The overall picture for 2023, the last year covered here:
Differences between the impacts of Open Access (OA) and non-OA research have been observed over a wide range of citation and altmetric indicators, usually finding an Open Access Advantage (OAA) within specific fields. However, science-wide analyses covering multiple years, indicators and disciplines are lacking. Using citation counts and six altmetrics for 38.7M articles published 2011-21, we compare OA and non-OA papers. The results show that there is no universal OAA across all disciplines or impact indicators: the OAA for citations tends to be lower for more recent papers, whereas the OAAs for news, blogs and Twitter are consistent across years and unrelated to volume of OA publications, whereas the OAAs for Wikipedia, patents and policy citations are more complex. These results support different hypotheses for different subjects and indicators. The evidence is consistent with OA accelerating research impact in the Medical & Health Sciences, Life Sciences and the Humanities; that increased visibility or discoverability is a factor in promoting the translation of research into socio-economic impact; and that OA is a factor in growing online engagement with research in some disciplines. . . .
Furthermore, the advantages of OA are not evenly distributed: while there is evidence that some fields (Medical & Health Science, Life Sciences, Humanities) are being strengthened by OA adoption, there is the possibility that others (Social Sciences) are being weakened. Additionally, it is notable that while some fields appear to have their visibility and socio-economic impact boosted by their OA status, others (Humanities, Social Sciences) are not similarly benefited.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10535
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
This report shows how national contexts differ and create unique conditions for Diamond OA publishing in each country. Diamond OA particularly flourishes in countries with strong community leadership and public funding. In some countries, national journal publishing is financially supported through public financing to maintain a prosperous and locally relevant scholarly communication environment in national languages, often realised through Diamond OA publishing. In countries where institutional publishers are coordinated at the national level, more public funding may be available for Diamond OA. However, this is not necessarily a condition for robust national infrastructures to support Diamond publishing. Creating conditions for Diamond OA publishing to flourish in a national context requires recognising the following factors:
The role of Diamond OA in the scholarly publishing landscape differs across countries
Large mature Diamond publishing platforms have been developed through collaboration and are mature in France and Croatia. Most publishers operate on the basis of not-for-profit models in Croatia, and Diamond OA journals predominate. Learned societies are also a significant driving force among Diamond OA publishers in Poland, and especially in Finland, where a national umbrella organisation coordinates learned societies. The scholarly publishing landscape in the UK has become notably diverse over the last decade as new university presses and scholar-led publishers that offer Diamond publishing or related services have emerged on the scene. However, Gold and Hybrid remain the dominant OA models nationally. Academic institutions and their libraries are the most prevalent Diamond journal publishers here. Some well-established large commercial publisher communities in certain countries, such as Germany, have yet to transition from Gold or hybrid to Diamond OA publishing. Many countries have limited quantitative data on the number of Diamond journals, which speaks to the need for better discovery and indexing services for these types of publications internationally.
Diamond OA is by and for the national community
Collaboration between higher education institutions and research funders is vital for OA publishing industries to flourish and a condition for Diamond OA. The level at which institutional publishers are coordinated within a country varies between national contexts. Bottom-up initiatives promote and enable Diamond OA in several national contexts. Croatia is exemplary in demonstrating how national OA publishing in small countries can almost exclusively follow the Diamond model when serving the national community. In Norway, a consortium for journal funding organises the funding through a central model. In Finland, a robust national umbrella organisation for learned societies is a crucial driving force for delivering technical services, distributing public financing, and speaking to policymakers on behalf of institutional publishers. In contrast, even though the quality of journals is evaluated by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland, scholarly publishing in this country is notably decentralised.
Diamond OA must be incentivised
Researchers in Norway and the Netherlands are incentivised to publish OA via the national research assessment systems, while in Finland, OA is incentivised through the funding model of public higher education institutions. Strategic changes to research evaluation in the Netherlands support the national transition to 100% open science, especially by rewarding researchers who have an open science track record. Spain is one of several countries where the primary research funding bodies require that publications from publicly-funded research and the data necessary to validate them be deposited in open access repositories. However, in Italy, the relatively small presence and limited monitoring of Diamond OA publishing reflects the fact that researchers are not incentivised to publish OA. Comparing the state of institutional publishing in different European countries reveals a connection between research evaluation practices and Diamond OA publishing.
