Publishing – Page 87 – DigitalKoans

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

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"

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.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Elsevier: "Unleashing the Power of Academic Sharing"

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

"Fast and Made to Last: Academic Blogs Look to Ensure Long-Term Accessibility and Stability of Content"

Christof Schöch has published "Fast and Made to Last: Academic Blogs Look to Ensure Long-Term Accessibility and Stability of Content" in Impact of Social Sciences.

Here's an excerpt:

The advantage of blogs compared with such talks is that here, discussions can happen across geographical and temporal borders, and that they stay visible online in comments or companion posts. But aren't blog posts, ultimately, almost as fleeting as a talk at a workshop? Who makes sure the content stays online not just today and tomorrow, but in the long term? Who guarantees that the link to the post remains the same? Who ensures that the text will not be modified later on? These are issues that need to be resolved if blogs are to be reliable, trusted, citeable resources and receive academic recognition even in the absence of traditional pre-publication peer-review. . . . The research blogging platform hypotheses.org has understood this early on. This fact is undoubtedly a factor in the success of the platform, which is run by the French initiative OpenEdition and currently hosts 1006 (and counting) research blogs in French, Spanish, Portuguese, German and English coming from the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

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

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

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

"Steps toward a New GSU Ruling"

Kevin Smith has published "Steps toward a New GSU Ruling" in Scholarly Communication @ Duke University.

Here's an excerpt:

It appears that once again the publishers have failed in an effort to broaden the scope of the case beyond the item-by-item fair use analysis that has already been done and to possibly reintroduce some of the broad principles that they really want, which have so far been rejected at every stage. Now Judge Evans has explicitly told them, in her scheduling order, that what is required is "consideration and reevaluation of each of the individual claims" in order to redetermine "in each instance… whether defendants' use was a fair use under 17 U.S.C. section 107." Her schedule for the briefs is tight, with an end of the briefing now scheduled just two and a half months from now. Presumably we would still have a long wait while Judge Evans applies revised reasoning about fair use to each of the individual excerpts, but it looks a bit more like that is what is going to happen.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication Infrastructure"

Rebecca Kennison and Lisa Norberg have published "A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication Infrastructure" in EDUCAUSE Review.

Here's an excerpt:

The open-access movement, fueled by the digital revolution, is transforming the business of scholarly communication, affecting the entire value chain. Rapidly emerging technologies have been crucial enablers of this transformation, blurring traditional roles and attracting new participants. The infrastructure and the economic framework established to support a centuries-old model of scholarly publishing are no longer adequate to the task. We believe that a radically different approach is required-one that is open, flexible, collaborative, and networked.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

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

University of Minnesota Press and GC Digital Scholarship Lab Get $732,000 Mellon Grant for Manifold Scholarship

The University of Minnesota Press and GC Digital Scholarship Lab of Graduate Center of the City University of New York have received a $732,000 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant for Manifold Scholarship.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Moving beyond the digitization of scholarly books, based primarily in siloed, read-only analogues to print such as Adobe Acrobat PDF and Epub, Manifold will define and create the next phase of scholarly publishing: monographs that open the boundaries of separate formats like "print" and "e-book." Foreseeing an emerging hybrid environment for scholarship, Manifold will develop, alongside the print edition of a book, an alternate form of publication that is networked and iterative, served on an interactive, open-source platform. . . .

In Manifold, a digital scholarly work would not be a static replication of the print book. From the beginning it is dynamic, revised, and expanded to reflect the evolution of academic thought and research, incorporating access to primary research documents and data, links to related archives, rich media, social media, and reading tools. Manifold seeks to encompass the growth and refinement of academic work as it is discussed, reviewed, and analyzed.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

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

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.

February 12, 2008. Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences

April 27, 2008. Macquarie University

May 7, 2008, Harvard University, School of Law

June 10, 2008, Stanford University, School of Education

October 2008, University College London (UCL)

February 11, 2009. Boston University

March 6, 2009, Oregon State University, Library Faculty

March 18, 2009, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

May 2009. University of Calgary, division of Library and Cultural Resources

May 2009. University of Pretoria

May 7, 2009, University of Oregon, Library Faculty

May 14, 2009, University of Oregon, Department of Romance Languages

May 14, 2009, Gustavus Adolphus College, Library Faculty

October 1, 2009, York University, librarians and archivists

October, 2009. Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela)

November 18, 2009, Oberlin College

December 2, 2009, University of Northern Colorado, Library Faculty

February 1, 2010, Wake Forest University, Library faculty

February 9, 2010, California Polytechnic State University

February 12, 2010, Oregon State University College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS)

February 24, 2010, University of Virginia

February 25, 2010, Rollins College Faculty of Arts and Sciences

March 18, 2010, Duke University

March 24, 2010, University of Puerto Rico School of Law

April 19, 2010, San Jose State University

September 27, 2010, University of Northern Colorado

October 2010, Trinity College Dublin

December 22, 2010, Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

March 15, 2011, Emory University

May 11, 2011, University of Pennsylvania

September 2011, Princeton University

October 19, 2011, Florida State University

December 8, 2011, Pacific University

January 27, 2012, Bifröst University

February 15, 2012, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto

April 2012, Utah State University

May 21, 2012, University of California, San Francisco

February 6, 2013, Wellesley College

March 4, 2013, College of Wooster

March 5, 2013, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Library faculty

March 21, 2013, University of Rhode Island

April 2013, Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University

June 13, 2013, Oregon State University

December 2013, Télé-université (TELUQ), Université du Québec

December 2, 2013, Columbia University, School of Social Work

June 18, 2014, Harvard Medical School

October 7, 2014, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

October 9, 2014, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University

February 11, 2015, Boston University

April 6, 2015, University of Delaware

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness"

A. Swan et al. have self-archived "Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness".

Here's an excerpt:

The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP, the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured for articles in institutions' repositories and compared to the total number of WoS-indexed articles published from those institutions. Average deposit rate was over four times as high for institutions with a mandatory policy. Six positive correlations were found between deposit rates and (1) Must-Deposit; (2) Cannot-Waive-Deposit; (3) Deposit-Linked-to-Research-Evaluation; (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention; (5) Must-Make-Deposit-OA (after allowable embargo) and (6) Can-Waive-OA. For deposit latency, there is a positive correlation between earlier deposit and (7) Must-Deposit-Immediately as well as with (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention and with mandate age. There are not yet enough OA policies to test whether still further policy conditions would contribute to mandate effectiveness but the present findings already suggest that it would be useful for current and future OA policies to adopt the seven positive conditions so as to accelerate and maximise the growth of OA.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Understanding Rights Reversion: When, Why, & How to Regain Copyright and Make Your Book More Available

The Authors Alliance has released Understanding Rights Reversion: When, Why, & How to Regain Copyright and Make Your Book More Available.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This guide is the product of extensive outreach to the publishing industry. In the process, we interviewed authors, publishers, and literary agents, ranging from a CEO of a major publishing house to contracts and rights managers of trade and academic presses, editorial assistants, novelists, and academic authors.

We were happily surprised by the consistency of publishers' responses: across the board, publishers told us that they want to work together with their authors and that they are often willing to give authors their rights back if its in the books' best interests.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Next Up for Agency Public Access Plans: NOAA"

SPARC has released "Next Up for Agency Public Access Plans: NOAA" by Heather Joseph.

Here's an excerpt:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released its plan to create policies ensuring public access to articles and data resulting from its funded research, as required by the February 2013 White House directive. . . .

The NOAA plan calls for all agency-funded intramural and extramural researchers to deposit final, accepted manuscripts into the agency's repository upon acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike many of the other agencies that have released plans to date, NOAA will also require its investigators to submit technical reports, data reports, and technical memoranda into the repository as well—significantly increasing the scope of the materials covered by the agency's policy.

NOAA will use the OSTP-suggested 12-month embargo period as its baseline. Like other agencies, it will provide stakeholders with a mechanism for petitioning the agency to change the embargo period. The plan indicates that requests must include evidence that outweighs the public benefit of having the embargo remain at one year. . . .

