DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Plan S & Transformative Agreements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Plan S & Transformative Agreements Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Library Presentations, Posters, and Videos Leatherby Libraries 2-18-2020 SCELC Open Access Webinar: Defining Plan S & rT ansformative Agreements Kristin Laughtin-Dunker Chapman University, [email protected] DeDe Leshy Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/library_presentations Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Recommended Citation Laughtin-Dunker, K., & Leshy, D. (2020, February 18). SCELC open access webinar: Defining Plan S & transformative agreements [Webinar]. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/library_presentations/28 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Leatherby Libraries at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Presentations, Posters, and Videos by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCELC Open Access Webinar: Defining Plan S & rT ansformative Agreements Comments The Download button will provide a PDF of the presentation slides, while a stream of the webinar (with full audio) may be viewed below. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/ library_presentations/28 SCELC Open Access Webinar: Defining Plan S & Transformative Agreements Kristin Laughtin-Dunker and DeDe Leshy February 18, 2020 Presenters Kristin Laughtin-Dunker DeDe Leshy Coordinator of Scholarly Communications & Senior Medical Librarian, Electronic Electronic Resources Resources Leatherby Libraries Medical Library Chapman University Cedars-Sinai Medical Center [email protected] [email protected] History of Plan S Kristin Laughtin-Dunker February 18, 2020 Plan S Initiative for OA publishing launched in September 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of research funders launched by the European Research Council. 13 national research funding organizations and 4 charitable foundations from 13 countries: ► European Commission ► Wellcome Trust ► Austria: Austrian Science Fund ► Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ► Finland: Academy of Finland ► Swedish Riksbank's Jubileumsfond (RJ) (*support withdrawn March 2019) ► France: Agence Nationale de la Recherche ► Compagnia di San Paulo ► Ireland: Science Foundation Ireland ► Italy: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare ► Luxembourg: Luxembourger National Research Fund ► Netherlands: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ► Norway: Research Council of Norway ► Poland: National Science Centre ► Slovenia: Slovenian Research Agency ► Sweden: Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas) and Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte) Plan S Plan S is designed to be a decisive movement to make research and publications openly available. The “S” stands for “shock”. Original statement: “After 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.” This deadline has now been extended to January 1 2021 or, for publishers agreeing to implement Plan S in their policies after January 2020, one year from that agreement. Plan S Original 10 Principles: 1. Authors retain copyright and articles are published under an open license (preferably CC-BY). 2. Members of the coalition (funders) will establish robust criteria and requirements for compliant OA journals and platforms. 3. The funders will provide incentives to establish and support compliant journals, platforms, or infrastructures if they do not yet exist. 4. OA publication fees (APCs) should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual researchers. 5. OA publication fees are standardized and capped. 6. The funders will ask universities, libraries, and research organizations to align their policies. 7. All types of publications will be subject, but the timeline for books and monographs may extend beyond 2020. 8. Open archives and repositories are acknowledged for their importance. 9. Hybrid OA journals are not compliant. 10. Funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance. Plan S During a transition period, publishing in a hybrid journal that already has a transformative agreement to flip and become OA will be allowed. The contracts must be publicly available and may not extend beyond 2024 (originally 2023). Green OA is OK as long as there is no embargo and there is a CC license. Plan S Criteria for OA journals and platforms: Content must be immediately free to read and download, with a CC-B Y, C C -BY-SA, or CC0 license. Must have a solid review system in compliance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Must be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Fee waivers for authors from low-income countries, and reductions for authors from middle-income countries. Details about publishing costs impacting publication fees must be transparent. DOIs must be used as permanent identifiers. Long-term digital preservation strategy by deposit in archiving program (e.g. LOCKSS/CLOCKSS). Accessibility of full text in a machine readable format (XML/JATS) for text mining. Link to raw data and code in repositories. High quality, machine readable article level metadata and cited references under a CC0 public domain dedication. Machine readable information on OA status and license. Plan S Statements of support from: Europe’s National Institute for Health Research SPARC Europe Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology COAR (Coalition of Open Access Repositories) OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) OpenAIRE African Academy of Sciences Faculty of 1000 Over 113 institutions from 37 nations in 5 continents in one joint statement; various individual statements. Additional statements of support are linked on CoalitionS’s website here: https://www.coalition-s.org/supporters/ Other countries joining Plan S: Jordan Zambia Updates to Plan S The funders that make up cOAlition S announced revisions to the implementation plan on May 31st, 2019: Timeline for official implementation has been extended one year to January 1, 2021, and to 2024 for transformative agreements . Funders have agreed to revisit their assessment policies and not take into account the name or prestige of the journal a funded article appears in. Funders are no longer required to place a cap on APCs. Heather Joseph of SPARC is troubled by this because it “weakens an important cost-control mechanism” for scholarly publishing costs. CC-BY licenses are no longer mandated but “preferred”. Former Principle #8 has been eliminated and a new #10 added. Source: New implementation guidelines and revised principles: https://www.coalition- s.org/principles-and-implementation/ Updates to Plan S Changes to the 10 Principles (paraphrased): The former #8 (recognizing repositories and archives for their importance) has been removed. The former #9 has become the new #8: Funders do not support the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing. However, Funders may provide financial support for articles published in journals under a transformative agreement. The former #10 has become the new #9: The Funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliant beneficiaries/grantees. A new #10 has been added: The Funders commit that when assessing research outputs during funding decisions, they will value the intrinsic merit of the work and not consider the publication channel, its metrics, or the publisher. Reactions to Plan S: Objections OASPA (February 2019): Plan S puts smaller/emerging OA and pure Gold OA publishers at a disadvantage because all the discussions are focused around large, hybrid publishers that have the money and power to negotiate transition plans with funders. Small publishers do not have the power to negotiate transformative Big Deals on national levels. These publishers make up the long tail majority of OASPA members. Source: https://oaspa.org/oaspa-feedback-on-plan-s-implementation-guidance/ Reactions to Plan S: Sao Paulo Statement on Open Access African Open Science Platform, AmeliCA, cOAlition S, OA2020, and SciELO met during the annual meeting of the Global Research Council and authored a joint statement (May 2019): They consider that scholarly and scientific knowledge is a global public good. When generated by public funds, free access to it is a universal right. They share one common ultimate objective: providing universal, unrestricted, and immediate Open Access to scholarly information, including use and re-use by humans and machines. They share the belief that this common goal can be achieved through a variety of approaches. They will pursue points of alignment among their approaches and ways to co- operate towards reaching the shared objective. They seek an active dialogue with all stakeholders, including researchers, research funders, universities, libraries, publishers, learned societies, governments, and citizens to take into account the diversity of the global scholarly community. Source: https://www.coalition-s.org/sao-paulo-statement-on-open-access/ Reactions to Plan S: Objections Arianna Becerril-García (Executive Director of Redalyc
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]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [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]
  • Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of F1000prime Peer Review
    Accepted for publication in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies which have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the Faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also connected with better performance of the papers. Keywords F1000; F1000Prime; Peer review; Highly cited papers; Adjusted predictions; Adjusted predictions at representative values 2 1 Introduction The first known cases of peer-review in science were undertaken in 1665 for the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Bornmann, 2011). Today, peer review is the backbone of science (Benda & Engels, 2011); without a functioning and generally accepted evaluation instrument, the significance of research could hardly be evaluated.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Validity of Altmetrics Data for Measuring Societal Impact
    Accepted for publication in the Journal of Informetrics Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact. If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience.
    [Show full text]