Category: Open Access

Teesside University Adopts Self-Archiving Mandate

Teesside University in the UK has launched its institutional repository, TeesRep, and adopted a self-archiving mandate.

Here's the mandate:

For record keeping, research asset management and performance evaluation purposes, and in order to maximise the visibility, accessibility, usage and impact of our institution’s research output, all Teesside University researchers are mandated to deposit the publicly available output of the University’s research activity into TeesRep, the University’s Institutional Repository.

New XHTML Version of Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access with Live Links

Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography is now available as an XHTML website with live links to many included works. All versions of the bibliography are available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

This bibliography presents over 1,100 selected English-language scholarly works useful in understanding the open access movement's efforts to provide free access to and unfettered use of scholarly literature. The bibliography primarily includes books and published journal articles. (See the "Preface" for further details about scope and selection criteria).

"First Results of the SOAP Project. Open Access Publishing in 2010"

Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen et al. have self-archived "First Results of the SOAP Project. Open Access Publishing in 2010" in arXiv.

Here's an excerpt:

The SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) project has compiled data on the present offer for open access publishing in online peer-­-reviewed journals. Starting from the Directory of Open Access Journals, several sources of data are considered, including inspection of journal web site and direct inquiries within the publishing industry. Several results are derived and discussed, together with their correlations: the number of open access journals and articles; their subject area; the starting date of open access journals; the size and business models of open access publishers; the licensing models; the presence of an impact factor; the uptake of hybrid open access.

Duke University Signs Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity

Duke University has signed the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE). There are now 11 institutions that have signed COPE, including Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, MIT, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Ottawa, Columbia University, the University of Michigan, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the Universitat de Barcelona.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

As part of its commitment to COPE, Duke has created a special fund to help pay for article processing fees. Beginning this month, any Duke faculty member, post-doctoral researcher, graduate or professional student whose article is accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal can apply to have associated article processing fees reimbursed. The fund, which will be administered by the Libraries' Office of Scholarly Communications, is supported by the Duke University Libraries and the Office of the Provost. . . .

According to Provost Peter Lange, the aims of COPE are in keeping with Duke's continued emphasis on knowledge in the service of society. "By establishing this fund, we hope to support the university's commitment to promoting openness as an important value in scholarship," Lange said. "Increased open access means more opportunities for the research of our faculty and researchers to reach a wide audience and have a meaningful impact on the world."

Self-Archiving Study: PEER Annual Report—Year 2

The PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) project has released PEER Annual Report—Year 2.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Reporting on the past 12 months of activity in this ground breaking collaboration between publishers, repositories and the research community investigating the effects of Green Open Access, the PEER Annual Report highlights the complexity of the infrastructure required for PEER and the substantial progress achieved towards the project’s objectives.

To simulate the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for journal publication, 12 participating publishers are providing content and associated metadata from 241 participating journals. Half of the manuscripts are being submitted directly to PEER, while for the other half, authors are invited by publishers to self-deposit into the project.

All submitted content is being received by the PEER Depot, a central repository created specifically for the project by INRIA, which undertakes filtering for EU research content, metadata matching and transformations, and embargo management prior to distribution to participating repositories.

By the end of year 2 (August 2010), almost 25,000 unique publisher provided manuscripts had been processed by the PEER Depot, resulting in 10,000 EU manuscripts after processing (some still under embargo), with embargo expired manuscripts distributed to participating repositories.

The three areas of usage, economic and behavioural research commissioned by PEER are well underway, with the Baseline Behavioural Report already publicly available from the PEER website.

New Shared Support Membership Option from BioMed Central

BioMed Central now offers a Shared Support Membership option.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Today, BioMed Central officially announced the launch of Shared Support Membership — a new and innovative Membership package for institutions that want to provide financial support for their researchers open access publications, but at the same time manage their expenditure.

Whilst many institutes encourage their researchers to publish in open access journals, with limited publication budgets, it is often a complicated process to apportion the right amount of funds to cover Article Processing Charges (APC’s). To alleviate some of the financial burdens, Shared Support combines the best of BioMed Central’s other Membership types (Prepay and Supporter) and splits the costs of publishing with BioMed Central down the middle — the institute pays 50% and the submitting author pays the remaining 50%.

This new Membership type therefore offers a more balanced, easier way to handle the cost associated with open access publication. It also allows both parties to benefit from significant discounts of between 5-15% depending on how much funding the institute decides to pre-pay into their Membership account.

