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 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?

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.

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.

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

Im 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

„Data from: Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data“ published

Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman shared accompanying data to their article „Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data“ on Zenodo:

Kramer, Bianca, & Bosman, Jeroen. (2018). Data from: Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1143707

The data is provided under a Creative Commons Zero – CC0 1.0 License.

The article itself is available as:

Bosman J, Kramer B. (2018) Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data. PeerJ Preprints 6:e3520v1 DOI:10.7287/peerj.preprints.3520v1

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

 

 

Open Access zwischen Revolution und Goldesel – Verlagsversion online

Verfügbar in Public Domain unter https://www.flickr.com/photos/alansimpsonme/36570063572/

Unter Nutzung der Open-Access-Policy des Verlages De Gruyter publizierte ich eben die Verlagsversion zu einem vor einem Jahr erschienen Artikel auf Zenodo:

Herb, U. (2017). Open Access zwischen Revolution und Goldesel. Eine Bilanz fünfzehn Jahre nach der Erklärung der Budapest Open Access Initiative. Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis, 68(1), 1–10.  DOI: 10.1515/iwp-2017-0004 / Open Access unter https://zenodo.org/record/1188266.

Diese Version entspricht inhaltlich dem Preprint, den ich vor zwöf Monaten auf hcommons ablegte. Die Nutzung von hcommons dürfte ein einmaliges Unterfangen bleiben, denn es war mir nicht möglich, auf diesem Server zwei Versionen des gleichen Dokuments zu publizieren.

Hier noch die Abstracts zum Artikel…

-de-

Die Erklärungen und Positionierungen zu Open Access anfangs der 2000er Jahre waren von Umbruchstimmung, Euphorie und Idealismus getragen, eine Revolution des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens wurde vielfach vorhergesagt. Die Erwartungen an Open Access lagen auf der Hand und waren umrissen: Wissenschaftlern war an rascher Verbreitung ihrer eigenen Texte gelegen sowie an der Verfügbarkeit der Texte ihrer Kollegen, Bibliothekaren an einer Abhilfe für stark steigende Journalpreise, den Wissenschaftseinrichtungen an effizienter und freier Verbreitung ihrer Inhalte. Einzig die Position der kommerziellen Wissenschaftsverlage zu Open Access war überwiegend zögerlich bis ablehnend.

Der Artikel versucht sich an einer Bilanz zum Open Access – 15 Jahre nach dem Treffen der Budapest Open Access Initiative 2001. 2016 muss festgehalten werden, dass die von den maßgeblichen Open-Access-Advokaten früherer Tage erhoffte Revolution wohl ausbleiben wird. Vielmehr scheint aktuell die Entwicklung des Open Access weitgehend von den vormals in Open-Access-Szenarien kaum erwähnten kommerziellen Verlagen angetrieben. Zwar findet sich auch Open Access in wissenschaftlicher Selbstverwaltung, dennoch bleiben die Akteure im wissenschaftlichen Publizieren bislang die gleichen wie 2001 und die schon damals bekannten Konzentrationseffekte am Publikationsmarkt setzen sich fort.

-en-

The declaration and positions on Open Access in the early 2000s spread a mood of upheaval, euphoria, and idealism, a revolution of scientific publishing was regularly predicted. The expectations for Open Access were obvious and clear: scientists wanted to share their own articles immediately with other scientist (and they also wanted to have easy fulltext access to the texts of their colleagues), librarians needed a remedy  for exploding journal prices, the scientific institutions wanted  funded research to be efficiently and freely disseminated. Only the position of the commercial publishers to Open Access was predominantly hesitant or even disapproving.

This contribution attempts to draw a balance on Open Access – 15 years after the Budapest Open Access Initiative meeting in 2001. 2016 it must be noted that the hopes of Open Access advocates for a revolution will be disappointed. On the contrary, today the development of Open Access seems to be largely driven by the commercial publishers, which were barely mentioned in the early Open Access scenarios. Although there non-commercial Open Access in scientific self-administration exists, today the actors in scientific publishing are still the same as in 2001, and the already known concentration effects on the publishing market continue.

 

Iryna Kuchma on „Open Access Initiatives and Networking in the Global South“

Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open AccessSome days ago Iryna Kuchma’s published her contribution to the anthology „Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access“ on Zenodo under http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1176573.

Here is also the abstract of her article „Open Access Initiatives and Networking in the Global South“: „This short study highlights the impact of open access in the Global South. Featuring collaborative open access initiatives in Algeria, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Nepal, Palestine, Tanzania, Uganda and Latin American countries, it showcases success and describes the challenges that we still face. It also questions a notion of a journal article – perhaps already becoming obsolete – and discusses the growing preprints initiatives to speed up the availability of research results. The value of regional journal and repository networks enhancing open access content in Europe and Latin America is also discussed as well as the impact human networks make in the Global South.“

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: Ulrich Herb and Joachim Schöpfel
Price: $35.00
Expected: Spring 2018
Publisher: Litwin Books
ISBN: 978-1-63400-029-1

Austria agrees with Wiley on a national Open Access consortium

Dollar SymbolThe Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and Cooperation E-Medien Österreich (KEMÖ) have signed a three-year contract with the publishing house John Wiley and Sons Inc. that combines the use of Closed Access content and the publication of Open Access articles in Wiley outlets.

FWF-funded authors that

  1. are affiliated with one of the 22 participating KEMÖ members and
  2. are corresponding authors of a publication

can publish unlimited and free of charge Open Access articles in Wiley’s hybrid journals. The agreement applies to all articles accepted by Wiley in hybrid journals from 1 January 2018. Authorized authors are automatically identified and informed about the possibility of free Open Access publication.

A press release on the deal can be read here (in German language). On the website konsortien.at of you’ll find some more information on the agreement including a list of journals covered by it. It comprises 1,327 of 2,486 journals that Wiley publishes in total.

Accordingly, this agreement raises the same questions as the Elsevier consortium in Finland: How this list was negotiated could be interesting. Especially as a similar list of journals, which was compiled in a comparable deal with Elsevier in the Netherlands, is said not to have been loaded with high-quality journals… The financial conditions are also likely to be interesting, but nothing has been made public about them so far.

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

Questionnaires and data from Christian Heise’s doctoral thesis „Von Open Access zu Open Science: Zum Wandel digitaler Kulturen der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation“ are published

Christian Heise published questionnaires and data from his doctoral thesis „Von Open Access zu Open Science: Zum Wandel digitaler Kulturen der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation“ on Zendo. Christian can certainly be regarded as a pioneer as he wrote this thesis live on the internet and offered a maximum of insights and verifiability, among other things he documented changes via github and shared all information (just like the thesis itself) under open licenses.

This also applies to questionnaires and data provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license:

Heise, Christian. (2017, December 6). Fragebogen und Daten zum Dissertationsvorhaben „Von Open Access zu Open Science: Zum Wandel digitaler Kulturen der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation“ (Version 1.0). Zenodo. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1095129

Please note that the thesis can also be ordered as a printed book from meson press or be downloaded as a Open Access publication from the meson website as a PDF.

Alternatively, an export of the live thesis can also be downloaded from Zenodo:
Heise, Christian. (2016). offene-doktorarbeit: Release – Submitted Version (1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.263075

 

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