DOCSLIB.ORG

Read & Publish Contracts in the Context of a Dynamic Scholarly Publishing System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

July 2020 Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system A study on future scenarios for the scholarly publishing system www.technopolis-group.com Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system i Final report July 2020 Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system A study on future scenarios for the scholarly publishing system Annemieke van Barneveld-Biesma, Colleen Campbell, Elma Dujso, Andreas Ligtvoet, Chiel Scholten, Lennart Velten, Robert van der Vooren, Geert van der Veen This report is openly published under the Creative Commons license CC-BY, which requires giving credit to the authors and Technopolis Group when being reused. Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system ii Table of Contents Preface ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Management summary _________________________________________________________________ 3 1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________________ 5 1.1 A study on Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system __ 5 1.2 Objectives of the study ___________________________________________________________________ 6 1.3 Methodology used for this study ___________________________________________________________ 7 1.4 Reading guide ___________________________________________________________________________ 8 2 A dynamic scholarly publishing system ________________________________________________ 9 2.1 A two-sided market _______________________________________________________________________ 9 2.2 Transitioning from the traditional subscription-based model __________________________________ 9 2.3 Open access modalities _________________________________________________________________ 12 2.4 Transformative agreements ______________________________________________________________ 14 2.5 Publishing platforms ______________________________________________________________________ 17 3 Actors in the scholarly publishing system and their main drivers _________________________ 18 3.1 Stakeholders in the context of open access negotiations ___________________________________ 18 3.2 Authors and readers _____________________________________________________________________ 18 3.3 Negotiating consortia ____________________________________________________________________ 21 3.4 Publishers _______________________________________________________________________________ 22 3.5 Research funders ________________________________________________________________________ 23 3.6 Governments ___________________________________________________________________________ 25 4 Four scenarios ______________________________________________________________________ 27 4.1 Reference scenario 1: Predominantly subscription-based contracts with delayed OA through repositories after publishing (‘Classical/Green’) ____________________________________________ 27 4.2 Scenario 2: Predominantly Publish & Read contracts (‘P&R/R&P’) ___________________________ 28 4.3 Scenario 3: Predominantly contracts for publishing open access through publisher-owned journals or platforms (‘publisher-owned OA platforms’) _____________________________________ 28 4.4 Scenario 4: Predominantly contracts for publishing open access through community-owned platforms (‘Community-owned OA platforms’) ____________________________________________ 29 5 Differences in implications between the scenarios ____________________________________ 31 5.1 Methodological note and limitations ______________________________________________________ 31 5.2 Impact on academic freedom and the freedom to publish in preferred journals _____________ 31 5.3 Ability to perform current research(er) performance assessment ____________________________ 32 5.4 Service levels of publishers and innovation in research communities _________________________ 33 5.5 Transparency in the market ______________________________________________________________ 34 Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system i 5.6 Effects on the arts, humanities and social sciences _________________________________________ 34 6 Perceived strengths and weaknesses of hypothetical scenarios ________________________ 35 6.1 Scenario 2: R&P contracts ________________________________________________________________ 35 6.2 Scenario 3: Publisher-owned OA platforms or journals ______________________________________ 37 6.3 Scenario 4: Community-owned OA platforms ______________________________________________ 39 7 Potential effects of the hypothetical scenarios on each stakeholder group _____________ 42 7.1 Authors and readers _____________________________________________________________________ 42 7.2 Negotiating consortia ____________________________________________________________________ 43 7.3 Publishers _______________________________________________________________________________ 44 7.4 Funders _________________________________________________________________________________ 46 8 Desirability and feasibility of the hypothetical scenarios _______________________________ 47 8.1 Scenario 2: Predominantly Publish & Read contracts (‘P&R/R&P’) ___________________________ 47 8.2 Scenario 3: Predominantly contracts for publishing open access through publisher-owned journals or platforms (‘Publisher-owned OA platforms’) _____________________________________ 47 8.3 Scenario 4: Predominantly contracts for publishing open access through community-owned platforms (‘Community-owned OA platforms’) ____________________________________________ 48 9 Overview and main conclusions _____________________________________________________ 50 9.1 Open access drivers _____________________________________________________________________ 50 9.2 Implications of R&P contracts_____________________________________________________________ 51 9.3 Implications of future scenarios for the scholarly publishing system __________________________ 52 9.4 Implications of future scenarios for various stakeholders ____________________________________ 52 9.5 Desired future, realistic future and likelihood of implementation _____________________________ 53 9.6 Schematic overview of scenarios _________________________________________________________ 54 9.7 Discussion and reflection _________________________________________________________________ 57 9.8 Recommendations ______________________________________________________________________ 58 List of abbreviations used __________________________________________________ 60 Consulted stakeholders ____________________________________________________ 61 Description of the behavioural model and application to scenarios __________ 64 Details on the Delphi surveys _______________________________________________ 67 Scenario summary tables __________________________________________________ 70 Details on contractual conditions __________________________________________ 78 PESTLE Factors _____________________________________________________________ 81 Tables Table 1 Stakeholders interviewed __________________________________________________________ 61 Read & Publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system ii Table 2 Members of the study’s Steering Committee ________________________________________ 62 Table 3 Contract specificities and relation with scenarios – relevance and impact of no agreement _______________________________________________________________________ 79 Figures Figure 1 Percentage of gold and green open access publications by country _________________ 14 Figure 2 Actors in the context of open access negotiations ___________________________________ 18 Figure 3 Barriers inhibiting more open access adoption (N=71, multiple answers) _______________ 19 Figure 4 Factors affecting the negotiation process in terms of ease and duration (N= 77) _______ 25 Figure 5 Overview of the four scenarios and their reference to past, present and future ________ 27 Figure 6 Comparison of impact on academic freedom and freedom to publish in preferred journals ___________________________________________________________________________ 32 Figure 7 Comparison of the ability to perform current research(er) performance assessment ___ 33 Figure 8 Comparison of service levels of publishers and innovation in research communities ____ 34 Figure 9 Comparison of transparency in the market __________________________________________ 34 Figure 10 Comparison of different effects on the arts, humanities and social sciences ___________ 34 Figure 11 Advantages of a shift towards a market/system that is dominated by R&P contracts (N=61, multiple answers) ___________________________________________________________ 36 Figure 12 Weaknesses of a shift towards a market/system that is dominated by R&P contracts (N=60, multiple answers, cf. footnote 53) ____________________________________________ 37 Figure 13 Strengths of scenario 3 by response count based on free comments (N=40, multiple answers, cf. footnote 53) ___________________________________________________________ 38 Figure 14 Weaknesses of scenario 3 by response count based on free comments (N=40, multiple answers, cf. footnote 53) ___________________________________________________________ 39 Figure 15 Strengths of scenario 4 by response count based on free comments (N=36, multiple answers, cf. footnote 53) ___________________________________________________________ 40 Figure 16 Weaknesses of
Recommended publications
  • Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry

    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry

    Market Power in the Academic Publishing Industry What is an Academic Journal? • A serial publication containing recent academic papers in a certain field. • The main method for communicating the results of recent research in the academic community. Why is Market Power important to think about? • Commercial academic journal publishers use market power to artificially inflate subscription prices. • This practice drains the resources of libraries, to the detriment of the public. How Does Academic Publishing Work? • Author writes paper and submits to journal. • Paper is evaluated by peer reviewers (other researchers in the field). • If accepted, the paper is published. • Libraries pay for subscriptions to the journal. The market does not serve the interests of the public • Universities are forced to “double-pay”. 1. The university funds research 2. The results of the research are given away for free to journal publishers 3. The university library must pay to get the research back in the form of journals Subscription Prices are Outrageous • The highest-priced journals are those in the fields of science, technology, and medicine (or STM fields). • Since 1985, the average price of a journal has risen more than 215 percent—four times the average rate of inflation. • This rise in prices, combined with the CA budget crisis, has caused UC Berkeley’s library to cancel many subscriptions, threatening the library’s reputation. A Comparison Why are prices so high? Commercial publishers use market power to charge inflated prices. Why do commercial publishers have market power? • They control the most prestigious, high- quality journals in many fields. • Demand is highly inelastic for high-quality journals.
  • Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing

    Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing

    THE OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communi- cation Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summa- rizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conver- sation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversa- tion, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. CC-BY 2015 National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) www.nationalscience.org [email protected] nSCI is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization First edition, January 2015 Final version, April 2015 Recommended citation: Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly
  • A Quick Guide to Scholarly Publishing

    A Quick Guide to Scholarly Publishing

    A QUICK GUIDE TO SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING GRADUATE WRITING CENTER • GRADUATE DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • BERKELEY Belcher, Wendy Laura. Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009. Benson, Philippa J., and Susan C. Silver. What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Derricourt, Robin. An Author’s Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Germano, William. From Dissertation to Book. 2nd ed. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. ———. Getting It Published: A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Goldbort, Robert. Writing for Science. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006. Harman, Eleanor, Ian Montagnes, Siobhan McMenemy, and Chris Bucci, eds. The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First- Time Academic Authors. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Harmon, Joseph E., and Alan G. Gross. The Craft of Scientific Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Huff, Anne Sigismund. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1999. Luey, Beth. Handbook for Academic Authors. 5th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Luey, Beth, ed. Revising Your Dissertation: Advice from Leading Editors. Updated ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Matthews, Janice R., John M. Bowen, and Robert W. Matthews. Successful Scientific Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Moxley, Joseph M. PUBLISH, Don’t Perish: The Scholar’s Guide to Academic Writing and Publishing.
  • Using Bibliometric Big Data to Analyze Faculty Research Productivity in Health Policy and Management Christopher A. Harle

    Using Bibliometric Big Data to Analyze Faculty Research Productivity in Health Policy and Management Christopher A. Harle

    Using Bibliometric Big Data to Analyze Faculty Research Productivity in Health Policy and Management Christopher A. Harle, PhD [corresponding author] Joshua R. Vest, PhD, MPH Nir Menachemi, PhD, MPH Department of Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University 1050 Wishard Blvd. Indianapolis IN 46202-2872 PHONE: 317-274-5396 Keywords: big data, faculty productivity, bibliometrics, citation analysis ___________________________________________________________________ This is the author's manuscript of the article published in final edited form as: Harle, C. A., Vest, J. R., & Menachemi, N. (2016). Using Bibliometric Big Data to Analyze Faculty Research Productivity in Health Policy and Management. The Journal of Health Administration Education; Arlington, 33(2), 285–293. ABSTRACT Bibliometric big data and social media tools provide new opportunities to aggregate and analyze researchers’ scholarly impact. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the process and results we obtained after aggregating a list of public Google Scholar profiles representing researchers in Health Policy and Management or closely-related disciplines. We extracted publication and citation data on 191 researchers who are affiliated with health administration programs in the U.S. With these data, we created a publicly available listing of faculty that includes each person’s name, affiliation, year of first citation, total citations, h-index and i-10 index. The median of total citations per individual faculty member was 700, while the maximum was 46,363. The median h-index was 13, while the maximum was 91. We plan to update these statistics and add new faculty to our public listing as new Google Scholar profiles are created by faculty members in the field.
  • Research in Flanders

    Research in Flanders

    Open Science Policy in Flanders Bart Dumolyn, policy advisor research division Department of Economy, Science and Innovation (EWI) Flanders & Research A research and innovation friendly region • With a very open and innovation-driven economy • Home to numerous research institutes, universities and a highly-trained workforce • With a long history of innovative academic excellence • Supporting a tight network of R&D clusters that offer interesting opportunities for collaboration • In the heart of Europe … a region with a strong knowledge base Flanders as part of Belgium (state structure) Belgium is a federal state made up of Communities and Regions. Both have their own exclusive competences. The three Communities are: The Flemish Community (corresponding to the Dutch language area, with particular competences in the bilingual area of Brussels) The French Community (corresponding to the French language area, with particular competences in the bilingual area of Brussels) The German-speaking Community (corresponding to the German language area) The three Regions are: The Flemish Region (corresponding to the Dutch language area) The Walloon Region (corresponding to the French and German language area) The Brussels Capital Region (corresponding to the bilingual area) PRACTICALLY : Flanders is “language community + region” = “Flemish Government” 4 Institutional setup in Belgium Flanders 5 Flanders as part of Belgium (state structure) Belgium has six parliaments and six governments: A Federal Parliament (consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate); A Federal Government; + different parliaments and governments for each Community and Region. In 1980 the Flemish authorities merged the community and regional institutions. A single Flemish Parliament, Flemish Government, official consultative bodies and an administration, supported by specific agencies, oversee both community and regional competences.
  • Ho Et Al. 2020. Water Research, a Case Study in Belgium

    Ho Et Al. 2020. Water Research, a Case Study in Belgium

    Journal of Cleaner Production 277 (2020) 124082 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro Review Water research in support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6: A case study in Belgium * Long Ho a, , Alice Alonso b, Marie Anne Eurie Forio a, Marnik Vanclooster b, Peter L.M. Goethals a a Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium b Earth and Life Institute, Department of Environmental Sciences, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium article info abstract Article history: Reaching the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 on water and sanitation is fundamentally important Received 3 April 2020 and conditional to the achievement of all the other SDGs. Nonetheless, achieving this goal by 2030 is Received in revised form challenging, especially in the Global South. Science lies at the root of sustainable development and is a 30 August 2020 key to new solutions for addressing SDG 6. However, SDG 6-related scientific outputs are often unknown, Accepted 31 August 2020 forming disconnections between academic world and practitioners implementing solutions. This study Available online 8 September 2020 proposed a bibliometric and text mining method to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the Handling editor: Long Ho contribution of water research to the achievement of SDG 6. The method was applied for water research produced by Belgian-affiliated authors with a focus on the Global South collaboration. Despite ac- Keywords: counting for less than one percent of the total global publications, Belgian water research has had a Water research relatively high publication rate compared to its neighboring countries.
  • Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: a Q-R Theory

    Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: a Q-R Theory

    Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory Glenn Ellison Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Nationat Bureau of Economic Research This paper develops models of quality standards to examine two trends: academic journals increasingly require extensive revisions of submissions, and articles are becoming longer and changing in other ways. Papers are modeled as varying along two quality dimensions: q reflects the importance ofthe main ideas and rother aspects of quality. Observed trends are regarded as increases in r^qualit). A static equi- libritim model illustrates comparative statics explanations. A dynamic model in which referees (with a biased view of their own work) learn social norms for weighting q and r is shown to produce a long, gradual evolution of social norms. I. Introduction I encourage readers of this paper to first put it down for two minutes and thumb through a 30- or 40-year-old issue of an economics jotirnal. This should convey better than I can with words how dramatically eco- nomics papers have changed over the last few decades. Papers today are much longer.' They have longer introductions.^ They have more I would like to thank the National Science Foundation (SBR-9ai8534), the Sloan Foun- dation, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences for their .support. I would like to thank Robt^rt Barro, John (>)chrane. Ken Corts, Drew Fudenberg, John Geanakoplns, Robin Pemantle, Gary Snxonhouse, and various seminar audiences for help- ful comments and (Jhristine Kiang and Nada Mora for outstanding research assistance. '.Ariel Rubinstein's 1982 Econometrica ariicle, "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," e.g., is about as lonj^ as the average note in Eronometrica in 2001.
  • Belgium Case Study.Pdf

