An interesting new publishing venture for open access scholarly monographs, with a new funding model:
The Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of American University Presses (AAUP) are implementing a new initiative to advance the wide dissemination of scholarship by humanities and humanistic social sciences faculty members by publishing free, open access, digital editions of peer-reviewed and professionally edited monographs.
Publishing costs will be met by university-funded grants and other revenue sources. These publication grants will enable open access publishing and will send a strong signal to humanities and social sciences faculties that universities value and wish to promote their scholarship.
This announced today by the Gates Foundation, increasing access to science for all the right reasons:
We are proud to announce a new partnership with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which will allow publishing of Gates Foundation-funded research on open access terms in all of the AAAS’ journals, including Science, Science Translational Medicine, Science Signaling, Science Immunology and Science Robotics. This agreement follows the lead set by AAAS’ Science Advances journal, which publishes all material on full open access terms, and also charts a future course for continued collaboration around models that support open access publishing.
The Gates Foundation is taking these steps because we want to advance the conversation around open access publishing and ultimately find new ways of accelerating impact and saving lives. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring high-quality scientific knowledge is widely accessible, and we applaud efforts from Wellcome to former Vice President Joe Biden to the National Institutes of Health who share our commitment to open access and are pursuing additional approaches. In a field where there are no clear answers, experimentation and creative partnerships help advance the sector and accelerate the discovery of new solutions.
Ultimately, we do so because the possibilities are too great not to explore. Open access publishing of peer-reviewed research holds the potential for researchers from diverse backgrounds to come together and accelerate the research process — and in turn, leads to new ways of making people’s lives longer, healthier and more productive.
ORCID has a new infographic showing how all of their many data users share and benefit from the same data, following their motto: Enter once, reuse often.
Wondering what to say to faculty who ask if they should use Academia.edu?
This Forbes article has some good talking points.
Recent proposals from the House Judiciary Committee and two former Registers of Copyright, advocating reform of the Copyright Office, have received a lot of attention in the Library world. Many of us can see need for reform, but proponents have focused on moving the Copyright Office out of oversight by the Library of Congress. This proposal seems to stem from a perception that librarians are intent on giving content away, to the detriment of content creators.
Brandon Butler and 42 other lawyer/librarians have sent a very articulate letter opposing this view, and a blog post from David Hansen at Duke, reviews the issues and includes this excerpt of a letter sent by the Duke Libraries:
Libraries like ours have perhaps the most well-rounded and balanced relationship with copyright of any group of institutions in the world. Duke Libraries, like many other libraries, spends millions of dollars every year on services for our faculty and students to help them navigate the legal, technological, and economic choices they face as creators. Our libraries partner with those creators . . . on publishing. Duke Libraries also administer the rights to thousands of works for which we own copyright, primarily in our rare book and archival collections. . . . Duke Libraries also invest millions of dollars each year into the publishing system by purchasing content and supporting new and emerging publishing platforms. . . .[W]e now spend even more money on developing strategies to carefully respect the rights of copyright owners as we seek to preserve and provide access to those materials in forms that are useful to researchers.
As Open Access Week comes to a close, it is a good time to consider how everyone can put this year’s them of “Open in Action” into practice year round. One of the easiest ways to do this is by offering content that you create under a Creative Commons license. Creative Commons licenses are become more popular all the time and if you’ve used Wikipedia or Flickr you’ve almost certainly encountered them before, but at first glance they can seem confusing since there are so many options. Despite all the possibilities, understanding and using Creative Commons is actually very straightforward.
Though there are six types of Creative Commons licenses, all of them share the same goal of allowing people to share their work with others in a way that both protects their rights and allows others to make use of this work. The differences between the licenses allow you to ensure that these future uses are acceptable to you without future users having to contact you and negotiate individual agreements. The six available Creative Commons licenses are:
- Creative Commons Attribution (also sometimes called CC BY) – This license allows for any use as long as the person using the item includes proper attribution, a link to the license, and an indication if the item has been modified.
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (also sometimes called CC BY-SA) – This license is the same as the CC BY license with the addition that the person using the item must share their own work under a CC BY-SA license as well.
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (also sometimes called CC BY-NC) – This license is the same as the CC BY license, but with the additional stipulation that the person using the work may not use it for commercial purposes. (It is worth noting that the meaning of “commercial purposes” has been disputed in some cases).
- Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (also sometimes called CC BY-ND) – This license is the same as the CC BY license, but with the addition that the person using the item may not distribute any version of the item that they have changed, remixed, or modified.
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (also sometimes called CC BY-NC-SA) – This license requires attribution, prohibits commercial use, and requires that any end product is shared under the same license.
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (also sometimes called CC BY-NC-ND) – This license requires attribution, prohibits commercial use, and does not allow for the distribution of any version of the item that has been changed, remixed, or modified.
- Creative Commons 0 (also sometimes called CC0) – This license releases an item freely without any restrictions. This means it may be used by anyone, in any matter, for any purpose, and without attribution.
If this sounds interesting, CreativeCommons.org has more information about how to use licenses, including an easy-to-use tool that will help you select the right license for your work with just a few clicks. Or if you still want to learn more, check out the video below!
This week JSTOR announced that it will be adding open access monograph titles to its popular platform. In the initial round, 63 new open access titles from several academic publishers will be added to JSTOR and the announcement also noted that they “expect to add several hundred more Open Access titles over the next year.” These ebooks will be presented along with other content in search results, but will also have a green notice stating that they are open access. In all cases these items are offered under a Creative Commons license and DRM-free. Perhaps best of all, the announcement also notes that users will not have to register or log in to access these materials. In addition to the announcement, JSTOR also released additional information for librarians and a list of the 63 titles that will be available initially.
While the number of academic papers that are freely available through open access is continuously growing, they can still be difficult to find. Impactstory has just released a new tool to streamline this process. Called oaDOI, this new tools lets users search for the open access version of any paper by pasting the DOI of any paper into the search box. If an open access version of the paper is available, oaDOI will take you to it and, if it can’t find one, it will still take you to the paywall page for the paper.
oaDOI searches across many platforms and data sources, including the Directory of Open Access Journals and the BASE OA search engine, and it is under active development, meaning that improvements are on the way. If you have the DOI for a paper, this is a great tool for ensuring that you are finding and using the open access version of the paper where possible. You can read more about it on the Impactstory blog.
In an Open Access Q&A earlier this week, Peter Suber made the case that the Impact Factor is not a good way to assess research quality, particularly in the context of tenure and promotion decision making. He argued for those in the discipline to actually read the articles.
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment includes a good explanation of the IF flaws and suggests abandonment of it as a measure of scholarship quality.
The Journal Impact Factor is frequently used as the primary parameter with which to compare the scientific output of individuals and institutions. The Journal Impact Factor, as calculated by Thomson Reuters, was originally created as a tool to help librarians identify journals to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in an article. With that in mind, it is critical to understand that the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment. These limitations include: A) citation distributions within journals are highly skewed [1–3]; B) the properties of the Journal Impact Factor are field-specific: it is a composite of multiple, highly diverse article types, including primary research papers and reviews [1, 4]; C) Journal Impact Factors can be manipulated (or “gamed”) by editorial policy ; and D) data used to calculate the Journal Impact Factors are neither transparent nor openly available to the public [4, 6, 7].
A number of themes run through these recommendations:
The need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations;
The need to assess research on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which the research is published; and
The need to capitalize on the opportunities provided by online publication (such as relaxing unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles, and exploring new indicators of significance and impact).