Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon have published "Open Access versus Subscription Journals: A Comparison of Scientific Impact" in BMC Medicine.

Here's an excerpt:

Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

The European Research Council has released Open Access Status of Journal Articles from ERC-Funded Projects.

Here's an excerpt:

The main objective of this analysis is to estimate the extent to which journal articles from ERC funded projects are available in an open access. . . .

The results show that 62 % of journal articles from ERC funded projects are available in open access. The share of articles in open access varies across research domains. It is close to 70 % in Life Sciences, 65 % in Physical Sciences and Engineering and nearer 50 % in Social Sciences and Humanities. A comparison with the data on open access status provided by the grant holders in their mid-term reports shows that self-reporting leads to an underestimation of the proportion of open access articles.

| Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals | Digital Scholarship |

Yesterday DigitalKoans reported on the Research Councils UK's new open access policy. Today, the European Commission has announced another major open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The European Commission today outlined measures to improve access to scientific information produced in Europe. Broader and more rapid access to scientific papers and data will make it easier for researchers and businesses to build on the findings of public-funded research. This will boost Europe's innovation capacity and give citizens quicker access to the benefits of scientific discoveries. In this way, it will give Europe a better return on its €87 billion annual investment in R&D. The measures complement the Commission's Communication to achieve a European Research Area (ERA), also adopted today.

As a first step, the Commission will make open access to scientific publications a general principle of Horizon 2020, the EU's Research & Innovation funding programme for 2014-2020. As of 2014, all articles produced with funding from Horizon 2020 will have to be accessible:

• articles will either immediately be made accessible online by the publisher ('Gold' open access)—up-front publication costs can be eligible for reimbursement by the European Commission; or
• researchers will make their articles available through an open access repository no later than six months (12 months for articles in the fields of social sciences and humanities) after publication ('Green' open access).

The Commission has also recommended that Member States take a similar approach to the results of research funded under their own domestic programmes. The goal is for 60% of European publicly-funded research articles to be available under open access by 2016.

The Commission will also start experimenting with open access to the data collected during publicly funded research (e.g. the numerical results of experiments), taking into account legitimate concerns related to the fundee's commercial interests or to privacy.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

David Willetts, the UK Minister for Science and Universities, has issued "Government Response to the Finch Group Report: 'Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications'."

Here's an excerpt:

The Government has listened carefully to what publishers, learned societies and the Finch Group collectively have had to say on this issue. We prefer the 'gold' over the 'green' model, especially where the research is taxpayer funded so the Government agrees with the sentiment expressed in the Finch Report. Embargo periods allowed by funding bodies for publishers should be short where publishers have chosen not to take up the preferred option of their receiving an Article Processing Charge (which provides payment in full for immediate publication by the 'gold OA' route). Where APC funds are not available to the publisher or learned society, for the publication of publicly-funded research, then publishers could reasonably insist on a longer more equitable embargo period. This could be up to 12 months for science, technology and engineering publications and longer for publications in those disciplines which require more time to secure payback. Even so, publications with embargo periods longer than two years may find it difficult to argue that they are also serving the public interest.

| Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals | Digital Scholarship |

The Research Councils UK has adopted a new open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Research Councils UK (RCUK) has today, 16th July 2012, unveiled its new Open Access policy. Informed by the work of the National Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, chaired by Professor Dame Janet Finch, the policy at once harmonises and makes significant changes to existing Research Councils' Open Access policies. . . .

The new policy, which will apply to all qualifying publications being submitted for publication from 1 April 2013, states that peer reviewed research papers which result from research that is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils:

• must be published in journals which are compliant with Research Council policy on Open Access, and;
• must include details of the funding that supported the research, and a statement on how the underlying research materials such as data, samples or models can be accessed.

