Tuesday, May 26, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Science Library Pad: Open Access policy - Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences

Posted: 26 May 2015 08:34 AM PDT

"The Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences released its open access policy on April 1, 2015. http://www.ideas-idees.ca/issues/open-access-aspp The official title is 'Open Access and the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program (ASPP)'. The policy is about facilitating and promoting open access books (monographs): [1] the Federation will embrace the roles of promoter and facilitator of Open Access publishing projects for monographs, with a particular view to engage those that could include ASPP-funded books. [2] To encourage innovation and experimentation, the Federation will use its resources and networks to facilitate the participation of Canadian publishers, libraries and authors in promising, scalable projects that provide practical (i.e. financial or in-kind) support for Open Access monograph publishing. [3] To support the ongoing efforts of some Canadian publishers, the Federation will promote existing and future ASPP-funded Open Access books. As I understand it, it is not a mandatory policy, it's more about doing projects to support open access, in particular projects that would: [1] Make books Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) as DRM-free PDFs or full- text HTML, using the final published work as the version of record; [2] Track and report on downloads and/or usage; [3] Use Creative Commons licences; [4] Host Open Access publications in at least one recognized repository that provides permanent links; [5] Follow accepted protocols for metadata. above from full policy http://www.ideas-idees.ca/sites/default/files/oa-aspp-policy-position-en.pdf ..."

Data integration made easy with open source Karma | Opensource.com

Posted: 26 May 2015 12:31 AM PDT

"Karma is a free, an open source data integration tool that makes it easy to convert data from a variety of formats into linked data. I recently attended a half-day workshop on Karma with Pedro Szekely, our instructor. He started by warning us that he knows very little about libraries, but a ton about data. The files we needed for the workshop were on GitHub, if you're interested in checking it out. You can follow the tutorial steps on the Wiki, and, of course, you can find Karma itself on GitHub ..."

Two-thirds of DOAJ journals do not have article processing charges | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

Posted: 26 May 2015 12:20 AM PDT

"64% of the journals added to DOAJ after March 2014 do not have article processing charges, while 36% have article processing charges. As of today, the total is 1,123 journals of which 720 do not have article processing charges (based on an ISSN count of journals with no charges supplied by DOAJ) and 403 have charges (from the DOAJ website / advanced search / journals / expand article processing charges). However, this does support the statement that two-thirds of fully open access journals do not have article processing charges. The difference between the 26% with charges and 5% with conditional charges we found last year (total 31%) and this sub-sample could reflect differences in the samples and should not be considered indicative of a trend. This sub-set of journals includes journals recently added to DOAJ and journals that have gone through the DOAJ re-application process (only a minority of journals have done this, less than 12% the last time I checked). It is possible that journals with conditional charges, or old-fashioned print-based base page charges rather than OA APCs, would be less likely to fill out the new DOAJ form which forces a choice between Yes or No to article processing charges. The text file supplied by DOAJ staff has been posted to the OA APCs dataverse. The number of journals was calculated using a simple ISSN using the Excel find and replace function. If anyone with a bit of programming skill would like to take the text file and transform it into .csv (or other spreadsheet – manipulable file), that would be helpful. The SKC team may well get around to this, just not sure where this will fit in our priority list. This post is part of the open access article processing charges project ..."

Thoughts in response to Michael Chibnik's editorial on OA and American Anthropologist | Dr. Martin Paul Eve | Senior Lecturer in Literature, Technology and Publishing

Posted: 26 May 2015 12:15 AM PDT

"In February of this year Michael Chibnik published an editorial piece in American Anthropologist arguing that while he supported the idea of open access to the publication he also now thinks 'that gold open access publication is unlikely to be feasible in the near future for AA'. This is a regrettable situation since, from the editorial, it does not appear that many options have been considered to achieve open access, despite the citation in this piece of the previous editor calling for the Society to 'work creatively' to achieve OA. I here offer a few thoughts of my own on what was said and left unsaid in Chibnik's editorial. Brief edit (6:00pm, 25th May): I wrote this piece fairly quickly because, well, life is very busy and I wanted to get a tone that wasn't overly critical of Michael Chibnik. I think it's great that AA are having this debate, even if I don't agree with the outcome so far. Having re-read the post a few hours after posting, I think it a bit more accusatory in tone than I wanted. I write this edit to clarify that the spirit in which I mean to offer these thoughts are those of engagement, not hostility ..."

What could altmetrics add to the REF exercise? | Altmetric.com

Posted: 26 May 2015 12:08 AM PDT

"In England, the recent national Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise is using 'real world' impact for the first time to determine how much money institutions will be allocated from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. In this post, we examine the REF results and discuss the possibilities for documenting such impacts using altmetrics ..."

Open Access Archivangelism: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

Posted: 26 May 2015 12:04 AM PDT

" ... Yes Alicia, the definition of authors providing free, immediate online access (Green OA self-archiving) has not changed since the online medium first made it possible. Neither has researchers' need for it changed, nor its benefits to research. What has changed is Elsevier policy -- in the direction of trying to embargo Green OA to ensure that it does not put Elsevier's current revenue levels at any risk. Elsevier did not try to embargo Green OA from 2004-2012 — but apparently only because they did not believe that authors would ever really bother to provide much Green OA, nor that their institutions and funders would ever bother to require them to provide it (for its benefits to research). But for some reason Elsevier is not ready to admit that Elsevier has now decided to embargo Green OA purely to ensure that it does not put Elsevier's current subscription revenue levels at any risk. Instead, Elsevier wants to hold OA hostage to its current revenue levels -- by embargoing Green OA, with the payment of Fools-Gold OA publication fees the only alternative if an author wishes to provide immediate OA. This ensures that Elsevier's current revenue levels either remain unchanged, or increase. But, for public-relations reasons, Elsevier prefers to try to portray this as all being done out of 'fairness,' and to facilitate 'sharing' (in the spirit of OA). The 'fairness' is to ensure that no institution is exempt from Elsevier's Green OA embargoes. And the 'sharing' is the social sharing services like Mendeley (which Elsevier owns), about which Elsevier now believes (for the time being) that authors would not bother to use them enough (and their institutions and funders cannot mandate that they use them) -- hence that that they would not pose a risk to Elsevier's current subscription revenue levels. Yet another one of the 'changes' with which Elsevier seems to be trying to promote sharing is by trying to find a way to outlaw the institutional repositories' 'share button' (otherwise known as the 'Fair-Dealing' Button). So just as Elsevier is trying to claim credit for 'allowing' authors to do 'dark' (i.e., embargoed, non-OA) deposits, for which no publisher permission whatsoever is or ever was required, Elsevier now has its lawyers scrambling to find a formalizable way to make it appear as if Elsevier can forbid its authors to use the Share Button to provide individual reprints to one another, as authors have been doing for six decades ..."

Walt at Random » Blog Archive » The Open Access Landscape: 13. History

Posted: 25 May 2015 11:57 PM PDT

"History includes most aspects of cultural research focused on the past and a number of regional, national and state studies journals. The group includes 136 journals, which published a total of 2,739 articles in 2013 and 3,090 in 2014 ..."
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)