Archive for the 'Scholarly Journals' Category

University of Colorado Boulder Adopts Open Access Policy

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 18th, 2015

The University of Colorado Boulder has adopted an open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

"We are delighted that the Chancellor's Executive Committee has approved an Open Access policy for the campus that was endorsed by the Boulder Faculty Assembly, the Council of Deans, and the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor," said University of Colorado Boulder Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano. "CU-Boulder proudly joins the ranks of other campuses in higher education that have created such policies in the interest of openly sharing their published intellectual assets."

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Weighing Up Anonymity and Openness in Publication Peer Review"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 15th, 2015

Hilda Bastian has published "Weighing Up Anonymity and Openness in Publication Peer Review" in Absolutely Maybe.

Here's an excerpt:

There are some consequences that flow inevitably from the choice of anonymity or naming, like workload for journals, or the ability for peer reviewer conflicts of interests unknown to editors to be revealed. I'll come back to that later. But first, what evidence do we have that masking the identities of authors and peer reviewers achieves what it is meant to? . . .

So I've taken a deep dive into this literature. I found 17 relevant comparative studies, 12 of which are controlled trials. The quality of these studies varies greatly, especially the ability to control for variables. Some are in hypothetical situations. But there are some very good, decent-sized trials.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"The Open Access Interviews: John Willinsky"

Posted in Open Access, Open Source Software, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 11th, 2015

Richard Poynder has published "The Open Access Interviews: John Willinsky" in Open and Shut?.

Here's an excerpt:

I was fortunate enough to draw together a wonderful team, led by the Associate University Librarian Brian Owen and technical wonder Alec Smecher at Simon Fraser University Library, who, through the research and development funds we were able to raise, created open source systems for scholarly workflow management and publishing. Together, we created Open Journal Systems (OJS) beginning in 2002, to answer the question of what will it cost to put a journal online. . . .

Over the course of the next decade, the use of OJS has spread across the globe to the point where—with 8,000 journals actively using it in 2013—we now feel a considerable responsibility at PKP for ensuring that this system provides a high-quality editorial workflow and publishing environment, and all the more so with roughly half of those journals in the Global South.

So in terms of your question on what PKP has developed into, I would say that it has become primarily but not entirely an open source software development and community support project in a global scale.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"When Is an Article Actually Published? An Analysis of Online Availability, Publication, and Indexation Dates"

Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 7th, 2015

Stefanie Haustein et al. have self-archived "When Is an Article Actually Published? An Analysis of Online Availability, Publication, and Indexation Dates."

Here's an excerpt:

With the acceleration of scholarly communication in the digital era, the publication year is no longer a sufficient level of time aggregation for bibliometric and social media indicators. Papers are increasingly cited before they have been officially published in a journal issue and mentioned on Twitter within days of online availability. In order to find a suitable proxy for the day of online publication allowing for the computation of more accurate benchmarks and fine-grained citation and social media event windows, various dates are compared for a set of 58,896 papers published by Nature Publishing Group, PLOS, Springer and Wiley-Blackwell in 2012. Dates include the online date provided by the publishers, the month of the journal issue, the Web of Science indexing date, the date of the first tweet mentioning the paper as well as the publication and first-seen dates. Comparing these dates, the analysis reveals that large differences exist between publishers, leading to the conclusion that more transparency and standardization is needed in the reporting of publication dates. The date on which the fixed journal article (Version of Record) is first made available on the publisher's website is proposed as a consistent definition of the online date.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Who Needs Open Access, Anyway?"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on May 6th, 2015

Walt Crawford has published "Who Needs Open Access, Anyway?" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt:

That title is not my own opinion or question—but it feels like the appropriate title for this odd roundup, covering several dozen items I've tagged over the last two years (or so) as " oa-anti. " The tag doesn't necessarily mean the item was a flat-out attack on open access (even with the typical "some of my best friends are OA, but… " nonsense that's usually now phrased as "I am/this publisher is/a big proponent of OA, however… "). It means that, in skimming the item initially, it seemed to register as something that either seemed to undermine OA or could be used as an attack on OA—or, in some cases, it's discussing somebody else attempting to undermine OA. At the end of this mostly-unsorted set of items, I note a handful of " oa-pro " items for a little balance.

You can help support Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large and Crawford's open access research by donating as little as $2 per month via PayPal.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Thumbs Down for the Freemium Model? Researchers Reject Nature’s Fast Track Peer Review Experiment"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Journals on May 6th, 2015

David Crotty has published "Thumbs Down for the Freemium Model? Researchers Reject Nature's Fast Track Peer Review Experiment" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

NPG launched a four-week trial in their megajournal Scientific Reports. The journal features a Gold open access (OA) business model, where accepted authors pay a $1,495 article processing charge (APC). In the trial, authors willing to pay an additional $750 upfront would get their decision in three weeks. NPG would be able to offer this additional speed by outsourcing the peer review process to Rubriq, a service offered by the private company Research Square.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Stepping Back from Sharing"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on May 5th, 2015

Kevin Smith has published "Stepping Back from Sharing" in Scholarly Communications @ Duke.

Here's an excerpt:

Two major features of this retreat from openness need to be highlighted. First, it imposes an embargo of at least one year on all self-archiving of final authors' manuscripts, and those embargoes can be as long as four years. Second, when the time finally does roll around when an author can make her own work available through an institutional repository, Elsevier now dictates how that access is to be controlled, mandating the most restrictive form of Creative Commons license, the CC-BY-NC-ND license for all green open access.

See also: "Elsevier Updates Its Article-Sharing Policies, Perspectives and Services" and "GET IT IN WRITING: On Elsevier's Revised Sharing/Hosting Policies."

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Elsevier: "Unleashing the Power of Academic Sharing"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on May 4th, 2015

Elsevier has released "Unleashing the Power of Academic Sharing."

Here's an excerpt:

Elsevier's updated sharing and hosting policies explain how articles published with Elsevier may be shared and made available. These provide a more clear and consistent framework that is aligned with the rest of the publishing industry, and which is based on feedback from our authors and institutional partners. While we know the policy changes will not go as far as some would like, we believe they strike an appropriate balance between the rights and responsibilities of sharing.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals"

Posted in Licenses, Privacy, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on April 30th, 2015

Alan Rubel and Mei Zhang have published "Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals" in College & Research Libraries.

Here's an excerpt:

This is a study of the treatment of library patron privacy in licenses for electronic journals in academic libraries. We begin by distinguishing four facets of privacy and intellectual freedom based on the LIS and philosophical literature. Next, we perform a content analysis of 42 license agreements for electronic journals, focusing on terms for enforcing authorized use and collection and sharing of user data. We compare our findings to model licenses, to recommendations proposed in a recent treatise on licenses, and to our account of the four facets of intellectual freedom. We find important conflicts with each.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Disrupting the Subscription Journals’ Business Model for the Necessary Large-Scale Transformation to Open Access

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers, Scholarly Journals on April 29th, 2015

The Max Planck Digital Library has released Disrupting the Subscription Journals' Business Model for the Necessary Large-Scale Transformation to Open Access .

Here's an excerpt:

This paper makes the strong, fact-based case for a large-scale transformation of the current corpus of scientific subscription journals to an open access business model. The existing journals, with their well-tested functionalities, should be retained and developed to meet the demands of 21st century research, while the underlying payment streams undergo a major restructuring. There is sufficient momentum for this decisive push towards open access publishing. The diverse existing initiatives must be coordinated so as to converge on this clear goal. The international nature of research implies that this transformation will be achieved on a truly global scale only through a consensus of the world's most eminent research organizations. All the indications are that the money already invested in the research publishing system is sufficient to enable a transformation that will be sustainable for the future. There needs to be a shared understanding that the money currently locked in the journal subscription system must be withdrawn and re-purposed for open access publishing services. The current library acquisition budgets are the ultimate reservoir for enabling the transformation without financial or other risks. The goal is to preserve the established service levels provided by publishers that are still requested b y researchers, while redefining and reorganizing the necessary payment streams. By disrupting the underlying business model, the viability of journal publishing can be preserved and put on a solid footing for the scholarly developments of the future.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On | Periodicals Price Survey 2015"

