Category: Open Access

Blurring Lines — Considering the Future of Discovery, Access and Business Models in Support of Virtual Reality Content for Scholarly Research and Classroom Learning:  What Can We Learn from the Rise of OER and OA?  – Against The Grain

From David Parker in Against the Grain:in:

Preview:

The open educational resources (OER) movement began in the years between 1999 and 2002, during which time Rice launched its precursor to OpenStax and UNESCO’S 2002 forum on open courseware coined the term OER.; Since these early days the pace of growth in adoption of OER, while unsatisfying to some activists, has been, in my view, phenomenal. Studies, such as Opening the Textbook by Julia E. Seaman and Jeff Seaman from the Babson Survey Research Group, reported in 2017 that the OER adoption rate for large enrollment courses was 16.5%.  And when I attended OpenEd 18 this past fall in Niagara Falls, New York, I was astounded by the number of attendees and, most specifically, by the numbers of librarians in formal or informal support roles for OER at their institutions.

Continue reading here:

Source: v31 #3 Blurring Lines — Considering the Future of Discovery, Access and Business Models in Support of Virtual Reality Content for Scholarly Research and Classroom Learning:  What Can We Learn from the Rise of OER and OA?  – Against The Grain

OhioLINK Wiley Open Access FAQ | OhioLINK

From OhioLINK:

Preview:

OhioLINK and Wiley are very pleased to pilot a consortial-level open access initiative. Because of the nature of our consortium and the active engagement of our membership in decision making, some details of the exact nature of decision-making, allocation of central funding, and policies about exactly what to fund (gold OA, hybrid, etc.) will emerge over the next few months. For now, we believe it’s important to share all information currently available with our membership. We’ve done our best to both answer questions and anticipate those yet to be posed.

Continue reading here:
Source: OhioLINK Wiley Open Access FAQ | OhioLINK

The future of scholarly books is open (access) | Group | Springer Nature

From Springer Nature:

Preview:

The majority of book authors support the idea that all future scholarly books should be open access (OA). This is one of the key findings of a new white paper presented by Springer Nature at the OAI-11 conference at CERN this week. Based on the responses of 2,542 book authors who were surveyed by Springer Nature in February and March 2019, the white paper provides a global view of book authors’ attitudes towards OA. The survey looks at researchers’ motivations for publishing a book, and analyses the parameters and key drivers which influence academics to publish OA or not. The white paper also identifies major obstacles to OA publication which book authors still face: from a lack of awareness of OA publishing options and low funding, to concerns about how OA books are perceived. The white paper is freely available for download.

Continue reading here:

2019 ACRL Environmental Scan Released – ACRL Insider

From Mary Jane Petrowski in ACRL Insider:

Preview:

Every two years, the ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee releases an environmental scan of higher education, including developments with the potential for continuing impact on academic libraries. The 2019 Environmental Scan (PDF) provides a broad review of the current higher education landscape, with special focus on the state of academic and research libraries.

Continue reading here:

Source: 2019 ACRL Environmental Scan Released – ACRL Insider

Preparing for Plan S: Answers to the top 10 journal publisher FAQs we’ve heard based on what is known now | Scholastica

From the Scholastica blog:

Preview:

For publishers, ready or not, Plan S is coming (which is fitting given that the S really stands for “shock,” as well as “science,” “speed,” and “solution”). If you still have questions about what Plan S is exactly and how it will affect the journals you publish or work with, you’re not alone. Here at Scholastica, we’ve been getting a lot of questions from our journal users about the overall aims of Plan S and the technical specifications. We decided to compile this FAQ blog post to provide answers to some of the most common questions we’ve heard based on the information available right now.

Continue reading here:
Source: Preparing for Plan S: Answers to the top 10 journal publisher FAQs we’ve heard based on what is known now

Open-Access Monographs: New Tools, More Access | EDUCAUSE

From Monica McCormick in Educause Review:

Preview:

We are in an era of significant change in the United States and Canada for publishing open-access (OA) scholarly monographs. Since most monographs are published by university presses, and most copies are purchased by research libraries, this article focuses on that community. The bulk of OA titles are older or out-of-print works, many funded by the Mellon/NEH Humanities Open Book (HOB) program, which enabled free access to backlist scholarly works. Under that program, about 2,500 books from 28 publishers are now OA. Meanwhile, new OA-only book publishers are, together with traditional scholarly presses and libraries, exploring innovative business models and technologies.

Continue reading here:

Source: Open-Access Monographs: New Tools, More Access | EDUCAUSE

Guest Post: Evaluating Open Access in a Consortial Context – The Scholarly Kitchen

From Gwen Evans in The Scholarly Kitchen:

Preview:

As several recent announcements and initiatives have shown, Open Access (OA) negotiations between libraries and publishers are complex, in a constant state of flux, and provide little predictability — and OA models and negotiations within library consortia contain complexities all their own. One of the key questions library consortia have to ask themselves is, Are you a Publish or a Read library consortium, or somewhere in between? As Lisa Hinchliffe’s recent primer on transformative agreements notes, the implications of Publish and Read versus Read and Publish are different for different consortia.

Continue reading here:

Source: Guest Post: Evaluating Open Access in a Consortial Context – The Scholarly Kitchen

Investing in Open Scholarly Infrastructure: a Community Opportunity – SPARC

From SPARC:

Preview:

As an organization committed to making “open” the default in research and education, we at SPARC recognize that scholarship is at its best when communities of researchers and scholars are fully empowered to share, discover, and collaborate. Currently, however, the reality is that the needs of the community are not being well-served by the existing scholarly communication infrastructure, which is dominated by vendors whose missions and values often run counter to those of the community. When the business models of these vendors favor lock-in, consolidation, and monopoly, the result is a market where opportunity for healthy competition is limited, and opportunities for sharing are limited.

Continue reading here:

Source: Investing in Open Scholarly Infrastructure: a Community Opportunity – SPARC

Are Mirror Journals Just Hybrid Open Access Journals In Disguise Or Are They A Viable Route To The Open Access Future? | A Way of Happening

From Ryan Regier in A Way of Happening: A Research Library Blog:

Preview:

“Developments in the open access world seem to be moving at a lightning pace lately. Plan S has added a realism and urgency to OA discussions. Never to be behind on any ‘scholcomm’ development, Elsevier has started a pilot program of launching what they are calling ‘Mirror Journals’.  Open Access (OA) ‘copies’ of existing peer reviewed journals. Journals that are “fully gold open access but share the same editorial board, aims and scope and peer review policies as their existing “parent” journals – and the same level of visibility and discoverability.”

Continue reading here:

Source: Are Mirror Journals Just Hybrid Open Access Journals In Disguise Or Are They A Viable Route To The Open Access Future? | A Way of Happening

Researcher to Reader (R2R) Debate: Is Sci-Hub Good or Bad for Scholarly Communication? – The Scholarly Kitchen

From Rick Anderson in The Scholarly Kitchen:

Preview:

“One plenary session of the 2019 Researcher to Reader (R2R) Conference was a debate on the proposition “Resolved: Sci-Hub is doing more good than harm to scholarly communication.” Arguing in favor of the resolution was Daniel Himmelstein, a postdoctoral fellow in genomics at the University of Pennsylvania. Arguing against it was Justin Spence, partner and co-founder of PSI Ltd., and the IP Registry.”

Continue reading here:

Source: Researcher to Reader (R2R) Debate: Is Sci-Hub Good or Bad for Scholarly Communication? – The Scholarly Kitchen