"The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers Persists in Exclusive Database"


Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the ‘oligopoly’ of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions’ and OpenAlex’ inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17893

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Effects of Research Paper Promotion via ArXiv and X"


In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, it is important to understand the drivers of high-impact research, to equip scientists with actionable strategies to enhance the reach of their work, and to understand trends in the use of modern scientific publishing tools to inform their further development. Here, we study trends in the use of early preprint publications and revisions on ArXiv and the use of X (formerly Twitter) for promotion of such papers in computer science and physics. We find that early submissions to ArXiv and promotion on X have soared in recent years. Estimating the effect that the use of each of these modern affordances has on the number of citations of scientific publications, we find that peer-reviewed conference papers in computer science that are submitted early to ArXiv gain on average 21.1±17.4 more citations, revised on ArXiv gain 18.4±17.6 more citations, and promoted on X gain 44.4±8 more citations in the first 5 years from an initial publication. In contrast, journal articles in physics experience comparatively lower boosts in citation counts, with increases of 3.9±1.1, 4.3±0.9, and 6.9±3.5 citations respectively for the same interventions. Our results show that promoting one’s work on ArXiv or X has a large impact on the number of citations, as well as the number of influential citations computed by Semantic Scholar, and thereby on the career of researchers. These effects are present also for publications in physics, but they are relatively smaller. The larger relative effect sizes, effects of promotion accumulating over time, and elevated unpredictability of the number of citations in computer science than in physics suggest a greater role of world-of-mouth spreading in computer science than in physics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11116v2

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Updated Report to the U.S. Congress on Financing Mechanisms for Open Access Publishing of Federally Funded Research


This current report elaborates on:

  • Implementation to advance federal public access policies. Updated agency public access policies will go into effect by December 31, 2025, in accordance with the 2022 Memorandum.
  • Trends in scholarly publishing since the release of the November 2023 Report, including further discussion of business models to enable public access to federally funded research, as well as domestic and global developments in advancing public access to research results.
  • An expansion of the analysis of estimated article processing charges paid to publish federally funded research from 2016 to 2022, with further discussion of limitations associated with calculating these charges.
  • Efforts to advance research integrity, including through implementation of federal public access policies and open science practices.
  • Continuing trends in peer review as they relate to research integrity, equity, and sustainability.

https://tinyurl.com/yryw9ejv

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Switzerland and Elsevier Sign R&P Agreement 2024-2028 "


On 10 June 2024, swissuniversities signed a comprehensive Open Access agreement with Elsevier on behalf of the Swiss universities and other mandating organisations. The agreement with Elsevier guarantees to members of Swiss universities and participating organisations a full reading access to Elsevier’s entire journal portfolio. The agreement also allows to publish, without restriction, in over 2,500 Elsevier Open Access journals, including the Cell Press and The Lancet journal series, at no additional cost. Furthermore, all institutions now receive permanent access to journal content that was published during the years of their participation in the agreement ("Post Cancellation Access"). . . .

The agreement now explicitly regulates the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in connection with licensed content. It guarantees members of Swiss universities and mandating organisations the greatest possible liberty in the use of AI tools for the analysis of Elsevier publications for research, teaching and innovation purposes. The agreement allows the analysis of open-access publications (under licences such as “CC BY”) with any AI tool or their use for the development of AI applications. The agreement also authorises any use of AI tools as long as it is guaranteed that the licensed content is not used for the further development of the model. The use of learning AI tools or the development of the university’s own AI applications is permissible insofar as these are hosted locally by the institution or operated by third parties exclusively for the institution.

https://tinyurl.com/2tkhekwv

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Towards an All-Ireland Diamond Open Access Publishing Platform: The PublishOA.ie Project—2022–2024quot;


The Government of Ireland has set a target of achieving 100% open access to publicly funded scholarly publications by 2030. As a key element of achieving this objective, the PublishOA.ie project was established to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an all-island [Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland] digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access journals and monographs designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers, and research funding organisations in Irish scholarly publishing. It should be noted in this context that there is substantial "north–south " cooperation between public bodies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, some of whom operate on what is commonly termed an "all-island " basis. The project commenced in November 2022 and will run until November 2024, with the submission of a Final Report. This article originated as an interim project report presented in September 2023 at the PubMet2023 conference in Zadar, Croatia. The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will encompass scholarly publishing across the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the European Union (EU): the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is co-led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland’s leading body of experts in the Sciences and Humanities, and the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute of Trinity College Dublin. There are sixteen partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. The feasibility study will be based on a review of the publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices, and funding models for Diamond OA, benchmarking against other national platforms, and specifications of the requirements, leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors. PublishOA.ie aims to deliver an evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. This paper provides an interim report on progress on the project as of September 2023, ten months after its commencement.

https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12030019

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Achieving Global Open Access The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness


Often assumed to be a self-evident good, OA has been subject to growing criticism for perpetuating global inequities and epistemic injustices. It has been seen as imposing exploitative business and publishing models and as exacerbating exclusionary research evaluation cultures and practices. [Stephen] Pinfield engages with these issues, recognising that the global OA debate is now not just about publishing business models and academic reward structures, but also about what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge, how we know, and who gets to say. The book argues that, for OA to deliver its potential, it first needs to be associated with ‘epistemic openness’, a wider and more inclusive understanding of what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge. It also needs to be accompanied by ‘participatory openness’, enabling contributions to knowledge from more diverse communities. Interacting with relevant theory and current practice, the book discusses the challenges in implementing these different forms of openness, the relationships between them, and their limits.

https://tinyurl.com/msn9k945

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Empowering Knowledge through AI: Open Scholarship Proactively Supporting Well Trained Generative AI"


Generative AI has taken the world by storm over the last few years, and the world of scholarly communications has not been immune to this. Most discussions in this area address how we can integrate these tools into our workflows, concerns about how researchers and students might misuse the technology or the unauthorised use of copyrighted work. This article argues for a novel viewpoint that librarians and publishers should be encouraging the use of their scholarly content in the training of AI algorithms. Inclusion of scholarly works would advance the reliability and accuracy of the information in training datasets and ensure that this content is included in new knowledge discovery platforms. The article also argues that inclusion can be achieved by improving linkage to content, and, by making sure that licences explicitly allow inclusion in AI training datasets, it advocates for a more collaborative approach to shaping the future of the information landscape in academia.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.649

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Analyzing Research Data Repositories (RDR) from BRICS Nations: A Comprehensive Study"


As of March 2, 2024, re3data.org indexes a total of 3,192 Research Data Repositories (RDRs) worldwide, with BRICS nations contributing 195. China leads among BRICS nations, followed by India, Russia, and Brazil. . . . "House, tailor-made " software is widely used for creating RDRs, followed by Dataverse and DSpace. . . . Most repositories are disciplinary, followed by institutional ones. Most repositories specify data upload types, with "restricted " being the most common, followed by closed types. Open access is predominant in data access, followed by restricted access and embargo periods, while a small number restrict access entirely.

https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-04-2024-0040

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Diamond OA 2024: The World of No-Fee Open Access Journals

The overall picture for 2023, the last year covered here:

  • 422,941 articles in 2023—down a bit from 2022.
  • 12,991 journals, of which 11,847 had 2023 articles when checked.
  • Diamond OA is about half humanities & social sciences (49%of articles and 63% of journals).
  • Diamond OA is almost entirely (97%) either published or funded by universities and societies and is mostly in small and medium-sized journals.

"Evaluating Open Access Advantages for Citations and Altmetrics (2011-21): A Dynamic and Evolving Relationship"


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 |

D5.2 National Overviews on Sustaining Institutional Publishing in Europe


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 |

"Exploring the Relationship between Traditional Bibliometrics and Altmetric Scores in the Primary Care Literature"


  • There is some evidence that Altmetric scores correlate with citations in medical research, but this is not consistent across different specialties.
  • No previous studies have examined the association between Altmetric score and citation amongst primary care research journals.
  • Using correlation coefficients and log–log linear regression modelling, this study found a relationship between Altmetric score and citations.
  • A 10% increase in Altmetric score was associated with a 1.68% (95% CI: 0.87%–2.50%) increase in citations.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1584

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Springer Nature Unveils Two New AI Tools to Protect Research Integrity"


Geppetto works by dividing the paper up into sections and uses its own algorithms to check the consistency of the text in each section. The sections are then given a score based on the probability that the text in them has been AI generated. The higher the score, the greater the probability of there being problems, initiating a human check by Springer Nature staff. Geppetto is already responsible for identifying hundreds of fake papers soon after submission, preventing them from being published — and from taking up editors’ and peer reviewers’ valuable time. . . .

SnappShot, also developed in-house, is an AI-assisted image integrity analysis tool. Currently used to analyse PDF files containing gel and blot images and look for duplications in those image types— another known integrity problem within the industry — this will be expanded to cover additional image types and integrity problems and speed up checks on papers.

https://tinyurl.com/3uxbvans

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"MDPI Sets a New Benchmark for Publishing Excellence"


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.

https://tinyurl.com/2zcc74mj

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Taylor & Francis Issues Expanded Guidance on AI Application for Authors, Editors and Reviewers "


Taylor & Francis has issued the latest iteration of its policy on the application of AI tools. The policy aims to promote ethical and transparent use of AI, while addressing the risks and challenges it can pose for research publishing.

From the policy:

Authors must clearly acknowledge within the article or book any use of Generative AI tools through a statement which includes: the full name of the tool used (with version number), how it was used, and the reason for use. For article submissions, this statement must be included in the Methods or Acknowledgments section. Book authors must disclose their intent to employ Generative AI tools at the earliest possible stage to their editorial contacts for approval — either at the proposal phase if known, or if necessary, during the manuscript writing phase. If approved, the book author must then include the statement in the preface or introduction of the book .

https://tinyurl.com/h3rfkynm

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Accelerated Acceptance Time for Preprint Submissions: A Comparative Analysis Based on Pubmed"


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 |

"NGLP [Next Generation Library Publishing] Awarded IMLS Funding to Move ‘From Pilot to Production’"


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.

https://tinyurl.com/6ajbmux8

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Paywall: "Journal Requirement for Data Sharing Statements in Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study"


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 |

"Towards Conversational Discovery: New Discovery Applications for Scholarly Information in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence "


Here, we. . . discuss how GenAI is moving us towards conversational discovery and what this might mean for publishing, as well as potential future trends in information discovery.

AI-powered features include natural language search, concise summaries, and synthesis of research. . . .

It [Scopus AI] has the ability to use keywords from research abstracts to generate concept maps for each query. Dimensions Assistant offers well-structured explanations. . . researchers can receive notifications each time content is generated . . . .

There are two types of AI/GenAI powered discovery systems: AI+ refers to native applications which can only be built based on GenAI (such as Chat GPT and Perplexity.ai), while +AI means AI/GenAI can be integrated to improve existing discovery tools and search engines such as Google and Bing.

https://tinyurl.com/53chtzu7

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Classifying Open Access Business Models


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 |

"Stronger Together: Library-led Open Access Publishing in Scotland"


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:

  1. Glasgow Caledonian University
  2. Heriot Watt University
  3. Queen Margaret University
  4. Robert Gordon University
  5. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
  6. Scottish Universities Press
  7. Society of Antiquaries Scotland
  8. St Andrews University
  9. University of Edinburgh
  10. University of Glasgow
  11. The University of the Highlands and Islands

https://tinyurl.com/2vy7wp94

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Paywall: "Does Research Funding, Open Access Availability, and Collaboration in Research Influence Citation Impact? An Analysis of Neurotechnology Research"


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 |

"Editors at Philosophy & Public Affairs Resign; Will Launch New OA Journal"


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.

https://tinyurl.com/42z2t83c

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Amplifying Academic Research through YouTube: Engagement Metrics as Predictors of Citation Impact"


The preliminary findings from the linear regression analysis (Table 1) suggest a meaningful relationship between the online engagement metrics of videos on YouTube and the academic impact of the publications referenced within these videos. Specifically, the analysis found positive correlations with the citation impact for three key metrics: the number of videos referencing publications, the ratio of likes to dislikes on videos, and the number of comments containing references to other publications. The positive correlation indicates a sort of selective amplification process. Publications mentioned in videos that garner attention in the form of likes and active discussion in comments are likely being selectively chosen for their relevance or quality. This selection process by content creators and the subsequent engagement by viewers may serve as an “informal peer review”, signaling the value and impact of the research. The findings suggest that social media, particularly YouTube in this context, acts as a filter that potentially can highlight the visibility of impactful research.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12734

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

UC and Authors Alliance: "Outcomes, Questions, and Answers: ‘The Right to Deposit (r2d) Uniform Guidance to Ensure Author Compliance and Public Access’"


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.

https://tinyurl.com/bdfks8pu

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |