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).
Archive for the 'Open Access' Category
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.
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.