examine the open access availability of Library and Information Science (LIS) research, a study was conducted using Google Scholar to search for articles from 20 top LIS journals. The study examined whether Google Scholar was able to find any links to full text, if open access versions of the articles were available and where these articles were being hosted. The results showed the archiving of articles is not a regular practice in the field, articles are not being deposited in institutional or subject repositories at a high rate and the overall the percentage of available open access articles in LIS was similar to the findings in previous studies. In addition, the study found that Google Scholar is an effective tool for finding known LIS articles.

The University of Tampere has adopted an open access policy.

Here's an excerpt:

According to the proposal of the work group the Rector would

• request researchers working at the University as of 1 January 2011 to deposit copies of their research articles accepted for publication in scientific journals in the institutional repository provided by the University of Tampere and
• encourage researchers to deposit copies of their publications in the University's repository before the decision comes into force.

Research articles refers in this Decision to single articles to be published in scientific refereed journals, in the University's own publication series, in conference publications or other compilations. The final publisher's version of the article should be deposited in the repository or then the author's last version of the article revised in response to referees' comments (according to the publisher's policy).

The University of Tampere hereby undertakes to provide researchers with the support services required for parallel depositing. The University of Tampere will endeavour to improve publication information systems and to design the process of depositing in a researcher-centred manner.

In addition to the research articles referred to in the Decision, other kinds of publications which may be stored in the open depository provided by the University of Tampere include popular articles, other published written texts, serial publications of University departments, teaching material and, if the publication agreements allow, also monographs.

Tove Faber Frandsen's Ph.D dissertation, "Scholarly CommunicationCchanging: The Implications of Open Access," is now available.

Here's an excerpt:

The dissertation aims at investigating the changing scholarly communication in general and more specifically the implications of open access on scholarly communication. The overall research question is: What are the effects of open access on scholarly communication? The dissertation consists of five empirical studies of various aspects of the implications of open access on scholarly communication.

The five studies, published as journal articles, are bibliometric studies conducted on three different levels. The first level consists of two studies of a general, more explorative character. The first general study analyses the coverage of open access base resources and the second the use of open access journals in the sciences. The next level of analysis consists of two specific studies that look into two widespread assumptions of the implications of open access. The first is the assumption that the developing countries are great beneficiaries of open access and the second is the belief that open access causes more citations. The third level consists of a concluding, perspectival study. The levels in the thesis to some extent also follow the chronological order of the studies.

The Copenhagen Business School has adopted an open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

If articles are published in publication channels that are not readily accessible to the general public or that require a subscription, copies of the article must be made available through OpenArchive@CBS. If an embargo is required by the publishing house an embargo period of up to one year may be respected.

In cases where the publisher refuses to allow open access depositing and / or further use of the scholarly work and where the publication in this specific channel is deemed necessary the Research Dean and the CBS Library will handle the demands for opting-out. The individual author must send a written notification to the library which proposes to the dean whether he should grant the opt-out possibility. The articles not archived for this reason must be registered in OpenArchive@CBS with bibliographical information, a short résumé and information about publication channel.

In the first 3 year period of implementing this policy the questions of opting-out will be dealt with very carefully. The intention of the open access policy is to promote and disseminate as widely as possible the research form CBS not to prevent publishing.

The Executive Management Team, Heads of Departments and Directors of Centers are expected to actively support and encourage faculty in living up to the principles in this policy.

Richard Cave, PLos IT Director, has made his "Open Access Publishing on the Semantic Web" presentation available on SlideShare.

In "E-Biomed 2.0?," Richard Poynder discusses PLoS Currents in the historical content of the National Institutes of Health's ill fated 1999 E-Biomed proposal.

Here's an excerpt:

Looking back one is bound to ask: Was the E-Biomed proposal really so radical and, as some at the time argued, dangerous? As Varmus explained in his proposal, papers posted on E-Biomed would get there by one of two routes: "(i) Many reports would be submitted to editorial boards. These boards could be identical to those that represent current print journals or they might be composed of members of scientific societies or other groups approved by the E-biomed Governing Board. (ii) Other reports would be posted immediately in the E-biomed repository, prior to any conventional peer review, after passing a simple screen for appropriateness."

Heather Morrison has self-archived "SCOAP3: A Key Library Leadership Opportunity in the Transition to Open Access" in the SFU Institutional Repository.

Here's an excerpt:

The SCOAP3 consortium aims to transition the whole of High Energy Physics (HEP) publishing from a subscription to an open access basis. SCOAP3 currently has commitments for more than 63% of the projected 10 million Euros per year budget, from partners in more than 21 countries, including more than 50 libraries and consortia in the U.S. Full participation from the U.S., a leader in HEP research, is both essential and particularly challenging, as the U.S. does not have a national coordinating body that can make one commitment for the country, as many other countries do. While the work to undertake this commitment for the library should not be underestimated – figuring out subscription costs when journals are part of a big deal, often through a consortium – neither should the benefits be underestimated. In brief, the benefits are the optimum access that comes with open access—full open access to the publisher's PDF for everyone, everywhere; a model for transitioning to open access that involves no financial risk, as commitments are capped at current subscriptions expenditures, and SCOAP3 is addressing the issue of unbundling successful journals from big deals and reducing costs accordingly; future financial benefits as a transparent, production-based pricing model for scholarly communication introduces competition into a market where it has been lacking; gaining publisher acceptance of library advocacy efforts for open access by addressing a key concern of publishers (financing the journals in an open access environment) and perhaps most importantly, establishing a leadership role for libraries in a future for scholarly communication that will be largely open access. As Douglas (2009) explains, "To move forward in achieving open access, U.S. libraries that subscribe to any of the five journals that are considered 100 percent convertible to SCOAP3 (European Physical Journal C, Journal of High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics B, Physical Review D, and Physics Letters B) need to participate". If this describes your library, please go to the SCOAP3 website, now, to learn more and participate in this innovative global collaboration that can be a model, not only for transitioning to open access, but also for how humankind can work cooperatively across borders to accomplish a great good that will benefit all of us.

In "A Taxonomy of Articles in PubMed Central," Jim Till examines the open access characteristics of articles deposited in PubMed Central that were published between April 7, 2008 and August 7, 2008.

Here's an excerpt:

Summary: The total number of articles published in the 4-month interval (April 7 to August 7, 2008) and contributed to PMC was 23960. The four subtypes of articles in PMC, and their estimated proportions during this 4-month interval, are: 1) Author manuscripts that are publicly accessible (7346/23960=30.7%); 2) Articles that are embargoed (378/23960=1.6%); 3) Articles that are Libre OA (3635/23960=15.2%); 4) Other articles that are publicly accessible, via Gratis OA (12601/23960=52.5%). These proportions are probably not very different for the subset of NIH-supported articles, if it's assumed that, during this 4-month interval, about 50-60% of the articles contributed to PMC were NIH-supported.

The Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, which is funded by the Government of British Columbia, adopted an "Open Access to Research Outputs Policy" on July 6, 2009. (Thanks to Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure.)

Here's an excerpt:

All MSFHR Award Recipients who receive an award or an award renewal after July 7, 2009 must ensure that all final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from research supported by that award (in whole or in part) are made freely accessible through either the Publisher's website or an online repository within six months of publication.

The Policy applies to any manuscript that is supported from funding in whole or in part from a MSFHR Award. The manuscript must be peer-reviewed and is accepted for publication in a journal on or after July 7, 2009. This includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article. The Policy does not apply to non-peer-reviewed materials such as book chapters, reports, monographs, conference proceedings and editorials.

Additionally, Award Recipients are now required to deposit bioinformatics, atomic, and molecular coordinate data, as already required by most journals, into the appropriate public database immediately upon publication of research results.

Authors are encouraged, but are not required, to submit final peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted before July 7, 2009, if they have appropriate copyright permission. MSFHR Award Recipients are responsible for ensuring that any publishing agreements concerning submitted manuscripts fully comply with this Policy.

Roger Clarke and Danny Kingsley have published "Open Access to Journal Content as a Case Study in Unlocking IP" in the latest issue of SCRIPTed.

Here's an excerpt:

The Internet has brought with it both means to disseminate and access content, and an enhanced expectation that content will generally be readily accessible. This has threatened entrenched for-profit activities, which have long prospered on closed, proprietary approaches to publishing, facilitated by anti-consumer provisions in copyright laws. The ePrints and Open Access (OA) movements have been complemented by the emergence of electronic repositories in which authors can deposit copies of their works.

The accessibility of refereed papers published in journals represents a litmus test of the extent to which openness is being achieved in the face of the power of corporations whose business model is dependent on the exploitation of intellectual property (IP). A specification of the requirements for "Unlocking IP" in refereed papers is presented and applied, leading to the conclusion that a great deal of progress appears to have been made. The copyright arrangements applied by most publishers enable authors to self-deposit PrePrints of their papers on their own web-sites and in open repositories; and in many cases authors can also self-deposit the PostPrint, i.e. the author's copy of the final version.

The theoretical success of the OA, ePrints and repositories movements has not – or at least not yet – resulted in success in practice. This is because only a small proportion of papers are actually self-deposited, and a large proportion of refereed papers continue to be accessible only through highly-expensive subscriptions to journals and journal-collections controlled by for-profit publishers. The unlocking of IP in refereed papers is therefore still very much a work-in-progress. Moreover, the gains may be ceded back to the for-profit publishing industry, unless concerted efforts are made within academe.

Harold Varmus has announced an experimental open access publication, PLoS Currents: Influenza.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

PLoS Currents: Influenza, which we are launching today, is built on three key components: a small expert research community that PLoS is working with to run the website; Google Knol with new features that allow content to be gathered together in collections after being vetted by expert moderators; and a new, independent database at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) called Rapid Research Notes, where research targeted for rapid communication, such as the content in PLoS Currents: Influenza will be freely and permanently accessible. To ensure that researchers are properly credited for their work, PLoS Currents content will also be given a unique identifier by the NCBI so that it is citable. . . .

To enable contributions to PLoS Currents: Influenza to be shared as rapidly as possible, they will not be subject to in-depth peer review; however, unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators led by Eddie Holmes (Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Pennsylvania State University, USA) and Peter Palese (Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, USA).

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world's scientific and medical communities. Google Knol's features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.