Skip to main content

Home/ Resources for Gold Open Access for Learned Societies/ Group items tagged MayDate

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Seb Schmoller

RCUK fails to end 'green' embargo confusion - 1 views

  •  
    Paul Jump writes in the 14 March THE about the continuing confusion as to the meaning RCUK's revised open-access guidance, indicating that the publishers remain unhappy. Stevan Harnad, Charles Oppenheim, and Mike Taylor are three of the four commenters.
Seb Schmoller

RCUK publishes revised guidance on Open Access - 0 views

  •  
    http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicyandRevisedguidance.pdf (to which this media release links) is a revised version of the RCUK guidance on Open Access, published on 6 March and open for comments till 20 March. RCUK will then revise the guidance further to take account of comments received.
Seb Schmoller

Can repositories solve the access problem? - 0 views

  •  
    Mike Taylor writes sceptically about Green OA highlighting practical risks of relying on institutional repositories, and pointing to four "in principal" reasons for scepticism: the "two class" system; the expense of continuing subscriptions; embargoes; and non-open licences.
Seb Schmoller

28 February House of Lords debate on RCUK and Open Access - 0 views

  •  
    Here is the full transcript of an unprecedentedly speedily convened 28 February 2014 debate on the report of the House of Lords S&T Committee's Inquiry, with several of the members of the committee speaking. A key exchange takes place towards the end when Lord Krebs questions the Government Minister on what he sees as a key issue: Lord Krebs "My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful response. However, will he confirm that RCUK will revise its policy and guidance statement to reflect what he has just said-namely that the research councils will follow the decision tree which has been adopted by BIS and was produced originally by the Publishers Association? The Minister said that that was the Government's position but I want to be clear that RCUK is following that and is revising its guidelines and policy statement." Lord Popat (Conservative - responding on behalf of the Government) "I thank the noble Lord for that question. To the best of the Government's knowledge, RCUK has accepted the decision tree. However, I will write to the noble Lord once we have the paperwork on the implementation, which I believe will be by the end of this month." [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/122/12206.htm#a6 points to the diagram mentioned]
Seb Schmoller

Royal Society Meeting on Open Access in the UK: What Willetts Wants - 0 views

  •  
    Interesting blog post by Stephen Curry from the 25/2/2013 Royal Society's conference "Open access in the UK and what it means for scientific research". Excerpt (but the post has a broader focus than this): " I would like to hear more from advocates of a transition based only on green OA mandates on exactly how the ultimate switch to gold OA can be made from the melee of subscription cancellations that they reckon will be the inevitable consequence of the success of their approach, particularly since green OA depends on compliance from the companies and learned societies that will suffer short-term financial losses. The transition problem, whatever the route plotted through it, remains a tough nut to crack. No-one I spoke to at Monday's meeting had a clear idea of how it would occur. We are on an experimental journey feeling our way more or less blindly - a source of occasional but considerable frustration. "
Seb Schmoller

Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014. "Intention to consult" letter from HE... - 0 views

  •  
    HEFCE seeks early input to help shape a consultation that it will be undertaking later in 2013. Six questions posed, relating mainly to the extent to which OA is mandated by HEFCE for outputs that are included in the next REF (in, say, 2020). Deadline for responses: 25 March 2013.
Seb Schmoller

The progressive erosion of the RCUK open access policy - 0 views

  •  
    Blog post by Mike Taylor charting what he sees as a gradual weakening of the RCUK OA policy since RCUK published its March 2012 draft. He concludes: "Can anyone doubt that the nobbling of a truly progressive policy was the result of lobbying by a truly regressive publishing industry? It's been a tragedy to watch this policy erode away from something dramatic to almost nothing. Once more, it's publishers versus everyone else. Again, I have to ask this very simple question: why do we tolerate the obvious conflict of interest in allowing publishers to have any say at all in deciding how our government spends public money on publication services?"
Seb Schmoller

Why should we continue to pay typesetters/publishers lots of money to process (and even... - 1 views

  •  
    Blog post by Peter Murray Rust examining the extent to which resetting and reformatting by publishers adds or removes value.
Seb Schmoller

House of Lords - The implementation of open access - Science and Technology Committee - 0 views

  •  
    Conclusions: * RCUK must clarify its policy guidance to reflect its incremental approach to compliance in the initial five-year implementation phase of its open access policy; * RCUK must monitor the effects of its open access policy and its Autumn 2014 review of the policy should consider 6 key points relating to embargo periods, the case for gold; APCs and their impact; impact on Q of peer review; impact on R collaboration; impact on learned societies. * The Government should conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the policy, in view of their stated preference for gold open access; and * The Government should review the effectiveness of RCUK's consultation regarding this significant change in policy. (RCUK holding response: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/news/2013news/Pages/130222.aspx indicates that RCUK will shortly be issuing revised guidance on its policy.)
Seb Schmoller

Scholars must get used to openness, too - article by Mary Dejevsky in the Independent N... - 0 views

  •  
    Somewhat ill informed attack on "the historians" asserting that the latter's hostility to Finch involved fear of "casting pearls before proles", and that it is the "cost of checking and editing" that has stopped the Internet bringing down the costs of scholarly publishing. [Some of the comments on the piece are interesting.]
Seb Schmoller

Peter Suber: Major new bill mandating open access introduced in Congress - 0 views

  •  
    Peter Suber's overview of the FASTR is clear and to the point. One key clause: "The NIH budget alone is more than six times larger than the budgets of all seven of the UK research councils put together. Hence, it's significant that FASTR disregards or repudiates the gold-oriented RCUK/Finch policy in the UK, and sticks to the FRPAA model of a pure green mandate. For some of the reasons why I think OA mandates should be green and not gold, or green first, see my critique of the RCUK/Finch policy from September 2012. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9723075"
Seb Schmoller

The Bipartisan Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) - 0 views

  •  
    "Now before both the House of Representatives and the Senate, FASTR would require those agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts stemming from such funding no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The bill gives individual agencies flexibility in choosing the location of the digital repository to house this content, as long as the repositories meet conditions for public accessibility and productive reuse of digital articles, and have provisions for interoperability and long-term archiving. The bill specifically covers unclassified research funded by agencies including: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. FASTR reflects the growing trend among funding agencies - and college and university campuses - to leverage their investment in the conduct of research by maximizing the dissemination of results. It follows the successful path forged by the NIH's Public Access Policy, as well as the growing trend in adoption of similar policies by international funders such as the Research Councils United Kingdom (RCUK), private funders such as the Wellcome Trust, dozens of U.S. Institutions, such as Harvard, MIT, and the University of Kansas."
Seb Schmoller

Times Higher Education - Fools' gold? - 0 views

  •  
    Long feature by Paul Jump (with surprisingly few comments) summarising the UK situation from the standpoint of a well-briefed (and possibly thoroughly lobbied) journalist. Has an OA timeline from 2002, and a section about the Open Library of the Humanities.
Seb Schmoller

Thoughts on Mendeley and Elsevier - 1 views

  •  
    Interesting post on the LSE "Impact of Social Sciences" blog by Glasgow University's Roderic D. M. Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D.M._Page mainly about how Elsevier might develop Mendeley. Four options put forward:Mendeley becomes iTunes for papers; Mendeley becomes the de facto measure of research impact; Mendeley becomes an authoring tool; Mendeley becomes the focus of post-publicaton peer review.
Seb Schmoller

RLUK response to the House of Lord Science and Technology Committee Inquiry on Open Access - 0 views

  •  
    RLUK's response is forcefully supportive of the current policy, and firmly dismissive of HSS objections to short embargo periods. But does it sidestep the longer term concerns of learned societies?
Seb Schmoller

Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing : Nature News and Comment - 0 views

  •  
    Piece in Nature about the "Episciences Project" which, with money from the French Government aims to launch a series of free open-access journals that will host their peer-reviewed articles on the preprint server arXiv. See also Tim Gowers on the subject: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/why-ive-also-joined-the-good-guys/
Seb Schmoller

Submission by Ross Mounce to the House of Lords inquiry - 0 views

  •  
    Ross Mounce is a final year PhD Student at the University of Bath & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow. His well-linked response to the Inquiry has a pragmatic and sensible feel, though he down-plays the impact on learned societies of loss of income, and wrongly reduces their outreach work to "perks".
Seb Schmoller

If the sciences can do it… PLOHSS: A PLOS-style model for the humanities and ... - 0 views

  •  
    But if the sciences can do it, why not also the humanities and social sciences? Long, enthusiastic but basically exhortatory piece by Gary F Daught promoting "bright and energetic young scholar" Martin Eve's idea.
Seb Schmoller

AERA's Felice Levine's talk at the November 2012 AcSS conference - 1 views

  •  
    Useful, broad, measured perspective from Felice Levine with a focus on how the OA position might develop in the US "The best current intelligence for where we are in the US is that the US Federal Government is not likely to issue a narrowly tailored policy on OA which would constrain or define business models. It is clear about the value of OA but it has not mandated particular models of OA. Will there be arrogance from US journals towards non-US scholars and their need for OA? The current model (and the AERA parallels most learned societies) provides toll-free links to authors' webpages and institutional archives of publications and online-first publication. If this does not satisfy the requirements, then the author-fee option is still there."
Seb Schmoller

MOOCs Teach OA a Lesson - 0 views

  •  
    A consideration by Eric van de Velde of why MOOCs have caught the eye and the imagination of HE leaders in a way that OA never did. Poses three questions: 1. Why do academic leaders not make the same calculation with respect to OA? 2. Why do they fear the potential of OA-caused disruption? 3. Why do they embrace the potential of MOOCs-caused disruption? Puts forward four not entirely convincing explanatory conjectures: 1. MOOCs are in their infancy, providing cover for their pedagogic inadequacy, and allowing for experimentation. 2. MOOCs provide big first mover advantages. (Hasn't PLOS had FMA?). 3. In contrast with OA MOOCs put control in the hands of teachers (!). 4. OA is not sufficiently disruptive (PeerJ, however, is).
1 - 20 of 39 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page