Public funding is necessary for IPSPs and infrastructures that enable Diamond
Across Europe, more institutional funding needs to be directed towards Diamond. Public research funding in Norway requires that all nationally funded journals comply with the Diamond OA business model. This form of organised national support for Diamond OA differs from most other countries. In Poland, institutional publishers are primarily institutionally funded, while government funds are available to those striving to increase their impact or quality rather than those publishing OA. Some universities/libraries fund Diamond OA publishing independently of national funding bodies. Community-led and publicly-funded infrastructures enable the prevalence of Diamond OA publishing in Croatia. A very high level of collaboration in France has created a system of national infrastructures for OA, but these infrastructures are still underfunded. Even as this sector grows, as in the UK, thanks to institutional and library support, dedicated public funding is still needed to extend the reach of Diamond publishers and service providers.
National strategies for open science can, but do not always, promote Diamond publishing
Some countries have developed effective strategies to achieve their open science goals via robust, centralised mandates. In the UK, despite the absence of national funding to support Diamond OA journals or publishing platforms (although a funding programme for Diamond OA books exists), government and research funders have had a pivotal role in driving the shift towards OA since 2003. Norway has a long-term plan for research and higher education that includes OA promotion and, specifically, a transition to Diamond OA publishing for journals. This stands apart from the national plans of other countries like Spain, where Diamond is not yet prioritised over other routes to OA publication.
https://zenodo.org/records/11383941
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Data curators play an important role in assessing data quality and take actions that may ultimately lead to better, more valuable data products. This study explores the curation practices of data curators working within US-based data repositories. We performed a survey in January 2021 to benchmark the levels of curation performed by repositories and assess the perceived value and impact of curation on the data sharing process. Our analysis included 95 responses from 59 unique data repositories. Respondents primarily were professionals working within repositories and examined curation performed within a repository setting. A majority 72.6% of respondents reported that "data-level" curation was performed by their repository and around half reported their repository took steps to ensure interoperability and reproducibility of their repository’s datasets. Curation actions most frequently reported include checking for duplicate files, reviewing documentation, reviewing metadata, minting persistent identifiers, and checking for corrupt/broken files. The most "value-add" curation action across generalist, institutional, and disciplinary repository respondents was related to reviewing and enhancing documentation. Respondents reported high perceived impact of curation by their repositories on specific data sharing outcomes including usability, findability, understandability, and accessibility of deposited datasets; respondents associated with disciplinary repositories tended to perceive higher impact on most outcomes. Most survey participants strongly agreed that data curation by the repository adds value to the data sharing process and that it outweighs the effort and cost. We found some differences between institutional and disciplinary repositories, both in the reported frequency of specific curation actions as well as the perceived impact of data curation. Interestingly, we also found variation in the perceptions of those working within the same repository regarding the level and frequency of curation actions performed, which exemplifies the complexity of a repository curation work. Our results suggest data curation may be better understood in terms of specific curation actions and outcomes than broadly defined curation levels and that more research is needed to understand the resource implications of performing these activities. We share these results to provide a more nuanced view of curation, and how curation impacts the broader data lifecycle and data sharing behaviors.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301171
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
MDPI, the leading open access (OA) publisher, proudly announces the release of its 2023 Annual Report, detailing remarkable achievements and reaffirming its leadership in advancing OA publishing. In 2023, MDPI received 655,065 submissions, of which 285,244 articles were published. The company now commands a 17% market share in gold open access articles, with a median publication time of six weeks.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
This study compared the differences in acceptance time between 100,077 preprint papers from the platforms arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, and 1,314,973 non-preprint papers submitted to the same journal within the same year and month. . . . The findings demonstrate that manuscripts released as preprints before journal submission experience significantly shorter acceptance time compared to those without preprints. However, if preprints are posted after submitting to a journal, they do not confer an advantage in terms of acceptance time.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05056-6
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The Educopia Institute, in partnership with Open Weave Consulting, Inc., Cast Iron Coding, California Digital Library, Stratos, and Janeway, has been awarded $249,999 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to expand digital infrastructure options for library publishing programs that are open source, community-led, and grounded in academic values.
The project, to be implemented with the University of Iowa Libraries, will advance existing Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) infrastructure and service models by delivering a production-ready version of its modular, open-source display layer, Meru, that rivals proprietary publishing solutions; migrating a pilot library publisher into the NGLP ecosystem; and producing a suite of replicable tools, resources, and workflows that will enable other library publishers to follow suit. The University of Iowa Libraries will collaborate with the NGLP team to build out a production-ready instance of Meru that showcases its full publication portfolio.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Despite ICMJE [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] recommendations, more than 27% of biomedical journals do not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111405
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy went into effect early last year. That means that the policy that so many medical data librarians have been talking about is finally in place and affecting researchers. Libraries do not need a data expert or an institutional repository to get started with supporting NIH grants with this new policy. Reference interviewing skills and a basic knowledge of the NIH DMS Plan format can be combined to walk researchers through the basics. In this session, librarians who are new to the NIH DMS Policy will learn the essentials: what is the NIH DMS policy, who is affected, and how do researchers incorporate it into an NIH grant application.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JAj5rHpFd0
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
We developed Maggot which stands for Metadata Aggregation on Data Storage, specifically designed to annotate datasets by generating metadata files to be linked into storage spaces. Maggot enables users to seamlessly generate and attach comprehensible metadata to datasets within a collaborative environment. This approach seamlessly integrates into a data management plan, effectively tackling challenges related to data organisation, documentation, storage, and frictionless FAIR metadata sharing within the collaborative group and beyond. Furthermore, for enabling metadata crosswalk, metadata generated with Maggot can be converted for a specific data repository or configured to be exported into a suitable format for data harvesting by third-party applications.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.24.595703
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03105-x
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The proliferation of Open Access (OA) business models has been rapid, presenting challenges for stakeholders in academic publishing in communicating and working effectively with one another. This article offers a comprehensive classification system for OA models, categorizing them into five core types (transactional, bundled, cooperative, sponsored, and alternative), each with distinct characteristics and implications for funding, equity, and implementation. This classification aims to clarify the myriad labels and terminologies used, addressing the inconsistencies and gaps in previous attempts to categorize OA models. By providing descriptions and analyses of different business models, the article seeks to enhance transparency around and understanding of OA options, ultimately supporting informed decision-making in the evolving landscape of academic publishing.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11242106
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
A broad understanding of the aims and objectives of the international open science movement was recently adopted with the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, expanding the focus of open science to include scientific knowledge, infrastructures, knowledge systems and the open engagement of societal actors. In response, recent discussions on science policy practice are shifting to the implementation of open science via national policy. While policy instruments to support some aspects of open science are well-studied, guidance on the emerging ‘social’ aspects of open science has lagged, prompting UNESCO to generate guidance. In this paper, authors of a UNESCO Open Science Toolkit guidance document on ‘Engaging societal actors in Open Science’ synthesize the scholarly underpinnings behind the guidance document’s recommendations. This work draws upon a targeted search from academic, policy, and grey literature in the fields of open science and community engagement, with a special focus on citizen science, to derive guidance on how to overcome barriers to the uptake of societal engagement approaches. The results present building blocks of what an enabling environment for the open engagement of societal actors could look like, identifying key considerations and reflecting on opportunities and challenges for progressing and evaluating sound open engagement of societal actors into regional & national (open) science policies.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231309
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Here, we introduce the Open Data, Open Code, and Open Infrastructure (O3) Guidelines for the creation and maintenance of curated resources which promote sustainability through a combination of technical workflows, social workflows, and progressive governance models. Together, these support and encourage community-facing curation (Fig. 1). In summary, (1) the technical aspect of O3 necessitates using open data, open code, and open infrastructure. Both data and code are permissively licensed and kept together under public version control. This enables anyone to directly suggest improvements and updates. Further, it recommends using hardware and software infrastructure that supports automation in response to various actions performed by contributors and maintainers. For example, this includes running quality assurance workflows in response to new contributions and the generation of exports in multiple formats in response to running a release workflow. (2) The social aspect of O3 prescribes the composition of training material, curation guidelines, contribution guidelines, and a community code of conduct that encourage and support potential community curators. It requires the use of public tools for suggestions, questions, discussion as well as social workflows for the submission and review of changes. (3) The governance aspect of O3 necessitates the division of responsibilities and authority across multiple institutions, making the resource more robust to fluctuation in funding and personnel, such as when reviewing and applying changes to the data or code. O3 prescribes liberal attribution and acknowledgment of the individuals and institutions, both internal and external to the project, who contribute on a variety of levels such as to data, code, discussion, and funding. More generally, the O3 Guidelines suggest that a minimal governance model be codified and instituted as early as possible in a project’s lifetime.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03406-w
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The purpose of this article is to look at library-led Open Access publishing initiatives across Scotland: particularly the Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries (SCURL) Open Hosting Shared Service and Scottish Universities Press (SUP). . . .
