David Solomon has published "Types of Open Access Publishers in Scopus" in Publications.

Here's an excerpt:

This study assessed characteristics of publishers who published 2010 open access (OA) journals indexed in Scopus. Publishers were categorized into six types; professional, society, university, scholar/researcher, government, and other organizations. Type of publisher was broken down by number of journals/articles published in 2010, funding model, location, discipline and whether the journal was born or converted to OA. Universities and societies accounted for 50% of the journals and 43% of the articles published. Professional publisher accounted for a third of the journals and 42% of the articles. With the exception of professional and scholar/researcher publishers, most journals were originally subscription journals that made at least their digital version freely available. Arts, humanities and social science journals are largely published by societies and universities outside the major publishing countries. Professional OA publishing is most common in biomedicine, mathematics, the sciences and engineering. Approximately a quarter of the journals are hosted on national/international platforms, in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia largely published by universities and societies without the need for publishing fees. This type of collaboration between governments, universities and/or societies may be an effective means of expanding open access publications.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health has adopted an open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

In accordance with their open access resolution, Mailman School researchers commit to having their published scholarly articles included in Columbia's digital repository, Academic Commons, where content is freely available to the public, or in another repository, such as the National Institutes of Health's PubMed Central, that makes the research publicly available. . . .

The resolution covers all scholarly journal articles as of May 1. There is an opt-out feature built into the resolution, permitting the researcher to request that an article that appears in a journal that insists on exclusivity not have that piece included in the repository.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Walt Crawford has published "Hot Times for Open Access" in the latest issue of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt:

These are hot times for open access. Maybe not a tipping point, certainly not where everything will be in a couple of years, but more action—and even more progress—than I'd seen in a while.

What we have here is a hybrid: part catching up with three vibrant months in the development of OA, part supplemental material for my OA precon-ference in Vancouver, Washington. This issue ap-pears slightly after that preconference—but attendees got early access to it. That hybrid nature may affect the organization, always sketchy in any case. It also means a few things are noted that wouldn't qualify as new material.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Science Europe has released "Science Europe Position Statement: Principles on the Transition to Open Access to Research Publications." Science Europe is an "association of 51 European national research organisations."

Here's an excerpt:

Therefore the Science Europe Member Organisations:

• will continue to support any valid approaches to achieve Open Access, including those commonly referred to as the "green" and "gold" routes; . . . .
• stress that research publications should either be published in an Open Access journal or be deposited as soon as possible in a repository, and made available in Open Access in all cases no later than six months following first publication. In Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, the delay may need to be longer than six months but must be no more than 12 months; . . .
• require that funding of Open Access publication fees is part of a transparent cost structure, incorporating a clear picture of publishers' service costs;. . . .
• stress that the hybrid model, as currently defined and implemented by publishers, is not a working and viable pathway to Open Access. Any model for transition to Open Access supported by Science Europe Member Organisations must prevent "double dipping" and increase cost transparency;

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Stephen Bosch and Kittie Henderson have published "The Winds of Change: Periodicals Price Survey 2013" in Library Journal.

Here's an excerpt:

This year, the serials pricing data indicates that prices are increasing at about the same rate as last year. Increases seemed to have plateaued at about 6% for 2013. Data from the merged ISI indexes shows a 6% increase for 2013, unchanged from 2012. EBSCO's MasterFILE Premier and Academic Search Premier show similar results: average prices for titles in MSP increased 5% for 2013, while average prices for titles in ASP increased 6% in 2013, the same increase as for 2012. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), on the other hand, advanced 1.7% for 2012, which means serials inflation continues to far exceed general inflationary pressures and library budget adjustments.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The UK Parliament has released an uncorrected transcript of "House of Commons Oral Evidence Taken before the Business, Innovation And Skills Committee Open Access."

Here's an excerpt (below comments by Alicia Wise, Director of Universal Access, Reed Elsevier):

With the Government's policy that we are all implementing, we will see an increase in the amount of hybrid open-access publishing done at scale. For the open-access components of that hybrid publishing, it is clear that the costs are sustainable through the article-publishing charges. For the subscription part of those titles, the costs continue to need to be covered through the subscription model. If the content is freely available too quickly, there will be no need for libraries to continue to pay those subscription costs. While we have not seen clear evidence of an undermining or cancellation of subscriptions at this point, there is evidence, such as that Audrey referred to, that librarians are watching this space very closely and are very mindful of it. We have also seen that where content is deposited at scale, there can be an erosion of transactional revenues-the pay-per-view business model. Those are very modest components of most of our revenue streams, but again it is a potential early-warning sign.

See also the video of the session.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

SPARC has released Article-Level Metrics—A SPARC Primer.

Here's an excerpt:

Article-Level Metrics (ALMs) are rapidly emerging as important tools to quantify how individual articles are being discussed, shared, and used. ALMs can be employed in conjunction with existing metrics, which have traditionally focused on the long-term impact of a collection of articles (i.e., a journal) based on the number of citations generated. This primer is designed to give campus leaders and other interested parties an overview of what ALMs are, why they matter, how they complement established utilities, and how they can be used in the tenure and promotion process.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

ACRL has made the entire College & Research Libraries archive freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

"Digitizing the archives of the premier research journal for academic librarianship provides a tremendous new asset for our profession," said ACRL President Steven J. Bell of Temple University. "Creating and sharing this rich resource demonstrates ACRL's ongoing commitment to promote and deliver on the promise of open access. It is a treasure trove of content where the academic librarians of today and tomorrow will delve into our history, understand how we evolved and make new discoveries that could stimulate groundbreaking research and innovation of real benefit to academic librarianship."

C&RL archival contents from 1939 through 1996 were digitized through the generous volunteer efforts of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library. The library's Digital Content Creation department performed scanning and metadata creation for the approximately 340 back file issues of the journal in 2011 and 2012. The digitized files were added to the journal's online presence with the financial assistance of the ACRL Friends Fund.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Thomas Eger, Marc Scheufen, and Daniel Meierrieks have self-archived "The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Germany" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

We discuss the results of a survey conducted in fall 2012 and covering 2,151 researchers in Germany. We show that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researcher's awareness of and experience with both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. Our results reveal that the relevance of OA within a discipline may explain why researchers from particular disciplines do (not) publish OA. Besides, several aspects like copyright law, age, profession or the inherent reward system of a discipline play a role. As a consequence, the paper emphasizes that a "one-size-fits-all" approach as promoted by most recent policy approaches is little promising for providing an effective framework for shaping the future of scholarly publishing.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap |

There have been several reports stating that the editorial board of the Journal of Library Administration has resigned. The Journal of Library Administration is published by Taylor & Francis, which publishes a number of library and information science journals.

Here's an excerpt from Brian Mathews's "So I'm Editing This Journal Issue and . . ." in which he quotes an e-mail from Damon Jaggars:

"The Board believes that the licensing terms in the Taylor & Francis author agreement are too restrictive and out-of-step with the expectations of authors in the LIS community."

"A large and growing number of current and potential authors to JLA have pushed back on the licensing terms included in the Taylor & Francis author agreement. Several authors have refused to publish with the journal under the current licensing terms."

"Authors find the author agreement unclear and too restrictive and have repeatedly requested some form of Creative Commons license in its place."

"After much discussion, the only alternative presented by Taylor & Francis tied a less restrictive license to a $2995 per article fee to be paid by the author. As you know, this is not a viable licensing option for authors from the LIS community who are generally not conducting research under large grants."

"Thus, the Board came to the conclusion that it is not possible to produce a quality journal under the current licensing terms offered by Taylor & Francis and chose to collectively resign."

The Editorial Board members are:

Damon Jaggars (Editor)
Kristin Antelman
Chris Bourg
Lisa German
Fred M. Heath
Paula T. Kaufman
Deanna B. Marcum
Sarah C. Michalak
James G. Neal
Ann J. Wolpert
Makoto Nakamoto
Stephen Town

Read more about it at "Editorial Board Resigns from T&F Journal to Protest Restrictive Licensing," "The Journal of Library Administration," and "My Short Stint on the JLA Editorial Board."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap |

Ludo Waltman and Rodrigo Costas have self-archived "F1000 Recommendations as a New Data Source for Research Evaluation: A Comparison with Citations" in arXiv.org.

Here's an excerpt:

F1000 is a post-publication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 aims to recommend important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and over 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap |

The Academy of Social Sciences has released a Professional Briefings issue that contains the presentations from its two-day Implementing Finch conference.

Here's an excerpt:

Moving to the recommendations, Dame Janet wished to correct some misunderstandings. The main recommendation was for a mixed economy including both the 'author pays' and subscription models of publishing. The report did not recommend a rapid move to Gold open access ('author pays') and anticipated a mixed economy for the foreseeable future. However the report did recommend that the policy direction should be set towards Gold open access and envisaged the balance between the two models of publishing would shift over time.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography (paperback, PDF file, and XHTML website; over 1,100 entries) | Digital Scholarship |