DOCSLIB.ORG

Tearing Down Paywalls in Scholarly Communication

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tearing Down Paywalls in Scholarly Communication Locked up science Tearing down paywalls in scholarly communication Claudia Frick - @FuzzyLeapfrog #35c3 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Cite with https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1495601 Science Library Science Library Science Library Science …? • Education and decision-making Science …? • Education and decision-making • Health and diseases Science …? • Education and decision-making • Health and diseases • Environmental challenges Restricting access to science ≠ Benefit for society of scientific publications 72% are locked up behind paywalls Piwowar et al. (2018) https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 = Access to science This icon and all following icons are made by Freepik from Flaticon and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License “Open Access describes the goal of making global knowledge accessible and re-usable in digital form without financial, technical or legal barriers.” Translated by @FuzzyLeapfrog from Allianzinitiative https://www.allianzinitiative.de/archiv/open-access/ Roadmap How can we tear down the paywalls? Roadmap What does the most common way of scientific publishing look like? How can we tear down the paywalls? Scientist Scientist © Laney Griner Scientist Put it on the internet! Scientist Scientist Conference Journal Submission Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Preprint Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Preprint Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Preprint Scientist Scientists @MInkorrekt (2017) https://youtu.be/BEOvsvwi2_k Postprint Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Preprint Scientist Scientists Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Preprint Scientist Scientists Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Preprint Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Preprint Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Publication Preprint fees Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Publication Preprint fees Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Publication Preprint fees Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Market shares of major academic publishers 28% Elsevier 42% Springer Wiley Others 17% 13% DBS (2015) Calculations of the DEAL Project Group Profit margins of major academic publishers Alex Holcombe (2015) https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/scholarly-publisher-profit-update/ Profit margins of major academic publishers Alex Holcombe (2015) https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/scholarly-publisher-profit-update/ Global journal subscription spendings = EUR 7,600,000,000 per year Schimmer, Geschuhn & Vogler (2015) http://doi.org/10.17617/1.3 The Guardian (2012) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices What can I do? 1. Tear down the paywalls What can I do? 1. Tear down the paywalls 2. Become an academic publisher Roadmap What does the most common way of scientific publishing look like? How can we tear down the paywalls? Approaches to scientific publishing without paywalls The players Scientists Funders Libraries Publishers produce provide money grant access publish peer-review consume The players Scientists Funders Libraries Publishers produce provide money grant access publish peer-review consume The players Scientists Funders Libraries Publishers produce provide money grant access publish peer-review consume Approaches for scientists Scientists produce peer-review consume Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Hybrid Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Hybrid Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription Additional article purchase fees / fee Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Hybrid Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription Additional article purchase fees / fee LOL Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Put it on the internet! Secondary Publication Scientist • arXiv • Institutional repositories • ResearchGate • … Put it on the internet! Secondary Publication Scientist • arXiv Green Open Access • Institutional repositories • ResearchGate • … Put it on the internet! Secondary Publication Scientist Copyright transfer agreement Copyright transfer agreement Copyright Scientists Publishers Copyright transfer agreement Copyright Scientists Publishers Conditions Green Open Access Version • Preprint • Postprint • Publisher’s Version • … Conditions Green Open Access Version Place • Preprint • Personal website • Postprint • Funder’s repository • Publisher’s Version • arXiv • … • … Conditions Green Open Access Version Place Time frame • Preprint • Personal website Embargo period of • Postprint • Funder’s repository • 6 months • Publisher’s Version • arXiv • 12 months • … • … • 4 years after publication … and many more Conditions Green Open Access Time frame Embargo period of Seriously? • 6 months • 12 months • 4 years after publication @islieb (2018) https://islieb.de Conditions Green Open Access … Ask your librarian Next time Gold Open Access • Open Access Journal • No paywall • Creative Commons Licence Creative Commons https://creativecommons.org Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Closed Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Single Publication Preprint Subscription article purchase fees / Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Publication Preprint fees Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Gold Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Article Preprint Charge Processing Processing Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Gold Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Article