DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the New Wave of the Open Access Movement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the New Wave of the Open Access Movement Understanding the new wave of the open access movement Sunshine Carter Jodi Carlson Grebinoski Allison Langham-Putrow Presented on October 4, 2019 at Electronic Resources Minnesota (ERMN) Silvia template from SlidesCarnival in St. Paul, MN Agenda for today ◦ Overview of open access ◦ Waves of open access ◦ Plan S ◦ Transformative Models Overview of Open Access What is Open Access? “Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder.” —Very Brief Introduction to Open Access by Peter Suber Types of Open ◦ Journals ◦ Books ◦ OER (Open Education Resources) ◦ Open Science/Open Research ◦ …and more Open Journals ◦ Fully OA journals ◦ All articles are OA ◦ Find them in Directory of Open Access Journals (13,771 journals; 130 countries; 4.3 million articles) ◦ “Hybrid” OA journals ◦ Subscription journals with an option for authors to pay an article processing charge (APC) to make their individual article open. ◦ Most subscription journals from large publishers have a hybrid option Understanding the “Colors” of OA ◦ Green ◦ Materials made openly available somewhere other than the original place of publication ◦ Gold ◦ “Born open” ◦ May or may not require author to pay ◦ Fully Gold OA v. Hybrid OA ◦ Diamond/Platinum ◦ “Born open” ◦ Does not require authors to pay ◦ Bronze ◦ Free to read from publisher site, but not really OA because of lack of re-use rights Where does the money come from? ◦ Authors pay an article processing charge or book processing charge ◦ Can be as high as $5,200 for a single article! ◦ Libraries pay processing charge ◦ Some universities have a fund to pay on behalf of authors ◦ Libraries, research funders, universities pay to build and operate publishing infrastructure Open Books ◦ E-books, with permissions to reuse ◦ Find them in Directory of Open Access Books ◦ 19,193 Academic peer-reviewed books and chapters from 320 publishers ◦ Examples of open book publishers & initiatives ◦ Knowledge Unlatched ◦ Punctum Books ◦ Open Book Publishers ◦ Luminos Open Education Resources “OER are free and openly licensed educational materials* that can be used for teaching, learning, research, and other purposes.” —https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/What_is_OER *Materials may include course content or materials, textbooks, videos, software, etc. Open Education Resources ◦ OER Commons ◦ http://oercommons.org ◦ Merlot (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online teaching) ◦ http://merlot.org ◦ Open Stax Connexions ◦ http://cnx.org ◦ Open Textbook Library ◦ http://open.umn.edu Open Science/Open Research Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods. —Foster Open Science https://www.fosteropenscience.eu Waves of Open Access 1st Wave: 2002-2008 “B” definitions of open access — driven by electronic publication ◦ Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) ◦ Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) ◦ Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) 2nd Wave: 2008-2014 ◦ National Institutes of Health (NIH ) ◦ Public Access Policy (2008) ◦ Compliance Monitor (2013) ◦ Federal public access policies ◦ White House Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo (February 2013) 3rd Wave: 2015-2017 ◦ Max Planck Digital Library white paper (2015) ◦ “[T]he money already invested in the research publishing system is sufficient to enable a transformation” ◦ Open Access 2020 (2015) ◦ Convert “resources currently spent on journal subscriptions into funds to support sustainable OA business models” ◦ Pay It Forward (2016) ◦ For Research-intensive institutions, library budgets are not enough to fund APC-driven OA ◦ The cost difference can be covered by research grants ◦ APCs costs will be constrained if authors have “some skin in the game” 4th Wave: 2018-current ◦ Plan S (2018) ◦ Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S (2018-2019) ◦ Projekt DEAL/Wiley (2019) ◦ UC/Elsevier (2019) Plan S “Making full and immediate Open Access a reality” Plan S Accelerate the transition to open access for published research. Immediate online access to scholarly publications, free of charge to the reader, and accompanied by licenses that enable re-use. Key Principle “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications* on the results from research funded by [cOAlition S] must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.” *Peer-reviewed publications, but not monographs and book chapters (yet) cOAlition S ◦ Science Europe ◦ 16 national funding agencies ◦ European Commission ◦ European Research Council ◦ Wellcome Trust ◦ Gates Foundation ◦ World Health Organization ◦ Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) https://www.coalition-s.org/funders/ Why should we care? ◦ Applies to research funded in whole or in part by cOAlition S members ◦ USA is (in absolute terms) the second largest producer of papers that acknowledge cOAlition S funding ◦ cOAlition S has and may continue to grow ◦ China announced support for the goal of Plan S and that it will implement a requirement for immediate open access “soon” ◦ India’s Principal Scientific Adviser announced that India will “very likely” join cOAlition S is serious about Plan S! ◦ cOAlition S members will align their agreements/contracts with Plan S and monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance by: ◦ Withholding grant funds, discounting non-compliant publications from grant applications, excluding non-compliant grant holders from future grants All paths to OA are acceptable “The funders support the diversity of business models for Open Access journals and platforms.”* “Authors (or their institutions) retain copyright of their publications. All publications must be published under an open license.” *Green OA is allowed with a zero-month embargo. All business models are okay, except! Hybrid journals are only tolerated as a temporary, transitional measure Funding for hybrid journal APCs stops in 2024 ...unless there is a transformative arrangement with a defined timeline for full transition to OA. Criticisms of Plan S ◦ Implementation guidance focuses on APC model ◦ Green and diamond/platinum OA are mentioned in the final version ◦ Final guidance weakened language around APC caps ◦ Caps “may” be instituted in the future ◦ Might further entrench commercial publishing systems ◦ Scholarly society publishers may face insurmountable challenges moving to fully OA models (fast enough) ◦ Reinforces focus on research from the “Global North” Global open access Publishing has been ◦ Eurocentric ◦ Elsevier (Netherlands) ◦ Wiley (US) ◦ Springer (Germany) ◦ Taylor & Francis (UK) ◦ Sage (US) ◦ Anglophone ◦ “English is the language of research” “The sun never“ set on the British empire.” Charlotte Roh, Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of San Francisco Publishing and the Gatekeepers: https://youtu.be/Yp7T_x6gmVM Latin America has “created and maintains a non-commercial structure where the scientific publication belongs to the academic institutions and not to large publishers. Arianna Becerril-García, SciELO http://amelica.org/index.php/en/2019/02/10/amelica-vs-plan-s- same-target-two-different-strategies-to-achieve-open-access/ OA in the “Global South” ◦ SciELO and Redalyc ◦ Bibliographic databases, digital libraries, and a cooperative electronic publishing model of open access journals ◦ SciELO (Brazil) dates back to 1997 “0th” wave of ◦ Redalyc (Mexico) dates back to 2002 Open Access ◦ AmeliCA ◦ “AmeliCA revolves around strengthening editorial teams within academic institutions through providing technology and knowledge to ensure low costs in scholarly publishing which guarantees Open Access sustainability without APCs” ◦ Contrast to Plan S Transformative Models “Repurpose existing spend to open content” Transformative Models ◦ Repurpose existing spend to open content ◦ Rebalancing from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish (which can be shocking) ◦ Consortia play important role (leverage) ◦ Many different models………. Offsetting Subscribe to Open What institutions pay Subscription costs (library paid; to read) +Article processing charges (author paid; to publish) +Administration and management (staff time) Total institutional cost “Double dipping”: double payment by an institution for the exact same content (library + APC for same article) Transformation —Offsetting What is an offsetting agreement ◦ Publisher and library arrangement ◦ Incorporates reading and author publishing costs ◦ Intended to support transition to fully gold open access *Note: Offsetting agreements may end up not costing less than current institutional spend. Offsetting benefits ◦ Immediate OA upon publication ◦ Reduced author barriers ◦ Not paying twice for content (maybe?) ◦ Increased transparency and accurate record keeping ◦ Moves publishers towards tipping point ◦ Often considered to be when more than 50% of articles are OA ◦ Sparks discussion and deep dive into the details JISC's Principles for Offset Agreements https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Global/News%20files%20and%20docs/Principles-for-offset-agreements.pdf 37 Offsetting critiques ◦ From "big" deal to "bigger" deal; ties
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan S in Latin America: a Precautionary Note
    Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note Humberto Debat1 & Dominique Babini2 1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (IPAVE-CIAP-INTA), Argentina, ORCID id: 0000-0003-3056-3739, [email protected] 2Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), Argentina. ORCID id: 0000-0002- 5752-7060, [email protected] Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives. Plan S is an initiative from a European consortium of research funders, with the intention of becoming international, oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of research outputs funded by public or private grants, starting from 2021. Launched in September 2018 and revised in May 2019, the plan supported by the so-called cOAlition S involves 10 principles directed to achieve scholarly publishing in “Open Access Journals, Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo” [1]. cOAlition S, coordinated by Science Europe and comprising 16 national research funders, three charitable foundations and the European Research Council, has pledged to coordinately implement the 10 principles of Plan S in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Pledging 2019 KU OPEN ACCESS HEROES 2019
    VERSION September 2019 Knowledge Unlatched Making Open Access Work Pledging 2019 KU OPEN ACCESS HEROES 2019 TOP Titles by Usage TOP Subject Areas Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism The Learning Econo- by my and the Econom- Paolo Gerbaudo ics of Hope Frankenstein : A New by Edition for Scientists Bengt-Åke Lundvall and Engineers by Jason Scott Robert History Political Sociology Literature Linguistics & Science Languages Philosophy Anthro- Media & Theology & Arts pology Communi- Religion cations # of Supporting Institutions per Region 9 27 Scandinavia 114 UK / Ireland North America 68 10 Germany / Austria / Switzerland BeNeLux 16 Australia / New Zealand www.knowledgeunlatched.org TOP KU Authors (by Region) 40.27% 17.17% 15.19% 4.89% 4.16% 3.33% North America UK / Ireland DACH Australia / NZ BeNeLux Scandinavia TOP 10 Publishers (# of Titles) TOP Institutions (# of Downloads) Pluto Press Liverpool University Press 32 31 1. Freie Universität Berlin 6. University of Oxford Manchester 33 204 Transcript 2. Kings College London 7. University of London University of 36 (SOAS) Michigan Press 3. University of Toronto 8. University of Sydney 56 Duke Peter Lang 38 4. Cambridge University 9. University of Edinburgh Mohr Siebeck Academic Studies 41 52 Press 5. Columbia University 10. University of California, 51 San Diego DeGruyter Sources: OAPEN, JSTOR, Altmetrics, based on 2018 Data © Knowledge Unlatched 2019 Knowledge Unlatched Overview KU Marketplace - Pledging Deadline November 30th Page Page New 1 KU Select 2019 Books
    [Show full text]
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting 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 Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 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. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • March 13, 2019 AMS Primer on Open Access
    Robert M. Harington Associate Executive Director, Publishing Publishing Division [email protected] 401.455.4165 401.331.3842 www.ams.org AMS Primer on Open Access Introduction Open access (OA) refers to published scholarly content (such as journal research articles, and books) made openly available in online digital form. This content is free of charge at point of use, free of most copyright and licensing restrictions, and free of technical or other barriers to access (such as digital rights management or requirements to register to access). Communicating and sharing discoveries is an essential part of the research process. Any author of a research paper wants it to be read, and the fewer restrictions placed on access to those papers means that more people may benefit from the research. In many ways, the OA movement is very much in line with the shared mission of researchers, scholarly societies, and publishers. Journal publishing programs perform many services for researchers including peer review, communication, and career advancement. In society publishing programs, revenue from journal publishing directly supports the important work societies do on behalf of their scholarly communities. How do we maximize the dissemination of knowledge while at the same time maintaining both a high level of quality and a sustainable financial future for our professional society, the AMS? The OA movement can be traced to a letter from the year 2000, signed by around 34,000 researchers, demanding publishers make all content free after 6 months. The signatories of the letter said they would boycott any journals refusing to comply. In 2002, the accepted definition of OA was encapsulated in the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Science Recommendations for Food & Agriculture
    DIGITAL SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOOD & AGRICULTURE Edited by February 2020 Table of Contents FOREWORD 3 TOWARDS A DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM FOR SCIENCE 6 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM AGINFRAplus PARTNERS 9 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM EU STAKEHOLDERS 17 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS 28 2 FOREWORD I joined FAO1 (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) in 1998 and got the responsibility for the AGRIS system2. AGRIS was one of the huge bibliograph- ical databases of the time which collected information about scientific and tech- nical publications in agriculture and made them available especially to partners in developing countries. AGRIS already had the two elements about which most of the contributions to this publication are speaking. Community and Technol- ogy. AGRIS centers were holding annual meetings at FAO to coordinate their efforts to cover all publications in their area. The AGRIS secretariat initiated the development of specific software which should help them to accomplish this task. CDS-ISIS3 was developed already in the early 90s. In a way, FAO had a pioneering role in creating collaboration between scientific institutions. WUR and INRA, two contributors to this volume were very important centers of the AGRIS network. Nearly all of the contributions in this volume emphasize the human factor and the necessity of community building before the technological aspects. This is understandable. Technological questions are straightforward (normally) and resolvable (theoretically). For com- munity building there exists something similar as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. DeltaS>=0. Entropy (non collaboration) in a closed system can only grow. Collaboration is not a given. Every unit has its own business model and even every single person pursues specific goals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plan S Footprint
    ISI visual language/comms: report 44 The Plan S footprint: ISI Report Implications for the ISI Report Global Reserach Report – Global Reserach Report – Profiles notscholarly metrics publishing Profiles not metrics Pudipsus commolumlandscape ihitor boribus as sum Pudipsus commolum ihitor boribus as sum tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. Nandita Quaderi, James Hardcastle, Christos Petrou and Martin Szomszor March 2019 Contents 4 15 Summary How does Plan S affect publishers? 5 Papers funded 18 by Plan S organisations What could change under Plan S? 8 How does Plan S affect 21 research areas? Responsibility for costs 11 22 How frequently are Tasks for a system Plan S papers cited? in transition 12 24 How does Plan S affect Annex – Data Sources countries and regions? 2 Dr Nandita Quaderi is Editor-in-Chief of James Hardcastle is a Senior Business Web of Science at the Institute for Scientific Analyst at Web of Science Group. Prior to Information, responsible for the editorial this he was Head of Business Development selection of content indexed in the Web for wisdom.ai, and the Senior Manager for of Science. Prior to joining the Web of Product Analytics at Taylor & Francis. Science Group, Dr Quaderi was Publishing Christos Petrou is Head of Strategic Director of Open Research at Springer Analytics at the Web of Science Group. Nature where she had responsibility for the Previously, he was Director of Strategic portfolio of open access Nature Research Analytics at the Open Research Group journals. Before joining the STM publishing of Springer Nature. He has worked as a sector she was a EU-funded Marie Curie management consultant at A.T.
    [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]
  • Open Access in Its Next Phase: from Single Products to Marketplaces
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.18243/eon/2018.11.11.1 Open Access in Its Next Phase: From Single Products to Marketplaces humanities), librarians and publishers have long been chal- By Sven Fund lenged to address issues such as copyright, intellectual Managing Director property, quality, and pricing—for right or wrong. Knowledge Unlatched and fullstopp Consequently, and in order to broaden its reach as a vi- able model, OA needs to strive for more consolidation at some point—and it needs to better communicate its ben- efits to the key stakeholders, these being researchers and authors. Open access (OA) is probably the most significant innovation Marketplaces of the past decades when it comes to business models in scholarly publishing. In less than two decades, it has rapidly The OA development in journal publishing can be characterized moved from the idealistic periphery to a center stage position, in two phases. During first 10 years, startups of pure OA pub- and there is virtually no significant publisher left that does not lishers like the Public Library of Science (PLoS) or Hindawi offer OA as a key element of their publication strategy.The rise flourished alongside hybrid models, which combined sub- of the model has been accompanied by many experiments, scriptions and APCs; Springer’s acquisition of BioMedCentral first for journals, but more lately also for books and data. As a (BMC)in2008markedanimportantstepintheconsolidation consequence, OA today comes in many flavors, from more and maturing of the space. The field has seen a consolidation as simplistic models around article processing charges (APC), yet unprecedented in academic publishing, whereby the top through memberships, to crowd funding by libraries from all three players today control 50% of the market.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll?
    Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? David W. Lewis Dean Emeritus, IUPUI University Library [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9711-5565 August 2019 © 2019 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Abstract This article uses Alan B. Krueger’s analysis of the music industry in his book Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life as a lens to consider the structure of scholarly publishing and what could happen to scholarly publishing going forward. Both the music industry and scholarly publishing are facing disruption as their products become digital. Digital content provides opportunities to a create a better product at lower prices and in the music industry this has happened. Scholarly publishing has not yet done so. Similarities and differences between the music industry and scholarly publishing will be considered. Like music, scholarly publishing appears to be a superstar industry. Both music and scholarly publishing are subject to piracy, which threatens revenue, though Napster was a greater disrupter than Sci-Hub seems to be. It also appears that for a variety of reasons market forces are not effective in driving changes in business models and practices in scholarly publishing, at least not at the rate we would expect given the changes in technology. After reviewing similarities and differences, the prospects for the future of scholarly publishing will be considered. David W. Lewis — Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? 1 Introduction In his 2019 book, Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life, Alan B.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Unlatched Proof-Of-Concept Pilot
    A Global Library Consortium Model for Funding Open Access Scholarly Books Full Report on the Proof of Concept Pilot 2014 Lucy Montgomery Curtin University, Australia Abstract This special issue of Cultural Science Journal is devoted to the report of a groundbreaking experiment in re-coordinating global markets for specialist scholarly books and enabling the knowledge commons: the Knowledge Unlatched proof-of-concept pilot. The pilot took place between January 2012 and September 2014. It involved libraries, publishers, authors, readers and research funders in the process of developing and testing a global library consortium model for supporting Open Access books. The experiment established that authors, librarians, publishers and research funding agencies can work together in powerful new ways to enable open access; that doing so is cost effective; and that a global library consortium model has the potential dramatically to widen access to the knowledge and ideas contained in book-length scholarly works. Journal of Cultural Science Vol.7, No 2 (2014): Knowledge Unlatched http://cultural-science.org/journal Knowledge Unlatched: A Global Library Consortium Model for Funding Open Access Scholarly Books Full Report on the Proof of Concept Pilot 2014 Cultural Science Journal ~ http://cultural-science.org/journal ~ ISSN 1836-0416 ~ Vol 7, No. 2, 2014 ~ 1 This report provides information about the Knowledge Unlatched proof-of-concept Pilot, which took place between January 2012 and September 2014. The Pilot involved libraries, publishers, authors, readers and research funders in the process of developing and testing a global library consortium model for supporting Open Access books. 297 libraries from 24 countries shared the cost of ‘unlatching’ 28 newly published Humanities and Social Sciences research titles, provided by 13 well-known scholarly publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • FAO Statistical Programme of Work 2012/2013
    FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK 2012/13 1 Table of contents PART I ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK IN 2012-13 .................. 16 III. SUMMARY OF FAO STATISTICAL ACTIVITIES BY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS ................................................ 17 Inter-departmental statistical activities ................................................................................................................... 18 Agriculture and consumer protection department (AG).......................................................................................... 18 Information Technology Division (CIO) ................................................................................................................. 19 Economic and social development department (ES) ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]