Re: [GOAL] Open access and Brexit

[Reckling, Falk]

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a very interesting interview with Caroline Edwards from 
the Open Library of Humanities which wants to extend to other disciplines:
In English: 
http://scilog.fwf.ac.at/en/article/4482/the-gold-route-to-open-science
In German: http://scilog.fwf.ac.at/artikel/4479/der-goldene-weg-zu-open-science

Best Falk

___
Falk Reckling, PhD
Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis / Strategy - Nationale Programmes
Head of Departments

Sensengasse 1
A-1090 Vienna

Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
Mobile: +43-664-5307368
Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766

Twitter: FWFOpenAccess
Publications: https://zenodo.org/collection/user-fwf






Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Richard Poynder
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2016 16:24
An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
Betreff: [GOAL] Open access and Brexit

The UK research community's response to the recent referendum - in which a 
majority of 52% voted for the UK to leave the European Union (or "Brexit") - 
has been one of horror and disbelief.

This is no surprise, not least because Brexit would have a serious impact on 
research funding in the UK. Nature reports that UK universities currently get 
around 16% of their research funding from the EU, and that the UK currently 
hosts more EU-funded holders of ERC grants than any other member state. 
Elsewhere, Digital Science has estimated that the UK could lose £1 billion in 
science funding if the UK government does not make up the shortfall in 
EU-linked research funds.

But what are the implications of Brexit for open access? Given the highly 
volatile situation the UK now finds itself in we cannot say anything for 
certain. However, any squeeze on funding will surely be detrimental to current 
plans to migrate scholarly publishing from a subscription to an open access 
system.

With these thoughts in mind I put some questions to long-time proponent of open 
access, and Professor of Structural Biology at Imperial College London, Stephen 
Curry. His thoughts on the topic can be read here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/open-access-and-brexit.html

Richard Poynder



NEW: Online-Magazin http://scilog.fwf.ac.at
Follow us: www.twitter.com/fwf_at
Also see: www.twitter.com/FWFOpenAccess
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Éric Archambault]

This type of venue is essential and certainly welcomed for the social sciences. 
Yet, it would be even greater a place if it also included the humanities and 
the arts. There is a considerable challenge in the SSH because there are far 
fewer authors on average on scholarly papers (1 to 2 authors on average) 
compared to the natural sciences (5 authors on average) and the health sciences 
(6 co-authors on average on papers). This means each social scientist and 
humanities scholar has considerably more work to make papers available in OA. 
Whereas authors in the natural sciences can afford to self-archive only 20% of 
the papers on average to have all the material available in OA, in the 
humanities, because of the sole authorship common in this domain of scholarly 
activity, 100% of the papers have to be self-archived. The level of effort is 
somewhat mitigated by the fact that output is commensurably reduced (as all the 
work of writing papers falls to a single person, rather than to a fifth or a 
sixth of a person). Still, the easier it is to archive, the more likely SSH 
scholars will be likely to self-archive. Would be nice if SocArXiv became a 
more inclusive AHSocArxiv. We have enough of the incoherent inclusion policies 
of arXiv, inclusiveness should be celebrated in OA - we should no longer be 
divided and conquered.
Éric

Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 






From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: July 19, 2016 11:01 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv 
comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science 
Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded in 
1994 by two researchers.

Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by 
researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very well 
received. Still smarting from Elsevier's 2013 acquisition of Mendeley - another 
formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly papers - many 
(especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the publisher has bought a 
second OA asset. The reasons for this were encapsulated in a blog post by 
University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder entitled "SSRN has been captured 
by the enemy of open knowledge".

This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC is currently 
contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly publishing to assess the 
implications of the acquisition, presumably in order to decide whether it needs 
to intervene in some way.

Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government is 
showing in its latest acquisition. "The Federal Trade Commission is conducting 
a routine, informal review of our acquisition of the Social Sciences Research 
network," vice president and head of global corporate relations at Elsevier Tom 
Reller emailed me. "Elsevier's interest in SSRN is and has been about SSRNs' 
ethos, a place where it is free to upload, and free to download. We are working 
cooperatively with the FTC, and believe that the review will conclude 
favourably."

In other words, Elsevier does not believe the FTC's interest in its purchase 
will lead to a formal investigation.

But however timely SocArXiv's launch may be, the service is not a response to 
the SSRN acquisition, the director of the new service, and professor of 
sociology at the University of Maryland, Philip Cohen assured me. "We were 
already in planning before we heard about the SSRN purchase."

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/socarxiv-debuts-as-ssrn-acquisition.html



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7688 / Virus Database: 4627/12641 - Release Date: 07/18/16
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Richard Poynder]

The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv
comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded
in 1994 by two researchers. 

 

Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by
researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very
well received. Still smarting from Elsevier's 2013 acquisition of Mendeley -
another formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly
papers - many (especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the
publisher has bought a second OA asset. The reasons for this were
encapsulated in a blog post by University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder
entitled "SSRN has been captured by the enemy of open knowledge".

