OPERAS resources

"In this article two scholars engage in a conversation about open access and open science in research communication with a specific focus on the Humanities.  The two scholars have very different points of departure. Whereas Jean-Claude Guedón has been a professor of Literature in North-America for many years and part of the open access movements since its beginning, Thomas Wiben Jensen is in the early part of his carreer and fairly new to the concept of open access.  The conversation begins with a focus on the Danish national strategy for open access and this strategy's consquenses for the journal NyS where Thomas Wiben is part of the editorial board. However, the conversation brings the reader on an unexpected journey through the history of science communication and through alternative ways of understanding knowledge production as frozen moments or crystals in the Great Conversation of science. It is the hope of the editor and the contributors that the conversation can lead to a debate about innovative ways of communicating and distributing scientific results. "

"DARIAH Summer School 11th June 2015 Villa Vigoni Jean-Christophe Peyssard "

"Higher education is stuffed with overpaid administrators squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of lecturers and focusing on the 'profitable' areas of science, technology, engineering and maths. Are the humanities at risk of being wiped out?"

"Peer review is often thought of as ancient and unchanging, but it is neither - and it shouldn't be treated as a sacred cow, argues Aileen Fyfe"

"The Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management was set up in April 2014 to investigate the current and potential future roles that quantitative indicators can play in the assessment and management of research. Its report, 'The Metric Tide', was published in July 2015 and is available below. "

"Why aren't articles on arXiv -or any other open access repository- formally credited as publications? What is it exactly that separates open access repositories from publishers? The simple answer is that publications in journals come with an amorphous quality indicator associated with the journal's perceived prestige. Articles posted on a repository on the other hand, are considered to be "provided at the reader's own risk", as they are not accompanied by any measurable guarantee of their scientific merit. We think the time has come to change all that."

"64% of the journals added to DOAJ after March 2014 do not have article processing charges, while 36% have article processing charges. As of today, the total is 1,123 journals of which 720 do not have article processing charges (based on an ISSN count of journals with no charges supplied by DOAJ) and 403 have charges (from the DOAJ website / advanced search / journals / expand article processing charges). However, this does support the statement that two-thirds of fully open access journals do not have article processing charges."

"With Open Access and the Humanities, Martin Paul Eve offers a slender, but surprisingly thorough, volume engaging many of the major preoccupations of the open access movement in scholarly communication. In fact, the book's strongest virtue may be the clarity and economy with which Professor Eve gathers and presents the benefits, risks, and feasible means of adapting Humanities disciplines to open access licensing, distribution, and funding models. Much of this gathering and presenting can feel fairly familiar to anyone already immersed in the slightly more mature conversation associated with STEM publishing (many of the "contexts" and "controversies" to which the book's subtitle alludes). There really is much to review, however, and as a primer for the open-access curious humanist, Eve's review should come across as congenial, convenient, and in many cases even demystifying."

"COASP 2015 Preliminary Program Trippenhuis at The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam "

Open access for monographs and book chapters is a relatively new area of publishing, and there are many ways of approaching it. This document provides some guidance for publishers to consider when developing policies and processes for open access books.The guide was written by the Wellcome Trust, which extended its open access policy to include monographs and book chapters in October 2013. Section 4 of this guide sets out Trust policy, but otherwise the recommendations made here are intended as helpful suggestions for best practice rather than requirements.We recognise that implementation around publishing monographs and book chapters open access is in flux, and we invite publishers to email Cecy Marden at c.marden@wellcome.ac.uk with any suggestions for further guidance that would be useful to include in this document.

"Cette étude a pour objet d'évaluer le bien-fondé de la mise en œuvre d'un principe de libre accès aux recherches en sciences humaines et sociales (SHS) en France, à partir d'une étude de ses effets sur la consultation des articles. Il s'agit de savoir si une politique de libre accès améliore effectivement ou non la visibilité des recherches, et dans quelle mesure. L'étude apporte des éclairages indispensables à la prise de décision au sujet de la diffusion des résultats de la recherche et sur l'effet observé des restrictions d'accès sur l'accès des publics (chercheurs et grand public) à ces résultats. Les enjeux du débat sont le choix de la « barrière mobile », c'est-à-dire la durée après la publication pour la mise en libre accès par la revue elle-même, et la durée de « l'embargo », c'est-à-dire la durée minimale avant l'autorisation donnée par la revue à l'auto-archivage par le chercheur de ses articles. L'étude a consisté à quantifier l'impact de la durée de la barrière mobile sur l'audience de la revue et de la recherche. Les résultats obtenus indiquent que l'existence d'une barrière à la diffusion fait perdre de l'audience à la revue, et ce dès une durée d'un an. Dans la mesure où les coûts de marginaux de diffusion des articles sur les plateformes numériques sont très faibles, voire nuls, cette perte d'audience représente ce que l'on appelle une perte « de poids mort ». Nos résultats objectivent donc la mise en place d'une durée de barrière mobile relativement courte (moins d'un an) en comparaison aux durées évoquées dans le débat public pour les SHS (2 à 3 ans)."