Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- open_access [2019/03/20 08:26]
86.154.85.123
+++ open_access [2019/03/20 08:34]
86.154.85.123
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== News ======
+====== Plan S ======
-===== Plan S =====
 ==== cOALition S ====
@@ Line 17: / Line 15: @@
 <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;inherit;;inherit>**Report questions Plan S implications**</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Research Information March 2019</font>
+<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Research Information March 2019</font>  <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>www.researchinformation.info/news/report-questions-plan-s-implications?</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>www.researchinformation.info/news/report-questions-plan-s-implications?</font>
 <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>"A report exploring the implications of Plan S on the scholarly communications industry has been published by the Institute of Scientific Information.</font>  <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>The report, using Web of Science data, poses questions for the research community, including funders, publishers and institutions. This is the second report in the Global Research series from the recently relaunched Institute for Scientific Information.</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>** CKGE_TMP_i The Plan S footprint: implications for the scholarly publishing landscape</font>// **<font inherit/inherit;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>examines recent patterns of publications funded by Plan S supporters, exploring potential impacts on funders, subjects, countries, publishers, and journals.</font>
+===== Background - introduction to OA =====
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Dr Jonathan Adams, director of the Institute for Scientific Information, said: 'Our report, based on journal data taken from Web of Science Core Collection, looks to provide an unbiased and data-driven background analysis to inform the debate around a potentially transformative change in research policy.</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>'The report raises a number of questions for consideration by funders, publishers and institutions when exploring possible ways to implement Plan S.'</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>The report findings pose the following questions, which are backed up with data:</font>
-  * <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Some research areas have very few journals that are currently Plan S compliant. Without carefully paced transition to allow for the emergence of new titles, is there a risk of unusual constraints and disjunctions in publishing opportunities in affected subjects?</font>
-  * <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Citations are not a defining metric of quality, but might the restructuring of the spread of well-cited papers have unplanned contingent consequences?</font>
-  * <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>How can the shift to Gold Open Access and associated APCs be managed equitably to protect the positions both of unfunded researchers in G20 economies and of a wider spread of authors in emergent research regions?</font>
-  * <font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>The large publishers, with a diverse stable of titles, will be influential in discussions, but there are many small publishers, including those linked to learned societies, who publish an important part of the Plan S funded output in serials central to their discipline. Will transition be more difficult for them and, if so, can this be managed effectively but flexibly?</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>The report dataset is comprised of publication records drawn from the more than 20,000 journals in the Web of Science Core Collection. These records were filtered for content published in 2017 and documents were then classified as articles or reviews. Proceedings papers are not identified as a document type under the Plan S proposals.</font>
-<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Document records in Web of Science contain ‘acknowledgments’, which include funding sources. These were used to identify papers sponsored by Plan S funder organisations, by cross-reference to a manually curated list of funder variants. This enabled broad capture of papers that would be affected by Plan S mandates. Some authors will have failed to identify Plan S funding and there will also be papers not included because of missing data or obscure name variants. The Plan S funded records analysed therefore represent a minimum estimate of Plan S papers published and of those indexed in the Web of Science.</font>
-[[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/european-funders-detail-their-open-access-plan|European funders detail their open-access plan]] \\
-By Tania Rabesandratana. Science magazine. Nov. 26, 2018
-"Plan S, the contentious plan that a group of European science funders hopes will end scholarly journals’ paywalls, has fleshed out its rules—and softened its tone a bit. In seven pages of implementation guidance released today, the funders explain how their grantees can abide by Plan S rules come 2020, when it goes into effect. But some critics say the document—which is up for public discussion for the next 2 months—remains too restrictive.
-The guidance outlines three ways researchers can comply with Plan S, which is backed by national funding agencies of countries including the United Kingdom, France, and Austria, as well as private funders including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They can publish in an open-access (OA) journal or platform. They can also publish in a subscription journal provided they also make a final, peer-reviewed version or accepted manuscript immediately available in an OA repository. Finally, contrary to earlier indications, grantees will be permitted to publish in hybrid journals, which charge subscriptions but also offer an OA option, but only if the journal has committed to flip to a fully OA model."