 

This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC
is currently contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly
publishing to assess the implications of the acquisition, presumably in
order to decide whether it needs to intervene in some way.

 

Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government
is showing in its latest acquisition. "The Federal Trade Commission is
conducting a routine, informal review of our acquisition of the Social
Sciences Research network," vice president and head of global corporate
relations at Elsevier Tom Reller emailed me. "Elsevier's interest in SSRN is
and has been about SSRNs' ethos, a place where it is free to upload, and
free to download. We are working cooperatively with the FTC, and believe
that the review will conclude favourably."

 

In other words, Elsevier does not believe the FTC's interest in its purchase
will lead to a formal investigation.

 

But however timely SocArXiv's launch may be, the service is not a response
to the SSRN acquisition, the director of the new service, and professor of
sociology at the University of Maryland, Philip Cohen assured me. "We were
already in planning before we heard about the SSRN purchase."

 

More here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/socarxiv-debuts-as-ssrn-acquisition.ht
ml

 

 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Heather Morrison]

Inclusiveness is a lovely concept. However, from a discovery perspective, there 
is much to be said for discipline-based archives and ideally integrated 
indexing and linked data services like PubMed / PubMedCentral and the databanks 
that go with these services.

It strikes me that archives are more attractive to deposit in when they are 
what people want to use to access research.

I suspect that IRs have suffered from a design emphasis on preservation and 
metadata rather than use. The types of use facilitated by IRs are different 
from subject repositories, journals or databases. Liege with their OA policy is 
the exception as deposit in the IR flows into the tenure and promotion process.

If I deposit in my IR, can I please have my URL immediately rather than having 
to wait a few days for someone to approve the deposit? This is one of the 
attractions of services like SSRN.

What about buttons to automatically send the URL to my department and/or 
faculty’s communications feeds - twitter streams, websites, blogs, onsite 
computer screens? 

Why not connect the IR with the online CVs I have to constantly update? 

Could deposit in the IR be designed so that more is accomplished with fewer 
keystrokes on the part of the author?

my two bits,

Heather Morrison

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Ross-Hellauer, Anthony 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric, all,
> 
> I completely agree with this. Especially because it could potentially be 
> called the SSHArXiv!
> 
> Cue jaws theme ...
> 
> Best, tony
> 
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 19:03, "Éric Archambault" 
>  wrote:
> 
>   
> This type of venue is essential and certainly welcomed for the social 
> sciences. Yet, it would be even greater a place if it also included the 
> humanities and the arts. There is a considerable challenge in the SSH 
> because there are far fewer authors on average on scholarly papers (1 to 2 
> authors on average) compared to the natural sciences (5 authors on average) 
> and the health sciences (6 co-authors on average on papers). This means each 
> social scientist and humanities scholar has considerably more work to make 
> papers available in OA. Whereas authors in the natural sciences can afford to 
> self-archive only 20% of the papers on average to have all the material 
> available in OA, in the humanities, because of the sole authorship common in 
> this domain of scholarly activity, 100% of the papers have to be 
> self-archived. The level of effort is somewhat mitigated by the fact that 
> output is commensurably reduced (as all the work of writing papers falls to a 
> single person, rather than to a fifth or a sixth of a person). Still, the 
> easier it is to archive, the more likely SSH scholars will be likely to 
> self-archive. Would be nice if SocArXiv became a more inclusive AHSocArxiv. 
> We have enough of the incoherent inclusion policies of arXiv, inclusiveness 
> should be celebrated in OA – we should no longer be divided and conquered.
> 
> 
> Éric
> 
> 
> 
>   
> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
> 
> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> C. 1.514.518.0823
> F. 1.514.495.6523
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Richard Poynder
> Sent: July 19, 2016 11:01 AM
> To: goal@eprints.org
> Subject: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny
> 
> 
> 
>   
> The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv 
> comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science 
> Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded 
> in 1994 by two researchers.
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by 
> researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very well 
> received. Still smarting from Elsevier’s 2013 acquisition of Mendeley – 
> another formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly 
> papers – many (especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the 
> publisher has bought a second OA asset. The reasons for this were 
> encapsulated in a blog post by University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder 
> entitled “SSRN has been captured by the enemy of open knowledge”.
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission 
> (FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC is currently 
> contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly publishing to assess 
> the implications of the acquisition, presumably in order to decide whether it 
> needs to intervene in some way.
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government is 
> showing in its latest acquisition. “The Federal Trade Commission is 
> conducting a routine, informal 

[GOAL] BLOGS: The case for Open Research: does peer review work? and Lifting the lid on peer review PLUS a discussion paper

[Danny Kingsley]

Good afternoon,

A cornucopia of peer-review related items for your perusal today. The 
fourth post in the Case for Open Research series is now available, this 
time turning its attention to peer review. This blog follows on from the 
last and asks -*if peer review is working why are we facing issues like 
increased retractions and the inability to reproduce considerable 
proportion of the literature?*(Spoiler alert - peer review only works 
sometimes.)


