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.
Archive for the 'Open Access' Category
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.
The "Open Access Policy for University Of Kansas Scholarship" is now available.
Here's an excerpt :
Each faculty member grants to KU permission to make scholarly articles to which he or she made substantial intellectual contributions publicly available in the KU open access institutional repository, and to exercise the copyright in those articles. In legal terms, the permission granted by each faculty member is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do the same, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit. This license in no way interferes with the rights of the KU faculty author as the copyright holder of the work. The policy will apply to all scholarly articles authored or co-authored while a faculty member of KU. Faculty will be afforded an opt out opportunity. Faculty governance in consultation with the Provost's office will develop the details of the policy which will be submitted for approval by the Faculty Senate.
In "More on the U. Kansas OA Policy,"Gavin Bakerr comments:
A Web version of the text of the University of Kansas' new OA policy confirms what I'd suspected in my last post: that the policy as passed doesn't contain an OA mandate. It commits the university to OA, gives the university permission to provide OA to its faculty's research via the IR, and establishes a task force to work out the details—including the details of how the manuscripts will get into the IR.
Open Accessâ€”What Are the Economic Benefits? A Comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and DenmarkPosted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Communication on June 30th, 2009
The Knowledge Exchange has released Open Access—What Are the Economic Benefits? A Comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement:
In June 2009 a study was completed that had been commissioned by Knowledge Exchange and written by Professor John Houghton, Victoria University, Australia. This report on the study was titled: "Open Access—What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark." This report was based on the findings of studies in which John Houghton had modelled the costs and benefits of Open Access in three countries. These studies had been undertaken in the UK by JISC, in the Netherlands by SURF and in Denmark by DEFF.
In the three national studies the costs and benefits of scholarly communication were compared based on three different publication models. The modelling revealed that the greatest advantage would be offered by the Open Access model, which means that the research institution or the party financing the research pays for publication and the article is then freely accessible.
Adopting this model could lead to annual savings of around EUR 70 million in Denmark, EUR 133 million in The Netherlands and EUR 480 in the UK. The report concludes that the advantages would not just be in the long term; in the transitional phase too, more open access to research results would have positive effects. In this case the benefits would also outweigh the costs.
Here's an excerpt:
On June 25, Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (S.1373), a bill that would ensure free, timely, online access to the published results of research funded by eleven U.S. federal agencies. S.1373 would require those agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts stemming from such funding no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The bill gives individual agencies flexibility in choosing the location of the digital repository to house this content, as long as the repositories meet conditions for interoperability and public accessibility, and have provisions for long-term archiving.
The bill specifically covers unclassified research funded by agencies including: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
S. 1373 reflects the growing trend among funding agencies—and college and university campuses—to leverage their investment in the conduct of research by maximizing the dissemination of results. It follows the successful path forged by the NIH’s Public Access Policy, as well as by private funders like the Wellcome Trust, and universities such as Harvard and MIT.
Detailed information about the Federal Research Public Access Act is available at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa.
All supporters of public access—universities and colleges, researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, consumers, individuals, and others—are asked to ACT NOW to support this bill. Here’s how:
- Contact Congress now to express your organization's support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and for this bill. Act now through the ATA Legislative Action Center.
- Contact Congress now to express your individual support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and for this bill.
- Send thanks to the Bill's sponsors—Senators Lieberman and Cornyn.
- Issue a public statement of support from your organization and share it widely with members, colleagues, and the media. Send a copy to sparc [at] arl [dot] org to be featured on the FRPAA Web site.
- Share news about this bill with friends and colleagues.
- Post the "I support taxpayer access" banner on your Web site.
The text of the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 (S 1373) is now available.
