Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future

Author: Martin Paul Eve

Abstract: If you work in a university, you are almost certain to have heard the term ‘open access’ in the past couple of years. You may also have heard either that it is the utopian answer to all the problems of research dissemination or perhaps that it marks the beginning of an apocalyptic new era of ‘pay-to-say’ publishing. In this book, Martin Paul Eve sets out the histories, contexts and controversies for open access, specifically in the humanities. Broaching practical elements alongside economic histories, open licensing, monographs and funder policies, this book is a must-read for both those new to ideas about open-access scholarly communications and those with an already keen interest in the latest developments for the humanities. This title is also available as Open Access via Cambridge Books Online.

Citation: Eve, Martin P., 2014. “Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future”. Humanities Commons. DOI: 10.17613/M68W2B.

View

Source: Humanities Commons

A journal is a club: a new economic model for scholarly publishing

Authors: John Hartley, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Jason Potts, Ellie Rennie

Abstract: A new economic model for the analysis of scholarly publishing – journal publishing in particular – is proposed that draws on club theory. The standard approach builds on market failure in the private production (by research scholars) of a public good (new scholarly knowledge). In this model, publishing is communication, as the dissemination of information. But a club model views publishing differently: namely as group formation, where members form groups in order to confer externalities on each other, subject to congestion. A journal is a selfconstituted group, endeavouring to create new knowledge. In this sense, a journal is a club. The knowledge club model of a journal seeks to balance the positive externalities of a shared resource (readers, citations, referees) against the negative externalities of crowding (decreased prospect of publishing in that journal). A new economic model of a journal as a knowledge club is elaborated. We suggest some consequences for the management of journals and financial models that might be developed to support them.

Citation: John Hartley, Lucy Montgomery, Cameron Neylon, Jason Potts, Ellie Rennie. . “A journal is a club: a new economic model for scholarly publishing”, Humanities Commons. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6V52C

View

Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case

Authors: Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Eglen, Domenico Fiormonte, Laurent Gatto, Alex Gil, Ricardo Hartley, Stuart Lawson, Corina Logan, Erin McKiernan, Ernesto Miranda-Trigueros, Ross Mounce, Alejandro Posada, Ernesto Priego, Natalia Pérez, Adela Ramos, Nuria Rodríguez-Ortega

 

Abstract: On February 1, 2015, the global information and analytics corporation Elsevier and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) established the agreement UNAM-Elsevier contract DGAJ-DPI-39-081114- 241, which saw the transfer from UNAM to Elsevier for the “production and hosting, advertising and support” of 44 Mexican open access academic journals published by UNAM. This article documents said contract and describes a Freedom of Information Request enquiring the total cost of the contract and its corresponding response. It also shares a series of considerations that, based on this case, can be helpful to other institutions that may face similar circumstances in the future. We conclude scholarly publishing and academic self-determination are interdependent and a crucial point of future debate for the future of University presses and Open Access worldwide.

 

Citation: Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Eglen, Domenico Fiormonte, Laurent Gatto, Alex Gil, Ricardo Hartley, Stuart Lawson, Corina Logan, Erin McKiernan, Ernesto Miranda-Trigueros, Ross Mounce, Alejandro Posada, Ernesto Priego, Natalia Pérez, Adela Ramos, Nuria Rodríguez-Ortega. “Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case.” Humanities Commons. http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6ZN6N

 

View

 

Source: Scholarly Publishing, Freedom of Information and Academic Self-Determination: The UNAM-Elsevier Case

Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals

Authors: Joseph D. Olivarez, Stephen Bales, Laura Sare, Wyoma vanDuinkerken

 

Abstract: Jeffrey Beall’s blog listing of potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as his Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access (OA) Publishers are often looked at as tools to help researchers avoid publishing in predatory journals. While these Criteria has brought a greater awareness of OA predatory journals, these tools alone should not be used as the only source in determining the quality of a scholarly journal. Employing a three-person independent judgment making panel, this study demonstrates the subjective nature of Beall’s Criteria by applying his Criteria to both OA and non-OA Library and Information Science journals (LIS), to demonstrate that traditional peer-reviewed journals could be considered predatory. Many of these LIS journals are considered as top-tier publications in the field and used when evaluating researcher’s publication history for promotion and tenure.

 
Citation: Olivarez, Joseph D., Stephen Bales, Laura Sare, and Wyoma vanDuinkerken. “Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals.” College and Research Libraries 79, no. 1 (2018): 52-67. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52.
 

View

 

Source: Format Aside: Applying Beall’s Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals

Dissertation to Book? A Snapshot of Dissertations Published As Books in 2014 and 2105, Available in Open Access Institutional Repositories

Authors: Anna Marie Johnson, Tyler Goldberg, Robert Detmering

Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Graduate students sometimes express consternation about whether the presence of their dissertation in an open access institutional repository (IR) will harm their chances of being able to publish the manuscript as a book. Several studies have addressed the question from different perspectives, but the avenue of examining what had actually been published had not been explored.
METHODS: This study examines books published in 2014 and 2015 that were listed as dissertations in one large book vendor database. A list of books was downloaded and searched in both ProQuest’s Dissertations & Theses Global database and Google to identify a matching dissertation.
RESULTS: Only a small percentage of books published as dissertations were found in ProQuest and then subsequently in IRs. The number of libraries holding book titles with corresponding dissertations in IRs dropped between 2014 and 2015. The lists of publishers who published dissertations as books was very similar between 2014 and 2015 data and included large, commercial publishers.
DISCUSSION: Students should be aware that only a small percentage of the total number of dissertations produced in a year are subsequently published as books, that the time between dissertation and book publication is substantial, and that some subject areas are more likely to be published than others.
CONCLUSION: These findings provide nuance to the discussions of dissertations in open access repositories and a starting point to monitor trends in this area. They should also provide librarians who are providing supplementary guidance to graduate students with information about the publishing landscape.

SourceJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Citation: Johnson, A.M., Goldberg, T. & Detmering, R., (2017). “Dissertation to Book? A Snapshot of Dissertations Published As Books in 2014 and 2105, Available in Open Access Institutional Repositories”. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2177

View

A landscape study on open access and monographs: Policies, funding and publishing in eight European countries

Author: Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter, and Niels Stern

Abstract: Knowledge Exchange is continously active in promoting Open Access by bringing together Open Access experts from all six KE-countries. This study was initiated by Knowledge Exchange and financed by Knowledge ExchangeFWFCRIStin and Couperin, and together with the skilled expertise of Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter and Niels Stern, we can now publish the biggest landscape study on the conditions and potentials for Open Access books yet.

The field of OA monographs is still in its early evolution and therefore 73 in-depth conversations were conducted to understand the different developments among three stakeholder groups: Publishers, funders and libraries. The importance of author attitudes, scholarly reward and incentive systems is also raised throughout the study by numerous interviewees.

Our study shows that although the main OA policies do not include monographs, conversations about OA and monographs are surfacing and are expected to be accelerating over the next few years.

The general explanation for monographs not being included in policies is the global focus on journal publishing and the perception that monographs are more complex to deal with than journals. Some also point to a lack of demand yet from authors.

In general, OA book publishers will comply with gold OA policies from funders and institutions. This is not the case for green OA. It appears that the current self archiving policies from publishers for books are largely restricted to book chapters.

The report also points towards the fact that funding schemes for books are lagging behind schemes for articles and their availability to fund the publishing process is somewhat ad hoc across the countries we’ve surveyed. Nevertheless the authors are ‘cautiously optimistic’ about the prospects for OA and monographs.

The report creates an overview of both the OA monographs policies, funding streams and publishing models for all eight countries for the first time. This is used to point towards areas of future efforts.

Citation: Eelco Ferwerda, Frances Pinter, and Niels Stern. (2017). A landscape study on open access and monographs: Policies, funding and publishing in eight European countries.  Knowledge Exchange. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.815932.

View

A genealogy of open access: negotiations between openness and access to research

Author: Samuel Moore

Abstract: Open access (OA) is a contested term with a complicated history and a variety of understandings. This rich history is routinely ignored by institutional, funder and governmental policies that instead enclose the concept and promote narrow approaches to OA. This article presents a genealogy of the term open access, focusing on the separate histories that emphasise openness and reusability on the one hand, as borrowed from the open-source software and free culture movements, and accessibility on the other hand, as represented by proponents of institutional and subject repositories. This genealogy is further complicated by the publishing cultures that have evolved within individual communities of practice: publishing means different things to different communities and individual approaches to OA are representative of this fact. From analysing its historical underpinnings and subsequent development, I argue that OA is best conceived as a boundary object, a term coined by Star and Griesemer (1989) to describe concepts with a shared, flexible definition between communities of practice but a more community-specific definition within them. Boundary objects permit working relationships between communities while allowing local use and development of the concept. This means that OA is less suitable as a policy object, because boundary objects lose their use-value when ‘enclosed’ at a general level, but should instead be treated as a community-led, grassroots endeavour.

Citation: Moore, Samuel (2017). A genealogy of open access: negotiations between openness and access to research. Humanities Commons. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6NF75

View

Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices

Editors:

Abstract: Twenty-one years ago, the term ‘electronic publishing’ promised all manner of potential that the Web and network technologies could bring to scholarly communication, scientific research and technical innovation. Over the last two decades, tremendous developments have indeed taken place across all of these domains. One of the most important of these has been Open Science; perhaps the most widely discussed topic in research communications today.

This book presents the proceedings of Elpub 2017, the 21st edition of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing, held in Limassol, Cyprus, in June 2017. Continuing the tradition of bringing together academics, publishers, lecturers, librarians, developers, entrepreneurs, users and all other stakeholders interested in the issues surrounding electronic publishing, this edition of the conference focuses on Open Science, and the 27 research and practitioner papers and 1 poster included here reflect the results and ideas of researchers and practitioners with diverse backgrounds from all around the world with regard to this important subject.

Intended to generate discussion and debate on the potential and limitations of openness, the book addresses the current challenges and opportunities in the ecosystem of Open Science, and explores how to move forward in developing an inclusive system that will work for a much broader range of participants. It will be of interest to all those concerned with electronic publishing, and Open Science in particular.

Citation: Chan L & Loizides F. (2017). Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing. IOS Press Ebooks. ISBN 978-1-61499-769-6 (online)

View

Opening Up Communication: Assessing Open Access Practices in the Communication Studies Discipline

Author: Teresa Auch Schultz

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Open access (OA) citation effect studies have looked at a number of disciplines but not yet the field of communication studies. This study researched how communication studies fare with the open access citation effect, as well as whether researchers follow their journal deposit policies. METHOD The study tracked 920 articles published in 2011 and 2012 from 10 journals and then searched for citations and an OA version using the program Publish or Perish. Deposit policies of each of the journals were gathered from SHERPA/RoMEO and used to evaluate OA versions. RESULTS From the sample, 42 percent had OA versions available. Of those OA articles, 363 appeared to violate publisher deposit policies by depositing the version of record, but the study failed to identify post-print versions for 87 percent of the total sample for the journals that allowed it. All articles with an OA version had a median of 17 citations, compared to only nine citations for non-OA articles. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION The citation averages, which are statistically significant, show a positive correlation between OA and the number of citations. The study also shows communication studies researchers are taking part in open access but perhaps without the full understanding of their publisher’s policies.

Citation: Schultz, T.A., (2017). Opening Up Communication: Assessing Open Access Practices in the Communication Studies Discipline. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 5(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2131

View

Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?

Authors: Martin Paul Eve and Ernesto Priego

Abstract: ‘Predatory publishing’ refers to conditions under which gold open access academ-ic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scien-tific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed.

Citation: Eve, M.P., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?. TripleC,  15(2), 755-770 . http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/867/1041

View