Report and Recommendations From the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable

Report and Recommendations From the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, January 201

Statement of Stuart M. Shieber before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives

Engineering and Applied Science

Extending the Principles and Promise of Scholarly Communication Reform: A Chronicle and Future Glimpse

Interest in the functionality and components of scholarly communications has increased dramatically since the last decades of the 20th century. Many articles, books, reports, anddeclarations have appeared, some of which call for change and describe new functions and norms. Often, these documents espouse principles to guide and promote change. They may take the form of explicit statements, declarations, resolutions, directives, and policies. This chapter reviews representative and influential documents and describes the principles and goals on which change has been based. The review finds that the visions and principles for change have evolved, and in many cases have grown more ambitious and expansive. A look at early publications will set the stage and then principles will be examined by type of organization and will be analyzed and categorized. In some cases, principles have been quoted in their entirety and in others they have been abbreviated or condensed without changing their meaning for purposes of concision and inclusion. The chapter also explores questions and principles that might extend past trends and reflect recent developments. A discussion of the roles of librarians in the future of scholarly communication will conclude the chapter

Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication Among Greek Biomedical Scientists

urpose: The purpose of this research is to study in what ways the open access publishing can improve the scholarly communtication among biomedical sciences in Greece over a period of about five years and provide new roles for health librarians to support open access.\ud Methods: The implementation of Critical Realism as research philosophy allowed the multi-level analysis of the research object; a mixture of research tools were used. Supplementary research methods were adopted to provide more accurate and reliable conclusions. The Literature review contributed to the identification of the open access publishing context and the relations which were forming and re-forming in it. Additionally, similar studies were found and the research gaps were identified as well. Bibliometrics demonstrated the participation of Greek scientists in world research could be evaluated. The research was conducted in five world databases (PUBMED, SCI, BIOMED CENTRAL, DOAJ, GOOGLE) for two different periods (2006-2007 and 2011). Publishers? aggrements provided information about the role of Greek biomedical publishers to the awareness of Greek biomedical scientists on journal related issues such as copyright. Additionally, and journal cost analysis presented publishers? subscription and open access policies and provided an approach of the costs requested for the access to journals. Web 2.0 offers new scholarly communication channels that seem to be cheaper and effective ones. The participation of Greek biomedical scientists in social networks such as ResearchGate, LinkedIn was analysed to evaluate the trends towards these new information sources. Case study methodology provided the qualitative and quantitative tools to explain the attitudes and awareness of Greek biomedical stakeholders about open access publishing and open access biomedical journals and also helped to the longitudinal study of the changes. A questionnaire survey among biomedical scientists took place in three phases (2007-early in 2010, September 2010 to May 2011). In addition, Greek biomedical publishers were interviewed in January and February 2010 .\ud Findings: The bibliometric findings indicated an increasing participation of Greek scientists and Greek biomedical journals in world research. Greek biomedical scientists also use social networking as a means of scholarly communication. The questionnaire surveys showed that the physicians are the most active researchers and more familiar with the open access publishing concept. However, across all the phases the majority of Greek biomedical scientists seem to be unaware of aspects of publishing in open access journals, although by the third phase more participants seem to be aware. Greek biomedical publishers seem to approve the deposit in repositories, and the self-archiving process under specific terms, because, the publishers? agreements analysis demonstrated, the publishers want to be the copyright holders and information about authors? rights is omitted. Biomedical scientists are confused over copyright. As far as cost analyses are concerned, the journal prices depend on the publisher (commercial or scientific) and the subscriber (the institutional prices are higher than individual ones). The findngs were interpreted according to Roger?s diffusion of innovations theory and Lewin?s force field analysis.\ud Conclusions: Open access seems to be acceptable in Greece but the stakeholders, including libraries, need to co-operate more. Greek academic biomedical libraries can actively reinforce the driving forces and reduce the restraining forces (around copyright, mainly) (Lewin?s Force Field Analysis) in order to move into the ?refreeze stage?. However, institutional repositories do seem to be an innovation that (according to Rogers? theory) will take time to develop

“Scholarly Communications at Duke” Blog, December 2006-April 2016

This work contains all of the blog posts spanning the years 2006-2016 from the "Scholarly Communications @ Duke" blog by Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S, J.D. It is being made available in both PDF and XML formats to facilitate use of the material.The "Scholarly Communications at Duke" blog addressed current issues in scholarly communications, and also tried to provide information, from the most basic to complex issues, about how copyright law impacted higher education as it moved more fully into a digital age