In 2018, the University of Edinburgh (UoE) submitted a proposal to SCURL, pitching the creation of a new shared service that would be governed by SCURL and provided by library staff at the University of Edinburgh. The aim of this shared service was to equip member institutions with a hosting solution to fulfil their Open Access publishing activities, with the development time charged to UoE. The fee for the shared service is at cost (currently £1,400 + VAT per year), and everything is reinvested, predominantly covering technical and staffing costs. All members meet four times a year to discuss the direction and growth of the shared service, ensuring it is very much a partnership and not just led by the University of Edinburgh.
The hosting solution is fulfilled by the use of Open Journals System (OJS) and Open Monograph Press (OMP). SCURL partners get their own installation of the required open-source software, and the staff at UoE complete the initial configuration of the site and customisation of the user interface. The fee is charged per installation. So, for example, a user pays one fee for OJS and can set up as many journals as they like. . . .
To finish, the shared service launched with three members and now has eleven, with more on the way. The members are:
- Glasgow Caledonian University
- Heriot Watt University
- Queen Margaret University
- Robert Gordon University
- Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
- Scottish Universities Press
- Society of Antiquaries Scotland
- St Andrews University
- University of Edinburgh
- University of Glasgow
- The University of the Highlands and Islands
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Several tools for assessing FAIRness have been developed. Although their purpose is common, they use different assessment techniques, they are designed to work with diverse research products, and they are applied in specific scientific disciplines. It is thus inevitable that they perform the assessment using different metrics. This paper provides an overview of the actual FAIR assessment tools and metrics landscape to highlight the challenges characterising this task. In particular, 20 relevant FAIR assessment tools and 1180 relevant metrics were identified and analysed concerning (i) the tool’s distinguishing aspects and their trends, (ii) the gaps between the metric intents and the FAIR principles, (iii) the discrepancies between the declared intent of the metrics and the actual aspects assessed, including the most recurring issues, (iv) the technologies used or mentioned the most in the assessment metrics. The findings highlight (a) the distinguishing characteristics of the tools and the emergence of trends over time concerning those characteristics, (b) the identification of gaps at both metric and tool levels, (c) discrepancies observed in 345 metrics between their declared intent and the actual aspects assessed, pointing at several recurring issues, and (d) the variety in the technology used for the assessments, the majority of which can be ascribed to linked data solutions. This work also highlights some open issues that FAIR assessment still needs to address.
https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2024-033
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The United States Department of Health and Human Services remains at the top by contributing funding to 7.46% of research papers in the field of Neurotechnology research. Statistical tests confirmed significant correlations between research funding, collaboration, and research availability mode with citation impact. Positive correlations were identified between research funding and collaboration, while open access availability showed a negative correlation with citation impact.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2024.2350377
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
In this inaugural report, we dive deep into the characteristics of open infrastructure powering research and scholarship and what (we believe) sets them apart from their competitors. We take a closer look at the governing bodies and decision-makers behind the technologies your community relies on. We share the latest data and analysis of over US$415M in grant funding powering open infrastructures and research surrounding them, and bring you the latest infrastructure and policy developments in regions such as Latin America, Africa, and the European Union. We highlight success stories and the key trends in the adoption of open infrastructure. We share the latest on trends we’re tracking, such as the global movement towards Diamond Open Access and the underlying infrastructure needs, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the intersection with open research, and "digital sovereignty" and its impact on research across borders.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
This report investigates the variations seen in researcher’s attitudes towards open data across Ethiopia, Japan and the United States, using responses from the State of Open Data surveys. Highlighting: what open data is and its importance towards global scientific advancement, outlining methods that were used, outward context and overall suggestions towards policy makers.
Ethiopia and Japan were found to display contrasting responses, with the United States often representing the middle ground. Researchers in Ethiopia show the highest familiarity with FAIR principles (36.50%), support for a national open data mandate (76.96%), and agreement with penalising non-compliance (56.74%). In contrast, Japan has the lowest familiarity with FAIR principles (10.20%), support for a national mandate (41.86%), and agreement with penalties (35.78%). The United States falls in between, with 37.60% familiarity with FAIR principles, 61.22% supporting a national mandate, and 54.09% supporting penalties.
The factors shaping these attitudes, including funding policies, research culture, and individualistic behaviours have also been examined. Recommendations suggest Ethiopia could leverage its strong support by establishing clear national policies, the United States could build on existing federal policies, and Japan may need a more gradual approach, engaging researchers in policy development.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximize statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally underserved populations.
https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.558
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
We take this step because we believe that scholarly journals—including our own—serve important purposes, and that these purposes are not well-served by commercial publishing. For three decades now, academic journals have suffered from their ownership by for-profit publishers, who have exploited their monopoly position to sharply raise prices, unduly burdening subscribing libraries and shutting out other institutions and individuals from access to research. The recent rise of the author-funded "open access" model has only reinforced academic inequality, since scholars with access to fewer resources are unable to pay the fees that make their work freely accessible; it has also incentivized commercial publishers to try to publish as many articles as possible and so to pressure rigorous journals to weaken or abandon their quality controls. . . .
The new diamond journal will be published by the Open Library of Humanities.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
For the scholarly communications community to extract the most value from scientific research, as well as to successfully move from subscription to open access publishing models, it is essential to have ‘clean’ metadata and a robust infrastructure to build the required workflows, processes and systems to support effective use of that metadata. The obstacles to achieving a supporting infrastructure and implementing effective workflows are many, negatively impacting every stakeholder group and every aspect of the research and publishing process.
https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.642
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The United States Office of Management and Budget uniform guidance for grants and agreements contains the following language in 2 CFR §200.315(b):
To the extent permitted by law, the recipient or subrecipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was acquired, The Right to Deposit (R2D)under a Federal award. The Federal agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes and to authorize others to do so. This includes the right to require recipients and subrecipients to make such works available through agency-designated public access repositories.¹
This provision, the Federal purpose license, has existed in some form since at least 1976. Some federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), have already been relying on it in the implementation of their public access plans. The Federal purpose license applies upon creation of an article, overriding all subsequent terms and licenses. It provides a highly effective, non-disruptive, elegant and familiar solution for accomplishing the ends of the Nelson memo without having to rely on individual authors and institutions to protect this right or navigate differing institutional approaches. Leveraging the Federal purpose license could also provide consistency for articles and authors subject to policies from multiple granting agencies. . . .
If the Federal purpose license has already existed for a long time, and has new language clarifying that it can be used this way, does that solve the problem for authors?
It depends on the author’s funder. Agencies have rights in federally funded research publications, but they are not uniformly using them. Only some agencies are telling their grantees in agency guidance that the Federal purpose license covers sharing publications in agency-designated repositories. Other agencies aren’t relying on their own rights from the license, and instead advising grantees to work with their publisher and secure the rights to post their publications independently. The Federal purpose license does not help authors if they don’t know about it.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing.
https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e124173
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
A new study conducted by leading researchers from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the University of the Bundeswehr Munich and the German Economic Institute reveals that free or low-cost online access to scientific publications — as provided by Research4Life programs — results in a surge in scientific output, particularly in health sciences, by up to 75% in low- and middle-income countries. . . .
Research institutions in the Caribbean, Central Asia, Europe, and Latin America saw their academic paper output increase by 80-100%. In terms of clinical trials, program participation was most impactful for East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa, with trial activity rising by up to 35%.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