Criteria which journals must fulfill to be compliant with the Research Councils' Open Access policy are detailed within the policy, but include offering a 'pay to publish'; option or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional repository after a mandated maximum embargo period. In addition, the policy mandates use of 'CC-BY', the Creative Commons 'Attribution' license, when an APC is levied. The CC_BY licence allows others to modify, build upon and/or distribute the licensed work (including for commercial purposes) as long as the original author is credited.

The Research Councils will provide block grants to eligible UK Higher Education Institutions, approved independent research organisations and Research Council Institutes to support payment of the Article Processing Charges (APCs) associated with 'pay-to-publish'. In parallel, eligible organisations will be expected to set-up and manage their own publication funds. The Research Councils will work with eligible organisations to discuss the detail of the new approach to funding APCs and to ensure that appropriate and auditable mechanisms are put in place to manage the funds.

Along with HEFCE and other relevant Funding Bodies, we shall monitor these policies actively, both to review their effects and to ensure that our joint objectives on Open Access are being met.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Ulrich Pöschl has published "Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation" in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.

Here's an excerpt:

The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to all demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today's highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review, and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific peer review.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

JISC has released Going for Gold? The Costs and Benefits of Gold Open Access for UK Research Institutions: Further Economic Modelling.

Here's an excerpt:

Based on this analysis, the main findings are:

• so long as research funders commit to paying publication costs for the research they fund, and
• publication charges fall to the reprint author's home institution,
• all research-intensive universities would see the greatest savings, and universities would see savings from (worldwide) Gold OA when article-processing charges are at the current averages,
• in a transition period, providing Open Access through the Green route offers the greatest economic benefits to individual universities, unless additional funds are made available to cover Gold OA costs

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

The League of European Research Universities has released The LERU Roadmap towards Open Access.

Here's an excerpt:

• The idea of Open Access is not new; the first major international statement on Open Access was set out in the Declaration of the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002.4 However, 'the pathway' to Open Access is not a smooth one. Many parties are involved and there are many competing interests. There are costs and there are advocates, agnostics and critics. There are gains and impacts which need to be carefully assessed.
• This Roadmap traverses some of this landscape and aims to assist LERU members who wish to put in place structures, policies and practices to facilitate Open Access. Whilst the Roadmap is primarily intended for LERU members, other European universities may find it useful.

| Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals | Digital Scholarship |

Jorge L. Contreras has self-archived "Open Access Scientific Publishing and the Developing World" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Responding to rapid and steep increases in the cost of scientific journals, a growing number of scholars and librarians have advocated "open access" (OA) to the scientific literature. OA publishing models are having a significant impact on the dissemination of scientific information. Despite the success of these initiatives, their impact on researchers in the developing world is uncertain. This article analyses major OA approaches adopted in the industrialized world (so-called Green OA, Gold OA, and OA mandates, as well as non-OA information philanthropy) as they relate to the consumption and production of research in the developing world. The article concludes that while the consumption of scientific literature by developing world researchers is likely to be significantly enhanced through such programs, promoting the production of research in the developing world requires additional measures. These could include the introduction of better South-focused journal indexing systems that identify high-quality journals published in the developing world, coupled with the adjustment of academic norms to reward publication in such journals. Financial models must also be developed to decrease the reliance by institutions in the developing world on information philanthropy and to level the playing field between OA journals in industrialized and developing countries.

| Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals | Digital Scholarship |

I've released "A Look Back at 23 Years as an Open Access Publisher."

Here's an excerpt:

On June 29, 1989, I established the PACS-L LISTSERV mailing list, and, shortly after, I established The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, a freely available scholarly journal that was initially distributed using the LISTSERV software and the mailing list. Other freely available digital publications followed, technology evolved, "open access" became a movement with the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002, and, 23 years later, I'm still publishing open access works.

