Category: Scholarly Journals

African Journals Online Migrates to Open Journal Systems Platform

African Journals Online has migrated all of its journals to Open Journal Systems.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

At 346 journals from 26 countries, AJOL is the world’s largest online collection of African journals, but until now, has included only tables of content, abstracts, and journal information on the website. As of the beginning of May, 60% of the 40,000 plus articles on AJOL will be available for immediate download. By the end of 2009, AJOL aims to have 100% of its growing collection fully full-text online.

The updated site and the new functionality are possible due to a close collaboration between AJOL and the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), developers of Open Journal Systems (OJS)—the open source software which powers the AJOL service. AJOL is also supported by its donor partners, INASP and the Ford Foundation.

AJOL receives an average of 60,000 visits per month, 30% of which are from the African continent and over 15% from other parts of the developing world. The global researcher community and the authors and institutions whose work is published in the portal benefit from this increased access and visibility of African knowledge provided by AJOL. The new portal helps AJOL achieve its greater goal of shifting global flows of scholarly information, so that the importance of research published from the global south is more equitably represented.

AJOL allows for both Subscription-based and Open Access journals to be hosted for free on the site, with article downloads to toll journals being processed by AJOL and income sent on to the originating journals, less AJOL cost-recovery. In the future, AJOL will begin providing access to journal management functions of OJS to its partner Open Access journals, as a way to improve editorial quality and lower production costs.

DigitalKoans

Mike Rossner, Executive Director of the Rockefeller University Press, Issues “A Challenge to Goliath”

Mike Rossner, Executive Director of the Rockefeller University Press, has published "A Challenge to Goliath" in The Journal of Experimental Medicine.

Here's an excerpt:

Megapublishers obligate librarians to buy hundreds of journals they do not need in order to access the journals their constituents actually read. The time has come to challenge this business model, which is unsustainable for the libraries.

Open Access: SPARC/ACRL Release SCOAP3—Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

SPARC and ACRL have released SCOAP3—Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Key details about the SCOAP3 innovative proposal to change the dynamics of publishing in High-Energy Physics are highlighted in a new set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) from SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).

SCOAP3, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access in Particle Physics Publishing, currently depends on expressions of interest from the U.S. library community before the experiment can move ahead. The proposal is currently supported by more than 100 U.S. libraries, by the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, and by libraries, consortia and funding agencies in 18 other countries.

Prepared in consultation with SCOAP3 and members of SPARC and ACRL, the FAQs aim to support U.S. libraries in evaluating their commitment to SCOAP3, and to clarify for all libraries details of the proposal and how the new model is intended to work. Issues addressed in the document include:

  • What is SCOAP3’s business model?
  • Why is it important for the library community to support the model?
  • What are some of the benefits it is hoped the model will achieve?
  • What can my library do to support SCOAP3?
  • What will be the relationship between arXiv and SCOAP3?
  • How can public universities legally participate in the project?
  • Which libraries & library consortia have committed to SCOAP3?

Presentations from UK Serials Group’s 32nd Annual Conference Are Available

Presentations from UK Serials Group 32nd Annual Conference are now available (plenary sessions and breakout sessions).

Here's a quick sample:

“Reality Bites: Periodicals Price Survey 2009”

Library Journal has published "Reality Bites: Periodicals Price Survey 2009."

Here's an excerpt:

As waves of grim economic news wash over state and federal governments here and abroad, libraries of all types and sizes are bracing for budget cuts the likes of which have not been seen in three generations. Unlike most financial crises, this one is ubiquitous, with all but a handful of states in the red and getting redder. Globally, the meltdown is playing havoc with currencies, and the cost of journals priced in currencies other than the pound, the euro, or the U.S. dollar have skyrocketed. Severe losses in endowment revenue, which in the past insulated materials budgets to a degree, have left even larger and wealthier libraries facing cuts.

A number of librarians expect the budget cuts to be permanent; others say funds will rebound, but the recovery will take years. Even if the recession is less severe than feared, experts say not to expect relief before 2012. In journals parlance, that’s three renewal cycles from now—more than enough to stress publishers without deep reserves. For an industry that is already in the throes of reinventing itself, this recession will hit hard.

Columbia’s Center for Digital Research and Scholarship Launches Harm Reduction Journal Companion Site for Supplemental Materials

The Center for Digital Research and Scholarship at Columbia University Libraries/Information Services has launched a companion site for the Harm Reduction Journal, an open access published by BioMed Central.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Professor Drucker partnered with CDRS to build a site that would allow HRJ authors, editors, and readers to share supplemental materials—such as datasets, commentaries, and translations—and respond to newer articles published on the journal's dot com home. The new dot org site accomplishes this by transforming every article published on HRJ dot com into its own blog. HRJ dot org also provides a forum for announcements, links, and discussion on harm reduction trends and efforts. "This approach enables HRJ to take full advantage of the rapid publication, secure and authoritative archiving, and the powerful dissemination and reach inherent in the medium of open access publishing, while simultaneously creating an open space for 'the long tail' of post-publication possibilities that make internet publications living documents," explained Professor Drucker.

BioMed Central's Director of Journal Publishing, Sarah Cooney, elaborated, "The open-access platform ensures the swift and unrestricted communication of scientific information to researchers. This new companion site will prove hugely significant for encouraging future advances and lead to an increased level of data sharing within the scientific community." CDRS Director Rebecca Kennison noted, "This new site demonstrates in very practical terms the possibilities inherent in open-access publications, which in addition to free access also allow for creative reuse of articles, such as we actively encourage on this companion site."

DOAJ and e-Depot to Preserve Open Access Journals

With support from the Swedish Library Association, the Directory of Open Access Journals and the e-Depot of the National Library of the Netherlands will preserve open access journals.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Long-term preservation of scholarly publications is of major importance for the research community. New formats of scholarly publications, new business models and new ways of dissemination are constantly being developed. To secure permanent access to scientific output for the future, focussed on the preservation of articles published in open access journals, a cooperation between Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ—www.doaj.org), developed and operated by Lund University Libraries and the e-Depot of the National Library of the Netherlands (www.kb.nl/e-Depot) has been initiated.

The composition of the DOAJ collection (currently 4000 journals) is characterized by a very large number of publishers (2.000+), each publishing a very small number of journals on different platforms, in different formats and in more than 50 different languages. Many of these publishers are—with a number of exceptions—fragile when it comes to financial, technical and administrative sustainability.

At present DOAJ and KB carry out a pilot project aimed at setting up a workflow for processing open access journals listed with DOAJ. In the pilot a limited number of open access journals will be subject to long term preservation. These activities will be scaled up shortly and long term archiving of the journals listed in the DOAJ at KB’s e-Depot will become an integral part of the service provided by the DOAJ.

Paying for Open Access Publication Charges: Guidance for Higher Education and Research Institutions, Publishers and Authors

The Research Information Network has released Paying for Open Access Publication Charges: Guidance for Higher Education and Research Institutions, Publishers and Authors

Here's an excerpt:

This document provides advice and guidance on the arrangements for paying open access publication fees: that is, fees levied by some journals for the publication of scholarly articles so that they can be made available free of charge to readers, immediately upon publication. The guidance is directed to UK HEIs and other research institutions, to research funders, to publishers, and to authors. It is the practical outcome from a working group established by UUK and the RIN. It presents the advice from representatives of the library, publishing and research administrator communities on the practical issues to be addressed in establishing coordinated and strategic approaches to the payment of publication fees.

RIN Briefing Note: Scholarly Books and Journals at Risk: Responding to the Challenges of a Changing Economy

The Research Information Network has released Scholarly Books and Journals at Risk: Responding to the Challenges of a Changing Economy

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The current economic difficulties across the globe bring serious risks to scholarly books and journals. In the UK, the recent dramatic fall in the value of sterling has seriously damaged university library purchasing budgets.

This briefing note aims to inform and motivate all key stakeholders—universities, funding bodies, researchers, librarians, and publishers—to work together to find creative, practical and sustainable solutions to this serious (and unforeseen) challenge to the vitality of the UK’s research base.

E-Journals: Their Use, Value and Impact

The Research Information Network has released E-Journals: Their Use, Value and Impact.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The report was undertaken by the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER) at University College London for the RIN to provide a detailed analysis of how academic researchers in the UK have responded to the provision of e-journals, and how this has shaped their information seeking behaviour and their usage of e-journals. The project looked at:

  • investigating researchers behaviour: looking at levels and patterns of use, the content viewed and how they navigate to it
  • finding out how researchers' behaviours may vary by subjects and disciplines, and the type of university they study at
  • gathering and analysing evidence of relationships between researchers' behaviour and institutional spending on e-journals, and
  • gathering and analysing evidence of relations between researchers' behaviour and research productivity, outputs, including number of publications produced, citations attracted and the results of research evaluation.

Virginia Tech Journal Cut: Almost $900,000

The Virginia Tech University Libraries will reduce journal subscriptions by almost $900,000 in the 2009-2010 budget year.

Here's an excerpt from "Library to Cut Nearly $1 Million":

Hitchingham [Dean of University Libraries] said that the university must cancel $500,000 worth of subscriptions to accommodate library budget cuts. They must also cover $400,000 worth of cuts to meet inflationary cost increases.

Transcript of Reed Elsevier Group’s 2008 Earnings Call

Seeking Alpha has published a transcript of the Reed Elsevier Group's 2008 earnings call.

Here's an excerpt:

[Sir Crispin Davis] Turning now to the individual businesses, Elsevier had a good year, good overall results and the internals I think are genuinely encouraging. Renewals went up again to 98%, and if you think about this, this is extraordinary, that among our 6000 customers across over 150 countries in the word that we can get 98% renewal rate in these times.

Usage rose up again well about to 20% in terms of actual downloads, average subscription contract more that 3 years, and the present round of renewals is going very well. For example, one of our more challenging clients, California Digital Library, we signed a five-year contract with them recently. . . .

Again, underlying this is a lot of encouraging data in terms of the quality of our content and publications. The last two years we've seen citation rates rise up. We've seen impact factors rise up. For example, Sale this year for the first time overtook Nature and Science in terms of impact factors. Article submissions were up 4% to 5%, usage up over 20%, renewals running at a very high rate. So, as well as the sort of financial performance numbers, I think the underlying performance metrics in Elsevier both on science and health look strong.

“Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability”

Bo-Christer Björk, Annikki Roos and Mari Lauri have published "Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability" in the latest issue of Information Research.

Here's an excerpt from the abstract:

Results. We estimate that in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1,350,000. Of this number 4.6% became immediately openly available and an additional 3.5% after an embargo period of, typically, one year. Furthermore, usable copies of 11.3% could be found in subject-specific or institutional repositories or on the home pages of the authors.

Senate Spending Bill Includes NIH Open Access Provision

The Senate spending bill, which has been reported by the Washington Post and others as having passed, includes an NIH open access provision.

Here's an excerpt from "In 2009 Appropriations Bill, NIH Public Access Mandate Would Become Permanent":

In the section funding the NIH, section 217, pertaining to public access, reads:

"The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require in the current fiscal year and thereafter [emphasis added] that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law."

In his "Congress Makes NIH Policy Permanent (but for Conyers Bill) post," Peter Suber points out that because of the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act the NIH Public Access policy is still in danger.

Lawrence Lessig Replies to Rep. John Conyers about the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Lawrence Lessig has replied to Rep. John Conyers' "A Reply to Larry Lessig," which was written in response to "Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests?" by Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen.

Here's an excerpt:

Supporting citizens' funding of the nation's elections—as Mr. Conyers has—is an important first step. That one change, I believe, would do more than any other to restore trustworthiness in Congress.

But that's not all you could do, Mr. Conyers. You have it within your power to remove any doubt about the reasons you have for sponsoring the legislation you sponsor: Stop accepting contributions from the interests your committee regulates. This was the principle of at least some committee chairmen in the past. It is practically unheard of today. But you could set an important example for others, and for America, about how an uncorrupted system of government might work. And you could do so without any risk to your own position—because the product of your forty years of extraordinary work for the citizens of Michigan means that they'll return you to office whether or not you spend one dime on a reelection. Indeed, if you did this, I'd promise to come to Michigan and hand out leaflets for your campaign.

Until you do this, Mr. Conyers, don't lecture me about "crossing a line." For I intend to cross this line as often as I can, the outrage and scorn of Members of Congress notwithstanding. This is no time to play nice. And yours is just the first in a series of many such stories to follow—targeting Republicans as well as Democrats, people who we agree with on substance as well as those we don't, always focusing on bad bills that make sense only if you follow the money.

John Wiley & Sons FY 2009 Third Quarter STMS Revenue Declines 13% to $202 Million

Because of an "unfavorable $35 million foreign exchange impact," John Wiley & Sons' fiscal year 2009 third quarter Scientific, Technical, Medical, and Scholarly (STMS) revenue was down 13% to $202 million; however, on a "currency neutral basis," revenue grew 2%. (Wiley's fiscal year runs from May 1 to April 30.)

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Journal subscription revenue was on par with prior year, as revenue from new journals was partially offset by the aforementioned processing delays and lower backfile sales. STMS book sales improved in markets outside the US. Publishing areas that exhibited significant growth include the life sciences, professional, and the social sciences and humanities.

The journal subscription renewal delays were related to the consolidation of Wiley and Blackwell fulfillment systems and licensing practices, which is the last significant integration project and one of the most complex undertakings in the overall process. While the problems that caused the delays were substantially resolved by the end of the quarter, some of the processing backlog remained. Approximately $7 million of revenue on yet-to-be processed customer journal licenses will be earned in the fourth quarter. The delays also affected cash collections through January. . . .

For the first nine months of fiscal year 2009, global STMS revenue was flat with prior year at $696 million, but advanced 6%, excluding unfavorable foreign exchange. Contributing to the year-over-year growth was a $17 million acquisition accounting adjustment related to the Blackwell acquisition that reduced revenue in the comparable prior year period, as well as increased journal revenue. All regions exhibited growth. Direct contribution to profit for the first nine months rose 4% to $277 million, or 10% excluding unfavorable foreign exchange. The increase reflects higher journal subscription revenue and prudent expense management, partially offset by editorial costs associated with new journals and the aforementioned delay in journal subscription renewals.

Wiley's FY 2008 results are summarized in its "John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reports Record Revenue and Earnings in Fiscal Year 2008" press release.

Michael Eisen Replies to Rep. John Conyers about the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Michael Eisen has replied to Rep. John Conyers' "A Reply to Larry Lessig," which was written in response to "Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests?" by Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen. (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt:

Unfortunately, Representative Conyers actions do not reflect his words. This bill was introduced in the last Congress. The Judiciary Committee then held hearings on the bill, in which even the publishers' own witnesses pointed out flaws in its logic and approach. In particular, a previous Registrar of Copyrights, clearly sympathetic to the publishers' cause, acknowledged that the NIH Policy was in perfect accord with US copyright law and practice. If Conyers were so interested in dealing with a complex issue in a fair and reasonable way, why then did he completely ignore the results of this hearing and reintroduce the exact same bill—one that clearly reflects the opinions of only one side in this debate?

Peter Suber Replies to Rep. John Conyers about the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Peter Suber has replied to Rep. John Conyers' "A Reply to Larry Lessig," which was written in response to "Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests?" by Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen.

Here's an excerpt:

I thank Rep. Conyers for making a public defense of his bill in a forum which offers the public a chance to respond.  I also respect his record on other issues, including civil rights and bankruptcy, and his current efforts to compel the testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. On research publications, however, he's backing the wrong horse, and his arguments for siding with publishers against scientists and taxpayers are not strong.

(1) Rep. Conyers insists that the House Judiciary Committee should have been consulted on the original proposal for an open-access policy at the NIH. However, William Patry, former copyright counsel to the House Judiciary Committee (and now chief copyright counsel at Google), believes that "the claim that the NIH policy raises copyright issues is absurd," and that the Judiciary Committee did not need to be in the loop.  I understand that the House Rules Committee came to a similar decision when formally asked. . . .

Clearly Rep. Conyers disagrees with these views. But they should suffice to show that bypassing the Judiciary Committee was not itself a corrupt maneuver.

If it's important to revisit the question, I hope Rep. Conyers can do it without backing a bill from a special interest lobby that would reduce taxpayer access to taxpayer-funded research. A turf war is not a good excuse for bad policy. On the merits, see points 2 and 3 below.

For more independent views that the NIH policy does not raise copyright issues, see the open letter to the Judiciary Committee from 46 lawyers and law professors specializing in copyright.

(2) Rep. Conyers accepts the publisher argument that the NIH policy will defund peer review by causing journal cancellations. The short answer to that objection is that (a) much higher levels of open-access archiving, of the kind the NIH now requires, have not caused journal cancellations in physics, the one field in which we already have evidence; (b) subscription-based journals are not the only peer-reviewed journals; and (c) if the NIH policy does eventually cause journal cancellations, then libraries would experience huge savings which they could redirect to peer-reviewed OA journals, whose business models do not bet against the internet, public access, or the NIH policy.

For a detailed analysis of the objection that government-mandated open access archiving will undermine peer review, and a point-by-point rebuttal, see my article in the SPARC Open Access Newsletter from September 2007.

(3) Rep. Conyers writes that the NIH policy "reverses a long-standing and highly successful copyright policy for federally-funded work and sets a precedent that will have significant negative consequences for scientific research." It's true that the policy reverses a long-standing copyright policy.  But the previous policy was unsuccessful and perverse, and had the effect of steering publicly-funded research into journals accessible only to subscribers, and whose subscription prices have been rising faster than inflation for three decades. Both houses of Congress and the President agreed to reverse that policy in order to allow the NIH to provide free online access to the authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts (not the published editions) 12 months after publication (not immediately). This was good for researchers, good for physicians and other medical practitioners, good for patients and their families, and good for taxpayers. It was necessary to make NIH research accessible to everyone who could use it and necessary to increase the return on our large national investment in research. It was necessary from simple fairness, to give taxpayers—professional researchers and lay readers alike—access to the research they funded.

On the "significant negative consequences for scientific research":  should we believe publishers who want to sell access to publicly-funded research, or the research community itself, as represented by 33 US Nobel laureates in science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, and a host of patient advocacy groups?

For further information about the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, see Suber's article "Re-introduction of the Bill to Kill the NIH policy" and his post "Aiming Criticism at the Right Target."

University of Arizona Libraries Collaborate with Faculty Member to Publish New E-Journal

The University of Arizona Libraries and UA Regents' Professor Richard Wilkinson have collaborated to publish a new quarterly e-journal, the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, or the JAEI, was created by Wilkinson, a UA classics and Near Eastern studies professor, and will be hosted on the UA Libraries' institutional repository site, also known as UAiR.

The digitially-based, peer-reviewed journal explores the relationship between ancient Egypt and its surrounding regions and helps develop an important new trend in Egyptological scholarship by taking an interdisciplinary approach.

The journal publishes full-length articles, which have been subjected to the same peer-reviewed, blind screening process used by traditional scholarly print journals. The JAEI will also include short research notes, reviews of published works, announcements and reports of relevant conferences and symposia.

The journal also examines the relationship between ancient Egypt and its neighbors through different lenses, ranging from history to technology to art and religion. . . .

The journal counts Oxford and Harvard universities among its initial subscribers and subscriptions have already been received from a number of countries. Interest has also been high among scholars wanting to contribute to the journal.

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

Harvard University Press has published How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.

Here's an excerpt from the book description:

In the academic evaluation system known as "peer review," highly respected professors pass judgment, usually confidentially, on the work of others. But only those present in the deliberative chambers know exactly what is said. Michèle Lamont observed deliberations for fellowships and research grants, and interviewed panel members at length. In How Professors Think, she reveals what she discovered about this secretive, powerful, peculiar world.

Read more about it at "The 'Black Box' of Peer Review."

Thomson Reuters Scientific's 2008 Revenues Were $604 Million

Thomson Reuters Scientific had revenues of $604 million, which represented a 8% increase "before currency," partially fueled by the ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science's double-digit growth.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Full-year operating profit grew 4% to $171 million with the related margin decreasing 70 basis points to 28.3%, primarily due to incremental investments in Asia.

Following the Money Trail: MAPLight.org Report on Campaign Contributions and the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

MAPLight.org has released "Report on HR 801, Fair Copyright in Research Works Act: Report Shows Campaign Contributions Given to Sponsors of Fair Copyright in Research Works Act." (Thanks to the Huffington Post and Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt:

MAPLight.org's research team released data today showing campaign contributions given to members of the House Committee on the Judiciary from publishing interests during the 2008 election cycle (Jan. 2007 through Dec. 2008). MAPLight.org analyzed campaign contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics and determined that the publishing industry gave an average of $5,150 to each of the bill's five bill sponsors and an average of $2,506 to each of the other 34 non-sponsor members of the Committee. Total publishing industry contributions given to the House Committee on the Judiciary were $110,950.

en en