There is no joining fee for Shared Support Membership. Members can also immediately benefit from the supply of automated repository feeds using SWORD, which ensure that any articles published in BioMed Central journals will be automatically deposited into their institutional repositories.

"OpenAccess Statistics: Alternative Impact Measures for Open Access Documents?"

Ulrich Herb has self-archived "OpenAccess Statistics: Alternative Impact Measures for Open Access Documents? An Examination How to Generate Interoperable Usage Information from Distributed Open Access Services" in E-LIS.

Here's an excerpt:

Publishing and bibliometric indicators are of utmost relevance for scientists and research institutions as the impact or importance of a publication (or even of a scientist or an institution) is mostly regarded to be equivalent to a citation-based indicator, e.g. in form of the Journal Impact Factor or the Hirsch-Index. Both on an individual and an institutional level performance measurement depends strongly on these impact scores. This contribution shows that most common methods to assess the impact of scientific publications often discriminate Open Access publications — and by that reduce the attractiveness of Open Access for scientists. Assuming that the motivation to use Open Access publishing services (e.g. a journal or a repository) would increase if these services would convey some sort of reputation or impact to the scientists, alternative models of impact are discussed. Prevailing research results indicate that alternative metrics based on usage information of electronic documents are suitable to complement or to relativize citation-based indicators. Furthermore an insight into the project OpenAccess-Statistics OA-S is given. OA-S implemented an infrastructure to collect document-related usage information from distributed Open Access Repositories in an aggregator service in order to generate interoperable document access information according to three standards (COUNTER, LogEc and IFABC). The service also guarantees the deduplication of users and identical documents on different servers. In a second phase it is not only planned to implement added services like recommender features, but also to evaluate alternative impact metrics based on usage patterns of electronic documents.

Internet Archive Announces That University of Toronto Has Digitized 250,000 Books

Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive has announced that the University of Toronto has digitized 250,000 books.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

When I talked with Carole Moore, the fantastic librarian from University of Toronto, about 6 years ago, she had a vision of scanning 250,000 books from their libraries. Well, a few days ago she succeeded. (http://www.archive.org/details/university_of_toronto)

It has been a winding road to here, with financial help from Yahoo and Microsoft, from the Canadian government and from the University of Toronto—but she got there in grand style. . . .

250,000 books for free to the world from one of the great libraries in the world.

"Almost Halfway There: An Analysis of the Open Access Behaviors of Academic Librarians"

College & Research Libraries has released a preprint of Holly Mercer's forthcoming article "Almost Halfway There: An Analysis of the Open Access Behaviors of Academic Librarians."

Here's an excerpt:

Academic librarians are increasingly expected to advocate for scholarly communications reforms such as open access to scholarly publications, yet librarians do not always practice what they reach. Previous research examined librarian attitudes toward open access, whereas this article presents results of a study of open access publishing and self-archiving behaviors of academic librarians. Following an analysis of open access to library and information science literature in 2008, several strategies to encourage academic librarians to continue embrace open access behaviors are discussed.

Alliance for Taxpayer Access Issues Call to Action for Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access has issued a call to action for the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA).

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

All supporters of public access – universities and colleges, researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, consumers, individuals, and others – are asked to ACT NOW to support The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA). See below for actions you can take.

Now before both the House of Representatives and the Senate, FRPAA would require those agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts stemming from such funding no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The bill gives individual agencies flexibility in choosing the location of the digital repository to house this content, as long as the repositories meet conditions for interoperability and public accessibility, and have provisions for long-term archiving.

The bill specifically covers unclassified research funded by agencies including: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

FRPAA reflects the growing trend among funding agencies – and college and university campuses – to leverage their investment in the conduct of research by maximizing the dissemination of results.  It follows the successful path forged by the NIH’s Public Access Policy, as well as by private funders like the Wellcome Trust and campuses such as Harvard, MIT, and the University of Kansas. The bill also reflects the Administration’s recent expression of interest in the potential implementation of public access policies across U.S. science and technology agencies – as indicated by the call for public comment issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which closed in January.

Detailed information about the Federal Research Public Access Act is available at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa.

Here’s how you can help support this legislation:

  1. Send thanks to the Bill’s sponsors, also through the ATA Action Center.
  2. Ask your representatives in Congress to co-sponsor H.R.5037 or S.1373. Act now through the ATA Legislative Action Center.
  3. Express your organization’s support to Congress for public access to taxpayer-funded research and for this bill. Send a copy of your letter to sparc [at] arl [dot] org.
  4. Issue a public statement of support from your organization and share it widely with members, colleagues, and the media. Send a copy to sparc [at] arl [dot] org to be featured on the FRPAA Web site.
  5. Share news about this bill with friends and colleagues.
  6. Post the "I support taxpayer access" banner on your Web site.
  7. See the ATA Web site at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa for more ways you can support public access to publicly funded research and this bill.

You can use the Legislative Action Center (item 1 above) to oppose H.R.801 (Fair Copyright in Research Works Act), a bill to repeal the NIH public access policy.

Open to All? Case Studies of Openness in Research

The Research Information Network and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts have released Open to All? Case Studies of Openness in Research.

Here's an excerpt:

Academic bodies, including funders and groups of researchers, have set out statements in support of various levels of openness in research. Such statements often focus upon two key dimensions: what is made open, and how; and to whom is it made open, and under what conditions? This study set out to consider the practice of six research groups from a range of disciplines in order to better understand how principles of openness are translated into practice.

The study consists of interviews with 18 researchers working across 6 UK research institutions. The aim was to identify a range of practices, not to draw conclusions that could be generalised to an entire population. Research teams were therefore selected to represent not only convinced advocates of openness, but also individuals or groups which are more selective about what they share and perhaps more sceptical of the open agenda. Each team included a senior researcher at PI level along with some of their more junior colleagues. Interviews were structured to uncover researchers’ levels of openness at various stages of the research lifecycle.

Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography

Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography is now available from Digital Scholarship.

This bibliography presents over 1,100 selected English-language scholarly works useful in understanding the open access movement's efforts to provide free access to and unfettered use of scholarly literature. The bibliography primarily includes books and published journal articles. A limited number of book chapters, conference papers, dissertations and theses, magazine articles, technical reports, and other scholarly works that are deemed to be of exceptional interest are also included (see the "Preface" for further details about selection criteria). The bibliography includes links to freely available versions of included works. Most sources have been published from January 1, 1999 through August 1, 2010; however, a limited number of key sources published prior to 1999 are also included. The bibliography is available as a paperback and an open access PDF file.

The following Digital Scholarship publications may also be of interest:

  1. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, version 78
  2. Digital Scholarship 2009 (paperback and open access PDF file)
  3. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition (paperback, Kindle e-book, and open access PDF file)
  4. Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography, version 1

Hindawi’s Open Access Journals Get Over 2,000 Submissions per Month

Hindawi's open access journals now receive over 2,000 article submissions per month.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Hindawi is pleased to announce that its growing portfolio of open access journals have collectively received more than 2,000 monthly submissions for this first time this August, only a year and a half after having passed 1,000 monthly submissions in February 2009.

"Over the past couple of years we have seen very strong growth both from new journals that we have developed as well as from many of our more well-established journals" said Mohamed Hamdy, Hindawi's Editorial Manager. "Our five largest journals have grown to more than 700 annual submissions each, and at the same time, quite a few of the journals that we have developed within the past two years are already receiving more than 100 annual submissions."

"We are very pleased with the steady growth that we have seen in our submissions during the three and half years since we converted the last of our subscription-based journals to an open access model" said Paul Peters, Hindawi's Head of Business Development. "I believe that the success that we have seen comes from the high level of service that we provide to our authors, as well as the rigorous editorial standards of our journals. Over the past few years we have rejected about two thirds of the submissions that we receive across our journal collection, and these high standards have enabled our journals to establish strong reputations within the academic community."

Helmholtz Association Signs with SpringerOpen

The Helmholtz Association, a group of 16 German scientific-technical and biological-medical research centers, has signed an agreement with SpringerOpen to support its researchers' open access publishing efforts.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Helmholtz Association has signed up for open access membership with Springer scientific publishing. The agreement means that the research centres in the Helmholtz Association will pay the fees charged to authors for articles published in SpringerOpen and BioMed Central journals. The Helmholtz Open Access Project assisted in the proceedings.

SpringerOpen journals are peer-reviewed open access journals in new, future-focused and interdisciplinary fields. They supplement Springer’s existing portfolio and that of BioMed Central, which offers over 200 open access journals from the life sciences and biomedicine. SpringerOpen journals appear exclusively online and are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which enables free dissemination of copyrighted content. The license does not give Springer exclusive rights to published content.

Authors pay an open access fee for articles they publish in SpringerOpen and BioMed Central journals, and their articles immediately appear in the relevant publication at www.springerlink.com. Dr Bernhard Mittermaier, head of the Central Library at Forschungszentrum Jülich, is enthusiastic about the agreement: "We believe that the open access journals offered by Springer are a good fit for the six research fields pursued by the Helmholtz Association. We are excited to be embarking on a partnership that will open up new possibilities for developing an open access forum for the findings of our researchers. This agreement is a step towards our goal of establishing sustainable mechanisms for ensuring fair publication fees for open access journals."

Open Access Call to Action from Alliance for Taxpayer Access

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access has issued a call to action to thank Representative Wm. Lacy Clay for holding a Congressional hearing on public access to federally funded research.

Here's an excerpt from the call:

On Thursday, July 29, the Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform held the first-ever Congressional hearing on the issue of public access to federally funded research.  The Subcommittee, chaired by The Honorable Representative Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), invited ten witnesses, representing a broad cross-section of the stakeholder communities affected by this issue, to testify on the implications of opening access to the results of publicly funded research.

The open, public hearing was a crucial and timely examination of the issue of public access and its advancement. For full details, including witness testimony, visit http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/access/access_resources/10-0814.shtml.

All supporters of public access to publicly funded research are urged to please write to Chairman Clay to express thanks for taking this important step in Congress. Talking points and contact information are included for your use below. Your action is requested NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 17th.

As ever, please send copies of letters to SPARC/Alliance for Taxpayer Access via email to jennifer [at] arl [dot] org.

And thanks, once again, for your continued support for public access! If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us:

Heather Joseph
Spokesperson
(202) 296-2296 ext. 157
heather [at] arl [dot] org

Jennifer McLennan
Director of Programs and Operations, SPARC
(202) 296-2296 ext. 121
jennifer [at] arl [dot] org
 

Talking points:

  • On behalf of the [your organization], which represents [number and type of membership], I write to thank you for your leadership in convening the first open hearing on public access to federally funded research. 
  • We believe that ensuring timely, barrier-free access to the results of the science and scholarship that our tax dollars underwrite will make possible an unprecedented variety of potential connections and discoveries, and improve the lives and welfare of people in the U.S. and around the world. We fully support policies that can turn this belief into a reality.
  • Your hearing was an invaluable and timely examination of the potential benefits of public access to the results of our nation’s $60 billion annual investment in scientific research.
  • By ensuring the hearing was inclusive and open, you created a very valuable forum for the diverse range of perspectives on the issue to be represented and explored.
  • The direction and nature of your questions also helped to surface key topics of discussion and provide much-needed clarity.
  • [detail why public access to research is important to your organization]
  • We look forward to working with you to continue to advance successful public access policies in Congress.

[end talking points]

Contact information:

The Honorable Representative Wm. Lacy Clay
Chairman, Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Via email: anthony.clark [at] mail [dot] house [dot] gov

Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone

Consumers International has released Access to Knowledge: A Guide for Everyone.

Here's an excerpt:

Access to knowledge (A2K) is the umbrella term for a movement that aims to create more equitable public access to the products of human culture and learning.

Fields of advocacy that it subsumes include most centrally copyright and patent law reform, open access, open data and open standards, but also access to public information, broader communications rights such as freedom of expression, and issues around ownership of and participation in public media.

Opening the Door: How Faculty Authors Can Implement an Open Access Policy at Their Institutions

Science Commons has released Opening the Door: How Faculty Authors Can Implement an Open Access Policy at Their Institutions.

Here's an excerpt:

This White Paper is intended as a companion to the "Open Doors and Open Minds" SPARC/Science Commons White Paper of April 2008. The purpose of this companion paper is to provide the legal and statutory bases for implementation of an open access policy, as well as to explain best practices for implementation of that policy. It is intended to be used by faculty and administrators interested in implementing an open access policy at their own educational institutions.

See also: Open Doors and Open Minds: What Faculty Authors Can Do to Ensure Open Access to Their Work through Their Institution.

Which Topic in the Open Access Journals Bibliography Has the Most References?

Which topic in the Open Access Journals Bibliography has the most references? Interestingly enough, it's "Open Access Journal Research Studies."

Here's the bibliography's section list ranked by number of references.

  1. Open Access Journal Research Studies
  2. Open Access Journal Economic Issues
  3. Open Access Journal Case Studies
  4. Open Access Journal General Works
  5. Open Access Journal Publishers and Archives
  6. Open Access Journal Library Issues

"Publishing Practices of NIH-Funded Faculty at MIT"

Courtney Crummett et al. have published "Publishing Practices of NIH-Funded Faculty at MIT" in Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.

Here's an excerpt:

Faculty and researchers who receive substantial funding from NIH were interviewed about their publication practices. Qualitative data was collected from interviews of eleven faculty members and one researcher representing six academic departments who received NIH funding. Interview responses were analyzed to identify a representative publication workflow and common themes related to the publication process. The goals of this study were to inform librarians about faculty publication practices; to learn how faculty are affected by and responding to NIH publication policy changes; and to inform planning and discussion about new services to support NIH compliance in addition to general faculty publishing.

Major themes from the interviews included consistency in publishing workflows, but variety in authorship patterns and in data management practices. Significant points of pain for authors included difficulty finding quality reviewers, frustrating submission processes, and discomfort about the implications of publication agreements. Some authors found the NIH submission requirement to be burdensome, but most assumed their publishers were taking care of this process for them. Implications for library services are considered.

Special Issue of The African Journal of Information and Communication on Scholarly Communication and Opening Access to Knowledge

The African Journal of Information and Communication has published a special issue on scholarly communication and opening access to knowledge.

Here's a selection of articles:

Version 1, Open Access Journals Bibliography

Version one of the Open Access Journals Bibliography is now available from Digital Scholarship. Open access journals publish articles (typically peer-reviewed articles) that are free of charge and, depending on the journal, may be able to be reused under an open license (e.g., a Creative Commons license). This bibliography presents selected English-language scholarly works that are useful in understanding open access journals. It does not cover works about e-prints or works that include open access journals in a treatment of diverse types of research materials. Most sources have been published from 1999 to the present; however, a few key sources published prior to 1999 are also included. The bibliography primarily includes books and published journal articles. A limited number of magazine articles and technical reports that are deemed to be of exceptional interest are also included. The bibliography includes links to freely available versions of included works.

The following recent Digital Scholarship publications may also be of interest:

  1. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, version 78
  2. Digital Scholarship 2009 (paperback and open access PDF file)
  3. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition (paperback, Kindle version, and open access PDF file)
  4. Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography, version 1

"Acknowledged Goods: Cultural Studies and the Politics of Academic Journal Publishing"

Ted Striphas has self-archived "Acknowledged Goods: Cultural Studies and the Politics of Academic Journal Publishing" in IU ScholarWorks.

Here's an excerpt:

This essay explores the changing context of academic journal publishing and cultural studies' envelopment within it. It does so by exploring five major trends affecting scholarly communication today: alienation, proliferation, consolidation, pricing, and digitization. More specifically, it investigates how recent changes in the political economy of academic journal publishing have impinged on cultural studies' capacity to transmit the knowledge it produces, thereby dampening the field's political potential. It also reflects on how cultural studies' alienation from the conditions of its production has resulted in the field's growing involvement with interests that are at odds with its political proclivities.

Presentations from the OAPEN Seminar

Presentations from the OAPEN seminar held on June 10, 2010 in Amsterdam are now available.

Here's an excerpt from the About OAPEN—Open Access Publishing in European Networks page:

OAPEN consists of a number of European university presses and universities, and is open to new partners. The publishing partners are all scholarly presses predominantly active in Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and book publishing. Jointly the members have digital publishing programmes, conduct experiments with OA, make use of digital repositories, publish in different European languages, have a worldwide distribution network (including the USA), and cooperate closely with university libraries.

MELIBEA: Directory and Validator of Open Access Policies

AccesoAbierto has made MELIBEA, a directory and validator of open access policies, available.

Here's an excerpt from the About page:

MELIBEA is a directory and validator of institutional open-access (OA) policies regarding scientific and academic work. As a directory, it describes the existing policies. As a validator, it subjects them to qualitative and quantitative analysis based on fulfilment of a set of indicators that reflect the bases of an institutional policy.

Based on the values assigned to a set of indicators, weighted according to their importance, the validator indicates a score and a percentage of fulfilment for each policy analyzed. The sum of weighted values of each indicator is converted to a percentage scale to give what we have called the "validated open-access percentage," calculated as explained in the Methodology section.