To date, my major open access publications have been:

• The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, founder and Editor-in-Chief, 37 issues, 1989-1996.
• Public-Access Computer Systems News, co-founder and co-editor with Dana C. Rooks, 39 issues, 1990-1992.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, 80 versions, 1996-2011.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog, over 500 posts, 2001-present.
• Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals (paperback, open access PDF file, and XHTML website), published by the Association for Research Libraries, 2005.
• DigitalKoans, over 4,700 posts, 2005-present.
• Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography, 6 versions, 2005-2012.
• Google Books Bibliography, 7 versions, 2005-2011.
• Institutional Repository Bibliography, 4 versions, 2009-2011.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition (paperback and open access PDF file), 2009.
• Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography, 2 versions, 2010-2011.
• Digital Scholarship 2009 (paperback and open access PDF file), 2010.
• Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography (paperback, open access PDF file, and XHTML website), 2010.
• Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 (paperback and open access PDF file), 2011.
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 (paperback and open access PDF file), 2011.
• Digital Curation Bibliography: Preservation and Stewardship of Scholarly Works (paperback and open access PDF file), 2011.

The Public-Access Computer Systems Review and Public-Access Computer Systems News were published by the University of Houston Libraries. The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography and the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog were also published by the University of Houston Libraries through version 64 of the bibliography (10/17/2006).

My digital press, Digital Scholarship, was established in April 2005. Digital Scholarship began publishing the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography and the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog starting with version 65 of the bibliography.

Other works listed above were published by Digital Scholarship.

From April 2005 through May 2012, Digital Scholarship had over 10.7 million visitors from 228 counties and over 51.5 million file requests, including over 35.1 million page views.

| Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Digital Scholarship |

The PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) project has released the PEER: Final Report.

Here's an excerpt:

PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research), supported by the EC eContentplus programme², has been investigating the potential effects of the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors' final peer-reviewed manuscripts (so called Green Open Access or stage-two research output) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the broader ecology of European research. The project ran from 1 September 2008–31 May 2012. . . .

Collectively, the project has provided insights and evidence indicating:

• How large-scale archiving may affect journals
• Whether it increases access
• How it will affect the broader ecology of European research
• Which factors influence the readiness to deposit in institutional and disciplinary repositories
• What the cost drivers are for publishers and repositories

The project also released PEER Usage Study—Descriptive Statistics for the Period March to August 2011 and PEER Usage Study—Randomised Controlled Trial Results.

| Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals | Digital Scholarship |

The Research Information Network has released Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. For background on the report, see "Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings."

Here's an excerpt:

This report tackles the important question of how to achieve better, faster access to research publications for anyone who wants to read or use them. It has been produced by an independent working group made up of representatives of universities, research funders, learned societies, publishers, and libraries. The group's remit has been to examine how to expand access to the peer-reviewed publications that arise from research undertaken both in the UK and in the rest of the world; and to propose a programme of action to that end.

We have concentrated on journals which publish research results and findings. Virtually all are now published online, and they increasingly include sophisticated navigation, linking and interactive services. Making them freely accessible at the point of use, with minimal if any limitations on how they can be used, offers the potential

Our aim has been to identify key goals and guiding principles in a period of transition towards wider access. We have sought ways both to accelerate that transition and also to sustain what is valuable in a complex ecology with many different agents and stakeholders.

In "Finch Group report on OA in the UK," Peter Suber said of the report:

Bottom line: On the plus side, the Finch group wants a massive shift to OA. It prefers immediate to embargoed OA, and it prefers libre to gratis OA. Some of its reasons for preferring gold to green OA are based on real virtues of gold. On the minus side, most of its reasons for preferring gold to green OA are based on a distorted and jaundiced view of green. The group implies that green cannot be libre (8.9, 8.28), which is false. It implies that green cannot be peer reviewed (8.26) which is false. It implies that green cannot be immediate or must be embargoed (8.28), which is false. It virtually disregards the role of green OA in disseminating peer-reviewed research and values green primarily for providing access to data, and access to grey literature, and preservation. One can see the effect of publisher lobbying on the group's misinformed disparagement of green OA and the group's high priority to save incumbent publishers from risk.

Read more about it at "U.K. Panel Backs Open Access for All Publicly Funded Research Papers."

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |