The Center for Open Science (COS) launched ‘Thesis Commons‘, a free, cloud-based platform for the submission, dissemination, and discovery of graduate and undergraduate theses and dissertations. It is built on an open-source infrastructure called the Open Science Framework (OSF) by which the authors can share their electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) easily and quickly.
The COS also launched various co-branded preprints repositories of them is ‘AgriXiv‘, a preprints repository for agriculture and allied sciences which is administered by the Open Access India community.
Thesis Commons has a steering committee of experts and advocates for open scholarship representing institution, library, and researcher stakeholder communities and is backed by COS’s preservation fund, which ensures that all data stored on its services would be preserved and accessible for 50+ years in the event of COS curtailing or closing its services.
For more information on Thesis Commons, please contact Matt Spitzer at firstname.lastname@example.org
Notes adapted from Unesco Course on understanding open access :
In an open access (OA) world, much importance has been given to using open source tools, open access resources and open solutions to engage authors and researchers in collaborative research, peer-to-peer sharing of scholarly information and collaborative evaluation of scholars’ works. On the other hand, exponential growth of scientific literature also has led to rapid disappearance of nascent literature before it actually gets noticed by the scientific communities. No single database can capture this over-growing scientific literature. Several data mining tools are probably required to keep abreast with quantum of emerging literature. In this Unit, various tools and techniques have been discussed in details to help the library and information professionals in strengthening their efforts in enhancing scientific productivity, visibility, reputation, and impact of research works of their affiliated scientific researchers. This Unit briefly discusses various conventional citation-based indicators available for assessing scientific productivity of authors, journals and institutions. This Unit also identifies emerging indicators such as h-index, i10-index, Eigenfactor score, article influence score and source normalized impact per paper. The social webs, available to the researchers’ communities in addition to any other groups of citizens, help the researchers in disseminating their produced or contributed knowledge to global communities. Much you are active in social media, more you have chances to get noticed by fellow researchers and possible research collaborators. Many personalized web-based services are now increasingly made available targeting global researchers’ communities, helping them to enhance their social media presence and visibility. These factors influence the development of new metrics called article level metrics or altmetrics. Finally, this Unit also briefly discusses the emergence of the open citation databases for text mining and data mining of open access literature.
Commonly Used Terms for Assessing Research Impacts:
1.Bibliometrics is a set of methods to quantitatively analyse academic literature and scholarly communications.
2.Informetrics is the study of quantitative aspects of information. This includes the production, dissemination, and use of all forms of information, regardless of its form or origin.
3.Scientometrics is the study of quantitative features and characteristics of science, scientific research and scholarly communications.
4.Webometrics is the study of quantitative features, characteristics, structure and usage patterns of the worldwide web, its hyperlinks and internet resources.
5.Cybermetrics is an alternative term for Webometrics to measure the World Wide Web, cyber media, web resources and hyperlinks.
6.Librametrics is a set of methods to quantitatively analyse availability of documents in libraries, their usage and impact of library services to its user community.
6.Patentometrics is a set of methods to quantitatively analyse patent databases, patent citations and their usage patterns.
7.Altmetrics is a new metrics proposed as an alternative to the widely used journal impact factor and personal citation indices like the h-index. The term altmetrics was proposed in 2010, as a generalization of article level metrics, and has its roots in the twitter #altmetrics hashtag. Article Level Metrics (ALM) Article level metrics is an alternative term for Altmetrics.
Applications of Scientometrics and Bibliometrics in Research Assessment :
In the last sixty years, evaluation of public funded research has been carried out globally on a regular basis for performance measurement of different actors of scientific research. Most of the citation databases and citation analysis tools available in today’s world have functionalities to instantly generate reports and scientometric profile of a scientist, an institution, a collaborative research group, a country, or a journal. Some of the popular applications of scientometrics and bibliometrics listed below can use report generator tools available with citation-based products and services.
For Institution/ Collaborative Research Group: mapping of collaborations, top collaborating institutions, top collaborating countries, collaborating with public vs. private institutions, highly cited papers, highly cited authors, top contributing scientists, top publishing journals, scientists with top h-index, top subject categories or research domains, percentage of cited vs. uncited papers, percentage of self-citations, publishing in OA vs. subscription-based journals, comparative study of two or more institutions in a region/ country.
For a scientist: mapping of collaborations, collaborating institutions, collaborating countries, mapping of co-authors, highly cited papers, top publishing journals, percentage of cited vs. uncited papers, percentage of self-citations, author-level indicators such as h-index, i10-index, etc.
For a country: top contributing institutions, top contributing cities, top contributing states, top funding agencies supporting research, top affiliating apex bodies, mapping of collaborations, top collaborating countries, top collaborating institutions, top contributing scientists, top publishing journals, top subject categories or research domains, percentage of cited vs. uncited papers, percentage of self-citations, highly cited papers, highly cited authors, top scientists with h-index, publishing by public vs. private institutions, publishing in OA vs. subscription-based journals, comparative study of two or more countries in a region or globally.
For a journal: highly cited papers, highly cited authors, percentage of cited vs. uncited papers, percentage of self-citations, top research domains, cited half-life vs. citing half-life, top contributing institutions, top contributing cities, top contributing countries, most downloaded papers, most shared papers, and highly ranked journals based on citation-based indicators.
To read more on the indicators and understanding them better please follow the http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002319/231920E.pdf
Course of openaccess by Unesco chapter Introduction to open access @http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-and-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/unescos_open_access_oa_curriculum_is_now_online.
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.
In most fields, scholarly journals do not pay authors, who can therefore consent to OA without losing revenue. In this respect scholars and scientists are very differently situated from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about OA to music and movies do not carry over to research literature.
OA is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance. Just as authors of journal articles donate their labor, so do most journal editors and referees participating in peer review.
OA literature is not free to produce, even if it is less expensive to produce than conventionally published literature. The question is not whether scholarly literature can be made costless, but whether there are better ways to pay the bills than by charging readers and creating access barriers. Business models for paying the bills depend on how OA is delivered.
There are two primary vehicles for delivering OA to research articles: OA journals and OA archives or repositories.
OA archives or repositories do not perform peer review, but simply make their contents freely available to the world. They may contain unrefereed preprints, refereed postprints, or both. Archives may belong to institutions, such as universities and laboratories, or disciplines, such as physics and economics. Authors may archive their preprints without anyone else’s permission, and a majority of journals already permit authors to archive their postprints. When archives comply with the metadata harvesting protocol of the Open Archives Initiative, then they are interoperable and users can find their contents without knowing which archives exist, where they are located, or what they contain. There is now open-source software for building and maintaining OAI-compliant archives and worldwide momentum for using it.
OA journals perform peer review and then make the approved contents freely available to the world. Their expenses consist of peer review, manuscript preparation, and server space. OA journals pay their bills very much the way broadcast television and radio stations do: those with an interest in disseminating the content pay the production costs upfront so that access can be free of charge for everyone with the right equipment. Sometimes this means that journals have a subsidy from the hosting university or professional society. Sometimes it means that journals charge a processing fee on accepted articles, to be paid by the author or the author’s sponsor (employer, funding agency). OA journals that charge processing fees usually waive them in cases of economic hardship. OA journals with institutional subsidies tend to charge no processing fees. OA journals can get by on lower subsidies or fees if they have income from other publications, advertising, priced add-ons, or auxiliary services. Some institutions and consortia arrange fee discounts. Some OA publishers waive the fee for all researchers affiliated with institutions that have purchased an annual membership. There’s a lot of room for creativity in finding ways to pay the costs of a peer-reviewed OA journal, and we’re far from having exhausted our cleverness and imagination.
For a longer introduction, with live links for further reading, see my Open Access
Director, Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication
Director, Harvard Open Access Project
Faculty Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Senior Researcher, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Follow the orginal article @
There is no one, standard definition of Open Educational Resources. However, the following broad definition of OERs from OER Commons seems to be generally accepted by the community:
Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that are freely available online for everyone to use, whether you are an instructor, student or self-learner. Examples of OER include: full courses, course modules, syllabi, lectures, homework assignments, quizzes, lab and classroom activities, pedagogical materials, games, simulations, and many more resources contained in digital media collections from around the world.
OERs exist within a wider ‘Open’ movement and context, explored below.
The Open Movement
A range of ‘Open’ philosophies and models have emerged during the 20th Century as a result of several different drivers and motivations – including sharing freely, preventing duplication, avoiding restrictive (Copyright) practices, promoting economic efficiencies and improving access to wide groups of stakeholders. Many of these have been driven by and created by communities that recognise the benefits to themselves, and sometimes to wider groups. Some of these are listed below:
- Open source (relating to business and technology)
- Open source software
- Open source hardware
- Open standards
- Open access (research)
- Open design
- Open knowledge
- Open data
- Open content
- Open courseware
- Open educational resources
- Open educational practice
Several of these ‘movements’ or ‘philosophies’ have been significant within the education community both in terms of research and learning & teaching (particularly educational technology). Whilst it is widely expected that sharing and openness would bring benefits to some stakeholders in the educational community, traditional cultures and practices, managerial approaches and processes, and perceived legal complexities have been identified as barriers to sharing both within and across institutions. (refs: CD LOR, TRUST DR, Sharing e-learning content, Good Intentions report)
Whilst the terms ‘Open content’ and ‘Open courseware’ are sometimes used to mean the wide range of resources to support learning and teaching, one is fairly broad and the other very specific. We have chosen to use the term Open Educational Resources (OER) as this relates to resources that are specifically licenced to be used and re-used in an educational context.
What are educational resources?
Whilst purely informational content has a significant role in learning and teaching, it is helpful to consider learning resources by their levels of granularity and to focus on the degree to which information content is embedded within a learning activity:
- Digital assets – normally a single file (e.g. an image, video or audio clip), sometimes called a ‘raw media asset’;
- Information objects – a structured aggregation of digital assets, designed purely to present information;
- Learning objects – an aggregation of one or more digital assets which represents an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit;
- Learning activities – tasks involving interactions with information to attain a specific learning outcome;
- Learning design – structured sequences of information and activities to promote learning.
(adapted from Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I. and McGill, L. (2008) ‘Characterising effective eLearning resources’. Computers & Education, 50 (3), pp. 757-771.)
What are open educational resources?
The following definitions and examples are taken from a paper prepared by Li Yuan at JISC CETIS in 2008 concerning the state of open educational resources internationally. This well-received paper can be accessed from the CETIS website.
The term Open Educational Resources (OER) was first introduced at a conference hosted by UNESCO in 2000 and was promoted in the context of providing free access to educational resources on a global scale. As mentioned above, there is no authoritatively accredited definition for the term OER at present, with the OECD preferring, ‘digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research’ (OECD, 2007). Stephen Downes presents a useful overview of what Open Educational Resources are in Open Education: Projects and Potential.
“Engagement with OER can be light touch. New staff should be encouraged to source open materials when creating new educational materials (from CC resources or other OER), and to fully reference all other assets in their teaching materials. An academic’s own digital assets such as images, pod casts and video can be released under a CC licence to web 2.0.” GEES Project final report
OER initiatives aspire to provide open access to high-quality education resources on a global scale. From large institution-based or institution-supported initiatives to numerous small-scale activities, the number of OER related programmes and projects has been growing quickly within the past few years.
According to OECD in 2007, there are materials from more than 3000 open access courses (open courseware) currently available from over 300 universities worldwide:
- In the United States resources from thousands of courses have been made available by university-based projects, such as MIT OpenCourseWare and Rice University’s Connexions project: (http://ocw.mit.edu/, http://cnx.rice.edu/ )
- In China, materials from 750 courses have been made available by 222 university members of the China Open Resources for Education (CORE) consortium.(http://www.core.org.cn/en/).
- In Japan, resources from more than 400 courses have been made available by the19 member universities of the Japanese OCW Consortium. (http://www.jocw.jp/).
- In France, 800 educational resources from around 100 teaching units have been made available by the 11 member universities of the ParisTech OCW project. (http://graduateschool.paristech.org/).
- In Ireland, universities received government funding to build open access institutional repositories and to develop a federated harvesting and discovery service via a national portal. It is intended that this collaboration will be expanded to embrace all Irish research institutions. (http://www.irel-open.ie/).
- And in the UK, the Open University has released a range of its distance learning materials via the OpenLearn project (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/), and over 80 UKOER projects have released many resources (via Jorum) which are used to support teaching in institutions and across a range of subject areas.
For a more visual explanation of Open Educational Resources look at Stephen Downes’ presentation on Slideshare.
For more /Original article,Please read at the link below :https://openeducationalresources.pbworks.com/w/page/24836860/What%20are%20Open%20Educational%20Resources
The Open Access India community while committing itself for putting Open in Action is celebrating this year’s Open Access Week by organizing series of Webinars on various topics related to Open Access during 24-30, October 2016 daily in the afternoon at 1:00 – 1:30 PM (IST) using Google Hangouts and YouTube Live. For the updates at Google+.
The detailed schedule is as follows:
|24 Oct||Mon||Open Access (Basics)||Devika Madalii|
|25 Oct||Tue||Open Access and DOAJ||Vrushali Dandawate|
|26 Oct||Wed||Open Access@CSIR-NISCAIR||G. Mahesh|
|27 Oct||Thu||Want to make your research OA so where do you publish? – Make DOAJ your starting point for finding quality peer-reviewed OA journals||Leena Shah|
|30 Oct||Sun||Open Access India||Sridhar Gutam|
Call for Proposals
The Twelfth International Conference on Open Repositories, OR2017, will be held on June 26th-30th, 2017 in Brisbane, Australia. The organisers are pleased to issue this call for contributions to the program, with submissions due by 20 November 2016.
In 2017 the Open Repositories conference returns to Australia, where the Open Repositories journey started in Sydney 2006. Repositories have come a long way in the intervening years, having emerged as critical systems for managing, preserving and sharing intellectual, artistic and scientific output. As such, repositories have found a firm placing within scholarly processes and are becoming an integral vehicle to moving towards true Open Science. The OR community has established itself as an important contributor in this space, something we would like to emphasise in Brisbane by promoting the community’s ability to always stay at the forefront of development of both infrastructure and good practice.
For OR2017 the theme is Open : Innovation | Knowledge | Repositories, aiming to reflect how the Open Repository community continues to be at the forefront of developments, sharing knowledge, and working as an enabler of scholarship and open science. OR2017 will provide an opportunity to:
- showcase innovative repository services as well as innovations in functionality and user experience of repository software;
- introduce innovative uses of repositories, for example to accommodate new types of content, serve new groups of users, or achieve new goals;
- analyse drivers for repository innovation, including evolving technologies, changes in scholarly communication processes, as well as policies around open access to research outputs at institutional, national and international levels; and
- explore and highlight innovation in the wider ecosystem around repositories.
We welcome proposals on these ideas, but also on other theoretical, practical, technical, organisational or administrative topics related to repositories. Submissions that demonstrate original and repository-related work outside of these themes will be considered, but preference will be given to submissions which address them. We are particularly interested in the following Themes (Please check the wesbite for detailed description on themes).
Readers of this call for proposals who are familiar with the OR conference series will notice that it is issued somewhat earlier than in previous years. This is done to benefit international participants, aiming to provide earlier feedback on submissions in order to leave enough time in advance of the conference to make travel arrangements for a journey to Australia.
- By 30 September 2016: Submission system opens
- 20 November 2016: Deadline for submissions
- 14 December 2016: Deadline for Scholarship Programme applications
- 03 February 2017: Submitters notified of acceptance (except Interest Groups)
- 03 February 2017: Registration opens
- 10 February 2017: Submitters notified of acceptance to Interest Groups
- 10 February 2017: Scholarship Programme winners notified
- 21 April 2017: All presenters are encouraged to register by the close of Early Bird, 21 April 2017
- 26-30 June 2017: OR2017 conference
Accepted proposals in all categories will be made available through the conference’s web site, and later they and associated materials will be made available in an open repository. Some conference sessions may be live streamed or recorded, then made publicly available.
PRESENTATIONS AND PANELS – GENERAL TRACK
We expect that proposals for full presentations or panels will be two to four pages (see below for Proposal Templates). Successful submissions to the general track in past years have typically described work relevant to a wide audience and applicable beyond a single software system. Panels in the general track are expected to include at least some degree of diversity in viewpoints and personal background of the panelists. In general, sessions in this track will have three full presentations; panels may take an entire session or may be combined with a presentation.
Relevant proposals unsuccessful in the general track may be considered for inclusion, as appropriate, as an Interest Group presentation, developer track presentation, poster or 24×7 presentation.
PRESENTATIONS AND PANELS – INTEREST GROUPS
The opportunity to engage with and learn more about the work of relevant communities of interest is a key element of Open Repositories. One to two page proposals are invited for presentations or panels that focus on the work of such communities, traditionally DSpace, EPrints, and Fedora, describing novel experiences or developments in the construction and use of repositories involving issues specific to these technical platforms. Further information about applications for additional Interest Groups and guidance on submissions will be forthcoming.
24×7 presentations are 7-minute presentations comprising no more than 24 slides. Proposals for 24×7 presentations should be one to two pages (see below for Proposal Templates). Similar to Pecha Kuchas or Lightning Talks, these 24×7 presentations will be grouped into blocks based on conference themes, with each block followed by a moderated discussion / question and answer session involving the audience and whole block of presenters. This format will provide conference goers with a fast-paced survey of like work across many institutions, and presenters the chance to disseminate their work in more depth and context than a traditional poster.
We invite one-page proposals for posters that showcase current work (see below for Proposal Templates). OR2017 will feature digital rather than physical posters. Posters will be on display throughout the conference. Instructions for preparing the digital posters will be distributed to authors of accepted poster proposals prior to the conference. More information regarding digital posters can be found here.
DEVELOPER TRACK: TOP TIPS, CUNNING CODE AND IMAGINATIVE INNOVATION
Each year a significant proportion of the delegates at Open Repositories are software developers who work on repository software or related services. OR2017 will feature a Developer Track that will provide a focus for showcasing work and exchanging ideas.
Building on the success of the Developer Track at OR2015 and OR2016, where we encouraged live hacking and audience participation, we invite members of the technical community to share the features, systems, tools and best practices that are important to you. Presentations can be as informal as you like, but once again we encourage live demonstrations, tours of code repositories, examples of cool features and the unique viewpoints that so many members of our community possess. Submissions should take the form of a title and a brief outline of what will be shared with the community.
Developers are also encouraged to contribute to the other tracks.
OR2017 will also again include the popular Ideas Challenge. Taking part in this competition provides an opportunity to take an active role in repository innovation, in collaboration with your peers and in pursuit of prizes. The Ideas Challenge is open to all conference attendees – developers, non-developers, and everyone in between. Further details and guidance on the Ideas Challenge will be forthcoming.
WORKSHOPS AND TUTORIALS
One to two-page proposals for workshops and tutorials addressing theoretical or practical issues around digital repositories are welcomed. See below for Proposal Templates; please address the following in your proposal:
- The subject of the event and what knowledge you intend to convey
- Length of session (e.g., 2 hours, half a day or a whole day)
- A brief statement on the learning outcomes from the session
- The target audience for your session and how many attendees you plan to accommodate
- Technology and facility requirements
- Any other supplies or support required
- Anything else you believe is pertinent to carrying out the session
The conference system is now open for submissions. PDF format is preferred.
All submissions will be peer reviewed and evaluated according to the criteria outlined in the call for proposals, including quality of content, significance, originality, and thematic fit.
CODE OF CONDUCT
The OR2017 Code of Conduct and Anti-Harrassment Policy are available at http://or2017.net/code-of-conduct/.
OR2017 will again run a Scholarship Programme which will enable us to provide support for a small number of full registered places (including the poster reception and conference dinner) for the conference in Brisbane. The programme is open to librarians, repository managers, developers and researchers in digital libraries and related fields. Applicants submitting a proposal for the conference will be given priority consideration for funding. Please note that the programme does not cover costs such as accommodation, travel and subsistence. It is anticipated that the applicant’s home institution will provide financial support to supplement the OR Scholarship Award. Full details and an application form will shortly be available on the conference website. Please click here to subscribe to our mailing list for further updates.
- Scholarship Programme Application Deadline: 14 December 2016
- Successful Applicants Notified: 10 February 2017
For the templates and also more on particpation please check
http://or2017.net/call-for-proposals/ and also keep us posted your updates.
The “Open Access in Action” series has explored many but certainly not all the facets of this highly disruptive publishing trend. To put the issues in perspective, and to focus on the resulting changes to the role of academic and research librarians, we interviewed Dr. Stephen Pinfield, Professor of Information Services Management at The University of Sheffield.
Professor Pinfield joined Sheffield in 2012. Before that, he was a self-described practitioner of academic information science, serving as CIO for the University of Nottingham. In 2001, he helped set up the U.K.’s first open access institutional repository, followed by the SHERPA project in 2002. In 2006 he set up at Nottingham the first UK institutional central fund for paying APCs, and has authored open access policy papers for The Russell Group. Commenting on his role as an academic with a technical background, he described his research as “at the interface of practice and theory.”
This feature article is part of our Open Access in Action series, sponsored by Dove Press, which tracks the evolution of important open access (OA) issues through a library lens by presenting regular original articles, video interviews, news, and perspectives. To learn more about how librarians like you are driving practice across the lifestyle of open access, be sure to visit our Open Access in Action hub page.
Library Journal: What are the important differences between those who implement and support open access systems and the faculty members and researchers who use them?
Professor Pinfield: Faculty shouldn’t have to be experts in the mechanics of scholarly communication. They should be carrying out their research—communicating it in ways that are appropriate for their scholarly community and beyond. However, those who provide support, like libraries and IT services, have to understand the research cycle—the processes that researchers go through. Twenty or thirty years ago, librarians had to understand a narrow aspect of scholarly communications: negotiating subscriptions with publishers, storing and preserving collections, and making them available to researchers. Now, librarians need to understand and engage with a much wider range of activities in the research process, in order to provide credible services.
LJ: What are some examples?
Pinfield: Librarians can intervene earlier, encouraging researchers to deposit at the preprint stage, for example. They need to have a clear understanding of the publishing process, and how it may vary from discipline to discipline. They can design workflows that fit the way faculty works—not assume that all faculty have the same requirements and motivations for publishing their research.
Many repositories are designed in isolation from what faculty actually do or care about, creating an unnecessary burden. Librarians have to understand their users, so they can incentivize faculty [by emphasizing] the importance of a deposit [to] increasing usage and citations, for example. Then they can design services to demonstrate that.
LJ: In the article series, we discussed various open access funding models, APCs, Green versus Gold, and the prospect of “flipping” subscription journals to open access. Can you comment on where we are now—and where we’re likely to go?
Pinfield: This is a challenge. If you look system-wide, there’s enough money to pay for APCs—if you look at the whole universe of research funding. The key challenge, of course, is how that happens, and how it affects individual players. The European focus has been on system-wide shifts, mainly because negotiations with publishers happens more at a national level. The U.S. is a very different environment. It’s far larger and more fragmented, so there’s a tendency for large institutions to resist the increased cost implications of APCs. I think that changes will come as we start thinking of the bigger picture for research as a whole. The recent Pay It Forward study points to the possibility of research funders shouldering more of the cost. The benefit of an APC model is that it scales with the funding.
LJ: What is the main resistance to this type of change?
Pinfield: I think the resistance to open access is more on an operational level than it is on principle. When I first became involved in the open access movement, I naively thought we just had to persuade academics it was a good idea and they’d just start doing it. What we didn’t understand then was the level of inertia and vested interests there are in the system. So, we started adding conversations with policy makers and funding entities, who in turn began encouraging more open access behaviors in institutions.
LJ: To what extent is open access adoption driven by differences in academic discipline—such as STEM or the humanities?
Pinfield: Differences in disciplines should not be underestimated. Even within STEM, some disciplines gravitate towards the Green model, while others—like health sciences—tend to be Gold. (That’s not to say that Green and Gold aren’t both valuable. I see them as complementary and interactive in many cases.) In the humanities, there are new models for monographs and open access, so what we’re seeing in STEM may not apply. Martin Eve’s recent book, Open Access and the Humanities, is a good place to start there.
LJ: Let’s get back to librarians. How would you advise them when it comes to open access?
Pinfield: I think these are exciting times for information professionals. It’s an opportunity to be engaged to a much greater degree. As other opportunities for librarians diminish—like the importance of managing large print collections—this is an opportunity to stake out new territory. With open access, we’re now at the stage of how we deliver it, not whether we do so. This puts the focus on the library community.
We’re also thinking about it in a much broader way—in terms of open science and open data, not just open access journal publishing. Becoming more conversant with that sort of strategic vision is becoming increasingly important. Having a professional confidence in these skills will revitalize the library profession. It’s not a narrow, diminishing path, but a wide one.
LJ: Could this be seen as a bulwark against library funding cuts?
Pinfield: Potentially, yes. Collections are still important, but there’s also more emphasis now on delivering services. You can see this now in how libraries are designed—not just as a place to house collections but also as spaces for collaboration, use of technology, and creative activity. That’s all to the good, but it will require agility on the part of the library profession.
Originally posted at http://lj.libraryjournal.com/openaccessinaction/?ref=oaia-postlink
Become a ScienceOpen Activist and change the world of scientific publishing! Apply to become part of our think-tank and our voice in the community.
Scholarly Publishing and science are frustratingly slow when it comes to change. Newton’s lab-books from 300 years ago probably look similar to what PhD-students still scribble in today!
Old habits die hard in research. Other than social media, scholarly communication is still largely focused on publication in journals where anonymous peer review delays the liberation of newly gained knowledge by months, if not even years.
We are still using systems that have operated for decades and centuries. But do they really still work? Research studies can be irreproducible; billions of public funding lock up knowledge behind pay walls and embargos became a bargaining chip between authors and their publishers.
Many people know this. The Open Access movement has provided a practical way forwards and has moved way beyond simply portraying an idealist view of the world to demonstrating it. But why isn’t Open Science our reality right now?
The ScienceOpen answer: we need more activists!
We need your help: Apply now to become a ScienceOpen Activist:
- You know best what needs to be done: tell us about Open Science discussions at your institution.
- Give us your ideas on how to improve ScienceOpen: be the first to test implemented features on ScienceOpen
- Join a community of doers: through frequent Webinars and an Activist camp in Berlin in December you will get to know like-minded people
- We will give you the right tools: activists receive items such as stickers and some ScienceOPENers (inspired by this viral video!)
- Create a bigger network: ScienceOpen has been around for over a year, so join the platform and get to know the network
Regardless of whether you are an early career researcher or a senior scientist, have a background in natural sciences or study languages, work as a librarian or for a funding agency, you can apply here. Please also share why you are enthusiastic about Open Science.
Let’s take it to the next level. And make change happen.
Viva La Revolucion!
Originally posted at http://blog.scienceopen.com/2015/10/this-oa-week-become-a-scienceopen-activist/
As you may be aware that the University Grants Commission (UGC) has set up a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.S. Chauhan, Member, UGC and former Director, ICGEB (New Delhi) to prepare the list of journals in which authors should be publishing in-order to gain score for Academic Performance Indicators (API) system. It is reported that this attempt is being made to address the sub-standard publishing by the authors from colleges/universities. It is also mentioned in the news that they may use give weight-age to the journal’s Impact Factor. (Source: The Hindu)
On the other hand earlier in December 2012, The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) an initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) had put forth a recommendation that “the need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations” and had asked the individuals and organizations to sign the DORA declaration.
This call was taken by the DBT/DST and may subscribing to the DORA had mentioned in their Open Access policy that they may not consider Impact Factors in career assessments, promotions or appointments (of individuals in research and academics),
It is proposed that as the DOAJ is improving in terms of quality and services, shall we approach UGC and request it to consider giving weight-age to the DOAJ Indexed Journals while recommending the List of Journals and giving points for publishing in DOAJ Indexed Journals?
If you agree that Open Access should be given weight-age in API Score and Impact Factors should not be used for assessment/appointments/promotions, then please send an email to Dr. V.S. Chauhan <virander[at]icgeb[dot]res[dot]in>