Preprint Charge Processing Processing Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Platinum Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Preprint Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Postprint Publisher’s Version Publisher Platinum Open Access Journal Submission Peer Review Acceptance Publication Preprint Scientist Scientists Scientists The Public Approaches for scientists Hybrid Open Access Green Open Access Scientists produce Gold Open Access peer-review consume Platinum Open Access Joining forces Scientists Funders Libraries produce provide money grant access peer-review consume Platinum Open Access Repositories Plan S Flipping arXiv SCOAP3 Project DEAL Funding Policies Platinum Open Access Repositories Plan S Flipping arXiv SCOAP3 Project DEAL Funding Policies Project DEAL • Commissioned by the Alliance of Science Organizations in Germany / Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen • Driven by scientists and librarians • Implementation of nationwide consortium agreements with major academic publishers Project DEAL https://www.projekt-deal.de Publish & Read Publish & Read • Participating institutions have access to the entire portfolio of journals from the publisher Publish & Read • Participating institutions have access to the entire portfolio of journals from the publisher • All publications with a corresponding author from the participating institutions will be published
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010 Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Dominic J. Farace GreyNet International Joachim Schöpfel University of Lille Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Farace, Dominic J. and Schöpfel, Joachim, "Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies" (2010). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 162. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/162 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Edited by Dominic J. Farace and Joachim Schöpfel De Gruyter Saur An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, as of February 23, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Preprint Landscape
    The evolving preprint landscape Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. Based on contributions from the Knowledge Exchange Preprints Advisory Group (see page 12) and edited by Jonathan Tennant ([email protected]). 1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of preprints 1.2. What is a preprint? 1.3 Benefits of using preprints 1.4. Current state of preprints 1.4.1. The recent explosion of preprint platforms and services 2. Recent policy developments 3. Trends and future predictions 3.1. Overlay journals and services 3.2. Global expansion 3.3. Research on preprints 3.4. Community development 4. Gaps in the present system 5. Main stakeholder groups 6. Business and funding models Acknowledgements References 1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of preprints In 1961, the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a program called Information Exchange Groups, designed for the circulation of biological preprints, but this shut down in 1967 (Confrey, 1996; Cobb, 2017). In 1991, the arXiv repository was launched for physics, computer science, and mathematics, which is when preprints (or ‘e-prints’) began to increase in popularity and attention (Wikipedia ArXiv#History; Jackson, 2002). The Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN) was launched in 1994, and in 1997 Research Papers in Economics (Wikipedia RePEc) was launched. In 2008, the research network platforms Academia.edu and ResearchGate were both launched and allowed sharing of research papers at any stage. In 2013, two new biological preprint servers were launched, bioRxiv (by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) and PeerJ Preprints (by PeerJ) (Wikipedia BioRxiv; Wikipedia PeerJ).
    [Show full text]
  • GL21 Proceedings Twentieth-First International Conference on Grey Literature “Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature”
    Twenty-First International Conference on Grey Literature Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature German National Library of Science and Technology Hannover, Germany ● October 22-23, 2019 Program and Conference Sponsors GL21 Program and Conference Bureau Javastraat 194-HS, 1095 CP Amsterdam, Netherlands www.textrelease.com ▪ [email protected] TextRelease Tel. +31-20-331.2420 CIP GL21 Proceedings Twentieth-First International Conference on Grey Literature “Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature”. - German National Library of Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany, October 22-23, 2019 / compiled by D. Farace and J. Frantzen ; GreyNet International, Grey Literature Network Service. – Amsterdam : TextRelease, February 2020. – 173 p. – Author Index. – (GL Conference Series, ISSN 1386-2316 ; No. 21). TIB (DE), DANS-KNAW (NL), CVTISR (SK), EBSCO (USA), ISTI CNR (IT), KISTI (KR), NIS IAEA (UN), NTK (CZ), and the University of Florida (USA) are Corporate Authors and Associate Members of GreyNet International. These proceedings contain full text conference papers presented during the two days of plenary, panel, and poster sessions. The papers appear in the same order as in the conference program book. Included is an author index with the names of contributing authors and researchers along with their biographical notes. A list of 55 participating organizations as well as sponsored advertisements are likewise included. ISBN 978-90-77484-37-1 © TextRelease, 2020 2 Foreword O P E N S C I E N C E E NCOMPASSES N EW F O R M S O F G R E Y L ITERATURE For more than a quarter century, grey Literature communities have explored ways to open science to other methods of reviewing, publishing, and making valuable information resources publicly accessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full White Paper