Hrvatski znanstveni časopisi : iskustva, gledišta, mogućnosti

Knjiga okuplja radove 22 autora koji u 14 poglavlja obrađuju problematiku izdavanja hrvatskih znanstvenih časopisa, s aspekta različitih znanstvenih područja: Marušić, Ana i Marušić, Matko. Znanstveni časopisi u Hrvatskoj: teška pitanja na koja nije teško odgovoriti ; Macan, Bojan i Petrak, Jelka. Bibliometrijski pokazatelji za procjenu kvalitete znanstvenih časopisa ; Stojanovski, Jadranka. (R)evolucija znanstvenih časopisa ; Mrša, Vladimir, Grabarić Andonovski, Iva i Pongrac Habdija, Zrinka. Financiranje objavljivanja hrvatskih znanstvenih časopisa ; Pehar, Franjo i Velagić, Zoran. Uređivanje znanstvenih časopisa u online sustavima za organizaciju uredničkih procesa ; Gliha, Igor. Autorskopravni aspekt izdavanja časopisa ; Baždarić, Ksenija. Znanstvenoistraživačka čestitost u objavljivanju znanstvenih časopisa ; Špiranec, Sonja. Informacijska pismenost kao oslonac znanstvene komunikacije: argumentacijski i primijenjeni okvir ; Jurina, Tamara i Kurtanjek, Želimir. Kvalitativni i kvantitativni pokazatelji za časopis u području biotehničkih znanosti: iskustva časopisa Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly ; Hrenar, Tomica i Kallay, Nikola. Značenje znanstvenih časopisa iz područja temeljnih prirodnih znanosti: časopis Croatica Chemica Acta ; Aparac-Jelušić, Tatjana. Kognitivna institucionalizacija knjižnične i informacijske znanosti: uloga časopisa ; Jokić, Maja i Lasić-Lazić, Jadranka. Vrednovanje znanstvenog rada u području društvenih znanosti na temelju časopisa kao medija znanstvenog komuniciranja ; Ham, Sanda. Uloga časopisa Jezik i njegovih urednika u hrvatskoj jezičnoj kulturi ; Borš, Vanja. Neznanstveni odnos prema domaćim znanstvenim časopisima i u njima

Report and recommendations from the scholarly publishing roundtable

The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable was convened to examine the current state of scholarly publishing and develop consensus recommendations for expanding public access to the journal articles arising from research funded by agencies of the United States government. After recognizing the progress that has already been made in expanding access to scholarly literature, the Roundtable began its work by identifying a set of principles, shared across the full range of member perspectives, which should continue to inhere in scholarly publishing as it evolves. These principles are: 1) Peer review must continue its critical role in maintaining high quality and editorial integrity.2) Adaptable business models will be necessary to sustain the enterprise in an evolving landscape.3) Scholarly and scientific publications can and should be more broadly accessible with improved functionalityto a wider public and the research community.4) Sustained archiving and preservation are essential complements to reliable publishing methods.5) The results of research need to be published and maintained in ways that maximize the possibilities forcreative reuse and interoperation among sites that host them. Roundtable participants’ shared commitment to these principles has led to the following consensusrecommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Roundtable’s core recommendation is:Each federal research funding agency should expeditiously but carefully develop and implement an explicit publicaccess policy that brings about free public access to the results of the research that it funds as soon as possible after those results have been published in a peer‐reviewed journal. This public access objective can be accomplished in several ways: Some agencies may choose to develop and manage central databases; others may elect to work with university libraries, one or more publishers, or other external partners to establish centralized or distributed databases of journal articles resulting from the research they fund. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should lead the development and implementation of this multiagency program, which should be authorized in its fundamental properties and goals by regulation orlegislation. The program should develop common core properties that will promote interoperability across publicaccess databases. The program also should provide the flexibility necessary to accommodate agency‐specific needs and the capacity to evolve over time to accommodate the rapidly changing nature of scholarly publishing. To implement this fundamental objective, the Roundtable proposes the following additional recommendations:1) Agencies should work in full and open consultation with all stakeholders, as well as with OSTP, to developtheir public access policies.2) Agencies should establish specific embargo periods between publication and public access. An embargo period of between zero (for open access journals) and twelve months currently reflects such a balance for many science disciplines. For other fields a longer embargo period may be necessary.3) Policies should be guided by the need to foster interoperability. OSTP should work with agencies to facilitate collaboration among them and between agencies and stakeholders to develop robust standards for the structure of full text and metadata, navigation tools, and other applications to achieve interoperability across the literature, taking international standards into account. OSTP should work with agencies that have cyberinfrastructure programs to develop a multiagency program supporting research and development to expand interoperability capability.4) Every effort should be made to have the version of record (VoR) as the version to which free access is provided. If the VoR is not included in a public access database, the article version or reference that is included should contain links back to the VoR on the publisher’s site.5) Government agencies should extend the reach of their public access policies through voluntary collaborations with nongovernmental stakeholders. To achieve the full potential of publicly accessible, interoperable databases, the multiagency public access program recommended here should be extended through voluntary collaborations with publishers, universities, and other entities husbanding the results of research, within and beyond the U.S.6) Policies should foster innovation in the research and educational use of scholarly publications.7) Government public access policies should address the need to resolve the challenges of long‐term digital preservation.8) OSTP should establish a public access advisory committee. To provide a mechanism for periodic assessment of the rapidly changing scholarly publishing landscape, and to provide a forum for discussion of adjustments to agency public access policies in the context of that changing landscape, OSTP should establish an advisory committee to provide a periodic, independent evaluation of agencies’ public access policies and practices