There is a new open access publisher called ScienceOpen. The idea behind ScienceOpen is to publish in all areas of science and utilize post-publication peer review. Submitted articles will go through a technical and ethical review and accepted publications are then published online with a DOI after payment of an $800 publication fee.
Open peer review takes place after publication. Authors may invite suitable reviewers for their own manuscript, and editors or other ScienceOpen members may also invite peers to review the work. Unsolicited comments make up a separate portion of the public review system. The identity of all reviewers and commenters is visible at all times.
For more information about this process: https://www.scienceopen.com/external/how_does_it_work
The Office of Science and Technology Policy has released an update on the federal government’s work towards making research, including data, more openly available to the public. It specifically provides an update on agency plans for complying with the White House directive. While those plans are still not public, it appears they may be in the next few months. It looks as though some federal agencies will be taking advantage of the infrastructure surrounding PubMed Central.
A nonprofit group called Knowledge Unlatched, has come up with a new model for publishing open access books. In this model, libraries pick titles they would like to be open access and pay a title fee for each of those books. Those fees are meant cover the cost of publishing each book. The books are then published with a Creative Commons license and made available DRM-free via OAPEN, the HathiTrust and eventually the British Library.
For more information about this new OA model for books:
Chronicle article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/libraries-test-a-model-for-setting-monographs-free/51455
Knowledge Unlatched: http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/
Fair use got a win with Lawrence Lessig’s lawsuit against an Australian record label. Lessig used clips of a song by Phoenix in a lecture that was posted on YouTube. Liberation Music, the label representing Phoenix, issued a take-down notice for the lecture and then threatened to sue when Lessig fought back against the notice. The settlement requires Liberation Music to pay Lessig for harm caused and has resulted in a new take-down policy for Liberation Music.
For more information on this lawsuit: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/lawrence-lessig-settles-fair-use-lawsuit-over-phoenix-music-snippets
The Royal Society of London will launch a new open access journal this fall, Royal Society Open Science (RSOS). RSOS will operate similarly to PLoS One, meaning it will publish research in all areas of science and mathematics and will base peer review on quality of the research, not novelty of the subject.
For more information about this journal, see this article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/feb/18/royal-society-open-access-science-maths-new-journal
The Society for Cultural Anthropology (SCA) recently announced that their flagship publication, Cultural Anthropology, would be going open access (OA). Their parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) had negotiated with Wiley-Blackwell to allow the SCA to become OA even though AAA has a publishing contract with Wiley-Blackwell that runs through 2017.
This is an exciting opportunity for members of SCA and readers of Cultural Anthropology – both current readers and the many future readers who will be able access their material for the first time.
See the announcement from SCA: http://www.culanth.org/articles/722-opening-access-publics-publication-and-a-path
On January 31st, we had a discussion that was open to all library staff about the Economics of the Scholarly Communication Ecosystem. Those of us in the Open Access Group had been reading about the economics behind open access (OA) publishing, traditional, toll-access publishing, and hybrid publishing. We hoped the discussion would be a forum for us to share what we’d learned and hear from participants about their thoughts on the issue.
Here are some of the highlights of the discussion:
- While the literature we (OA Group) had read indicated that switching to a system that pays for publishing services (Article Processing Charges, APCs) rather than paying for access would be much cheaper for libraries, some participants said they had read literature indicating that for research universities, the cost would be higher.
- This brought up the issue of funding agencies paying for some APCs, so that universities and libraries wouldn’t be responsible for paying all APCs for their authors.
- Of course, these discussions assumed a complete switch to open access publishing, but that isn’t the reality. There was much discussion around how we cope with the current transitional system we are in – most journals still charge a subscription fee (even if they also offer hybrid OA), while some journals are open access (both free and with fees for publishing).
- We discussed the OA funds that some university libraries are making available to faculty at their institutions. Most of these funds are small in size (less than 100k), are available only to those people who do not have grant funding available to pay APCs, and cannot be used for hybrid-OA.
- One participant asked if there had been much discussion in the library about which route to OA librarians preferred. We talked briefly about some of the pros and cons of green-OA vs. gold-OA. This is certainly a topic that could use further discussion.
- There was some frustration expressed with the fact that we’ve been talking about OA for 20+ years now and we still have much the same system as we did in 1994. While there are some very successful OA journals, many of the OA journals that started up during that time have since folded.
- Some of the collaborative efforts discussed included SCOAP3, the Compact for OA Publishing Equity, and SHARE.
- One interesting topic brought up was a concern that universities (and the legislatures that fund public universities) do not truly understand what it means to be a public good. This lack of understanding coupled with very high costs for access to information and a transitional scholarly communication environment could lead administrators to pull funding away from the library – similar to what happened with many university presses.
While this was a great opportunity for us all to talk about the issues facing us right now, there is still much we didn’t get a chance to discuss. We hope to have discussions on other topics in the future.
Our reading list is available here.
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill that was recently passed by Congress, included a provision that will greatly improve access to taxpayer-funded research. Under the bill, federal agencies (with research budgets more than $100 million per year) within Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education will be required to provide the public with online access to articles funded by that research no later than 12 months after publication.
For more information, see the SPARC announcement: http://www.sparc.arl.org/news/omnibus-appropriations-bill-codifies-white-house-directive
I was getting caught up on my Hulu backlog and found a very funny episode from the Simpsons about movie piracy and copyright infringement. It does a good job of poking fun at the extreme lengths Hollywood (and our government) will go to protect the profits from the movies they make. The Simpsons writers have a good time pointing out the ridiculousness of our copyright system, but don’t go so far as to put a CC license on the episode. Enjoy!
Steal this Episode http://www.fox.com/thesimpsons/full-episodes/101403715865 and if the link becomes inactive, here’s the Wikipedia article about this episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Episode
January 1st of every year is Public Domain Day. This is a day to celebrate the items that have entered the public domain. In the United States, we’ll have nothing to celebrate this year, as nothing will enter the public domain until 2019. That is because the 1976 Copyright Act changed the terms of copyright to 70 years after the author’s death or 95 years after publication for corporate works. This means the items that would have become public domain on January 1st, 2014 under the previous copyright act, won’t enter the public domain until 2053.
Duke University’s, Center for the Study of the Public Domain has a great site on this topic: http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/index