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Serials Crisis on April 24th, 2015

Stephen Bosch and Kittie Henderson have published "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On | Periodicals Price Survey 2015" in Library Journal.

Here's an excerpt:

Open access (OA) continues to develop, but some financial analysts, such as Sami Kassab, executive director at investment firm Exane BNP Paribas, now believe that OA may no longer be a pressure point on commercial publishing. OA has not been the disruptive force on commercial publishing for which many had hoped.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

50 Universities or University Units Have Now Adopted Open Access Policies by Unanimous Faculty Votes

Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on April 20th, 2015

With recent votes by Boston University and University of Delaware faculty, 50 universities or university units, such as schools, have now adopted open access policies by unanimous faculty votes.

Here's a list from Unanimous Faculty Votes. See the original document for omitted details, and see the recently revised (and praised) Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROARMAP) for a complete list of over 670 open access policies.

  1. February 12, 2008. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences
  2. April 27, 2008. Macquarie University
  3. May 7, 2008, Harvard University, School of Law
  4. June 10, 2008, Stanford University, School of Education
  5. October 2008, University College London (UCL)
  6. February 11, 2009. Boston University
  7. March 6, 2009, Oregon State University, Library Faculty
  8. March 18, 2009, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
  9. May 2009. University of Calgary, division of Library and Cultural Resources
  10. May 2009. University of Pretoria
  11. May 7, 2009, University of Oregon, Library Faculty
  12. May 14, 2009, University of Oregon, Department of Romance Languages
  13. May 14, 2009, Gustavus Adolphus College, Library Faculty
  14. October 1, 2009, York University, librarians and archivists
  15. October, 2009. Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela)
  16. November 18, 2009, Oberlin College
  17. December 2, 2009, University of Northern Colorado, Library Faculty
  18. February 1, 2010, Wake Forest University, Library faculty
  19. February 9, 2010, California Polytechnic State University
  20. February 12, 2010, Oregon State University College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS)
  21. February 24, 2010, University of Virginia
  22. February 25, 2010, Rollins College Faculty of Arts and Sciences
  23. March 18, 2010, Duke University
  24. March 24, 2010, University of Puerto Rico School of Law
  25. April 19, 2010, San Jose State University
  26. September 27, 2010, University of Northern Colorado
  27. October 2010, Trinity College Dublin
  28. December 22, 2010, Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
  29. March 15, 2011, Emory University
  30. May 11, 2011, University of Pennsylvania
  31. September 2011, Princeton University
  32. October 19, 2011, Florida State University
  33. December 8, 2011, Pacific University
  34. January 27, 2012, Bifröst University
  35. February 15, 2012, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto
  36. April 2012, Utah State University
  37. May 21, 2012, University of California, San Francisco
  38. February 6, 2013, Wellesley College
  39. March 4, 2013, College of Wooster
  40. March 5, 2013, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Library faculty
  41. March 21, 2013, University of Rhode Island
  42. April 2013, Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University
  43. June 13, 2013, Oregon State University
  44. December 2013, Télé-université (TELUQ), Université du Québec
  45. December 2, 2013, Columbia University, School of Social Work
  46. June 18, 2014, Harvard Medical School
  47. October 7, 2014, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
  48. October 9, 2014, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
  49. February 11, 2015, Boston University
  50. April 6, 2015, University of Delaware

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Page 10 of 46« First...89101112...203040...Last »



Digital Scholarship

Copyright © 2005-2016 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.