Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Peter Suber
Peter's posts

HOAP at DPLAfest

I'm happy to announce that Kelly Fitzpatrick and Lisa Terrat will represent the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP) at DPLAfest 2017 in Chicago next month (April 20-21), to spread the word about our work and hear what others are doing.

Kelly will present on TagTeam, the open-source software underlying the Open Access Tracking Project (+OATP). TagTeam and OATP are two of HOAP's major initiatives.


Harvard Open Access Project

DPLAfest 2017

DPLAfest 2017, program for April 21, 2017


Open Access Tracking Project

cc +L. Kelly Fitzpatrick, +Lisa T

Post has attachment
There are two large ways that the Trump administration and Republican Congress could reduce the number of OA publications arising from federally funded research. First, Trump could require federal funding agencies to drop or dilute their OA policies. Second, Congress could cut their budgets, reducing the amount of research they could fund. Or both.

So far there's no sign of the first danger materializing. (I'll do my best to keep you posted.) But there are now signs of the second.

#oa #openaccess #trump #antiscience 

Post has attachment
I'm delighted to say that a group of colleagues is reading my 2012 book, Open Access (MIT Press) and annotating it with

The group is part of the #OpenLearning17 MOOC, directed by +Susan Erickson and +Maha Bali. The reading is from the Week 7 curriculum.

The version of the book they're annotating is the MIT Press PDF.

For all 12 OA editions of the book (same text, different file formats), as well as my growing collection of updates and supplements, see the book home page.

If you don't yet use, here's how to start.

BTW, just two weeks ago the W3C adopted a standard for web annotation, and is standard-compliant.

#oa #openaccess #annotation #crowd

Post has attachment
Here's another article uncritically repeating a common cluster of false assumptions:

1. Assumption: All or most OA journals charge author-side fees.

False: 70% of peer-reviewed OA journals charge no author-side fees. About 50% of articles published in OA journals are published in the no-fee variety.

2. Assumption: All or most subscription journals avoid charging author-side fees.

False: 75% of subscription journals do charge author-side fees, not as APCs but as page and color charges.

My number is from a 2005 ALPSP study. I'd gladly update it, but I haven't seen more recent data.

3. Assumption: Fee-based journals don't erect editorial firewalls to protect against corruption. (Among other things, an editorial firewall insures that peer-review editors don't know whether a given author would pay a fee or receive a fee waiver.)

Hasty: Some do and some don't erect editorial firewalls. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has published data on the ratio.

4. Assumption: If the possibility of fee-based corruption casts suspicion on the integrity of fee-based journals, then it would cast suspicion on more OA journals than non-OA journals.

False: On the contrary, if we assume no editorial firewalls at fee-based journals, then this business model would cast suspicion on 75% of non-OA journals and only 30% of OA journals (or 50% of OA journal articles).

By all means criticize those journals at risk of corruption, and those that are actually corrupt. I join that criticism. But if the suspicion arises from a business model charging author-side fees, then first get the facts on how many OA journals are inside the zone of suspicion (a minority) and how many subscription or non-OA journals are in there with them (a majority).

#oa #openaccess #journals

Post has attachment
After taking down an OA database on cruelty to animals, and triggering public protests, the US Dept of Agriculture put it back up. The official excuse is that USDA took down the database in order to "review" it.

Here's the restored database.

Restoring the database is welcome but puzzling. The USDA doesn't acknowledge the role of public protests. OK, maybe they played no role. But neither does it acknowledge that an OA database can be "reviewed" without taking it offline. That's the nice thing about OA. Anyone can view or review it, even USDA officials.

#oa #openaccess #trump #usda #animalcruelty

Post has attachment
Aaron Kesselheim at Harvard Medical School: "There is substantial evidence that the sources of transformative drug innovation arise from publicly funded research in government and academic labs...."

A future step for the open-access movement: Limiting the patent rights arising from publicly-funded research.

#oa #openaccess #patents 

Post has attachment
Investor's Business Daily: Psychology has a reproducibility problem, therefore distrust climate science.

#reproducibility, #climate, #agnotology, #fud

Thanks to +L. Kelly Fitzpatrick for updating the +OAD list of business models for OA journals.

Kelly is the Project Coordinator at the Harvard Open Access Project.

The list now contains 16 major models or revenue sources, each with descriptions, variations, and examples. We're always looking for new variations and examples, and welcome your edits or suggestions.

The OAD is a wiki and depends on the community to keep it accurate, current, and comprehensive. It's crowd-sourced and distributed under a CC-BY license. To limit spam, editing is limited to registered users, but registration is free and easy. Reading and reuse are free for all.

#oa #openaccess #oad

Post has attachment
Kudos to Indiana University for adopting a rights-retention open-access policy by a unanimous faculty vote.

The announcement

The policy

It's the 56th institution to adopt an OA policy by a unanimous faculty vote. (Don't let people tell you that faculty are indifferent!)

It's the 68th rights-retention policy on the list maintained by the Harvard Open Access Project guide to good practices for university OA policies.

#oa #openaccess 

Post has attachment
Clear, succinct, and irrefutable.

#emoluments   #corruption   #impeachment  
Wait while more posts are being loaded