Academic publisher says changing law on exclusive content would weaken its business
Support for the open access (OA) movement is increasing, yet the majority of OA articles do not have a license that permits free re-use of contents, and so do not fully comply with the 2002 Budapest OA Initiative (BOAI) definition of OA. In a recent study by Piwowar et al, representative samples were taken from the online databases Crossref, Web of Science and Unpaywall (100,000 articles from each) to determine the prevalence and type of OA publications. Importantly, this involved categorisation of articles as follows:
- gold OA – published in an OA journal indexed by the Directory of OA Journals (DOAJ)
- green OA – paid-for access via the publisher’s webpage but free access in an OA repository
- hybrid OA – OA in a journal that also publishes non-OA articles
- ‘bronze’ OA – free to read on the publisher’s webpage but without a license permitting free re-use of content
- closed access – all other articles.
The most common form of OA was ‘bronze’. This may have implications for research; the lack of a license permitting the free re-use of an article’s contents can substantially restrict the impact of the data therein, for example by preventing other groups from conducting further analyses. In a recent Nature Index article, Piwowar notes that in the current age of machine learning and ‘big data’, it is especially important that data are freely available for computational analysis. Overall, the study found that 47% of articles were OA in 2015 (the most recent year of analysis), and the authors predict that all articles could be OA by 2040. Despite this encouraging forecast, the future of OA may be less bright if bronze OA continues to prevail.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
The post Bronze beats gold in open access: implications for data re-use appeared first on The Publication Plan for everyone interested in medical writing, the development of medical publications, and publication planning.
Slides from my #OAConf2018 keynote on how we have failed our users in access to content, challenges around #openaccess and disocvery, and a bit about the @britishlibrary response ‘Everything Available’: http://bit.ly/2HY6Nop
The topic of open citations was presented at the PIDapalooza conference and represents a third component in the increasing corpus of open scientific information.
The 2018 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in London on 23–24 January and attracted nearly 300 delegates; the highest number of attendees to date. The meeting’s theme was ‘Advancing Medical Publications in a Complex Evidence Ecosystem’ and the agenda centred around data transparency, patient centricity and the future of medical publishing. Delegates were treated to two keynote addresses, lively panel discussions, interactive roundtables and parallel sessions, and also had the chance to present their own research in a poster session. Continue reading “Meeting report: summary of day 1 of the 2018 European ISMPP Meeting”
Thanks to 20 years of OA innovation and advocacy, today you can legally access around half the recent research literature for free. However, in practice, much of this free literature is not as open as we’d like it to be, because it’s hard for readers to find the OA version.
Existing open access (OA) models allow published research to be made readily available to all, with authors either covering the cost of publication in a journal (Gold OA) or self-archiving their papers in online repositories (Green OA). Both models have their drawbacks, for example Gold OA has inherent benefits for publishers and Green OA can be completed without peer review. In a recent opinion piece in EMBO Reports, Ignacio Amigo and Alberto Pascual-García propose a new publishing system that would remove these conflicts, allow key players within the system to make best use of their respective skills, and would ultimately separate economic interests from scientific research. Continue reading “The future of open access: ideas for change”
Access to scholarship in the health sciences has greatly increased in the last decade. The adoption of the 2008 U.S. National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the launch of successful open access journals in health sciences have done much to move the exchange of scholarship beyond the subscription-only model. One might assume, therefore, that scholars publishing in the health sciences would be more supportive of these changes. However, the results of this survey of attitudes on a campus with a large medical faculty show that health science respondents were uncertain of the value of recent changes in the scholarly communication system. Published on 2017-11-07 22:04:19
“As usual the open access movement has much to celebrate as 2017 draws to a close, and the whole world has much to look forward to from open access in 2018. As of today there are 4.6 million articles in PubMedCentral, thanks in large measure to constantly increasing participation by scholarly journals; sometime in 2018 this is likely to exceed 5 million. DOAJ added a net 1,272 journals (3.5 / day) and showed even stronger growth in article searchability; a DOAJ milestone of 3 million searchable articles in likely to come in 2018. The Directory of Open Access Books nearly doubled in size and now has more than 10,000 books from 247 publishers. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, the best surrogate for overall growth, continues to amaze with over 120 million documents, growth of 17.3 million in 2017, a 17% growth rate on a very substantial base; a 20% growth in content providers is an indication of the overall growth of the repository movement. arXiv’s growth rate was 10% while newcomer arXiv clones socRxiv grew by 187% and bioRxiv by 151%. REPEC grew by 13%, SCOAP3 by 32%. Internet Archive grew by 31 billion web pages, 4 million texts, 2.4 million images, 800,000 movies, and 600,000 audio recordings. Following are selected details indicating the content numbers at the end of 2017, 2017 growth by number, percentage, and where warranted, by day.”
Full data can be downloaded from here: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa
“If you do not have subscription access to academic journals through an institution then to access a large proportion of academic journals you will be charged a fee for each paper; fees of $30 or more per article are common. And if you need to access a lot of papers then the cost quickly adds up. Needless to say many people don’t have the means to pay. Of course you could stick to open access journals i.e. free to read and download (Head to the directory of Open Access Journals for easy access to a whole range of open access journals), but by doing so you will miss a lot of what’s happening in the academic world*. If you can’t afford to pay then you have a few options to get around the paywalls.”
Moving Beyond Open Access to Digital Fluency : The Opportunities to Create an Information Environment for Tomorrow’s Scholars
Mary Lee Kennedy, December 31, 2017
Web of Science linking to Green Open Access versions is pretty awesome.
Geschuhn, K. & Stone, G., (2017). It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition. Insights. 30(3), pp.103–114. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.391
This paper makes the case for stronger engagement of libraries and consortia when it comes to negotiating and drafting offsetting agreements. Two workshops organized by the Efficiencies and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative in 2016 and 2017 have shown a clear need for an improvement of the current workflows and processes between academic institutions (and libraries) and the publishers they use in terms of author identification, metadata exchange and invoicing. Publishers need to invest in their editorial systems, while institutions need to get a clearer understanding of the strategic goal of offsetting. To this purpose, strategic and practical elements, which should be included in the agreements, will be introduced. Firstly, the Joint Understanding of Offsetting, launched in 2016, will be discussed. This introduces the ‘pay-as-you-publish’ model as a transitional pathway for the agreements. Secondly, this paper proposes a set of recommendations for article workflows and services between institutions and publishers, based on a draft document which was produced as part of the 2nd ESAC Offsetting Workshop in March 2017. These recommendations should be seen as a minimum set of practical and formal requirements for offsetting agreements and are necessary to make any publication-based open access business model work.
Published on 2017-11-08 17:25:00