Tag Archives: Repositories

Hybrid Open Access Mega-Journals Gain in Traction as Scholarly Societies and Journal Publishers Partner

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-11-16
URL: http://openscience.com/hybrid-open-access-mega-journals-gain-in-international-traction-as-scientific-societies-and-open-access-publishers-partner/

While developed world universities and libraries weigh the pros and cons of Open Access plus subscription models, developing countries embrace Open Access mega journal-style repositories with open post-publication peer review procedures in partnership with established publishing platforms.


Excerpt

As the international Open Access community mulls the possibility of turning data sets into revenue streams by dint of the latter’s ability to be analyzed, circulated and packaged in abstract form, scholars hailing from the American academia grapple with the economics of scientific journal publishing by seeking to explore how the supply and demand can be re-equilibrated in this industry. Currently, the demand for the scientific journal subscriptions appears to continue to outstrip they supply, which ensures the high subscription fees, such as those of Springer, for journal bundles that their publishers vend, given their effective oligopoly hold on this market and the exclusive access to highly-reputed journals they provide.

However, this situation resists a facile conclusion that Open Access journals can significantly change the equilibrium prices in this market, as quality journals incur significant publication costs and do not differ significantly in their reviewing, editing and submission practices from subscription-based journals, as far as unpaid labor input is concerned. In other words, Open Access journals will have to have article processing charges (APCs) compensate for the lost revenue streams that toll-based journals derive from subscription fees. In turn, this leads to a relatively minor impact that the advent of Open Access has had on the market-wide equilibrium prices that end up being charged for article publication and access either directly or indirectly.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Despite Growth, Scientific Networking Sites Are Likely to Complement, Not Replace Open Access Repositories

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-10-12
URL: http://openscience.com/despite-their-initial-proliferation-scientific-networking-sites-are-likely-to-complement-not-replace-open-access-repositories/

Even though social media performance becomes increasingly important for scientists, questions about the implications that the business models of scholarly networking sites have persist, while leaving institutional repositories and Open Access publishers with a significant role to play in knowledge sharing.


Excerpt

As scholars become increasingly concerned with the visibility and view counts that their scientific articles generate, social networking platforms have been slated to become the primary venues for the dissemination and sharing of scientific knowledge. However, as Jessica Leigh Brown implies, as these scholarly social networking sites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, have sought to achieve both economic sustainability and reputation within different scientific communities, Open Access institutional repositories run by universities and institutes are likely to continue to be important for ensuring content availability in the long term.

In other words, either as open source projects, e.g., Zotero, or startup initiatives, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley, these scholarly networks depend on either non-profit, donation-based or private funding, which can either limit their scope or involve the privatization of digital commons with possible non-positive responses in the scientific communities. For instance, ResearchGate has had to demonstrate swift reaction to copyright infringement allegations from large journal publishers, Academia.edu has not met with an enthusiastic response from scholars to its attempts to introduce paid-for services and Mendeley, upon its purchase by Elsevier in 2013, has raised concerns that its content sharing practices might deviate from the principles of Open Access.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: .

ResearchGate is at the Epicenter of Legal Controversy, as Large Publishers Sue it over Copyright Infringements

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-10-09
URL: http://openscience.com/researchgate-is-at-the-epicenter-of-legal-controversy-as-large-publishers-sue-it-over-copyright-infringements/

While global publishing companies, e.g., Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, take ResearchGate to court over scientific article sharing, transition to Open Access can unshackle communication between scholars from legal constraints, due to its licensing conditions.


Excerpt

As a blog post by Robert Harrington published on October 6, 2017, announces, the Coalition for Responsible Sharing, an umbrella organization uniting ACS Pubications, Brill, Elsevier, Wiley and Wolters Kluwer, has recently filed a lawsuit against Berlin-based ResearchGate on the grounds that the practices of this website serving the purpose of networking and collaboration among scholars, such as the distribution of scientific articles, violate copyright. At present, according to figures Harrington cites, ResearchGate is the most consulted website in the scientific community. As a startup company with multimillion venture capitalist funding, ResearchGate hosts articles that are both copyright-protected and materials and publications the sharing of which does not infringe on intellectual property rights of large publishers.

While efforts have been made to arrive at a resolution between ResearchGate and the Coalition for Responsible Sharing that would not involve litigation, these have apparently failed. According to the existing ResearchGate’s guidelines, article removal requests need to be made on a case-by-case basis, such as via take-down notices. This represents a piecemeal solution to the risk the unrestricted article sharing poses to the core business model of the publishers the coalition represents, which is based on subscription paywalls and copyright restrictions that non-Open Access publications require for their dissemination in the scientific community. Effectively, the moment scientists file the final versions of their articles with subscription-based journals of large publishers, these become commodities bought and sold on the global knowledge marketplace.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: .

Open Science Continues to Evolve as Preprint Repositories for Specialized Fields of Scientific Inquiry Multiply

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-09-25
URL: http://openscience.com/open-science-continues-to-evolve-as-preprint-repositories-for-specialized-fields-of-scientific-inquiry-multiply/

As Earth and Space Science Open Archive (ESSOAr) is inaugurated, open peer feedback to, rapid research output sharing of and digital object identifiers (DOIs) for pre-prints indicate a growing acceptance for Open Access in science.


Excerpt

On September 24, 2017, American Geophysical Union and Atypon have announced the launch of their ESSOAr initiative for the Open Access dissemination of earth and space science findings on a community-maintained preprint and conference presentation server. Similar to scholarly journals, this initiative will sport scientific community involvement, an international advisory board, and associations with scientific societies in the fields of earth and space sciences. Furthermore, this initiative receives its initial support from Wiley, one the world’s largest journal publishers. As a partner to this project, Atypon that provides hosted software-as-a-service publishing solutions to academic presses, societies and journals, such as Oxford University Press, will be developing this Open Access initiative on the basis of Literatum, its e-publishing platform for the monetization of online content usually geared to enterprise solutions and commercialization needs. Among the notable clients of Atypon are ElsevierSAGE Publications and Taylor & Francis Group.

Additionally, as an Open Access publishing initiative slated to start its full operation in 2018, ESSOAr expands the definition of a scientific manuscript by allowing for the archiving of elaborate conference presentations, posters and multimedia materials. This development corroborates the point that Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike make in their introduction to OpeningScience book published by SpringerOpen in 2014. In their book chapter entitled “Towards Another Scientific Revolution,” Bartling and Friesike, possibly bombastically, claim that the adoption of the principles of Open Access by the scientific community is likely to amount to a revolution in the manner in which contemporary science operates. Namely, these authors credit publication in Open Access, which they term as Open Science, as a likely trigger for a far-reaching change in the manner in which scientific knowledge is disseminated. Among the harbingers of this transformation that Bartling and Friesike mention is ResearchGate, an online community for scholars, scientists and researchers, where publications, ideas and data can be discussed and researched.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original  blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: .

Academic Self-Publishing Makes Market Inroads with Open Access Offerings and Innovative Business Models

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-09-13
URL: http://openscience.com/academic-self-publishing-makes-market-inroads-with-open-access-offerings-and-innovative-business-models/

Lulu, a book self-publishing platform, has recently launched Glasstree Academic Publishing, a division targeting the academic market, in a bid to disrupt existing scholarly publishing models.


Excerpt

In its primary business model, Lulu has been able to minimize its author-facing fees, such as publication charges, because it receives revenue percentages off e-book and print-on-demand sales, which has made this publishing house cost-effective. Transferring this approach to scholarly publishing has also demanded from this publishing house to translate efficiency gains from digitization of the publication and review processes into higher shares of the book sales that their authors receive, while providing a wide range of editorial, licensing and publicity options, such as publishing in Gold Open Access via Creative Commons licenses.

At the same time, in Canada university presses’ representatives point out that academics publishing with Glasstree Academic Publishing may underestimate the total costs that they are likely to have to assume within this model, such as for editorial services. By contrast, scholars from institutions based in developing countries, such as India, have been found to be enthusiastic about this expansion of self-publishing into the academic sector. Since in this model peer review, translation, editing and marketing are offered as fee-based, usually bundled services, ranging in their price from 2,000 USD to 5,250 USD depending on the scope of services ordered, in addition to its basic publication options that do not necessarily include hosting offered as a separate service, it can be said that Glasstree signifies the possibly disruptive arrival of self-publishing into the scholarly publishing market.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original  blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: .

German Academic and Research Institutions Increasingly Make Open Access their Default Option

Author: Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-09-01
URL: http://openscience.com/german-academic-and-research-institutions-increasingly-make-open-access-their-default-option/

Over 140 German university and institute consortia members cancel their subscription contracts with Elsevier, while making publishing in Open Access a requirement for German researchers.


Excerpt

In Germany, universities and research institutions spearhead the transition to Open Access in the framework of the Projekt DEAL consortium tasked with negotiating the terms of subscription contracts with large journal publishers. By August 2017, in Germany 50 universities, 50 research organizations, 34 higher education institutions and 3 regional libraries do not have contracts with Elsevier for the coming year, while either interim journal access arrangements or no access to pay-wall protected journals are in place, as a recent article by Leonhard Dobusch states. Though among the large-scale scientific societies, the Max Planck Society and Fraunhofer Society are not directly involved in this initiative that has been gathering momentum in Germany, they provide indirect support to the demands of the Projekt DEAL via the Alliance of Scientific Organizations.

As a consequence of this, a transition to Open Access may take place since, as Christian Gutknecht’s blog post on a Swiss survey conducted by ETH Zürich in March 2017 indicates, up to 72% of scholars are likely to be willing to forgo consulting subscription-based journals, especially if their publishers apply access pricing approaches that may be deemed unacceptable. Around 91%-93% of researchers participating in this study have indicated that they do not object to the prospect of not serving on an editorial board or acting as a reviewer for journals belonging to publishers demanding unjustifiably high subscription fees. In other words, in Switzerland not only 90% of surveyed scholars express stable levels of support for Open Access, as compared to a 2011 survey by the SOAP project that have demonstrated that 89% of sampled scientific community members are in favour of Open Access, but also that high levels of readiness to apply negative sanctions, such as resigning from editorial boards, exist, which under auspicious circumstances can translate into a wide-spread adoption of Open Access in the journal publishing sector.

By Pablo Markin


The full-length original  blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Do Repositories Supported by Non-Profit Initiatives Represent the Future of Scientific Publishing?

Author:
Pablo Markin
Published Online: 2017-07-25
URL: http://openscience.com/do-repositories-supported-by-non-profit-initiatives-represent-the-future-of-scientific-publishing/


[T]he number of publications published in the pre-print format has been growing exponentially in recent years, as scientific disciplines, such as biology, and their subfields are increasingly recognizing the necessity of OA for furthering the sharing of recent research results, while minimizing the time gap between empirical research and manuscript availability. Thus, in 2017 the monthly number of pre-prints has reached over 1,400 articles from as little as between 400 and 200 in 2014. This pre-print growth has been fueled by the relaxation of peer review procedures, similar to arXiv. In fact, a parallel initiative in biology is dubbed bioRxiv that not only replicates arXiv’s approach to OA, but also has attracted extensive institutional backing in the form of both preprint publication pledges and financial support from non-profit organizations, such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Though pre-print repositories’ review practices diverse from the strict peer review standards of scientific journals, their rapid and decentralized nature may be well fitting the pace of development in established and emergent research fields that are likely to benefit from OA to their findings.

By Pablo Markin


The original  blog article and additional resources can be found at OpenScience blog.