Monday, October 19, 2015

OATP primary

OATP primary

Scholastica Blog — The Open Access Stories: Stevan Harnad, OA Pioneer

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 09:59 AM PDT

"In honor of Open Access Week 2015, Scholastica welcomes Stevan Harnad to The Open Access Stories blog series! ..."

Digital Innovations Librarian

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 06:00 AM PDT

"Responsibilities: ...Establish and maintain effective working relations with academic departments and other campus units that use Digital CC as a repository engaged in collaborative digital projects with academic support units that share "Center" space, and with others on campus....Lead or participate in innovative digitization projects of Colorado College and the library....Manage the overall operations of Digital CC...."

Opening Access to collections: the making and using of open digitised cultural content: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:45 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to situate the activity of digitisation to increase access to cultural and heritage content alongside the objectives of the Open Access Movement (OAM). It demonstrates that increasingly open licensing of digital cultural heritage content is creating opportunities for researchers in the arts and humanities for both access to and analysis of cultural heritage materials. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is primarily a literature and scoping review of the current digitisation licensing climate, using and embedding examples from ongoing research projects and recent writings on Open Access (OA) and digitisation to highlight both opportunities and barriers to the creation and use of digital heritage content from galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM). Findings – The digital information environment in which digitised content is created and delivered has changed phenomenally, allowing the sharing and reuse of digital data and encouraging new advances in research across the sector, although issues of licensing persist. There remain further opportunities for understanding how to: study use and users of openly available cultural and heritage content; disseminate and encourage the uptake of open cultural data; persuade other institutions to contribute their data into the commons in an open and accessible manner; build aggregation and search facilities to link across information sources to allow resource discovery; and how best to use high-performance computing facilities to analyse and process the large amounts of data the author is now seeing being made available throughout the sector. Research limitations/implications – It is hoped that by pulling together this discussion, the benefits to making material openly available have been made clear, encouraging others in the GLAM sector to consider making their collections openly available for reuse and repurposing. Practical implications – This paper will encourage others in the GLAM sector to consider licensing their collections in an open and reusable fashion. By spelling out the range of opportunities for researchers in using open cultural and heritage materials it makes a contribution to the discussion in this area. Social implications – Increasing the quantity of high-quality OA resources in the cultural heritage sector will lead to a richer research environment which will increase the understanding of history, culture and society. Originality/value – This paper has pulled together, for the first time, an overview of the current state of affairs of digitisation in the cultural and heritage sector seen through the context of the OAM. It has highlighted opportunities for researchers in the arts, humanities and social and historical sciences in the embedding of open cultural data into both their research and teaching, whilst scoping the wave of cultural heritage content which is being created from institutional repositories which are now available for research and use. As such, it is a position paper that encourages the open data agenda within the cultural and heritage sector, showing the potentials that exists for the study of culture and society when data are made open.

Open Access publishing and scholarly communications in non-scientific disciplines: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:43 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current state of debates surrounding Open Access (OA) in non-STEM disciplines. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses a selective literature review and discussion methodology to give a representative summary of the state of the art. Findings – Non-STEM disciplines persistently lag behind scientific disciplines in their approach to OA, if the teleology towards open dissemination is accepted. This can be attributed to a variety of economic and cultural factors that centre on the problem of resource allocation with respect to quality. Originality/value – This paper will be of value to policymakers, funders, academics and publishers. The original aspect of the paper pertains to the identification of an anxiety of irrelevance in the humanities disciplines and a focus on "quality" in Open-Access publishing debates.

Barriers to Open Access uptake for researchers in Africa: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:41 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent of visibility of researchers in African countries, in the Open Access (OA) arena and aims to identify main causes of reduced uptake in OA in Africa. Design/methodology/approach – Extent of visibility is explored by quantitative analysis of institutional repository and OA journals data sets followed by qualitative analysis of OA foundation documents and literature on OA in Africa published mainly between 2003 and 2013. Findings – Visibility in institutional repositories or OA journals for African researchers remains low. Causes include insufficient educational support for librarians and administrators in required new roles; inability of national, organisational and technological infrastructures to support OA; impracticality of western-based and costly publishing models; and disincentives relating to intellectual property and researcher perceptions. Complex language and literacy issues also inhibit engagement. Recommendations include strong OA advocacy, development of support initiatives, integration of international knowledge for local conditions and vice versa, sensitive preservation of indigenous knowledge and development of mechanisms of funding and research assessment mechanisms, which are economically and technically viable. Originality/value – Earlier attempts were made to raise awareness about the lack of uptake of OA in Africa. This paper shows that the situation has hardly changed and now requires urgent attention. Otherwise OA will not "become the default method for distributing new peer-reviewed research in every field and country" by 2022 (BOAI, 2012).

