Group items tagged

"In recent years, publishers, librarians and academics have seized the opportunities offered by the electronic publication of scholarly journals. Despite the popularity of e-journals, however, content continues to be published, acquired and used in physical printed form. In the UK, we are still some way from a wholly electronic journal environment. This study is prompted by a concern from publishers and librarians that the retention of both printed and e-journal formats adds unnecessary costs throughout the supply chain from publisher to library to user. In view of the many advantages of electronic journals, this report sets out to understand the barriers to a move to e-only provision of scholarly journals in the UK, and to investigate what various players within the scholarly communications system could do in order to encourage such a move."

Library Resources & Technical Services 52, no. 1 (2008): Includes "Converting and Preserving the Scholarly Record: An Overview," "Mass Digitization: Implications for Preserving the Scholarly Record," and other articles.

Some now predict that PLoS ONE's model will become the dominant one for scholarly journals. OA advocate Cameron Neylon, for instance, predicted that in future "most scholarly publishing will be in publication venues that place no value on a subjective assessment of 'importance'

"Much turmoil in the scholarly-communication ecosystem appears to revolve around simple ownership of intellectual property. Unpacking that notion, however, produces a fascinating tangle of stakeholders, desires, products and struggles. Some products of the research process, especially novel ones, are difficult to fit into legal concepts of ownership. As collaborative research burgeons, traditional ownership and authorship criteria are stretched to their limits and beyond, with many contributors still feeling short of due credit. The desire for access and impact brings institutions and grant funders into the formerly exclusive relationship between authors and publishers. Librarians, stripped of first-sale rights by electronic licensing, wonder about both access and long-term preservation. Emerging solutions to many of these difficulties threaten to cut publishers out of the picture altogether, perhaps a welcome change to those stakeholders who find publishers' behavior to block progress."

Presentations from the ALCTS Scholarly Communications Group in January 2011 on the topic of the "author pays" model in open access journal publishing

A preprint of an article submitted for publication urging changes to the scholarly journal publishing system. Much of the article reviews previous attempts at change: overlay journals (topical collections of disparate articles from various journals) have not seen widespread adoption; modified open access platforms such as PLOsONE seem to charge too much for what they are; postpublication services such as F1000. The authors propose a model to give authors of articles maximum control of their work and service providers "freedom to innovate"

The 2011 SPARC-ACRL form, "Marketplace: Open Access and the changing state of scholarly publishing," painted a picture of the rapidly changing-and maturing-open-access publishing sphere, illustrated the growing range of options and approaches that are emerging, and offered help to the library community to make sense of what it all means.

A new publishing platform to showcase the best of that online work. It's called PressForward. And its creators-the same people who developed the academic-research platforms Zotero and Omeka-hope to take advantage of the interactive Web but preserve elements of scholarly review.

paper examines costs and benefits of alternative scholarly publishing strategies in the UK, with five responding articles in the same journals issue

Discusses the prospects and limitations of digitial scholarship, particularly the for-profit nature of scholarly publishing and faculty resistance to new models

Describes a tool that streamlines parts of the scholarly publishing process, conceived by researchers at Lund University, to make articles more easily accessible on institutional repository

"We write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard Library. Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive"

This article describes a study, involving a set of articles published in scholarly journals by faculty members of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) that have also been deposited in the HKUST Institutional Repository. The study was

We used the databases of ISI and Ulrich's as our primary sources and estimate that the total number of articles published in 2006 by 23 750 journals was approximately 1 350 000.\nUsing this number as denominator it was also possible to estimate the number of articles which are openly available on the web in primary OA journals (gold OA). This share turned out to be 4.6 % for the year 2006. In addition at least a further 3.5 % was available after an embargo period of usually one year, bringing the total share of gold OA to 8.1%\nUsing a random sample of articles, we also tried to estimate the proportion of the articles published which are available as copies deposited in e-print repositories or homepages (green OA). Based on the article title a web search engine was used to search for a freely downloadable full-text version. For 11.3 % a usable copy was found. Combining these two figures we estimate that 19.4 % of the total yearly output can be accessed freely.

Isn't the web disruptive to sci publishing by nature?

Open Science Summit, which took place in July at Berkeley, is a good example of how "digital scholarship", "e-science" and "open science" and "scholarly communications" are terms from the same vocabulary we are creating to talk about the changes in academia, knowledge transfer, innovation, etc.

Fifth Bloomsbury Conference on E-Publishing and E-Publications, June 30-July 1, 2011

Michael Kurtz from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has been publishing on the research metrics subject

Considers NY Times recent decision to make articles pay-per-view and contrasts with more open developments in scholarly publishing

"The term "altmetrics" is short for "alternative metrics." These are a range of nontraditional metrics that can be used to assess the impact that scholars have on research in their areas of study. They can include the number of article downloads, citation of research in online news/social media sources, Mendeley bookmarks (a web-based system for sharing and extracting information from PDFs and other electronic documents), and nontraditional forms of scholarship. "