Microsoft acquires GitHub

As The Verge reports Microsoft acquires GitHubMicrosoft acquires GitHub. According to The Verge GitHub was „last valued at $2 billion back in 2015, but it’s not clear exactly how much Microsoft has paid to acquire GitHub.“ The Verge also considers the purchase as a promotion of Microsoft’s open source strategy and suspects the acquisition could meet mistrust in the open source scene. The open-science community is also affected, as GitHub is also used to manage research software.

Graphic available in Public Domain from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/134157/cashier_currency_dollar_money_icon

De Gruyter launches Sciendo, a white label solution for scientific publishing services

The German science publisher De Gruyter launches a kind of white label solution for scientific publishing services, Sciendo. Here is some information from the publisher’s announcement (originally in German language):

„Sciendo offers customized publishing services, especially for scientific institutions and societies, university publishers, independent authors, and organizers of scientific congresses. Besides services for the publication of journals and books – also in Open Access – Sciendo offers self publishing for authors and comprehensive services for organizers of scientific congresses.“

 

Sweden cancels agreement with Elsevier

ElsevierWhile Finland entered into a nationwide consortium with the publishing house Elsevier, the neighbouring country Sweden did not take this step. After twenty years of business relationships with Elsevier, the Bibsam Consortium decided not to renew the agreement with the scientific publisher.  Bibsam wants to support the Swedish government’s requirement to publish all scientific output of the country in Open Access by 2026 – without embargoes.

As openaccess.se reports the Bibsam Consortium required:

„- Immediate open access to all articles published in Elsevier journals by researchers affiliated to participating organisations
– Reading access for participating organisations to all articles in Elsevier’s 1,900 journals
– A sustainable price model that enables a transition to open access“

As Elsevier has not offered a model that meets these demands the Bibsam Consortium will not renew the agreements with Elsevier, which end on 30 June.  According to openaccess.se Swedish researchers publish about 4 000 articles per year in Elsevier journals an in 2017 € 1,3 million was spent on article processing charges. Additionally € 12 million were spend on licensing fees for reading the Elsevier content.

Clarivate Analytics acquires Kopernio

Clarivate Analytics acquires KopernioClarivate Analytics, owner of the database Web of Science and services as publons, acquired Kopernio. Kopernio facilitates the search for Open Access documents. For pay-walled articles to which you have no access, Kopernio is looking for an alternative Open Access version. Unlike unpaywall, a similiar tool, using Kopernio requires registration. Research Information comments the acquisition as follows: „This deal will address a well-documented issue in the discovery and access of scientific and academic research, which stems from the circuitous, time-consuming and manual routes that researchers take to access the journal articles they need, even when their institutions and organisations have legitimate subscription access. This has resulted in the growth of social sharing networks and a hotly discussed dark web of crowdsourced journal articles.“

Indeed, integrating Kopernio into the Web of Science adds considerable value to this database – direct online access to unsubscribed publications. The Web of Science could now also become a tool for funding agencies to check the Open Access compliance of funded projects. In any case, Clarivate Analytics is expanding its portfolio of innovative services and cooperations. Something the former owner of the Web of Science, Thomson Scientific, failed to do.

By the way: Kopernio was founded by Jan Reichelt and Ben Kaube, Reichelt was a co-founder of Mendeley (an online reference management) and Kaube was co-founder of Newsflo (a tracking service for media mentions) – both acquired by Clarivate’s big rival Elsevier in 2013 (Mendeley) respectively 2015 (Newsflo).

Graphic available in Public Domain from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/134157/cashier_currency_dollar_money_icon

Soenke Zehle on „Cooperative Futures: Technologies of the Common in the Collaborative Economy“

Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open AccessThe anthology „Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open Access“ was  published on April 1, it can be ordered now, e.g. via Amazon.

Today I published (on behalf of the author) Soenke Zehle’s contribution to Open Divide online, Cooperative Futures: Technologies of the Common in the Collaborative Economy.

The abstract to his piece is: „The creation of ambient media architectures brings machinic multiplicities into existence whose autonomy cannot be folded back easily into a politics of representation. In and of itself, this is nothing new – the autonomy of pollution particles or radiation waves has challenged attempts to regulate the consequences of their actions for a long time, giving rise to multiple bodies of thought, policy, and strategy in political ecology, systems design, and complexity governance. The interest in new forms of cooperation is driven largely by similar concerns, searching for ways of collaboration that allow a much higher degree of individual and collective self-determination to pursue shared concerns. Current debates on cooperativism take seriously the role of peer-to-peer logics in the shift from shared use to shared ownership, the power of computational infrastructures to scale local efforts beyond the boundaries of micropolitical solutions, and the need to affirm broader genealogies of the technological condition. Cooperativism research outlines a large horizon for action and analysis, exploring economic, social, and political strategies for an economy of shared ownership and collective self-organization. These social technologies of the common design the scene for cooperation.“

The list of all articles in the anthology with links to texts available as Open Access publications can be found here.

Here is the bibliographic information on Open Divide:
Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open Access
Editors: Joachim Schöpfel and Ulrich Herb
Publisher: Litwin Books
ISBN: 978-1-63400-029-1

Zenodo Community „Open Access & Open Science Research“

Zenodo Community "Open Access & Open Science Research"Some time ago I set up the community „Open Access & Open Science Research“ on Zenodo, but failed to promote it. This collection should only contain documents, data or other objects that deal with Open Access and Open Science as a research topic, e. g. scientometric studies, monitoring studies or studies on the acceptance of Open Access and Open Science. It should not contain any text or data on research topics other than Open Access or Open Science even if the text, data or software was published Open Access. If this criterion should be fulfilled, I as a curator add the submissions to the community.

Like all other Zenodo communities, this community has its own OAI PMH interface, https://zenodo.org/oai2d?verb=ListRecords&set=user-osr&metadataPrefix=oai_dc.

Please feel free to submit items to the community as long as they meet the criterion mentioned above. You are very welcome to spread the information about the existence of the community or make suggestions for its improvement.

Copyright note: Icon available under MIT License from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/2561489/unlock_icon

 

„A Landscape Survey of #ActiveDMPs / Machine-actionable or ‘active’ Data Management Plans“ published

"A Landscape Survey of #ActiveDMPs / Machine-actionable or ‘active’ Data Management Plans" publishedA team of authors consisting of Sarah Jones, Tomasz Miksa, Daniel Mietchen, Stephanie Natasha Simons & Kathryn Unsworth published on Zenodo a preprint to be published in the conference proceedings of the 13th International Digital Curation Conference (IDCC) that takes place on 19–22 February 2018 in Barcelona. The paper focuses on machine-actionable or active Data Management Plans .

Jones, Sarah, Miksa, Tomasz, Mietchen, Daniel, Simms, Stephanie, Simons, Natasha, & Unsworth, Kathryn. (2018). A Landscape Survey of #ActiveDMPs (preprint). International Journal of Digital Curation (IJDC). DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1174283

Here’s also the abstract of the paper that is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license:

„Machine-actionable or ‘active’ Data Management Plans have gathered a great deal of interest over recent years with many groups worldwide discussing a vision of how DMPs can enable researchers to manage their data and connect them up with service providers for support. Discussions are focused on converting DMPs from a stick to a carrot. Researchers and other stakeholders must come to regard them as a benefit, something useful for doing their research, a manifest of their methods and outputs that can be used for reporting, evaluation and implementation rather than an annoying administrative burden.

This paper reviews the work underway by different groups to gather user requirements and trial solutions. It notes several international fora where discussions are taking place and lists DMP platforms in active development. We offer a summary of where things are going, who needs to be involved and how we can include them. We conclude with next steps for machine-actionable DMPs that focus on continuing efforts to connect interested parties, share ideas, experiment in multiple directions to test these concepts and turn machine-actionable DMPs into reality.“

Copyright note: Icon available under MIT License from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/2561489/unlock_icon

 

 

Open Access and Symbolic Gift Giving

Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open AccessThe anthology „Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access“ will be officially published on April 1, but can already be ordered now, e.g. via Amazon.