The quandary between communication and certification: The quandary between communication and certification: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:40 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand individual academics' perception, attitudes and participation in Open Access Publishing and open scholarship and revisit some principles and designs of openness in academic publishing from the perspective of creative end-users, which helps to increase the sustainability and efficiency of open models. Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on a case study of China and empirical data collected through semi-structured interviews with a wide range of academics and stakeholders. Findings – A separation between the communication and certification functions of publishing is identified: open initiatives are valued for efficient and interactive communication while traditional publishing still dominates the legitimacy of research publications, which leads to the quandary of individual academics operating within the transitional landscape of scholarly communication. Practical implications – Practical recommendations for sustainable and efficient openness are derived from discussions on the difficulties associated open/social certification and the shifting maxims that govern academics from "publish or perish" to "be visible or vanish". Originality/value – "Openness" is defined in broad sense integrating Open Access and open scholarship to comprehensively reflect individual academics' views in the transitional landscape of academic publishing. The research findings suggest that new open approaches are needed to address the evolving tension and conflicts between communication and certification.

Funding models for Open Access digital data repositories: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:38 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine funding models for Open Access (OA) digital data repositories whose costs are not wholly core funded. Whilst such repositories are free to access, they are not without significant cost to build and maintain and the lack of both full core costs and a direct funding stream through payment-for-use poses a considerable financial challenge, placing their future and the digital collections they hold at risk. Design/methodology/approach – The authors document 14 different potential funding streams for OA digital data repositories, grouped into six classes (institutional, philanthropy, research, audience, service, volunteer), drawing on the ongoing experiences of seeking a sustainable funding for the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI). Findings – There is no straight forward solution to funding OA digital data repositories that are not wholly core funded, with a number of general and specific challenges facing each repository, and each funding model having strengths and weaknesses. The proposed DRI solution is the adoption of a blended approach that seeks to ameliorate cyclical effects across funding streams by generating income from a number of sources rather than overly relying on a single one, though it is still reliant on significant state core funding to be viable. Practical implications – The detailing of potential funding streams offers practical financial solutions to other OA digital data repositories which are seeking a means to become financially sustainable in the absence of full core funding. Originality/value – The review assesses and provides concrete advice with respect to potential funding streams in order to help repository owners address the financing conundrum they face.

For what it’s worth – the open peer review landscape: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:37 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold, first, to discuss the current and future issues around post-publication open peer review. Second, to highlight some of the main protagonists and platforms that encourages open peer review, pre-and post-publication. Design/methodology/approach – The first part of the paper aims to discuss the facilitators and barriers that will enable and prevent academics engaging with the new and established platforms of scholarly communication and review. These issues are covered with the intention of proposing further dialogue within the academic community that ultimately address researchers' concerns, whilst continuing to nurture a progressive approach to scholarly communication and review. The paper will continue to look at the prominent open post-publication platforms and tools and discuss whether in the future it will become a standard model. Findings – The paper identifies several problems, not exclusive to open peer review that could inhibit academics from being open with their reviews and comments of other's research. Whilst identifies opportunities to be had by embracing a new era of academic openness. Practical implications – The paper summarises key platforms and arguments for open peer review and will be of interest to researchers in different disciplines as well as the wider academic community wanting to know more about scholarly communications and measurement. Originality/value – This paper looks at many of the new platforms that have been previously ignored and discusses issues relating to open peer review that have only been touched on in brief by other published research.

Making Open Access work: Making Open Access work: Online Information Review: Vol 39, No 5

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:33 AM PDT

[Abstract] Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of one of the most important and controversial areas of scholarly communication: Open Access publishing and dissemination of research outputs. It identifies and discusses recent trends and future challenges for various stakeholders in delivering Open Access (OA) to the scholarly literature. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a number of interrelated strands of evidence which make up the current discourse on OA, comprising the peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and other forms of communication (including blogs and e-mail discussion lists). It uses a large-scale textual analysis of the peer-reviewed literature since 2010 (carried out using the VOSviewer tool) as a basis for discussion of issues raised in the OA discourse. Findings – A number of key themes are identified, including the relationship between "Green" OA (deposit in repositories) and "Gold" OA (OA journal publication), the developing evidence base associated with OA, researcher attitudes and behaviours, policy directions, management of repositories, development of journals, institutional responses and issues around impact and scholarly communication futures. It suggests that current challenges now focus on how OA can be made to work in practice, having moved on from the discussion of whether it should happen at all. Originality/value – The paper provides a structured evidence-based review of major issues in the OA field, and suggests key areas for future research and policy development.

F1000Research Celebrates Major Milestone with Publication of 1,000 Articles Since Launch - PR.com

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:29 AM PDT

" ... The 1,000 articles published in F1000Research have been contributed by 3,798 authors, and to-date been openly peer-reviewed by 2,061 non-anonymous experts, whose reports can be read alongside the articles. 700 of the published articles have passed peer review by the experts and are, or will shortly be, indexed in PubMed, while the remaining articles are at various stages of peer review, which at F1000Research takes place after publication. The articles have been viewed over 1,150,000 times. F1000Research is closing in on another landmark: with 8,992 academic posters and slides published at the time of writing, it is heading for the 10,000 posters and slides milestone in the coming months. F1000Research has also been helping almost 80 research communities establish their own publishing channels on the F1000Research platform, including major organisations and societies such as Médecins Sans Frontières, the International Society for Computational Biology and the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility ..."

"Making Open Science a Reality" - OECD publishes analysis on open science progress | RDA

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:27 AM PDT

"The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) has published its study on Open Science carried out as a part of the activities of the OECD's Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP). Entitled 'Making Open Science a Reality' the study gives an overview of the progress made by OECD countries in making publicly funded research openly accessible. Individual country notes have also been made available to support the findings.     The report lists the Research Data Alliance under the international research organisations actively involved in Open Science efforts.     As encapsulated in the study Executive Summary the main findings have been:  Open science is a means and not an end in itself. Open science is more than just open access to publications or data; it includes many aspects and stages of research processes. Policies to promote open data are less mature than those to promote open access to scientific publications. Open science policies should be principle-based but adapted to local realities. Better incentive mechanisms to promote data-sharing practices amongst researchers are needed. The development of data-related skills is essential. Training of and awareness-raising among researchers is important for the development of an open science culture. Repositories and online platforms will not have impact if the information they contain is not of good quality. The long-term preservation costs of openly available research outputs need to be considered. Clear legal frameworks for the sharing of publications and reuse of data sets are needed at the national and international levels. Consultative approaches that involve all relevant actors for open science are a key component of successful open science strategies. International collaboration in the area of open science is necessary to address global challenges. Policy makers need to promote openness in science while at the same time preserving competition.   The full report is available on the innovationpolicyplatform.org"

Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies (new print and PDF editions)

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:17 AM PDT

"Since 2011, with input and feedback from colleagues around the world, +Stuart Shieber and I have been developing recommendations for university policies on open access to faculty research. We released the first edition of our guide during Open Access Week 2012, and have enlarged and improved it ever since.

We keep the master version on a wiki to make this kind of continual revision easy. Although the wiki version has received more than 97,000 views to date, some users prefer to read or share the guide in other formats. In Open Access Week 2013, we released the first print and PDF editions (capturing the wiki text from September 2013), and in OA Week this year, we're pleased to release the second print and PDF editions (capturing the wiki text from September 2015).

The wiki edition will still contain the latest updates. But the new editions should make the guide more versatile and useful. Like the wiki edition and the previous print and PDF editions, the new editions stand under Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licenses...."

The Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland has granted its patronage to the Polish celebration of the Open Access Week – Open Access Week

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:08 AM PDT

"The Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland has granted its patronage to the Polish celebration of the Open Access Week. Throughout the whole Open Access Week, various institutions and organisations will organise many events online (webinars) and offline (training sessions, presentations, seminars) promoting openness in science and also a lot of educational materials like films, video clips, etc. will be created on this occasion. For now, 26 initiatives are registered on the Polish Open Access Week 2015 website ..."

The future of scientific publishing: let's make sure it's fair as well as transparent

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:07 AM PDT

"Scientific publishing has undergone a revolution in recent years – largely due to the internet. And it shows no sign of letting up as a growing number of countries attempt to ensure that research papers are made freely available. Publishers are struggling to adapt their business models to the new challenges. But it is not just the publishers who struggle. Peer-reviewed publications are extremely important for academics, who use them to communicate their latest research findings. When it comes to making decisions about hiring and promotion, universities often use an academic's publication record. However, the use of publication consultants and increasingly long lists of authors in certain disciplines are changing the game. So where will it all end? ..."

EC Workshop on Alternative Open Access Publishing Models | Digital Agenda for Europe

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:05 AM PDT

"The EU and many other research funders now mandate open access to scientific publications resulting from public funding. One of the central implementation issues is the search for sustainable models supporting a transition to open access. The workshop aimed to collect information and reflect on each of the models presented.  Currently, the most commonly discussed models are green open access and gold open access based on article processing charges (APCs). These models each have their pros and cons, but are not the only possibilities. New models are now emerging that could optimise existing arrangements and put forward new ones. During the current transition period towards universal open access, the European Commission wishes to collect information about alternative and new open access publishing models.  The presentations given during the workshop can be found on this page ..."

Peter Suber, Readings for Open Access Week 2015

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:05 AM PDT

"I hope you'll talk about open access with colleagues next week, which happens to be Open Access Week. Actually I hope you talk about OA at every opportune moment. If an opportune moment doesn't come up every week, then use OA Week as the occasion. In my view, that's the main purpose of OA Week. Talk from a stage, your office, a hallway, a sidewalk, or a café table. The setting doesn't matter. Or if it does, personal settings may matter more than impersonal ones. Make the case in a way that your colleagues will understand, which you understand because you're their colleague.

 

If you inspire your colleagues to want to act or learn more, then follow up with some suggested readings. Here are half a dozen of my own that I can recommend, from shortest to longest.

But don't lead with readings. Lead with face-to-face conversation. Welcome the back and forth. Show that you can answer the actual questions or concerns your colleague may have, not to mention the frequently heard questions, objections, and misunderstandings. Help your colleague understand that there's a serious problem and a beautiful solution...."

Oberlin Group endorses #OA policy recommendations

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:04 AM PDT

"The Oberlin Group of 80 liberal arts college libraries just endorsed the guide to good practices for university OA policies <http://bit.ly/goodoa> that I maintain with +Stuart Shieber. Thanks to all member institutions of the Oberlin Group!

This endorsement underscores a point already clear within the text of the guide. The practices we recommend in the guide apply just as much to colleges as universities. In the last section we list institutions that have already adopted this type of policy, and the list includes seven liberal arts colleges, of which six are members of the Oberlin Group...."

Faculty of Language: A new model for ling journals

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:01 AM PDT

"Johan Rooryck sent me the following very interesting piece on open access journals for linguistics. It addresses an issue that has been discussed on this blog regarding the practicalities of such a venture. Many of you have weighed in on the topic. This should be useful in assessing the options. Thx Johan. **** Open Access publishing is often said to be the future of academic journals, but the actual move from a subscription model to an Open Access model is not easily achieved. Several international linguistics journals are currently transitioning from their traditional publisher to a new Open Access publisher, transferring their entire editorial staff, authors, and peer reviewers from the traditional subscription model to Fair Open Access. Such a transfer is made possible thanks to a new organization called Linguistics in Open Access (Ling-OA) (www.lingoa.eu). Ling-OA is a non-profit foundation representing linguistics journal editors who wish to publish under the conditions of Fair Open Access outlined below ..."

Scholastica Blog — The Open Access Stories: Celebrating OA Week 2015

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 02:00 AM PDT

"In celebration of Open Access Week 2015, Scholastica is thrilled to present a new blog series - The Open Access Stories. During OA Week (10/19-10/25) we will be welcoming OA supporters to the blog to discuss how and why they are working to further the OA movement. These blog guests will include journal editors, scholar advocates, independent journalists, and founders of open research initiatives. We planned this series to contribute to this year's OA Week theme, 'Open for Collaboration.' ..."

Open Access Week | Ryerson University Library & Archives

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 01:58 AM PDT

"International Open Access Week takes place October 19th to 25th, 2015. Please consider attending the following events. Open Access material is work that is made legally available on the public Internet with no restrictions so the anyone can access the full text. 1) The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz –  This documentary film will be streaming on Tuesday, October 20th between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM in the SLC amphitheatre.  The film depicts the life of American computer programmer, writer, political organizer, Internet activist, and lifetime open access advocate, Aaron Swartz. 2) Free Webinar: Faculty Perspectives on Publishing Open Access – Anyone can register for this free webinar and watch it from your location by following this link: http://ow.ly/TmPn8. Or, you can drop by LIB489B on Tuesday October 20th at 2:00 PM and join library staff viewing this webinar ..."

The battle for open access is far from over

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 01:50 AM PDT

"Today marks the beginning of the 8th Open Access (OA) week, a global event to highlight all things open access. It also marks three years since the Australasian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) – a coalition of nine Australian universities and now the Council of New Zealand University Librarians (CONZUL) – came in to existence to advocate for OA in this region. So it's a good time to reflect on where we are with open access today. It's now 25 years since the birth of the web, and more than 15 years since people started discussing open access. Yet we are still a long way from seeing the majority of the academic literature being open access. What's more frustrating is that we have yet to maximise the opportunities offered by the internet in ways comparable to the effect it has had on our daily lives ..."

NSF announces open-access policy - IOPscience

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 01:49 AM PDT

[Abstract] The National Science Foundation (NSF) – one of the biggest funders of research in the US – has released a plan to increase public access to published papers of research funded by the agency.

TPP signed: the ‘biggest global threat to the internet’ agreed, as campaigners warn that secret pact could bring huge new restrictions to the internet | News | Lifestyle | The Independent

Posted: 19 Oct 2015 01:47 AM PDT

" ... The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the conclusion of five years of negotiations, and will cover 40 per cent of the world's economy. Its claimed purpose is to create a unified economic bloc so that companies and businesses can trade more easily — but it also puts many of the central principle of the internet in doubt, according to campaigners ..."

7 tips for successful harvesting | CORE

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 09:55 PM PDT

The CORE (COnnecting REpositories) project aims to aggregate open access research outputs from open repositories and open journals, and make them available for dissemination via itssearch engine.  The project indexes metadata records and harvests the full-text of the outputs, provided that they are stored in a PDF format and are openly available. Currently CORE hosts around 24 million open access articles from 5,488 open access journals and 679 repositories.

Like in any type of partnership, the harvesting process is a two way relationship, were the content provider and the aggregator need to be able to communicate and have a mutual understanding. For a successful harvesting it is recommended that content providers apply the following best practices (some of the following recommendations relate generally to harvesting, while some are CORE specific)

The New York Times’ serial open access slimer Gina Kolata has a clear conflict of interest

Posted: 18 Oct 2015 01:57 AM PDT

Yesterday the Gina Kolata published a story in the New York Times about the fact that many clinical studies are not published. This is a serious problem and it's a good thing that it is being brought to light.

But her article contains a weird section in which a researcher at the University of Florida explains why she hadn't published the results of one of her studies:

Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, for example, an assistant professor of pharmacotherapy and translational research at the University of Florida, tried to publish the results of her study, which she completed in 2009. She wrote a paper and sent it to three journals, all of which summarily rejected it, she said.

The study, involving just two dozen people, asked if various high blood pressure drugs worsened sugar metabolism in people at high risk of diabetes.

"It was a small study and our hypothesis was not proven," Dr. Cooper-DeHoff said. "That's like three strikes against me for publication." Her only option, she reasoned, would be to turn to an open-access journal that charges authors to publish. "They are superexpensive and accept everything," she said. Last year she decided to post her results on clinicaltrials.gov.

Why is that sentence in there? First, it's completely false. There are superexpensive open access journals, and there are open access journals that accept everything. But I don't know of any open access journal that does both, and neither statement applies to the journals  (from PLOS, BMC, Frontiers, eLife and others) that publish most open access papers.

Is the point of that sentence supposed to be that there are journals that will publish anything, including a massively underpowered clinical study, but they're too expensive to publish in? That would fit the narrative Kolata is trying to develop – that people don't publish negative results because it's too hard to – but this too is completely false. Compared to the cost of doing a clinical trial, even a small one, the article processing fees for most open access journals are modest, and most offer waivers to those who can not pay.

It may seem like a minor thing, but these kind of things matter. There are a lot of misconceptions about open access publishing among scientists and the public, and when the paper of record repeats these misconceptions it compounds the problem.

So why does something like this get into the paper? I assume the quoted researcher said that, or something like it. But newspapers aren't just supposed to let people they quote say things that are patently false without pointing that out.

 

Kolata has been covering science for covering science for all of the 15 years that open access publishing has been around, and used to work for Science magazine. So it's just simply not credible to believe that she thinks this assertion about open access is true. Instead, it sure looks like she quoted a source making a false and misleading statement about open access to stand without countering it because it fit her narrative of people not being able to publish their findings.

 

So, after reading this article I made a few Tweets about this, and would have let it go at that. But then I remembered something. A few years ago, Kolata published a story about  "predatory open access publishers", in which Kolata characterized such publishers as the "dark side of open access".

I wrote about this story at the time, and won't repeat myself here, but suffice it to say that her article went out of its way to condemn all open access publishing because of some bad actors working at its fringes, while ignoring the far more significant sins of subscription publishing.

Sensing a bit of a pattern, I searched to see if she'd ever written other things about open access, and came upon a 2010 article on Amy Bishop, the Alabama who scientist who shot and killed three of her colleagues at the University of Alabama Huntsville, contains this bizarre paragraph on open access:

One 2009 paper, was published in The International Journal of General Medicine. Its publisher, Dovepress, says it specializes in "open access peer-reviewed journals." On its Web site, the company says, "Dove will publish your paper if it is deemed of interest to someone, therefore your chance of having your paper accepted is very high (it would be a very unusual paper that wasn't of interest to someone)."

What is the point of bringing open access into a story about whether a murderer did good science? Did Kolata go through her published papers and evaluate each of the journals in which it was published and offer up some kind of synthesis? No. She cherry picked a single article published in an open access journal and, instead of criticizing the science, she made it about the journal and its method of publication. This paragraph seems to be there just to knock open access publishing and to associate publishing in open access journals with being a murderer!

If it was just once, or maybe even twice, I'd just chalk it up to bad reporting or writing. But three separate gratuitous attacks on open access seems like more than a coincidence for someone who has had such a long and distinguished career around science.

It wouldn't be the first time that members of the science establishment (and the science section of the New York Times is amongst the biggest bulwarks of the science establishment) have taken pot shots at open access and open access journals. But I was curious why Kolata seems to make such a habit of it, and so I went back to her Wikipedia page to find out when she had worked at Science, to see if maybe she had been poisoned by their long history of anti open-access rhetoric. Turns out is was 1973-1987, before open access came along.

But I noticed the following line in her biography:

Her husband, William G. Kolata, has taught mathematics and served as the technical director of the non-profit Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics in Philadelphia, a nonprofit professional society for mathematicians.

SIAM, it so happens, is a fairly big publisher, with, according to their IRS Form 990, annual subscription revenues of around $6,000,000 (and another $1,000,000 in membership dues, which, for many societies, are often just another way to subscribe to a journal). Now as publishers go, SIAM hasn't been particularly anti open-access, and their journals engage in so-called "hybrid" open access in which they'll let you pay an extra fee to make articles freely available (enabling the publisher to double dip by collecting both open access fees and subscriptions, since only a small number of authors choose the open access option).

But given that the ~$125,000 per year that Kolata's husband makes from SIAM is threatened by changes to scholarly publishing, including open access, it would seem that Kolata has at least a mild conflict of interest here in trying to prop up the subscription publishing industry and in denigrating new models and new players in the industry.

At the very least the fact that, in addition to her own lengthy career in science publishing and science journalism, Kolata's husband has been involved in running a scientific society that is primarily involved in publishing, makes it seem highly unlikely that her digs at open access are born of ignorance. And whether her motivation is to prop up the dying industry in which her husband just happens to be employed, or if she's just on some kind of weird petty vendetta, we should watch carefully when Kolata writes about open access in the future and not let her get away this kind of sliming any more.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)