 Your new post is loading...
 Your new post is loading...
Free, legal research articles and data delivered instantly or automatically requested from authors.
Publicly funded research output should neither be hidden behind paywalls nor be a ‘pay-to-publish’ game. This is one of the core tenets of the Position Statement titled ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Implementing Plan S – The View of Young Academies’, which is the result of discussions among several European young academies and the Global Young
Google is focusing on accessibility of Open Data - European Data Portal
A year ago, I concluded that we had failed in our quest to make scholarship open access (OA): the race had been won by pirates like SciHub (Green, 2017). Twelve months on, how do things look? Key points: We’re still failing to deliver open access (OA): around a fifth of new articles will be born free in 2018, roughly the same as in 2017. Librarians, funders and negotiators are getting tougher with publishers but offsetting, ‘Publish and Read’, deals based on APCs won’t deliver OA for all or solve the serials crisis. The authors of Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin OA declarations foresaw three changes with the coming of the internet. Flipping to a barrier to publish (APCs) from a barrier to read (subscriptions) wasn’t one of them. By itself, OA won’t reduce costs to solve the serials crisis: a digital transformation of scholarly communications based on internet-era principles is needed. Following the internet-era principle of ‘fail-fast’, what if papers are first posted as preprints and only if they succeed in gaining attention will editors invite submission to their journal In clinging onto traditional journals to advance the careers of the few (authors), OA is delayed for the many (readers): rebuilding the reputation economy to accept preprints could be the catalyst to deliver OA, solve the serials crisis and drive out predatory journals
« We object to barriers that hinder, delay or block the spread of scientific knowledge supported by federal tax dollars - including our own works. Thanks to the internet, we can transform the speed and ease with which the results of research can be shared and built upon. However, to our great frustration, the results of NIH-supported medical research continue to be largely inaccessible to taxpayers who have already paid for it ». (July 2007)
Scientists in emerging economies respond fastest to peer review invitations, but are invited least.
Negotiations with Elsevier have stalled over open-access deals.
Back in April, we wrote about a curious decision to give the widely-hated publisher Elsevier the job of monitoring open science in the EU. That would include open access too, an area where the company has major investments.
Elsevier - one of the largest and most notorious scholarly publishers - are monitoring Open Science in the EU on behalf of the European Commission. Jon Tennant argues that they cannot be trusted.
Via Florence Piron
|
The new European directive on copyright in the digital single market adopted on 12 September by the European Parliament, which is undoubtedly beneficial for music or film broadcasting, is worrying the academic world of research. Why? Essentially because the publication - and therefore dissemination - of public research results is a fundamentally different process. Traditionally,…
On September 14, 2018 the Guardian’s columnist George Monbiot published a violent charge against the publishers of scholarly journals and this should please us who have been fighting for open access for a long time. However, is the target the right one? Imagine a very select and reputable travel agency that sells…
Techdirt has written many posts about open access -- the movement to make digital versions of academic research freely available to everyone. Open access is about how research is disseminated once it has been selected for publication. So far
Six basic principles:1. Don’t trust email invites and ‘Call for Papers’ (unless you recognise the sender) 2. Be sceptical of ‘international’ or ‘global’ journals, and those with a wide scope 3. Double-check claims of prestigious indexing and impact factors 4. Read the ‘Aims and scope’ or ‘About’ page – check the journal understands your field 5. Check who is publishing the journal – are they a credible scholarly organisation? 6. Check your reference lists – familiarise yourself with good journals in your field
Publishers are taking advantage in dubious ways of the pressure on academics to publish papers in what has been described as "a disaster for scientific credibility."
“The excessive demands put forward by Elsevier have left us with no choice but to suspend negotiations between the publisher and the DEAL project set up by the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany.” That was the verdict of the lead negotiator and spokesperson for the DEAL Project
Le Plan national pour la science ouverte annoncé par Frédérique Vidal, le 4 juillet 2018, rend obligatoire l’accès ouvert pour les publications et pour les données issues de recherches financées sur projets. Il met en place un Comité pour la science ouverte et soutient des initiatives majeures de structuration du paysage concernant les publications et les données. Enfin, il est doté d’un volet formation et d’un volet international qui sont essentiels à la mobilisation des communautés scientifiques et à l’influence de la France dans ce paysage en cours de constitution.
Sweden is latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions, while negotiators share tactics to broker new deals with publishers.
Gerard Meijer: “Our patience with the academic publishers has run out.” OA negotiators in European universities are getting organized and gather to consider alternatives to traditional publication, including taking back the editing/publishing business.
|