Currently, funded researchers are required to make data "visible and accessible" within two years. The new plan calls for this time frame to be shortened to just one year. It also indicates that data underlying the conclusions of peer-reviewed articles will most likely be required to be made available at the time of the article's publication, in appropriate repositories (presumably to be designated by NOAA).

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2015 First Quarter"

Heather Morrison has published "Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2015 First Quarter" in The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics.

Here's an excerpt:

OpenDOAR added 129 repositories for a total of 2,857. The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine added close to 3 million documents for a total of over 71 million documents. Another 7,690 authors joined the Social Sciences Research Network for a total of over 275,000 authors.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"NIST Releases Public Access Plan: Agency will Partner with NIH to use PMC Platform"

SPARC has released "NIST Releases Public Access Plan: Agency will Partner with NIH to use PMC Platform" by Heather Joseph.

Here's an excerpt:

NIST's plan calls for the agency to partner with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to use PubMed Central (PMC) as the repository for articles. The plan indicated that NIST selected this option in order to "leverage the well-established search, archival, and dissemination features of PMC."

All NIST-funded researchers will be required to deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts into PMC upon acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal and make them available to the public with no longer than a 12-month embargo period. NIST will also accept final published articles where allowed and will follow the NIH's current format requirements. As with the other agencies, NIST will provide stakeholders with a mechanism for petitioning the agency to "shorten or extend the allowable embargo period." NIST envisions that this process would take place through a public petition process run through the Federal Register. . . .

NIST's plan for providing public access to data consists of three components: requiring data management plans (DMPs), creating an Enterprise Data Inventory (EDI), and establishing a Common Access Platform providing a public access infrastructure.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"5 Million Public Domain Ebooks in HathiTrust: What Does This Mean?"

Rick Anderson has published "5 Million Public Domain Ebooks in HathiTrust: What Does This Mean?" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

A week or so ago, a monumental thing happened: the number of public-domain books in the HathiTrust digital repository topped 5 million. And since no one (including HathiTrust, so far) seems to be making a very big deal about this, it seems like a good moment both to recap the achievements of HathiTrust and to consider a few of its implications for the future of reading and scholarship.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Should I Stay or Should I Go? Alternative Infrastructures in Scholarly Publishing"

Carl Lagoze, et al. have published "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Alternative Infrastructures in Scholarly Publishing" in the International Journal of Communication.

Here's an excerpt:

For more than three-and-a-half centuries, the scholarly infrastructure—composed of commercial publishers, learned societies, libraries, and the scholars themselves—has provided the foundation functions of certification, registration, access, preservation, and reward. However, over the last two decades, the stability of this infrastructure has been disrupted by profound changes in the technological, economic, cultural, and political climate. We examine the actions of scholars in response to this infrastructure instability through the lens of Hirschman's "exit, voice, and loyalty" framework. We describe the motivations and actions by scholars, especially those with tenure, who have chosen exit from the mainstream scholarly communication infrastructure to a proliferation of newly available alternative infrastructures. However, this option is not practical for all scholars due to the "enforced loyalty" imposed by reward systems based on metrics that are intricately tied to the traditional infrastructure. We examine the alternative of voice exercised by these scholars, combined with the threat of exit that has changed policies that are the source of dissatisfaction with the system.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

CHORUS Progress Report, April 2015

CHORUS has released the CHORUS Progress Report, April 2015.

Here's an excerpt:

As of this month, CHORUS is providing access to and information about tens of thousands of articles reporting on federally funded research. CHORUS was also named by the US Department of Energy as part of its public-access solution. The significant progress we've made in the eight months since we moved into full production mode is a great foundation for CHORUS to build on for the benefit of the scholarly community. This report is a summary of our achievements during this pivotal period.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Cogent OA Launches Experimental Freedom APCs Program Letting Authors Choose What to Pay

Cogent OA has launched an experimental Freedom APCs Program.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Through Cogent OA's Freedom APC model, authors are requested to explore all avenues for funding the publication of their article, such as their funding agency, institution or company and to select a fee from a range of options based on their circumstances and how much they can afford to pay. The final decision rests with the author.

Further information: Article Publishing Charges (APCs).

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"When Data Sharing Gets Close to 100%: What Human Paleogenetics Can Teach the Open Science Movement"

Paolo Anagnostou et al. have published "When Data Sharing Gets Close to 100%: What Human Paleogenetics Can Teach the Open Science Movement" in .

Here's an excerpt:

This study analyzes data sharing regarding mitochondrial, Y chromosomal and autosomal polymorphisms in a total of 162 papers on ancient human DNA published between 1988 and 2013. The estimated sharing rate was not far from totality (97.6% ± 2.1%) and substantially higher than observed in other fields of genetic research (evolutionary, medical and forensic genetics). Both a questionnaire-based survey and the examination of Journals' editorial policies suggest that this high sharing rate cannot be simply explained by the need to comply with stakeholders requests. Most data were made available through body text, but the use of primary databases increased in coincidence with the introduction of complete mitochondrial and next-generation sequencing methods. Our study highlights three important aspects. First, our results imply that researchers' awareness of the importance of openness and transparency for scientific progress may complement stakeholders' policies in achieving very high sharing rates. Second, widespread data sharing does not necessarily coincide with a prevalent use of practices which maximize data findability, accessibility, useability and preservation. A detailed look at the different ways in which data are released can be very useful to detect failures to adopt the best sharing modalities and understand how to correct them. Third and finally, the case of human paleogenetics tells us that a widespread awareness of the importance of Open Science may be important to build reliable scientific practices even in the presence of complex experimental challenges.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

Department of Defense Releases Draft Plan to Establish Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research

The Department of Defense has released a draft Plan to Establish Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research .

Here's an excerpt from the SPARC announcement:

It calls for all DoD-funded researchers to deposit final peer-reviewed manuscripts into the Department's "Defense Technical Information Center" (DTIC) repository. All articles will be made available to the public with no longer than a 12 embargo period. . . .

The DoD draft plan doesn't elaborate on reuse rights for articles in the DTIC database, other than to note that articles will be subject to copyright and related license terms. Articles authored by DoD employees, however, will carry a full government use license. . . .

One significant place where the DoD's draft plan differs from others released to date is in the area of compliance. The Department indicates that it plans to develop its own "compliance monitor," that will issue "certification tokens" to authors who submit articles and datasets to the DoD under the new policies. The current document doesn't provide any additional details, but the concept of tokens is an intriguing one.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"What We Got Wrong about Books"

Joseph Esposito has published "What We Got Wrong about Books" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

This is where we have gotten into trouble. The apparent fixity of a book, the tendency to think of a book as something stuck inside an inflexible container, has led us to imagine that books are used the way they are written, or how we assume they are written—that is, from beginning to end. The prominence of the novel as a literary form over the past two centuries reinforces this. Who would want to break off in the middle of Tom Jones? The traditional novel is linear, which has created an expectation that all books are linear. That expectation is simply wrong, as Kobo and our own reading experience tell us.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship—An Interview with Robin Champieux and Jill Emery about This New Conference"

Alice Meadows has published "Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship—An Interview with Robin Champieux and Jill Emery about This New Conference" in The Scholarly Kitchen.

Here's an excerpt:

ARCS, Advancing Research Communication & Scholarship, is a new conference designed to provide a broad and collaborative forum for addressing and affecting scholarly and scientific communication. As organizers, we are working from the idea that supporting and improving knowledge communication in the digital age necessitates conversations and partnerships across communities, disciplines, and expertise. . . . Partnering with an organizing committee of librarians, technologists, humanists, scientists, and publishers we have built a conference program that addresses scholarly communication issues across the research cycle, through a diversity of stakeholder perspectives.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap

"Beyond Beall’s List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers"

Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella have published "Beyond Beall's List: Better Understanding Predatory Publishers" in College & Research Libraries News.

Here's an excerpt:

Although predatory publishers predate OA, their recent explosion was expedited by the emergence and success of fee-charging OA journals. No matter how strong our urge to support and defend OA, librarians cannot deny the profusion of predators in the OA arena; John Bohannon's recent "sting" made abundantly clear (despite methodological flaws) that there are many bad actors. Rather, we should seek to understand their methods, track their evolution, and communicate their characteristics to our patrons.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Sitemap