Archive for the 'Scholarly Journals' Category

"Response to Elsevier’s Text and Data Mining Policy: A LIBER Discussion Paper"

Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 31st, 2014

LIBER has released "Response to Elsevier's Text and Data Mining Policy: A LIBER Discussion Paper."

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

LIBER believes that the right to read is the right to mine and that licensing will never bridge the gap in the current copyright framework as it is unscalable and resource intensive. Furthermore, as this discussion paper highlights, licensing has the potential to limit the innovative potential of digital research methods by:

  1. restricting the tools that researchers can use
  2. limiting the way in which research results can be made available
  3. impacting on the transparency and reproducibility of research results.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

Be Sociable, Share!

    "Unwrapping the Bundle: An Examination of Research Libraries and the ‘Big Deal’"

    Posted in Electronic Resources, Licenses, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 17th, 2014

    Karla L. Strieb and Julia C. Blixrud have self-archived "Unwrapping the Bundle: An Examination of Research Libraries and the 'Big Deal'."

    Here's an excerpt:

    This study presents and analyzes the findings of a 2012 survey of member libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) on publishers' large journal bundles and compares the results to earlier surveys. The data illuminate five research questions: market penetration, journal bundle construction, collection format shifts, pricing models, and license terms. The structure of the product is still immature, particularly in defining content and developing sustainable pricing models. The typical "bundle" is something less than the full publishers list. Neither market studies nor market forces have produced a sustainable new strategy for pricing and selling e-journals. Finally, a complex history of managing license terms is revealed in the data.

    Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges

      Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Reports and White Papers, Scholarly Journals on March 13th, 2014

      The Wellcome Trust has released Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges.

      Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

      In their report, published in March 2014, Björk and Solomon set out a series of scenarios for how funders might develop their approaches for supporting APCs. These cover both full open access journals (which operate exclusively by this model) and so-called hybrid journals (which offer this service for individual articles, while continuing to operate via the subscription model). The authors appraised three combined scenarios, which they conclude to be the most promising for further consideration.

      Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

      Be Sociable, Share!

        PLOS Clarifies Open Data Policy

        Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 10th, 2014

        PLOS has clarified its open data policy.

        Here's an excerpt:

        In the previous post, and also on our site for PLOS ONE Academic Editors, an attempt to simplify our policy did not represent the policy correctly and we sincerely apologize for that and for the confusion it has caused. We are today correcting that post and hoping it provides the clarity many have been seeking. . . .

        Two key things to summarize about the policy are:

        1. The policy does not aim to say anything new about what data types, forms and amounts should be shared.
        2. The policy does aim to make transparent where the data can be found, and says that it shouldn't be just on the authors' own hard drive.

        Correction

        We have struck out the paragraph in the original PLOS ONE blog post headed "What do we mean by data", as we think it led to much of the confusion. Instead we offer this guidance to authors planning to submit to a PLOS journal.

        What data do I need to make available?

        We ask you to make available the data underlying the findings in the paper, which would be needed by someone wishing to understand, validate or replicate the work. Our policy has not changed in this regard. What has changed is that we now ask you to say where the data can be found.

        As the PLOS data policy applies to all fields in which we publish, we recognize that we'll need to work closely with authors in some subject areas to ensure adherence to the new policy. Some fields have very well established standards and practices around data, while others are still evolving, and we would like to work with any field that is developing data standards. We are aiming to ensure transparency about data availability.

        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

        Be Sociable, Share!

          "Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall"

          Posted in Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on March 3rd, 2014

          Walt Crawford has published "Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

          Here's an excerpt:

          This is the first of a trio of essays: two related to fairly specific situations, one covering a range of ethical discussions. Depending on how you define "ethics," I could also include sections on Elsevier and OA, embargoes, fallacious and misleading anti- OA arguments and the whole area of peer review. Or maybe not. In any case, we lead off with the sad case of Jeffrey Beall.

          Since Beall's chief claim to fame is his ever-growing list of supposedly predatory OA journals, and since I'm showing the case for treating Beall as a questionable source, I have to say this: In case you're thinking "Walt's claiming there are no scam OA journals," I'm not—and toward the end of this essay, I'll quote some useful ways to avoid scam journals regardless of their business model.

          Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

          Be Sociable, Share!

            "Reed Elsevier 2013 Results"

            Posted in Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 28th, 2014

            Reed Elsevier has released "Reed Elsevier 2013 Results."

            Here's an excerpt:

            Commenting on the results, Anthony Habgood, Chairman, said:

            "Reed Elsevier is continuing to deliver on its long term strategic and financial priorities. With underlying revenue growth across all major business areas, operating profit and earnings grew well in 2013. We made good progress on organic development and portfolio reshaping, and our strong cash flow enabled us to step up our share buyback programme whilst maintaining balance sheet strength. We are recommending a +7% increase in the full year dividend for Reed Elsevier PLC and +8% for Reed Elsevier NV, in line with growth in adjusted earnings per share at constant exchange rates."

            Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

            Be Sociable, Share!

              PLOS Mandates Immediate Open Access to Article-Related Data

              Posted in Data Curation, Open Data, and Research Data Management, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 26th, 2014

              PLOS has mandated that author's provide immediate open access to article-related data upon publication.

              Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

              In an effort to increase access to this data, we are now revising our data-sharing policy for all PLOS journals: authors must make all data publicly available, without restriction, immediately upon publication of the article. Beginning March 3rd, 2014, all authors who submit to a PLOS journal will be asked to provide a Data Availability Statement, describing where and how others can access each dataset that underlies the findings. This Data Availability Statement will be published on the first page of each article.

              Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

              Be Sociable, Share!

                "SCOAP3 Lifts Off: An Interview with Ann Okerson"

                Posted in Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 18th, 2014

                David Wojick has published "SCOAP3 Lifts Off: An Interview with Ann Okerson" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

                Here's an excerpt:

                Q: SCOAP3 seems pretty complicated to me. As I understand it they make deals with leading particle physics journals, so that when those libraries that participate in SCOAP3 pay the article publishing charges, everyone's subscription price is either lowered or eliminated, depending on whether some or all of the articles are paid for. Is that correct?

                A: Roughly put, that's true. "They" are "we" in this case. Let me note here that without the interest and participation of the publishers, SCOAP3 would not have launched on January 1st, already with hundreds of 2014 articles in the SCOAP3 repository at CERN and now flowing in on a daily basis. The SCOAP3 Technical Working Group developed, in conjunction with the Steering Committee, a set of criteria that formed the basis for publisher participation. Publishers received the Invitation to Tender and responded by describing in detail the way in which they would participate and at what cost per article.

                Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                Be Sociable, Share!

                  Only 20.56 % of Jounals in DOAJ Use CC BY or CC BY-SA License

                  Posted in Copyright, Creative Commons/Open Licenses, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 17th, 2014

                  The post "CC-BY Dominates under the Creative Commons licensed Journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)" analyzes the use of Creative Commons licences by journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals.

                  Here's an excerpt:

                  A total of 2,016 (or 20.56 %) of the guided journal in DOAJ therefore use a license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), which is compatible with the requirements of the Open Definition and allow a restriction-free use of the contents within the meaning of Open Access defined the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the RCUK Open Access policy and the Berlin Declaration.

                  If we consider the subset of journals that use any CC license that the claims of the Open Definition sufficient licenses dominate even slightly: About 54% of all journals that use a CC license , use either CC-BY ( 52.77 %) or CC-BY-SA (1.40 %). Surprisingly low is the proportion of journals which use the most restrictive CC license CC-BY-NC-ND : Only 737 journals (7.52 % of all journals and 19.80% under the CC-licensed journals). This license variant neither allows edits or allows to create derivative works (such as translations) nor a commercial use is possible. Surprisingly allow more than half (2,060, 55.35 %) of which is under a CC license Journals a commercial exploitation of the contents, only 44.65% (1662) prohibit this.

                  Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                  Be Sociable, Share!

                    E-print Copyright Debate Continues: "Its the Content, Not the Version!"

                    Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 7th, 2014

                    Kevin Smith has published "Its the Content, Not the Version!" in Scholarly Communications @ Duke.

                    Here's an excerpt:

                    Throughout this discussion, the proponents of the position that copyright is transferred only in a final version really do not make any legal arguments as such, just an assertion of what they wish were the situation (I wish it were too). But here is a legal point—the U.S. copyright law makes the difficulty with this position pretty clearly in section 202 when it states the obvious principle that copyright is distinct from any particular material object that embodies the copyrighted work. So it is simply not true to say that version A has a copyright and version B has a different copyright.

                    See also: "Where Copyrights Come from (Part I)—Copyediting Does–Not–Create a New Copyright" by Nancy Sims.

                    Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                    Be Sociable, Share!

                      "Guest Post: Charles Oppenheim on Who Owns the Rights to Scholarly Articles"

                      Posted in Copyright, Digital Copyright Wars, Open Access, Publishing, Scholarly Journals on February 5th, 2014

                      Charles Oppenheim has published "Guest Post: Charles Oppenheim on Who Owns the Rights to Scholarly Articles" in Open and Shut.

                      Here's an excerpt:

                      Posting D [draft article] on an OA repository is the so-called "Harnad-Oppenheim" solution, first proposed by Stevan Harnad and me more than 10 years ago.

                      When the solution was first enunciated, publishers dismissed it for two reasons: firstly, why would anyone want to read a draft when the final perfect version can be obtained via the publisher? And secondly, it would be difficult to track down a copy of D anyway. Their comments remain valid today, though the second one is not as strong because of services such as Google Scholar. But no publisher suggested that the solution was illegal because publishers owned the copyright to D, and they were right not to do so. The law is clear that I own the copyright in D. That is why I am so puzzled that some recent non-publisher commentators seem to think publishers own the copyright in D.

                      Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                      Be Sociable, Share!

                        "Setting the Record Straight about Elsevier"

                        Posted in Copyright, Publishing, Scholarly Journals, Self-Archiving on January 29th, 2014

                        Kevin Smith has published "Setting the Record Straight about Elsevier" in Scholarly Communications @ Duke.

                        Here's an excerpt:

                        Each [article] version is a revision of the original, and the copyright is the same for all these derivatives. When copyright is transferred to a publisher, the rights in the entire set of versions, as derivatives of one another, are included in the transfer. Authors are not allowed to use their post-prints because the rights in that version are not covered in the transfer; they are allowed to use post-prints only because the right to do so, in specified situations, is licensed back to them as part of the publication agreement.

                        Once a copyright transfer has been signed, all of the rights that the author may still have are because of specific contractual terms, which are usually contained in the transfer document itself. In short, these agreements usually give all of the rights under copyright to the publisher and then license back very small, carefully defined slivers of those rights back to the author. One of those slivers is often, but not always, the right to use a submitted version, or post-print, in carefully limited ways.

                        Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

                        Be Sociable, Share!

                          Page 10 of 39« First...89101112...2030...Last »

                          DigitalKoans

                          DigitalKoans

                          Digital Scholarship

                          Copyright © 2005-2015 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

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