Hi,
"Who's against open access ?"
I'd say a not so naive answer would be
"None that can claim so."
What is the influence of wikipedia's journal article infobox in the popular
(and researchers, and funders, and editors, and publishers) mindsets ?
*Would an editor be reluctant to see his or her name associated with a
"paywalled, lucrative, not archiving friendly, poorly-reviewed, journal" ?*
I proposed updating wikipedian templates to fulfil wikipedian goal of
making knowledge more accessible, stressing out key characteristics for
journals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Add_Open_Access…
Please contribute in this orientation with editions of related templates
and infoboxes.
BR
Rudy
RP87
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
Dear all,
I've seen ranging initiatives for making scientific literature more
accessible, from asking lower subscription prices, to no subscription - apc
strategies, to intensifying archiving etc. And I guess we'll have a
divergent view on each one of them. I've already mentioned in this list my
JSL proposal years ago and I'll remind it if requested. Though I'm still
convinced of this target, It clearly seems a too far first step for most in
accademia.
Today I'd like complete this range of strategies with this petition aiming
at making editorial boards to publically drop their lucrative titles and
start, from their current notability, concurrent free titles (diamond
model, copylefted).
Here is the petition, https://journauxscientifiqueslibres.wesign.it/en
Here is a video call for french speaker (english version incoming)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PrMrJqsVhw
Feel free to comment, dissemin, edit (wiki links in petition description),
etc. ... and sign of course if you agree with it.
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
Hi,
Refusing to review for a closed-access journal is something many
subscribers of this list have already done, I suspect.
We made a pledge to help you publicize that stance and encourage others
to adopt it:
https://nofreeviewnoreview.org/
It is intended to complement other boycott pledges, without targeting a
specific publisher or academic field. We hope you find it useful!
Cheers,
Antonin
For the upcoming #1lib1ref period, I've refreshed the queue of suggested
edits in <https://tools.wmflabs.org/oabot/>, to suggest edits from the
most popular articles for which we found some OA link (~500 for now).
Hopefully this makes the tool more engaging for new users. Given the
statistics on citation engagement recently published by Piccardi, Redi
et al at <https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08614>, some of the obscure
articles we previously propose may not get a click on any citation for
years. It's a bit lame to propose such edits, while spending a few
minutes of work to add a link which can produce a few dozens
interactions with OA repositories ought to be interesting.
The list of articles by their popularity is at
<http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3783468>. Maybe it can be useful also for
other projects.
It's just a simple extraction from the pageviews API, but may save you
some time if you're not used to command line scripts or your network
latency is too high. Not to mention that querying 20k articles on
TreeViews is prone to crashes.
Federico
There's some more talk about free software in the open access circles
recently. This paper attempts to recap a few aspects (in almost 100 pages).
It's CC-BY-4.0 and this URL opens without JavaScript:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/download
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] New paper: A tale of two 'opens': intersections
between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship
Data: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 13:50:30 +0800
Mittente: Jon Tennant (via scholcomm Mailing List)
Dear all,
Apologies in advance for any cross-posting. We are delighted today to
announce the publication of a new paper, entitled "A tale of two
'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open
Scholarship".
It is currently available as a preprint on SocArXiv, and open for
additional comments/annotations: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2kxq8/
It's a bit of a monster, so best not to be tackled without an
appropriate caffeine level.
Abstract: There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source
Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and
fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we
critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two
movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several
key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of
practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and
collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the
principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within
scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology.
Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and
compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration
towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a
concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs
beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to
achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional
mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders
to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the
communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key
research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such
a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a
system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources
(including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more
efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous,
verified, and reproducible.
Also, of potential interest, is that we wrote this paper in a way that
inspired the concept of a "MOOP", more details here:
https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/et8ak
Special thanks to the brilliant co-authors: Ritwik Agarwal, Ksenija
Baždarić, David Brassard, Tom Crick, Daniel Dunleavy, Thomas Evans,
Nicholas Gardner, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Daniel Graziotin, Bastian
Greshake Tzovaras, Daniel Gunnarsson, Johanna Havemann, Mohammad
Hosseini, Daniel Katz, Marcel Knöchelmann, Leo Lahti, Christopher Madan,
Paolo Manghi, Alberto Marocchino, Paola Masuzzo, Peter Murray-Rust,
Sanjay Narayanaswamy, Gustav Nilsonne, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Bart
Penders, Olivier Pourret, Michael Rera, John Samuel, Tobias Steiner,
Jadranka Stojanovski, Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, Rutger Vos, Simon
Worthington, and Tal Yarkoni.
Best,
Jon
Good news for OA monographs!
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] The MIT Press receives grant to develop and pilot a
sustainable framework for open access monographs
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:51:16 +0000
From: Jessica Pellien
For Immediate Release
October 7, 2019
Cambridge, MA
The MIT Press receives a generous grant from the Arcadia Fund to develop
and pilot a sustainable framework for open access monographs
The MIT Press has received a three-year $850,000 grant from
Arcadia<http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk>, a charitable fund of Lisbet
Rausing and Peter Baldwin, to perform a broad-based monograph publishing
cost analysis and to develop and openly disseminate a durable financial
framework and business plan for open access (OA) monographs. The Press,
a leader in OA publishing<https://mitpress.mit.edu/mit-press-open> for
almost 25 years, will also undertake a pilot program to implement the
resulting framework for scholarly front and backlist titles.
Amy Brand, director of the MIT Press and principal investigator for the
grant, sees it as an opportunity to explore alternatives to the
traditional market-based business model for professional and scholarly
monographs. "Until the mid-1990s, most U.S. university presses could
count on sales of 1,300-1,700 units, but today monograph sales are
typically in the range of 300-500 units," says Brand "Many presses make
up this difference with internal subsidies or subventions from
institutional or philanthropic sources, but this is not sustainable and
often unpredictable. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, this
generous award from Arcadia will allow us to develop and test a flexible
OA sustainability model that can then be adapted to the needs of our peers."
There is growing consensus within the university press community that
publishing academic monographs through a durable OA model may be the
best way to advance scholarship and fulfill our mission. The U.S.-based
Association of University Presses comprises 148 member presses that
collectively publish approximately 15,000 monographs per year. Crafting
and promoting a viable OA model for this community-and leading the way
as the MIT Press intends to do-would represent a major breakthrough.
Work on the grant is scheduled to start in 2019 and the first
grant-funded OA monographs will be available in 2020. At the conclusion
of the grant in June 2022, the Press will openly share a robust, blended
OA model that the university press community can adopt, and adapt,
paving the way for the many scholarly monographs published each year by
university presses and other mission-based scholarly publishers to be
more readily discovered, accessed, and shared.
"We know the content we produce is highly valued by scholars and
librarians. Broad and comprehensive availability of OA scholarly works
published by university presses will increase the impact of research and
contribute significantly to the knowledge sharing mission of the
academy," concludes Brand.
###
About the MIT Press
Established in 1962, the MIT Press is a not for profit, university-based
publisher aligned with the values and mission of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. With offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, the Press is one of the largest and most distinguished
university presses in the world and a leading publisher of books and
journals at the intersection of science, technology, art, social
science, and design.
www.mitpress.mit.edu<http://www.mitpress.mit.edu>
About Arcadia
Arcadia is a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin. It
supports charities and scholarly institutions that preserve cultural
heritage and the environment. Arcadia also supports projects that
promote open access and all of its awards are granted on the condition
that any materials produced are made available for free online. Since
2002, Arcadia has awarded more than $663 million to projects around the
world.
www.arcadiafund.org.uk<http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk>