BioMed Central has released presentations about its open access publishing activities that were made at a recent workshop for publishing consultants. Included was Matthew Cockerill's "10 Years of Open Access at BioMed Central" presentation.
Archive for the 'Open Access' Category
A new open access journal, Scholarly and Research Communication, has been established.
Here's an excerpt from the journal's home page:
Scholarly and Research Communication is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, Open Access, online journal that publishes original contributions to the understanding of production, dissemination, and usage of knowledge. It emphasizes the dynamics of representation and changing organizational elements, including technologically mediated workflows, ownership, and legal structures. Contributions are welcomed in all media and span formal research and analysis; technical reports and demonstration; commentary, and review.
Also see Rowland Lorimer's presentation "Scholarly and Research Communication: A Journal and Some Founding Ideas."
Presentations from the CNI Spring 2009 Task Force Meeting are now available.
- David S.H. Rosenthal's "How Are We Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents?" (video)
- Project Briefings
- Closing Plenary Session
Devon Greyson et al. have self-archived "Open Access Archiving and Article Citations within Health Services and Policy Research" in E-LIS.
Here's an excerpt:
Promoting uptake of research findings is an objective common to those who fund, produce and publish health services and policy research. Open access (OA) is one method being employed to maximize impact. OA articles are online, free to access and use. This paper contributes to growing body of research exploring the “OA advantage” by employing an article-level analysis comparing citation rates for articles drawn from the same, purposively selected journals. We used a two-stage analytic approach designed to test whether OA is associated with (1) likelihood that an article is cited at all and (2) total number citations that an article receives, conditional on being cited at least once. Adjusting for potential confounders: number of authors, time since publication, journal, and article subject, we found that OA archived articles were 60% more likely to be cited at least once, and, once cited, were cited 29% more than non-OA articles.
Video Presentations from Open Access to Science Publications—Policy Perspective, Opportunities and Challenges ConferencePosted in Open Access on July 15th, 2009
Video presentations from the Centre for Internet and Society's Open Access to Science Publications—Policy Perspective, Opportunities and Challenges conference are now available.
The PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference Blog 2009 has been providing very extensive coverage of this conference, with a number of interesting posts on open access topics (especially open access publishing).
The Connotea performance problems that were affecting the ability to login and the ability to read its feeds appear to have been resolved. New items are being added to the OA Tracking Project feeds.
Since a maintenance period yesterday morning, Connotea has had performance problems that have affected the ability to login and the ability to read its feeds. Consequently, the OA Tracking Project feeds have been affected as well.
Michael Jensen, Director of Strategic Web Communications at National Academies Press, has made a digital video of his presentation "Scholarly Publishing in the New Era of Scarcity 2010-2025" available on YouTube (part 1 and part 2).
Here's an excerpt from the abstract:
[Jensen] posits "an inconvenient truth" for scholarly publishers, and advocates that they restructure their business model toward a new environmentally friendly and economically efficient digital-primary, open-access (OA) model, including seeking support and partnership from their home universities and institutions, due to the urgency of environmental and economic collapse foreseen in the next ten years. Speech given at the Association of American University Presses Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, June 20, 2009.
Here's an excerpt:
As for ACM's stand on the open-access issue, I'd describe it as "cloven," somewhere between open and closed. (In topology, a cloven set is one that is both open and closed.) ACM does charge a price for its publications, but this price is very reasonable. (If you do not believe me, ask your librarian.) ACM's modest publication revenues first go to cover ACM's publication costs that go beyond print costs to include the cost of online distribution and preservation, and then to support the rest of ACM activities. To me, this is a very important point. The "profits" do not go to some corporate owners; they are used to support the activities of the association, and the association is us, the readers, authors, reviewers, and editors of ACM publications. Furthermore, ACM operates as a democratic association. If you believe that ACM should change its publishing business model, then you should lobby for this position. . . .
Just remember, "free" is not a sound business model.
The open access movement owes a huge debt of gratitude to Peter and to Gavin Baker (who joined OAN on February 03, 2008) for their incredible work on OAN, which passed 15,000 posts on September 29, 2008. Unless you have done it, it's difficult to appreciate how time-consuming doing this kind of high-volume news and commentary blogging is, which involves a considerable amount of effort to identify, filter, summarize, and comment on relevant and timely news items. OAN is not just an excellent current news source—it's an important advocacy platform and the best historical chronicle of the open access movement that exists.
Here's an excerpt from "Housekeeping":
Today I step back from systematic daily blogging in order to free up time for my new position at the Berkman Center.
The blog itself will continue and Gavin will continue at something like his current pace. I will continue my daily crawl for OA-related news. I'll continue to tag what I find for the OA tracking project (OATP). I'll continue to write the monthly SPARC Open Access Newsletter (SOAN). I'll continue to work full-time for OA.
I'll even continue to blog, though only sporadically. Open Access News (OAN) will be smaller and more selective than in the past. I cannot assure you that the news it covers will be the most important subset. (That presupposes that Gavin and I will be on top of all new developments and in a position to pick the most important.) I'll blog what I notice, what moves me, and what I have time for, with the accent on the third criterion. It should be a eclectic bunch. I know that I'll notice a lot of important news, thanks to OATP, and I know that I'll be moved to blog a lot of it. But because of my new projects, even the most important news will be important news that I only have time to tag, not to blog.
For a comprehensive source of OA news, subscribe to the OATP feed, which is available by RSS, email, and a blog-like web page with the most recent items displayed first. The OATP feed has been more comprehensive than this blog since April and it grows more comprehensive and useful every day. To help the cause, please join OATP as a tagger and help select new items for inclusion in the feed. For more details, see the OATP home page or my SOAN article about it from May 2009.
In "University Open-Access Policies as Mandates," Stuart M. Shieber, Director of Harvard's Office for Scholarly Communication, discusses the difference between university open access policies and university open access mandates and whether it matters.
Here's an excerpt:
Try the following thought experiment. Suppose a policy on faculty were established that granted to the university a license in faculty articles but did not explicitly provide for a waiver of the license. Now imagine that a faculty member has an article accepted by a highly prestigious journal that does not allow for author distribution and will not accept an amendment of its copyright transfer policy. Perhaps the author is a junior faculty member soon up for tenure, whose promotion case will be considerably weakened without the publication in question. The author might naturally want to have the license waived even though no waiver is explicitly provided for. The faculty member is likely to storm into the dean’s office, howling about the unconscionable practice of taking rights even when it harms the faculty member. Is the university going to distribute the article anyway against the express wishes of the faculty member? Be serious. The dean says "Fine, we won’t make use of the license for this article." Voilà, a waiver. So much for university rights retention mandates.