Here's an excerpt:
SEC. 4. FEDERAL RESEARCH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY.(a) In General- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, each Federal agency with extramural research expenditures of over $100,000,000 shall develop a Federal research public access policy that is consistent with and advances purposes of the Federal agency.(b) Content- Each Federal research public access policy shall provide for—(1) submission to the Federal agency of an electronic version of the author's final manuscript of original research papers that have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and result from research supported, in whole or in part, from funding by the Federal Government;(2) the incorporation of all changes resulting from the peer review publication process in the manuscript described under paragraph (1);(3) the replacement of the final manuscript with the final published version if—(A) the publisher consents to the replacement; and(B) the goals of the Federal agency for functionality and interoperability are retained;(4) free online public access to such final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after publication in peer-reviewed journals;(5) production of an online bibliography of all research papers that are publicly accessible under the policy, with each entry linking to the corresponding free online full text; and(6) long-term preservation of, and free public access to, published research findings—(A) in a stable digital repository maintained by the Federal agency; or(B) if consistent with the purposes of the Federal agency, in any repository meeting conditions determined favorable by the Federal agency, including free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation.(c) Application of Policy- Each Federal research public access policy shall—(1) apply to—(A) researchers employed by the Federal agency whose works remain in the public domain; and(B) researchers funded by the Federal agency;(2) provide that works described under paragraph (1)(A) shall be—(A) marked as being public domain material when published; and(B) made immediately available under subsection (b)(4); and(3) make effective use of any law or guidance relating to the creation and reservation of a Government license that provides for the reproduction, publication, release, or other uses of a final manuscript for Federal purposes.(d) Exclusions- Each Federal research public access policy shall not apply to—(1) research progress reports presented at professional meetings or conferences;(2) laboratory notes, preliminary data analyses, notes of the author, phone logs, or other information used to produce final manuscripts;(3) classified research, research resulting in works that generate revenue or royalties for authors (such as books) or patentable discoveries, to the extent necessary to protect a copyright or patent; or(4) authors who do not submit their work to a journal or works that are rejected by journals.(e) Patent or Copyright Law- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any right under the provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code.(f) Report-(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than October 1, of each year, the head of each Federal agency shall submit a report on the Federal research public access policy of that agency to—(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate;(B) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives;(C) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives;(D) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate;(E) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate; and(F) any other committee of Congress of appropriate jurisdiction.(2) CONTENT- Each report under this subsection shall include—(A) a statement of the effectiveness of the Federal research public access policy in providing the public with free online access to papers on research funded by the Federal agency;(B) a list of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that report on research funded by the Federal agency;(C) a corresponding list of papers made available by the Federal agency as a result of the Federal research public access policy; and(D) a summary of the periods of time between public availability of each paper in a journal and in the online repository of the Federal agency.(3) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Federal agency shall make the statement under paragraph (2)(A) and the lists of papers under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) available to the public by posting such statement and lists on the website of the Federal agency.
Open Monograph Press to Launch During Second International PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference, July 8-10Posted in Open Access, Open Source Software, Publishing, Scholarly Books on June 28th, 2009
According to "Library Releasing New Publishing Tool," the Public Knowledge Project will launch its new Open Monograph Press during the Second International PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference on July 8-10.
Here's an excerpt from the Open Monograph Press home page:
Open Monograph Press, a new open source publishing product under development by the Public Knowledge Project, will establish an online workspace for publishing monographs, edited volumes, and scholarly editions, while keeping an archival record of the process (compatible with the Fedora repository). . . .
The plans for OMP also include the potential for users to set up a Social Networking Incubator and Workspace system, which would enable editors to create a workspace for authors who appear to have a potential monograph project in hand, giving the author a chance to develop ideas within an invited or more open community, before moving into a formal book proposal and submission process.
This will provide author and editor with a series of tools and spaces that will allow them to see if there is a book residing within the author's article-length work, by bringing together authors and collecting pieces for engagement and response by select communities of interest or potentially by anyone interested, at the author and editor's discretion (Access Scheduler).
Papers and Presentations from EPUB 2009â€”Rethinking Electronic Publishing: Innovation in Communication Paradigms and TechnologiesPosted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Communication on June 28th, 2009
Here's a quick selection of papers:
- Connecting Readers with Open Access Resources: The CUFTS Free! Open Access Collections Group
- Development of Institutional Repositories in Chinese Universities and the Open Access Movement in China
- Overlay Publications: A Functional Overview of the Concept
- PEER: Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
- PLoS One: Background, Future Development, and Article-Level Metrics