"The case for Open Research: does peer review work?" is available at: 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=188


Published alongside this post is the write-up from a series of 
discussions about peer review held last year by Cambridge University 
Press with Cambridge researchers who act as editors of journals.


"Lifting the lid on peer review" is available at: 
https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=759


In addition a Discussion Paper based on my PhD research into peer review 
is also available in Apollo, Cambridge University's repository (abstract 
below)
"The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study" is available at 
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773


The first three blogs in 'The case for Open Research' series are:

 * The case for Open Research: the mis-measurement problem
   https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713
 * The case for Open Research: the authorship problem
   https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=720
 * The case for Open Research: reproducibility, retractions &
   retrospective hypotheses
   https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=727


Regards,

Danny


 Citation


Kingsley, D. A.(2016).The Peer Review Paradox: An Australian case study 
http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708



 Abstract

This paper discusses the results of a series of 42 interviews with 
Chemists, Computer Scientists and Sociologists conducted in 2006-2007 at 
two Australian universities. All academics perform peer review with 
later career researcher usually taking a greater load. The amount and 
type of review undertaken differs between disciplines. In general, 
review of journal articles and conference papers is unpaid work although 
reviewing books (a much larger task) often results in at least an offer 
of a free book from the publishers. Reviewing of grant proposals and 
theses does attract an honorarium, but these are insignificant amounts. 
Most interviewees indicated that reviewing is part of what is expected 
in academia, and that it offers the benefit of early access to new 
research results. The competing requirements of an academic's peer group 
and the institution at which they work has meant a sharp increase in the 
number of papers published over the past decade. This in turn has made 
finding referees difficult, and the fact the work goes unrecognised by 
the performance measurement process adds to the problem. The claim of 
certain conferences that their papers are refereed is met with some 
cynicism, even in Computer Science, which normally uses conferences as 
its main channel of peer reviewed communication. Overall these findings 
open the question of whether the amount of effort expended in peer 
review is justified.


--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Ross-Hellauer, Anthony]

Hi Eric, all,

I completely agree with this. Especially because it could potentially be called 
the SSHArXiv!

Cue jaws theme ...

Best, tony

On 19 Jul 2016, at 19:03, "Éric Archambault" 
>
 wrote:


This type of venue is essential and certainly welcomed for the social sciences. 
Yet, it would be even greater a place if it also included the humanities and 
the arts. There is a considerable challenge in the SSH because there are far 
fewer authors on average on scholarly papers (1 to 2 authors on average) 
compared to the natural sciences (5 authors on average) and the health sciences 
(6 co-authors on average on papers). This means each social scientist and 
humanities scholar has considerably more work to make papers available in OA. 
Whereas authors in the natural sciences can afford to self-archive only 20% of 
the papers on average to have all the material available in OA, in the 
humanities, because of the sole authorship common in this domain of scholarly 
activity, 100% of the papers have to be self-archived. The level of effort is 
somewhat mitigated by the fact that output is commensurably reduced (as all the 
work of writing papers falls to a single person, rather than to a fifth or a 
sixth of a person). Still, the easier it is to archive, the more likely SSH 
scholars will be likely to self-archive. Would be nice if SocArXiv became a 
more inclusive AHSocArxiv. We have enough of the incoherent inclusion policies 
of arXiv, inclusiveness should be celebrated in OA – we should no longer be 
divided and conquered.
Éric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 











From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: July 19, 2016 11:01 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny


The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv 
comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science 
Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded in 
1994 by two researchers.


Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by 
researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very well 
received. Still smarting from Elsevier’s 2013 acquisition of Mendeley – another 
formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly papers – many 
(especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the publisher has bought a 
second OA asset. The reasons for this were encapsulated in a blog post by 
University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder entitled “SSRN has been captured 
by the enemy of open knowledge”.


This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC is currently 
contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly publishing to assess the 
implications of the acquisition, presumably in order to decide whether it needs 
to intervene in some way.


Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government is 
showing in its latest acquisition. “The Federal Trade Commission is conducting 
a routine, informal review of our acquisition of the Social Sciences Research 
network,” vice president and head of global corporate relations at Elsevier Tom 
Reller emailed me. “Elsevier’s interest in SSRN is and has been about SSRNs’ 
ethos, a place where it is free to upload, and free to download. We are working 
cooperatively with the FTC, and believe that the review will conclude 
favourably.”


In other words, Elsevier does not believe the FTC’s interest in its purchase 
will lead to a formal investigation.


But however timely SocArXiv’s launch may be, the service is not a response to 
the SSRN acquisition, the director of the new service, and professor of 
sociology at the University of Maryland, Philip Cohen assured me. “We were 
already in planning before we heard about the SSRN purchase.”


More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/socarxiv-debuts-as-ssrn-acquisition.html






No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7688 / Virus Database: 4627/12641 - Release Date: 07/18/16
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal