Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Peter Suber
Peter's posts

Post has attachment
Bipartisan letter pushing forward on federal OA policies.

The headline on this press release ("Representatives Johnson, Sensenbrenner Question Federal Public Access Policies") wrongly suggests that Johnson and Sensenbrenner are pushing against federal OA policies. They're pushing the other way.

Excerpt: "Today [March 28, 2017], Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) sent the following letter to the Government Accountability Office, asking it to evaluate the status, effectiveness, and benefits of current federal public access policies. This letter builds upon previous legislative efforts between these Members to ensure taxpayers, who are footing the bill for federal research, have adequate access to the published results free of charge....[Quoting Johnson:] Increased access and increased use of technology to enable and promote discovery across the body of scientific literature will advance the frontiers of science, medicine, and innovation across all sectors of our economy. I look forward to seeing GAO’s findings and to continuing to work with Mr. Sensenbrenner and with all interested parties as we move forward on this important issue...[Quoting Sensenbrenner:] Understanding how federal agencies create and implement their guidelines for covered works of publicly funded research is essential to improving and modernizing our public access policies. We made progress with the previous administration, and I look forward to working with our federal agencies, as well as Representative Johnson and our fellow congressional colleagues to continue moving forward on this effort...."

#oa #openaccess 

Post has attachment
Open access among the top recommendations from the NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition.

Excerpt: "Six key trends, six significant challenges, and six developments in technology profiled in this report are poised to impact library strategies, operations, and services....These top 10 highlights capture the big picture themes of organizational change that underpin the 18 topics: ...[Highlight 3:] In the face of financial constraints, open access is a potential solution. Open resources and publishing models can combat the rising costs of paid journal subscriptions and expand research accessibility. Although this idea is not new, current approaches and implementations have not yet achieved peak efficacy...."

#oa #openaccess #libraries 

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
Wait while more posts are being loaded