    Belgium Case Study.Pdf

    JUNE 30, 2015 OPEN ACCESS IN BELGIUM PASTEUR4OA PROJECT FUND FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-FNRS OPEN ACCESS IN BELGIUM OPEN ACCESS IN BELGIUM The Fund for Scientific Research-FNRS The Fund for Scientific Research-FNRS (F.R.S-FNRS) is the major research funding agency promoting and supporting basic scientific research for the French-speaking community of Belgium (Brussels-Wallonia Federation, BWF). Founded in 1928, it mainly receives public subsidies. The Fund supports individual researchers on the basis of academic excellence by offering temporary or permanent positions. The Fund also provides funding to research teams, grants and credits for international collaboration, as well as scientific prizes. The Fund fosters research in all scientific fields, following a bottom-up approach of investigator-driven research. It supports researchers in an ever growing context of internationalisation through facilitating their mobility, allowing for collaborative transnational projects and supporting a high level international working environment. The Flemish counterpart of F.R.S.-FNRS, the Fonds Wetenschappelijke Onderzoek (FWO) has similar OA mandates, also inspired by the Brussels Declaration of 2012 (cfr infra). Summary The Belgian political landscape is complex and this complexity is reflected in the scientific system. Luckily, the multiple power layers did not preclude to the birth and development of open access policies. Indeed, the move towards for OA for publications started more than 10 years ago in Belgium. It is the creation of the Immediate Deposit and Optional Access (ID/OA) at Université de Liège (ULg) in 2007 paved the way for Belgian OA mandates. OA policies were developed by more than 15 Belgian research organisations.
  • 1 Scientometric Indicators and Their Exploitation by Journal Publishers

    1 Scientometric Indicators and Their Exploitation by Journal Publishers

    Scientometric indicators and their exploitation by journal publishers Name: Pranay Parsuram Student number: 2240564 Course: Master’s Thesis (Book and Digital Media Studies) Supervisor: Prof. Fleur Praal Second reader: Dr. Adriaan van der Weel Date of completion: 12 July 2019 Word count: 18177 words 1 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Scientometric Indicators ........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Journal Impact Factor ...................................................................................................... 8 2.2. h-Index .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.3. Eigenfactor™ ................................................................................................................ 11 2.4. SCImago Journal Rank.................................................................................................. 13 2.5. Source Normalized Impact Per Paper ........................................................................... 14 2.6. CiteScore ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.6. General Limitations of Citation Count .......................................................................... 16 3. Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................
  • Open Access: Plan S, Dai Principi All'attuazione

    Open Access: Plan S, Dai Principi All'attuazione

    OPEN ACCESS: PLAN S, DAI PRINCIPI ALL'ATTUAZIONE S.Bianco, G.Chiarelli, P.Lubrano, L.Patrizii, F.Zwirner 22 Gennaio 2019 Plan-S è un'iniziativa lanciata lo scorso settembre Da una collaborazione internazionale di istituzioni finanziatrici della ricerca - cOAlition S - e sostenuta dal Consiglio Europeo della Ricerca, che mira aD accelerare la transizione al moDello Open Access Delle pubblicazioni accaDemiche. Plan-S impegna gli aderenti - a partire dal 2020 - a pubblicare i risultati delle riCerChe sostenute Con finanziamenti puBBliCi su riviste o piattaforme Open ACCess. Gli organismi finanziatori Della ricerca in cOAlition-S sono al momento 13 istituzioni pubbliche, tra le quali da subito l’INFN, e 3 fondazioni private, tra queste la Bill & Melinda Gates FounDation. Numerose altre istituzioni supportano esplicitamente l’iniziativa, come la European University Association che incluDe Diversi Atenei italiani. Dopo il lancio Del Plan S lo scorso settembre (All.1), ora cOAlition S ha presentato la guiDa (All.2) per la sua attuazione. Il Documento appena rilasciato chiarisce le disposizioni del Plan S, descrive le moDalità Di implementazione, e fornisce inoltre risposte a DomanDe e commenti emersi Dalle Discussioni online e Dai dibattiti che a livello internazionale sono seguiti alla pubblicazione del Plan S. Il Plan S ha Dunque come obiettivo la creazione Di un sistema Di pubblicazioni accaDemiche più trasparente, efficiente eD equo, e vuole promuovere una cultura che garantisca a tutti i ricercatori, e in particolare ai ricercatori a inizio
  • Tracking Self-Citations in Academic Publishing Kacem, Ameni; Flatt, Justin W.; Mayr, Philipp

    Tracking Self-Citations in Academic Publishing Kacem, Ameni; Flatt, Justin W.; Mayr, Philipp

    www.ssoar.info Tracking self-citations in academic publishing Kacem, Ameni; Flatt, Justin W.; Mayr, Philipp Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Kacem, A., Flatt, J. W., & Mayr, P. (2020). Tracking self-citations in academic publishing. Scientometrics, 123(2), 1157-1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03413-9 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY Lizenz (Namensnennung) zur This document is made available under a CC BY Licence Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden (Attribution). For more Information see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-71640-3 Scientometrics (2020) 123:1157–1165 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03413-9 Tracking self‑citations in academic publishing Ameni Kacem1 · Justin W. Flatt2,3 · Philipp Mayr1 Received: 26 February 2020 / Published online: 18 March 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Citation metrics have value because they aim to make scientifc assessment a level play- ing feld, but urgent transparency-based adjustments are necessary to ensure that meas- urements yield the most accurate picture of impact and excellence. One problematic area is the handling of self-citations, which are either excluded or inappropriately accounted for when using bibliometric indicators for research evaluation. Here, in favor of openly tracking self-citations we report on self-referencing behavior among various academic disciplines as captured by the curated Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.
  • SEP-210148861 Proposal Acronym: Openaire2020

    SEP-210148861 Proposal Acronym: Openaire2020

    European Commission - Research - Participants Proposal Submission Forms Horizon 2020 Call: H2020-EINFRA-2014-1 Topic: EINFRA-2-2014 Type of action: RIA Proposal number: SEP-210148861 Proposal acronym: OpenAIRE2020 Table of contents Section Title Action 1 General information 2 Participants & contacts 3 Budget 4 Ethics 5 Call-specific questions How to fill in the forms The administrative forms must be filled in for each proposal using the templates available in the submission system. Some data fields in the administrative forms are pre-filled based on the previous steps in the submission wizard. H2020-CP.pdf - Ver1.83 20140410 Page 1 of 162 Last saved 16/04/2014 at 04:04 European Commission - Research - Participants Proposal Submission Forms Proposal ID 643410 Acronym OpenAIRE2020 1 - General information Topic EINFRA-2-2014 Type of action RIA Call identifier H2020-EINFRA-2014-1 Acronym OpenAIRE2020 Proposal title* Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe 2020 Note that for technical reasons, the following characters are not accepted in the Proposal Title and will be removed: < > " & Duration in months 42 Fixed keyword 1 Open access Add Open Access Infrastructure, Research Information System, Monitoring Open Access Scientific Free keywords Outcomes, Gold Open Access Pilot Abstract OpenAIRE2020 represents a pivotal phase in the long-term effort to implement and strengthen the impact of the Open Access (OA) policies of the European Commission (EC), building on the achievements of the OpenAIRE projects. OpenAIRE2020 will expand and leverage its focus from (1) the agents and resources of scholarly communication to workflows and processes, (2) from publications to data, software, and other research outputs, and the links between them, and (3) strengthen the relationship of European OA infrastructures with other regions of the world, in particular Latin America and the U.S.