Therefore I published my contribution to Open Divide online today: Open Access and Symbolic Gift Giving.

The abstract to my piece is:  „Open access has changed. At the beginning of the millennium, it was portrayed in a romanticizing way and was embedded in a conceptual ensemble of participation, democratization, digital commons and equality. Nowadays, open access seems to be exclusive: to the extent that commercial players have discovered it as a business model and article fees have become a defining feature of gold open access, open access has increasingly transformed into a distinguishing feature and an exclusive element. Scientists are beginning to make the choice of a university or research institution as an employer based on whether or not they can afford to cover the article fees for publications in high-impact but high-priced journals. Surprisingly, this transformation of open access is not the subject of any noteworthy discussion in specialist or journalistic publications, but instead the ideals of the digital commons of knowledge still prevail in these venues. Even so open access is increasingly becoming an instrument that creates exclusivity, exclusion, distinction and prestige. These functions, however, are obscured by symbolic gift giving strategies and presented as altruistically staged, so that in the discourse of the open access community and in media reporting on open access, the both euphemistic and largely obsolete prosocial story-telling of open access dominates. The paper also discusses the question of whether the concept of open access was not overstrained by the hopes placed in it.“

The list of all articles in the anthology with links to texts available as Open Access publications can be found here.

Here is the bibliographic information on Open Divide:
Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access
Editors: Joachim Schöpfel and Ulrich Herb
Price: $35.00
Expected: April 2018
Publisher: Litwin Books
ISBN: 978-1-63400-029-1

Stagnating Open Science compliance for doctoral theses?

Stagnating Open Science compliance for doctoral theses?Recently, I gathered data from the Bielefeld Search Engine BASE on the percentage of journal articles, books and doctoral theses published Open Access, licensed under Creative Commons Licenses and under Open License between 2013 to 2017.

Since dissertations have been published electronically and Open Access for a long time, they have traditionally been a document type that was more Open Science compliant than others. For example, the Open Access repository software OPUS, which is widely used in Germany, was in earlier years used exclusively for the electronic publication of doctoral theses. Unfortunately, this pioneering role could not be held: A look at the data provided by BASE shows that the Open Science penetration among theses published stagnates.  BASE knows three categories of accessibility: Open Access, Unknown, Non Open Access. In the following tables and graphs, figures reported as „Open Access“ have been categorised by BASE as Open Access. The following tables show data from BASE as follows:

  1. Indexed theses, books and journal articles (2013-2017)
  2. Indexed theses, books and journal articles published Open Access (2013-2017)
  3. indexed theses, books and journal articles under Creative Commons licenses (2013-2017)
  4. indexed theses, books and journal articles, which are published under Open Licenses in the sense of the Open License, i. e. reflect terms of use of the Open Source (2013-2017)

Open Licenses means licenses that fulfill the requirements of the Open Definition. This applies only to two Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.

20132014201520162017
Doctoral Theses total101,264108,253111,555108,69777,731
Doctoral Theses
published Open Access
43,32251,39750,67150,42736,935
Doctoral Theses
under Creative Commons Licenses
9,01110,93011,85012,9359,886
Doctoral Theses
under Open Licenses
1,8491,9592,3391,9591,432
Books total68,25764,98267,13061,23646,187
Books
published Open Access
13,84715,40523,00717,23215,643
Books
under Creative Commons Licenses
2,5192,8693,5154,6115,940
Books
under Open Licenses
4675338151,8322,890
Journal Articles total1,768,7911,957,0582,131,6042,005,2681,696,182
Journal Articles
published Open Access
782,801940,5761,175,8901,117,0971,035,434
Journal Articles
under Creative Commons Licenses
175,887233,968301,124358,274313,227
Journal Articles
under Open Licenses
84,548105,820141,038168,626175,587

 

20132014201520162017
Doctoral Theses
percentage: Open Access
43%47%45%46%48%
Doctoral Theses
percentage: CC-licensed
9%10%11%12%13%
Doctoral Theses
percentage: Openly licensed
2%2%2%2%2%
Books
percentage: Open Access
20%24%34%28%34%
Books
percentage: CC-licensed
4%4%5%8%13%
Books
percentage: Openly licensed
1%1%1%3%6%
Journal Articles
percentage: Open Access
44%48%55%56%61%
Journal Articles
percentage: CC-licensed
10%12%14%18%18%
Journal Articles
percentage: Openly licensed
5%5%7%8%10%

Although doctoral theses already had a high share of Open Access by 2013 (43%), by 2017 it had risen by only 5% (2017: 48%). At the same time, the proportion of books published Open Access rose by 14% (from 20% to 34%) and articles by 17% from 44% (2013) to 61% (2017). The same effect can be seen in the proportion of CC-licensed items: Their share rose by 4% (from 9% to 13%) for doctoral theses, by 9% for books (from 4% to 13%) and 8% for articles (from 10% to 18%) between 2013 and 2017. However, the share of openly licensed items is most pronounced: it did not increase for doctoral theses, but remained at 2% between 2013 and 2017; in the same period it increased by 5% (from 1% to 6%) for books, and by 5% (from 5% to 10%) for articles. Even though this figure is illustrative, they show that although dissertations were published in earlier years more compatible with Open Science than books and articles, their penetration with Open Science stagnated and today they are compared with books and articles less compatible with Open Science.

Stagnating Open Science compliance for doctoral theses?

The proportion of books available under CC licenses rose sharply compared to the number of doctoral theses licensed under CC licenses and reached the same percentage in 2017.

Stagnating Open Science compliance for doctoral theses?

As the proportion of doctoral theses available under Open licenses stagnated the percentage of openly licensed books outnumbered theses already in 2016.

The data to this posting is available as:

Ulrich Herb (2018). Numbers of Articles, Books and Dissertation theses indexed in BASE and percentages of items published Open Access, under Creative Commons Licenses and under Open Licenses (2013-2017) [Data set]. Zenodo.
Online: DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1189807

Copyright note: Icon available under MIT License from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/2561489/unlock_icon

Viele Daten, hohe Hürden: Eine Bilanz aus dem Projekt Open-Access-Statistik

Viele Daten, hohe Hürden: Eine Bilanz aus dem Projekt Open-Access-StatistikIm Bibliotheksdienst ist heute ein Artikel zu einem bereits  seit längerem beendeten Projekt erschienen: Open Access Statistik. Er geht zurück auf einen Beitrag zum Workshop „Fachportale, Fachinformationsdienste, Wissenschaftsnetzwerke“ am Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung (ITAS) in Karlsruhe. Besonders bemühte ich mich um

  • eine Einordnung der – verglichen mit internationalen Diensten, wie ResearchGate, Academia oder Mendeley – strengen rechtlichen Vorgaben
    und
  • die Beschreibung der methodischen Vorzüge des Projekts, das diesbezüglich die Altmetrics weit übertrifft.

Die bibliographischen Daten zum Artikel lauten:

Ulrich Herb. (2018). Viele Daten, hohe Hürden: Eine Bilanz aus dem Projekt Open-Access-Statistik. Bibliotheksdienst, 52(3-4), S. 290–302. DOI:10.1515/bd-2018-0034

Die Veranstalter machten die Hybrid-Open-Access-Publikation möglich – ohne Zahlung einer Autorengebühr. Parallel publizierte ich den Artikel auf Zenodo unter https://zenodo.org/record/1195627.

P.S. Ich musste gerade feststellen, dass bei meinem oben verlinkten Altmetrics-kritischen Artikel einiges im Argen liegt: Unter anderem löst die DOI nicht auf, von Design und Usability zu schweigen. Daher änderte ich den Link von der Plattform des Verlags zum rasch eingespielten Zenodo-Deposit. Wer den Mumm hat, kann sich die Verlagsversion mal ansehen. Leider frage ich mich, wie man Wissenschaftler vom nicht-kommerziellen Gold Open Access überzeugen will, wenn die Plattformen teils derart unattraktiv sind.

Copyright note: Icon available under MIT License from https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/2561379/save_icon