    Open Access White Paper University of Oregon SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON OPEN ACCESS I. Executive Summary II. Introduction a. Definition and History of the Open Access Movement b. History of Open Access at the University of Oregon c. The Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon III. Overview of Current Open Access Trends and Practices a. Open Access Formats b. Advantages and Challenges of the Open Access Approach IV. OA in the Process of Research & Dissemination of Scholarly Works at UO a. A Summary of Current Circumstances b. Moving Towards Transformative Agreements c. Open Access Publishing at UO V. Advancing Open Access at the University of Oregon and Beyond a. Barriers to Moving Forward with OA b. Suggestions for Local Action at UO 1 Executive Summary The state of global scholarly communications has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, as libraries, funders and some publishers have sought to hasten the spread of more open practices for the dissemination of results in scholarly research worldwide. These practices have become collectively known as Open Access (OA), defined as "the free, immediate, online availability of research articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment." The aim of this report — the Open Access White Paper by the Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon — is to review the factors that have precipitated these recent changes and to explain their relevance for members of the University of Oregon community. Open Access History and Trends Recently, the OA movement has gained momentum as academic institutions around the globe have begun negotiating and signing creative, new agreements with for-profit commercial publishers, and as innovations to the business models for disseminating scholarly research have become more widely adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Postprint and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK) Peer Reviewed
    Part of the Society for Transparency, Openness Postprint and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK) Peer Reviewed Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox Aaron R. Caldwella* and Samuel N. Cheuvrontb aExercise Science Research Center, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, Fayetteville, United States; bBiophysics and Biomedical Modelling Division, US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, United States *corresponding author Address for Correspondence: Aaron R. Caldwell, M.Sc. [email protected] This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Temperature on June 25th, 2019. A full, copy-edited version is available on the publisher’s website. Please cite as: Caldwell, A. R., & Cheuvront, S. N. (2019). Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox. Temperature, 6(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2019.1624131 Keywords: statistics, metascience, NHST, power analysis, experimental design, effect sizes, open science, nonparametric, preregistration, bootstrapping, optional stopping Abbreviations AIPE: Accuracy in parameter estimation ANOVA: Analysis of variance CV: Coefficient of variation NHST: Null hypothesis significance testing TOST: Two one-sided tests SESOI: Smallest effect size of interest All authors have read and approved this version of the manuscript to be shared on SportRxiv. The publisher’s version article was published on June 25th, 2019; in accordance with Taylor & Francis accepted manuscript policy and Green OA embargo policy as of June 25th 2020 the accepted manuscript may now be shared on a subject repository. Author ARC @exphysstudent can be reached on Twitter. Abstract The average environmental and occupational physiologist may find statistics are difficult to interpret and use since their formal training in statistics is limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie Der Wissenschaften 2 Contents 1
    Project DEAL: Plans, Challenges, Results Martin Grötschel Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Day Two, October 10, 2019 10:10-10:40: [Keynote Two] Contents 1. About me 2. Open Science 3. Project DEAL: The Plans and Challenges 4. Project DEAL: The Current State 5. Project DEAL: Future Challenges 6. Summary Die Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften 2 Contents 1. About me 2. Open Science 3. Project DEAL: The Plans and Challenges 4. Project DEAL: The Current State 5. Project DEAL: Future Challenges 6. Summary Die Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften 3 Some of my (current/former) OA activities German Academies & Politics . President Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (BBAW) . 2001 Telota Initiative of BBAW (The Electronic Life Of The Academy) . 2015 Open Access Strategy of the State of Berlin . 2016- Chair of Open Access Strategy Working Group Berlin . 2019 Open Science Strategy of BBAW DEAL related activities (since 25 years) . Current Member: DEAL Negotiation Team . Former President: Zuse Institute for Information Technology . Former Member: Committee of Electronic Information and Communication of the International Mathematical Union . Former Chair: IuK-Initiative (Information and Communication Initiative) of German Scientific Associations . Former Head of the organizational office of the Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) Berlin -Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 Some of My Convictions . As a scientist, I am paid from public (taxpayers‘) funds. Therefore, I consider the results of my publicly funded research as a “public good”. As a consequence, these results should be made available to the public free of charge and without use restrictions (subject to legal constraints).
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN ACCESS to RESEARCH Open Science Is an Umbrella Terms That Refers to Practices Aiming to Make All Stages of Science More Open and Transparent
    BRIEF 1: OCTOBER 2020 To help inform the special education research community, these briefs feature information on prominent open science practices. Content comes from our series of short articles in the DR newsletter, Focus on Research, as well as additional content developed by DR members. OPEN ACCESS TO RESEARCH Open science is an umbrella terms that refers to practices aiming to make all stages of science more open and transparent. Although some have argued that open science can make research more trustworthy, impactful, and efficient in special education (Cook et al., 2018), there is a lack of clarity in the field about what open-science practices are, their primary benefits and potential obstacles, and how to access resources for implementing them. In this brief, we discuss arguably the best-known aspect of open science: open access. Why Open Access? A primary purpose for organization with a subscription. Those without such research in special access have to pay to access research content. For education is to inform example, if a practitioner wanted to access articles and improve practice and from Teaching Exceptional Children on an evidence- policy as well as future based practice she was considering using, and she did research. For research to not belong to CEC and was not a student at university have its intended and full with a subscription, she would have to pay $36 to ? effect, practitioners, access each article of interest. The potential benefit of policy makers, and other research is not realized if practitioners, policy makers, researchers must be able and researchers (e.g., researchers in developing to have access to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Self-Archiving Policy
    Author self-archiving policy Last updated December 2016 Many funders now mandate that their sponsored research must be deposited in an institutional repository. For a list of funders and their open access requirements, see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/. In order to allow authors to comply with these mandates, the IET offers a comprehensive author self- archiving policy. With no embargo period, authors are permitted to deposit the complimentary copy of their manuscript (reviewed, revised and typeset, but not the final published PDF) in their institutional repository or in repositories designated by their funding body, provided they refer to the published IET version. For full details of the policy and any relevant wordings, see below. These options will allow our authors to comply with the mandates of a number of funders/research bodies, including, but not limited to EPSRC, RCUK, NIH, Wellcome Trust, Horizon 2020, HEFCE, and NERC. If you are unsure if the IET will help you to comply with your funder’s mandates, please contact us at [email protected]. The following outlines the full IET author self-archiving policy: Preprints On submission of their manuscript, authors may deposit the submitted version in their personal, institutional, or online pre-print repository (for example, arXiv). The first page of the manuscript must clearly display the following wording: "This paper is a preprint of a paper submitted to [journal]. If accepted, the copy of record will be available at the IET Digital Library". On acceptance and where copyright has been transferred to the IET, this must be changed to: "This paper is a preprint of a paper accepted by [journal] and is subject to Institution of Engineering and Technology Copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing the Waters: Publishing Literacy – a New Role for Marine Science Librarians?
    TESTING THE WATERS: PUBLISHING LITERACY – A NEW ROLE FOR MARINE SCIENCE LIBRARIANS? Olivia Karin Diehr Christian Heene Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research (IOW) Seestrasse 15, 18119 Rostock, Germany Abstract Libraries have a strong service culture. For decades information literacy has been well established in our libraries and information centers. The training on skills to search, evaluate and consume information is a substantial part of libraries’ information literacy programs. At the same time, library services for authors still seem to be in their infancy, at least in specialized libraries beyond universities. There are plenty of varied possibilities to discover. Let us test the waters and explore how librarians may contribute to the publishing process of authors at their institutions. Where are the potential docking points for libraries during the writing and publishing process? Where are exciting opportunities to see? Which limitations have to considered? Keywords: Publishing process, information literacy, author support, library future, digital transformation, library services, open access. Do you Know what a liblisher is? Or a publarian? A liblisher or a publarian is a person who works in a library or in an information center. They contribute to the writing and publication process of scientific authors in the widest sense. There are two reasons why liblishers and publarians are introduced to you as our new job titles and why librarians are able to contribute to the writing and publishing process in their institutions: 1. The transformation within the publishing process. 2. The librarian’s future position. Both reasons are consequences of the so called Digital turn. The Digital Turn Printed Aquisitions Our library‘s acquisitions are decreasing, due to the cancellations of major scientific publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Transformative Agreements in the Global Open Access Transition Germany‘S Project DEAL
    The Impact of Transformative Agreements in the Global Open Access Transition Germany‘s Project DEAL 29.11.2019 Bibliotecas y Archivos del CSIC por la Ciencia Abierta: presente y futuro Madrid | 28-29 noviembre 2019 Kai Geschuhn | Max Planck Digital Library THE RATIONALE FOR THE OA TRANSITION … and the origins of Projekt DEAL. 2 Origins of Projekt DEAL 3 10 years after the Berlin Declaration: What have we accomplished? Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature described in the Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin Declarations of 2002/3 The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship 4 Still today 82% of new research is published behind subscription paywalls Still today 82% of new research is published behind subscription paywalls 5 Authors want their journals “64% of respondents indicated they would be happy to see the traditional subscription-based publication model replaced entirely by an open access system…. Some 70% of faculty stated “If the traditional subscription-based publication model is replaced entirely by an open access model, I would be happy to see the same publishers stay involved in the open access model” https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/2018-us-faculty-survey/ 6 Expectation of scholars in the 21st century doi:10.1126/science.aaf5664
    [Show full text]
  • How to Reclaim Your Rights As an Author Without Feeding the Beast
    Elsevier's 2017 profits exceeded $1.2 billion: how to reclaim your rights as an author without feeding the beast Brought to you by: Making your research freely-accessible to ocean managers, NGOs, and the public with MarXiv Nick Wehner Director of Open Initiatives, OCTO @MarXivPapers An abridged history of academic publishing What is MarXiv? The academic publishing workflow How to determine what you can share, when Agenda Versioning, citations, and other nitty-gritty details Demo: How to archive a paper in MarXiv Demo: How to search/browse for papers in MarXiv Q&A and archiving help @MarXivPapers An abridged history of academic publishing The “traditional” academic publishing ecosystem is hardly traditional at all @MarXivPapers Academic publishing as we know it now started with the end of WWII An abridged 1945 ⎯ present 1600s ⎯ 1945 history of “[…] for most scholars and many of their publishers, scholarly publication was routinely seen as unprofitable: the potential market academic was so small and uncertain that few scholarly publications were expected to cover their costs. Those costs – of paper, ink, publishing typesetting, and printing – were often paid in full or in part by authors or by a third-party, such as a patron or sponsor; and this enabled the copies to be sold at a subsidised price, or even distributed gratis.” Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, @MarXivPapers academic prestige and the circulation of research. May 2017. What happened ~1945? Status not determined
    [Show full text]
  • Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access Is the Only Way
    Post-print Published in American Journal of Bioethics http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1366194 Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access is the Only Way Subbiah Arunachalam DST Centre for Policy Research Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru 560 012 India [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-4658 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9925-2009 We live in an unequal world. There are tremendous differences between countries and between regions in a country in whatever characteristics we want to compare, be it the per capita income, educational opportunities, access to healthcare facilities or capacity to generate new knowledge. The difference is very pronounced in scientific and technical research, in terms of both volume and impact.1 Writing about the distribution of science among countries some three decades ago, Frame et al had shown that the distribution of land area, national population and GDP, as bad as they are, are not so poor as the distribution of mainstream scientific research as reflected by Science Citation Index.2 Back then just ten countries accounted for more than 83% of the world’s scientific literature. Added to these differences are the prejudices inherent to human beings. It is against this backdrop, I would like to view what Chattopadhyay et al have said on the happenings in global bioethics research.3 Chattopadhyay et al. describe the difficulty faced by Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) researchers in accessing research literature produced/published in the West essential for them to be equal partners in research and getting their own published in journals published from the West.
    [Show full text]