-====== Background - introduction to OA ======
- \\
-(This introduction is a section from "[[http://wonkhe.com/blogs/intro-to-open-access/|A beginner’s guide to Open Access]]". By Graham Steel & David Kernohan. WONKHE blog 15 August 2017 \\  \\
-"The ‘Open Access’ (OA) movement in research publishing has been around for several decades, although the name itself wasn’t set in stone until around 2001 and began to become codified via the Budapest (Feb 2002), Bethesda (June 2003) and Berlin (October 2003) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities|statements]]. \\
-Open Access journals and articles are just that – openly accessible, without a fee or affiliation, to all who wish to make use of them. Increasingly, this is mandated by those who fund or support research. Globally, there are currently [[http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/policymaker_type/funder.html|83]] open access funder mandates in place and this is likely to continue to grow. All major UK funders now require that research stemming from their funded projects is open access, and open access is a de facto requirement for REF2021. Institutions and research groups regularly require that research outputs are shared openly via an institutional research repository. \\
-To signify that an article is open access a Creative Commons license is generally used. The suite of “open licenses” offered by [[https://creativecommons.org/|Creative Commons]] (CC) (founded in 2001) has been designed to help individuals and organisations around the world share knowledge and creativity. Drawing on practices common in open software development, CC licenses are used by most OA publishers to signal that work can be shared, adapted and remixed with attribution without additional permission being sought. In the case of academic literature, this allows for articles to be shared and used widely, and without a cost to the reader. \\
-As it is only a suite of licences CC does not have anything to do with the assignment of copyright or moral rights – both these should remain assigned to the author of the work in question, though some publishers will require ownership of copyright to pass to them. The [[https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf|UK Scholarly Communications Licence]] (UKSCL) is one recently proposed solution to this particular issue, simply requiring the author to offer a non-exclusive (CC) license to their institution before publication. After legal advice, a trial is due to be launched soon and will be active in the first-mover universities in September 2017.
-===== Flavours of OA =====
-In general terms – an academic author has two main routes to OA publication.
-==== Gold ====
-Gold open access concerns publication in a scholarly journal that is either entirely open access or permits open access publication (this latter type is described as a “hybrid” journal). In many cases an article processing charge (APC) is paid on submission or publication to cover the costs of running the journal, but other business models (for example the institutional subscription model used by Open Library of Humanities) also exist.
+<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>(This introduction is a section from "A beginner’s guide to Open Access". By Graham Steel & David Kernohan. WONKHE blog 15 August 2017</font>
-==== Green ====
+<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>"The ‘Open Access’ (OA) movement in research publishing has been around for several decades, although the name itself wasn’t set in stone until around 2001 and began to become codified via the Budapest (Feb 2002), Bethesda (June 2003) and Berlin (October 2003) statements.\\
+Open Access journals and articles are just that – openly accessible, without a fee or affiliation, to all who wish to make use of them. Increasingly, this is mandated by those who fund or support research. Globally, there are currently 83 open access funder mandates in place and this is likely to continue to grow. All major UK funders now require that research stemming from their funded projects is open access, and open access is a de facto requirement for REF2021. Institutions and research groups regularly require that research outputs are shared openly via an institutional research repository.\\
+To signify that an article is open access a Creative Commons license is generally used. The suite of “open licenses” offered by Creative Commons (CC) (founded in 2001) has been designed to help individuals and organisations around the world share knowledge and creativity. Drawing on practices common in open software development, CC licenses are used by most OA publishers to signal that work can be shared, adapted and remixed with attribution without additional permission being sought. In the case of academic literature, this allows for articles to be shared and used widely, and without a cost to the reader.\\
+As it is only a suite of licences CC does not have anything to do with the assignment of copyright or moral rights – both these should remain assigned to the author of the work in question, though some publishers will require ownership of copyright to pass to them. The UK Scholarly Communications Licence (UKSCL) is one recently proposed solution to this particular issue, simply requiring the author to offer a non-exclusive (CC) license to their institution before publication. After legal advice, a trial is due to be launched soon and will be active in the first-mover universities in September 2017.</font>
-Green open access involves a copy of a published article being deposited in an open access repository (basically a big database of articles). Repositories are commonly run by institutions or disciplinary bodies, but examples also exist that are managed by research funders, or run as a general purpose service. Some journals have an embargo period which must complete before a copy of the article is shared – depending on disciplinary norms this can end on the day of publication or months (even years) later. Some journals do not permit green OA, others permit only the sharing of a ‘pre-publication’ version that does not include the final edits made before publication. \\
+==== Flavours of OA ====
-Other routes to sharing research do exist – some researchers share pre-prints (on services like [[https://arxiv.org/|arXiv]]) before peer review takes place, others may share work in progress via social media or in presentations at academic conferences published online. Organisations like [[https://www.openlibhums.org/|OpenLibHums]] have pioneered new ways to cover publishing costs without cost to to the author or reader. But ‘green’ and ‘gold’ have historically defined the parameters of open access, though there are signs that this is beginning to change.
-===== New business models for academic publishing =====
+<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>In general terms – an academic author has two main routes to OA publication. ==== Gold ==== Gold open access concerns publication in a scholarly journal that is either entirely open access or permits open access publication (this latter type is described as a “hybrid” journal). In many cases an article processing charge (APC) is paid on submission or publication to cover the costs of running the journal, but other business models (for example the institutional subscription model used by Open Library of Humanities) also exist. ==== Green ==== Green open access involves a copy of a published article being deposited in an open access repository (basically a big database of articles). Repositories are commonly run by institutions or disciplinary bodies, but examples also exist that are managed by research funders, or run as a general purpose service. Some journals have an embargo period which must complete before a copy of the article is shared – depending on disciplinary norms this can end on the day of publication or months (even years) later. Some journals do not permit green OA, others permit only the sharing of a ‘pre-publication’ version that does not include the final edits made before publication.\\
+Other routes to sharing research do exist – some researchers share pre-prints (on services like arXiv) before peer review takes place, others may share work in progress via social media or in presentations at academic conferences published online. Organisations like OpenLibHums have pioneered new ways to cover publishing costs without cost to to the author or reader. But ‘green’ and ‘gold’ have historically defined the parameters of open access, though there are signs that this is beginning to change. ===== New business models for academic publishing ===== The success of OA as a movement has been a challenge to conventional scholarly journals. With pressure on costs, and pressure on access, many academic publishers have either devised, or are devising, alternative business models, allowing publishers and universities to work together in new ways. As above, the most common has seen the rise of the article processing charge (APC) – putting the cost to the author or institution for publication rather than access. Charging at publication is by no means new – authors have historically paid for publishing images or charts, for example – but the levels at which these prices are now set are causing issues for unfunded researchers.\\
+Back in 2002, OA was seen as a threat by publishers. However, over the following decade and a half, this threat has become an opportunity. New publishers like BioMedCentral, PLOS and F1000 were born OA, established names like Springer Nature, Wiley and Elsevier have opened OA journals and converted existing ones. With the Elsevier purchase of pre-print publisher SSRN, and the establishment of ‘data journals’ like Scientific Data by Springer, the publication of new forms of scholarly output are being embraced by traditional publishers.\\
+Some large publishers continue to resist change, and we have seen lobbying efforts and misinformation against OA, and seen the unfortunate side effect that promising experiments using text and data mining research tools have often been blocked. Academia has drifted from tolerance to outright antipathy for the worst of perceived rent-seeking practices – we have seen numerous campaigns and boycotts.</font>
-The success of OA as a movement has been a challenge to conventional scholarly journals. With pressure on costs, and pressure on access, many academic publishers have either devised, or are devising, alternative business models, allowing publishers and universities to work together in new ways. As above, the most common has seen the rise of the article processing charge (APC) – putting the cost to the author or institution for publication rather than access. Charging at publication is by no means new – authors have historically paid for publishing images or charts, for example – but the levels at which these prices are now set are causing issues for unfunded researchers. \\
+<font 14.6667px/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>Open Access 2020</font>\\
-Back in 2002, OA was seen as a threat by publishers. However, over the following decade and a half, this threat has become an opportunity. New publishers like BioMedCentral, PLOS and F1000 were born OA, established names like Springer Nature, Wiley and Elsevier have opened OA journals and converted existing ones. With the Elsevier purchase of pre-print publisher [[https://www.ssrn.com/en/|SSRN]], and the establishment of ‘data journals’ like [[https://www.nature.com/sdata/|Scientific Data]] by Springer, the publication of new forms of scholarly output are being embraced by traditional publishers. \\
+<font 11pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;#0a0a0a;;inherit>Open Access 2020 is an international initiative that aims to induce the swift, smooth and scholarly-oriented transformation of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to open access publishing.\\
-Some large publishers continue to resist change, and we have seen lobbying efforts and misinformation against OA, and seen the unfortunate side effect that promising experiments using text and data mining research tools [[https://www.nature.com/news/text-mining-block-prompts-online-response-1.18819|have often been blocked]]. Academia has drifted from tolerance to outright antipathy for the worst of perceived rent-seeking practices – we have seen numerous [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Boycotts|campaigns and boycotts]]. \\  \\  \\ [[https://oa2020.org/|Open Access 2020]] \\
+The principles of this initiative were discussed and agreed upon at the Berlin 12 Conference on 8-9 December 2015 and are embodied in an Expression of Interest, which has already been endorsed by numerous international scholarly organizations.\\
-Open Access 2020 is an international initiative that aims to induce the swift, smooth and scholarly-oriented transformation of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to open access publishing. \\
+The practical steps that can be taken towards the envisaged transformation are outlined in a Roadmap.\\
-The principles of this initiative were discussed and agreed upon at the Berlin 12 Conference on 8-9 December 2015 and are embodied in an Expression of Interest, which has already been endorsed by numerous international scholarly organizations. \\
+All parties involved in scholarly publishing – particularly universities, research institutions, funders, libraries, and publishers – are invited to collaborate through OA2020 for a swift and efficient transition of scholarly publishing to open access.</font>
-The practical steps that can be taken towards the envisaged transformation are outlined in a Roadmap. \\
-All parties involved in scholarly publishing – particularly universities, research institutions, funders, libraries, and publishers – are invited to collaborate through OA2020 for a swift and efficient transition of scholarly publishing to open access.

helibtech

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools