Scholarly communication and Open Access the times they are a … · 2017-10-23 · Scholarly...

Chemical Information: retrieving, managing, evaluating, publishingGraduate course in Molecular sciences 2017

Scholarly communication and Open Access the times they are a-changing ’

Emanuela Casson 23 October 2017


Learning outcomes

In this module you will:

� become familiar with the scholarly communication

� familiarize yourself with the principles of scientificpublication process and with different publishingalternatives (e.g. Open Access and self-archiving)

� understand the importance of OA mandates and policies(e.g. in Horizon 2020)

� become familiar with the principles of research datamanagement and is aware of national and internationalresearch data archives

� acquaint yourself with University of Padua OA policy


Scholarly communication


What is scholarlycommunication?

http://wiki.ubc.ca/File:TSLUpdated.png


The major players in SC

The traditional/formal process of scholarlycommunication consists of four major groups of playerswith different roles:

� researchers� publishers� libraries� consumers/users


The origins of the scientific journals

1665

� Journal des SçavansIts content included obituaries of famous men, churchhistory, and legal reports. The scope was to inform abouteverything that was happening in the community of“savants““savants“

� Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondonThe functions of the journal are:o registration (date stamping and provenance)o certification (but he uses no referee system)o disseminationo (archiving)


Types of journal articles (1)

Letter or communication: short description of importantcurrent research findings that are usually fast-tracked forimmediate publication because they are consideredurgent, usually without experimental data. It may befollowed by paper in which the research is furtherfollowed by paper in which the research is furtherdeveloped.

Research note : “short descriptions of current researchfindings considered less urgent or important than thosethat appear in Letters” (or Communications) [Jose Russo,The tools of science: the handbook for the apprentice of biomedicalresearch, Word Scientific, 2011]


Types of journal articles (2)

Review : provides an overview and critical analysis ofrelevant published scholarly articles, research reports,books, theses etc. on the topic or issue to beinvestigated. Review is a secondary source; it do notreports any new or original experimental work

Paper or article : discusses the authors’ originalresearch, offers thoughtful analysis of the results, andcites relevant papers from other authors that relate to theresearch.It is a primary sources.


The structure of the scientific article

The structure of the scientific article gradually came to be extremely well-came to be extremely well-organised (IMRaD)

http://leml.asu.edu/jingle/Wu-Publications-PDFs/2011/Wu-2011-ScientificWriting.pdf


The IMRaD format responds to the questions below:

Introduction : What is the problem to be solved? Are there anyexisting solutions? Which is the best? What is its main limitation?What do you hope to achieve?

Methods : How did you do it?This section responds to the question of how the problem was

How to write a scientificmanuscript for publication (1)

This section responds to the question of how the problem wasstudied. If your paper is proposing a new method, you need toinclude detailed information so a knowledgeable reader canreproduce the experiment.

Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect methods descriptionsand may recommend rejection, because this section is critical in theprocess of reproducing your investigation.


Results : What did you find?Hence, only representative results from your research should bepresented. The results should be essential for discussion.If data are too abundant, you can use those supplementarymaterials.You are presenting your results, so you cannot refer to others here.

and


and

Discussion : What does it all mean?Here you need to compare the published results by your colleagueswith yours (using some of the references included in theIntroduction). Never ignore work in disagreement with yours, in turn,you must confront it and convince the reader that you are correct orbetter.Take into account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are rejectedbecause the Discussion is weak.


The main text is followed by the Conclusion , Acknowledgements ,References and Supporting Materials .

Title: Short and informativeAbstract : <250 words (preferably)Figures and tables : generally, tables give the actual experimentalresults, while figures are often used for comparisons of experimentalresults with those of previous works


results with those of previous works

While this is the published structure, however, we often use a differentorder when writing.

Angel Borja, 11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously. A seasoned editor gives advice to get your work published in an international journal, 2014https://www.elsevier.com/connect/11-steps-to-structuring-a-science-paper-editors-will-take-seriously#step6


Peer review


Peer review

Peer review – in all its forms – is central to scholarlycommunications.

Peer review is radically different from domain to domain,from discipline to discipline. And, often enough, fromjournal to journal.

In the peer review process, editors , reviewers , andauthors cooperatively work together to ensure thequality of scientific research before it is published.

Peer review means that other scientific experts in the fieldcheck research papers for validity , significance andoriginality


It would be far too simplistic to say that peer review emerged fullyformed from the 17th century.

� Journal des Sçavans had an editorial team as early as 1701

� 1752: Philosophical Transactions editorial responsibility hadbeen transferred to a Committee of Papers , but...

Peer review : not as old asyou might think (1)

been transferred to a Committee of Papers , but...Only by the 1830s the process of reviewing became moreformalized, involving the organized scrutiny of specialists andwritten reports.

� 1731: the Royal Society of Edinburgh began to distributesubmissions “according to the subject matter to thosemembers who are most versed in these matters.”


� 1936, Albert Einstein, Nathan Rosen and “Physical Review”“I see no reason to address the, in any case erroneous,comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incidentI prefer to publish the paper elsewhere”

Peer review : not as old asyou might think (2)

� The 1960s and 1970s seem to have been a crucial period oftransition for ideas about peer review.

� 1973, external refereeing becomes a requirement for publicationin Nature


Peer review : acceptance rates

The average acceptance rate across all STM journals is about 50%(The STM report 2015 http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf)

But:

Nature Chemistry the overall acceptance rate of the journal wasroughly 9% (2013)

Angewandte Chemie International 21% (2012)

JACS - Journal of the American Chemical Society - 25% (?)


Peer review : single and double-blind

Single Blind ReviewThe reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not knowwho the reviewers are. The most common system in sciencedisciplines.PROS: This allows reviewers to provide honest, critical reviews andopinions without fear of reprisal from the authors.CONS: Lack of accountability, allows unscrupulous reviewers to submitunwarranted negative reviews, delay the review process and stealideas.ideas.

Double-Blind ReviewThe reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do notknow who the reviewers are. Main form of peer review used in thehumanities and social sciences.PROS : Reduces possible bias resulting from knowing who the authorsare or where they come from, work assessed on its own merits.CONS: Involves some effort to make sure manuscripts areanonymised, reviewers can often guess who the authors are


Peer review : publisher’s role

Publisher’s role : organises and manages the process, and morerecently to developed or provides online tools to support the process.Online submission systems are now the norm e.g. Editorial Manager(Aries), eJournal Press and Manuscript Central/ScholarOne (ThomsonReuters) .The role of editorial board/advisory board is to:� make suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors� approach potential contributors� identify new topics for special editions� provide content by writing occasional editorials and other short articles� help to identify peer reviewers and provide second opinions on papers� organize the flow of manuscripts

21%* of submissions are rejected during the initial by journal editorsacross discipline(*Thomson Reuters, Increasing the quality and timeliness of peer review: A report for scholarly publishers [white paper],

2011 http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/peerreviewwhitepaper.pdf )


Peer review should not be treated as “sacred cow”


Common criticisms (1)

� Stifles innovation : there may be a tendency towardsconservative judgements.

� Bias : the violation of impartiality in the evaluation of asubmission:- error in assessing a submission's “true quality”- social characteristics of the author- social characteristics of the author- social characteristics of the reviewer and/or- content of the submission.

� Expensive : peer reviewers are rarely paid by publishers.Expensive mostly in time. But it is also expensive in terms ofmoney for the research community (time = money) and forpublishers (infrastructure and staff)


Common criticisms (2)

� Burdensome : criticism of the perceived burden on academicsinvolved in the peer-review process, particularly in the role ofreviewer. Peer review is rarely acknowledged as part of theformal workload of an academic researcher. Reviewing is oftenan “out of normal hours” activity and therefore adds additionalburdens on researchersburdens on researchers

� Lack of evidence of efficacy : Despite these criticisms editorialpeer review is viewed by many as important. However, there islittle solid evidence on its efficacy.


Retraction Watch < http://retractionwatch.com> is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. The blog was launched in August 2010

� August 2015, 64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

Fake peer review (1)

time from Springer journals http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/17/64-more-papers-retracted-for-fake-reviews-this-time-from-springer-journals/

Sarah Kaplan, Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak, Washington Post, 18/08/2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/


� SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citationring,” 60 papers retracted

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/08/sage-publications-busts-peer-review-and-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted

Fake peer review (2)

SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal ofVibration and Control after an investigation revealed a “peerreview and citation ring” involving a professor in Taiwan.


The future of peer review

85% of reviewers spend a median 5 hours (mean 9 hours)85% of reviewers spend a median 5 hours (mean 9 hours)per review, and evaluate about 8 papers over 12

monthshttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-819213.html


New forms of peer review (1)

� Open peer review : the reviewers know who the authors areand the authors know who the reviewers are (open identities).o PROS: Greater accountability and reduced opportunity forbias or inappropriate actions.o CONS: Potential reviewers may be more likely to decline toreview. Revealing reviewer identity may lead to animosityfrom authors, damaged relationships and repercussions forfrom authors, damaged relationships and repercussions forjob prospects, promotion and grant funding.

But also:- Open reports: review reports are published alongside the

relevant article- Open interaction: direct reciprocal discussion between

author(s) and reviewers, and/or between reviewers, is allowedand encouraged. In traditional peer review, reviewers andauthors correspond only with editors


Open peer review is moving mainstream

“OpenAIRE survey on open peer review: attitudes and experienceamongst editors, authors and reviewers”

- over 3.062 editors, authors and reviewers- project during September and October 2016 (OpenAIRE releasesthe results 2 may 2017)


- high levels of experience with OPR amongst sample: three out offour (76.2%) of respondents said that they had they had taken partin an OPR process- there seems to be a rather strong pushback against openidentities, with 47.7% of respondents believing that open identitieswill make peer review either worse

https://zenodo.org/record/570864#.WRI8GlJabR0 (preprint)



� Transferable peer review: This is a new system to help transfer peer review between journals es. Wiley journalsTransferable peer review pilot http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-819213.html

� Post -publication peer review : is when a paper is � Post -publication peer review : is when a paper is scrutinised, replicated and commented on by experts after it is published. New web technologies allow readers to rate papers, and add comments and notes to online articles for readers to see. Es. PubPeer https://pubpeer.com/


Peer review: recognition wanted!

Several metrics have been developed to appraise and quantify the work of authors, articles and journals. On the contrary, no attention has been given to peer-reviewers and their work. No metrics exist to recognize their performance.

� Publons is a website and free service for researchers to share, discuss and receive credit for peer review of academic publications. https://publons.com/publications. https://publons.com/

� ReviewerCredits.com is a web-based platform keepshistory of the reviews performed by a scientist, assigning aReviewer-Index accordingly. Through the website,researchers can declare completion of peer reviews. Thesystem verifies that the review has been actually performedby asking a confirmation from the journal.http://reviewercredits.com


The STM journals market The STM journals market


The STM journals market - who

Large commercial publishing houses increase their control of the science system

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502


The STM journals market :price (april 2017 )

Periodicals price survey 2017http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2017/04/publishing/new-world-same-model-periodicals-price-survey-2017/


The crisis in scholarly communication is mainly because of the following factors:

�There is the high cost of scholarly journals

�Increasing control of the scholarly journals industry by

Transformation of scholarly communication

�Increasing control of the scholarly journals industry by the commercial firms.

�Libraries’ budgets do not match up with escalating prices of journals. Ultimately, libraries subscribe to fewer journals.


The paradoxes of ScholarlyCommunication


“New” models of SC

There are three important new ways apart from scholarlyThere are three important new ways apart from scholarlycommunication in which the internet enables the communication ofscholars:

� open access archives� open access publishing� other means of scholarly communication : academic socialnetworks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu)


Open Access Week - October 23 - 29, 2017


What is Open Access?

“Open access (OA) literature is digital , online , free of charge , and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions ” (Peter Suber)

OA removes:OA removes:� price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) � permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions)


What is the OA movement?

It’s a global movement to make scientific and scholarly literature openly accessible online to all users, free of charge so that everyone benefits from the dissemination of knowledge and information.

Open Archives Initiative (1999)Open Archives Initiative (1999)Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)Berlin declaration (2003)Dichiarazione di Messina (2004)

Timeline of the open access movement http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm


There are two primary vehicles for delivering OA toresearch articles:

� publishing in OA journals ("gold road ")� self archiving in repositories ("green road ")

Gold road and green road

The chief difference between them is that OAjournals conduct peer review and OA repositories donot.


Gold road

OA journals ("gold OA"):

� conduct peer review (es. BioMed Central)The biggest misconception about open access is that it's that somehow does not use peer review� it easier than let authors retain copyright .� it easier than OA repositories to provide libre OA. � some OA journal publishers are non-profit (e.g. PLoS) and some are � some OA journal publishers are non-profit (e.g. PLoS) and some are for-profit (e.g. BioMed Central).� sometimes journals have a subsidy from a university or professional society. Sometimes journals charge a publication fee (APS-AuthorsPay to Publish) on accepted articles, to be paid by the author or the author's sponsor (employer, funding agency).

For a list of OA journals in all fields and languages, see the DOAJ -Directory of Open Access Journals


The dark side of OA publishingThe dark side of OA publishing


Beall's List : potential,possible, or probablepredatory scholarly open-access publishershttp://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

Predatory publishers : Beall's List

hers/

(This service is no longeravailable, but...http://beallslist.weebly.com/)


Predatory publishers: exemple


Green road

OA repositories :

� can be organized by discipline (e.g. arXiv for physics) or institution (e.g. Padua@research)� do not perform peer review . However, they do not perform peer review . However, they generally host articles peer-reviewed elsewhere.� can contain preprints, postprints, or both.

If authors transfer copyright to a publisher, then OA archiving requires the publisher's permission.


SHERPA/RoMEO

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo


SPARC Author Addendum

The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement

http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/SPARC_AuthorRights2006_0.pdf


Open Access doubts

SOAP – Study of Open Access publishing 2008-2011(project funded by the European Commission under FP7) http://project-soap.eu

� quality of repositories� quality of repositories

� fear of plagiarism

� lack of time

… other?


Open Access mandates


Voluntary policies don’t work and never have

Incentives are not sufficient

About 80% of publishers* formally allow some About 80% of publishers* formally allow some form of self-archiving, but only 10-20% of articles are archived.

* SHERPA/RoMEO: 2435 publishers (1007can archive pre-print andpost-print, 793 can archive post-print: 2017/10/15)


What is an OA mandate?

An open-access mandate is a policy adopted bya research institution or research funderwhich requires researchers to make theirpublished, peer-reviewed journal articles andconference papers open access by self-conference papers open access by self-archiving their final, peer-reviewed drafts in afreely accessible institutional repository ordisciplinary repository or by publishing them inan open-access journal or both.


Not all mandates are really mandates

0) Request or encouragement policies

1) Loophole mandates

2) Deposit mandates

3) Rights-retention mandates

Open Access / Peter Suber , pp.77-96https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf


� License to publish (e.g. SURF&JISC) http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/authors/licence/

� Creative Commons licenses (e.g. CC BY – attribution) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

Rights -retention - how

� Scholar’s copyright addendum, e.g.:- SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Access-Reuse_Addendum.pdf

- OhioLINK - Ohio's Academic Library Consortiumhttps://www.ohiolink.edu/files/uploads/intellproprecsaug06.pdf


OA mandate: model

• Who must deposit

• What to deposit

• When to self-archive

• Where to self-archive


Why the OA mandates? (1)

OA improves communication

Numerous studies confirm that openly availablearticles are cited more often*

If the benefits of open access are so clear, whythe OA mandates?

*The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html(Last updated 25 June 2013)


Why the OA mandates? (2)

A mandate would help to overcome quickly the cultural and managerial barriers that currently exist in this area; something that would otherwise take a number of years.


ROARMAP

ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policieshttps://roarmap.eprints.org


http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas/?idioma=en


What is Horizon 2020?

� Horizon 2020 is the EU Research and Innovationprogramme with nearly 80 EUR billion of fundingavailable over 7 years (2014-2020)

� Open access is mandatory for research underHorizon 2020.Horizon 2020.Guidelines to the rules on Open Access to Scientificpublications and Open Access to research data in Horizon 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf


European policies on OA

• 2007 European Research Council Scientific Council Guidelines for Open Access

• 2009 OpenAIRE - Open Access Infrastructure for Researchin Europe + OA pilot

• 2012: 1) Open Access Guidelines for researchers funded by the

European Research Council (ERC) - revised Oct. 2013 European Research Council (ERC) - revised Oct. 2013 2) Towards better access to scientific information: boosting the

benefits of public investments in research - COM(2012) 401 final

3) Commission Recommendation on access to andpreservation of scientific information - 2012/417/EUhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:2701_1&from=EN


Horizon 2020: mandate on OA

The detailed legal requirements on OA topublications are contained in article 29.2 of theModel Grant Agreement Multi-beneficiaryGeneral (version 3.2, 21 March 2017)

must� Under Horizon 2020, each beneficiary mustensure open access to all peer-reviewedscientific publications relating to its results

� … in some cases, not be peer-reviewed ,including books, conference proceedings andgrey literature (e.g. reports)


Mandate on OA - how

The open access mandate is composed of twosteps:

1. depositing publications into repositories2. providing open access to them2. providing open access to them

These two steps may or may not occur at the sametime.


Mandate on OA – what todeposit

Beneficiaries must deposit in a repository :

� a machine-readable electronic copy of thepublished version

or

� final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted forpublication


Mandate on OA – where to deposit

Researchers should deposit in a repository for scientific publications of their choice.

� institutional repository of the research institution � institutional repository of the research institution with which they are affiliated

or� disciplinary/subject repository

or� centralised repository


Mandate on OA – when to deposit

Each beneficiary must deposit as soon as possible.

� Each beneficiary must deposit as soon aspossible and at the latest upon publication. (when 1)� In this case, they must ensure open access to the� In this case, they must ensure open access to thepublication within a maximum of six months (twelvemonths for publications in non-STM). (when 2)


Mandate on OA –bibliographic metadata

� Beneficiaries must also ensure open access to the bibliographic metadata that identify the depositedpublication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following:

� the terms ["European Union (EU)" and "Horizon� the terms ["European Union (EU)" and "Horizon2020"]["Euratom" and Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018"];

� the name of the action, acronym and grant number;� the publication date, and length of embargo period if

applicable� a persistent identifier


Mandate on OA – OA publishing

The author publishing charges (APCs) incurred bybeneficiaries are eligible for reimbursement

You will need to indicate in your proposal yourYou will need to indicate in your proposal yourexpected costs for publishing Gold OA

The average cost of an APC is $904 but this canvary greatly between journals and disciplines(Solomon & Björk, 2012)


Horizon 2020 and the copyrigth

Horizon 2020 encourages authors to retaintheir copyright and grant adequate licencesto publishers:� Creative Commons offers useful licensing

solutions in this regard (e.g. CC-BY or CC-solutions in this regard (e.g. CC-BY or CC-0 licences)

or� Licence to publish or Addendum to the

Agreement


Horizon 2020: mandate on OA to data?

Beneficiaries are also invited to grant openaccess to this data , but there is noobligation to do so (29.3)

but…

Projects starting from january 2017 are bydefault part of the Open Data Pilot.


ORD –––– Horizon2020 (1)

From 2017, research data is open by default, with possibilities to optout

http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2016/pdf/opendata-infographic_072016.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none


DMP templates, exemples &tools

� Data Management Plan Templates and Examples / Thomas Harrod (GeorgeWashington University, Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library)

http://libguides.gwumc.edu/c.php?g=27812&p=170533

� Example DMPs and guidance / Digital Curation Centrehttp://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/data-management-plans/guidance-examples

� How to create a DMP Plan / OpenAirehttps://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot-dmp

� Horizon 2020 FAIR Data Management Plan (DMP) template(Version 26 July 2016 ) Annex1, p. 6-12http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h

2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf

� ERC Data Management Plan template (Version 1.0, 21 April 2017)https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_DataManagementPlan_template.docx

� DMPonline https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk has been developed by the DCC - DigitalCuration Centre to help write a DMP


Paola Gargiulo, OpenAIRE : aggiornamento sull'infrastruttura e strumenti a supporto della gestione dei dati della ricerca, www.slideshare.net/ marzo 2017


Research data repository (RDR)

Research data must be deposited, preferably in a research datarepository.

is a global registry of research data repositorieshttp://www.re3data.org to help find a suitable discipline specifichttp://www.re3data.org to help find a suitable discipline specificrepository.Re3data listes 1.500 research data repositories, making it the largestand most comprehensive registry of data repositories available on theweb.

Vierkant, P., Spier, S., Ruecknagel … (2013). Schema for the description of research datarepositories : version 2.1. re3data.org. https://doi.org/10.2312/re3.004


Zenodo www.zenodo.org is a repository that:

�shares research results in a wide variety of formats includingtext, spreadsheets, audio, video, and images across all fieldsof science.�displays the research results and gets credited by making theresearch results citable and integrating them into existing

RDR - Zenodo

research results citable and integrating them into existingreporting lines to funding agencies like the EuropeanCommission.�integrates their research outputs with the OpenAIRE portal�a digital object identifier (DOI) is automatically assigned to allfiles� integration between ResearcherID (WoS) and ORCID


Open Access mandates - Italy


Italy and OA : mandates(ROARMAP)

ROARMAP (october 2017) 24 mandates


Italy: EU and OA – 2012/417/EU (1)

Commission Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information - 2012/417/EU:

�there should be open access to publications resulting from publicly funded research as soon as possible , preferablyimmediately and in any case no later than 6 months after the immediately and in any case no later than 6 months after the date of publication, and 12 months for social scienc es and humanities�licensing systems contribute to open access to scientificpublications resulting from publicly-funded research [...] andencourage researchers to retain their copyright whilegranting licences to publishers


Italy: EU and OA - 2012/417/EU (2)

� the academic career system supports and rewardsresearchers who participate in a culture of sharing theresults of their research, in particular by ensuring openaccess to their publications and by developing, encouragingand using new, alternative models of career assessment,metrics and indicators

� transparency is improved , in particular by informing the� transparency is improved , in particular by informing thepublic about agreements between public institutions orgroups of public institutions and publishers for thesupply of scientific information […]

� small and medium-sized enterprises and unaffiliatedresearchers have the widest and cheapest possibleaccess to scientific publications of the results of researchthat receives public funding


Italy and OA - 112/2013 art. 4 (1)

2. I soggetti pubblici preposti all’erogazione o alla gestione deifinanziamenti della ricerca scientifica adottano, nella loro autonomia, lemisure necessarie per la promozione dell’accesso aperto ai risultati dellaricerca finanziata per una quota pari o superiore al 50 per cento confondi pubblici , quando documentati in articoli pubblicati su periodici acarattere scientifico che abbiano almeno due uscite annue . I predettiarticoli devono includere una scheda di progetto in cui siano menzionatitutti i soggetti che hanno concorso alla realizzazione degli stessi.

L’accesso aperto si realizza:a) tramite la pubblicazione da parte dell’editore , al momento dellaprima pubblicazione, in modo tale che l’articolo sia accessibile a titologratuito dal luogo e nel momento scelti individualmente;b) tramite la ripubblicazione senza fini di lucro in archivi elet troniciistituzionali o disciplinar i, secondo le stesse modalità, entro diciottomesi dalla prima pubblicazione per le pubblicazioni delle areedisciplinari scientifico-tecnico-mediche e ventiquattro mesi per learee disciplinari umanistiche e delle scienze sociali. […]


3. Al fine di ottimizzare le risorse disponibili e di facilitare ilreperimento e l’uso dell’informazione culturale e scientifica, ilMinistero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo e ilMinistero dell’istruzione, dell’università e della ricerca adottanostrategie coordinate per l’unificazione delle banche datirispettivamente gestite, quali quelle riguardanti l’anagrafe nazionaledella ricerca, il deposito legale dei documenti digitali e la

Italy and OA - 112/2013 art. 4 (2)

della ricerca, il deposito legale dei documenti digitali e ladocumentazione bibliografica

4. Dall'attuazione delle disposizioni contenute nel presente articolo non devono derivare nuovi o maggiori oneri a carico della finanza pubbli ca.Le pubbliche amministrazioni interessate provvedono con le risorse umane, strumentali e finanziarie disponibili a legislazione vigente.


Position statement on OA (2013)

Position statement on OA:�encourages open archives�encourages open archives�promotes free and open access to peer-reviewed journals�OA within 12 months�adoptes policies, regulations and mandates on OA


University of Padua and OA (1)

� Messina Declaration on Open Access (november 2004)

� Senato accademico (november 2004)[…] “viene espresso dai senatori un vivo apprezzamento per il nuovosistema in quanto la creazione di archivi aperti e la realizzazione diiniziative di editoria informatica, costituiscono un significativo supportoalle istituzioni accademiche.

Viene sottolineata inoltre l’importanza di considerare la possibilità diutilizzare le tesi dei dottorandi di ricerca che senza dubbiorappresentano, oggi, una ricchezza intellettuale”.

� http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/about.html […] “l’Università diPadova invita i suoi docenti, ricercatori, collaboratori a depositare laloro produzione scientifica in Padua@research”



Statuto (2011)

Art. 56 - Sistema Bibliotecario di Ateneo

[...] 3. L'Università fa propri i principi dell'accesso pieno e aperto[...] 3. L'Università fa propri i principi dell'accesso pieno e apertoalla letteratura scientifica e promuove la libera disseminazione inrete dei risultati delle ricerche prodotte in Ateneo, per assicurarne lapiù ampia diffusione possibile.



Policy sull’Accesso Aperto (Open Access) alla letteratura scientifica (2015):� institutional repository of the all scientificproduction of universityproduction of university� PhD theses

www.unipd.it/download/file/fid/29968



Regolamento per l’Accesso Aperto alla produzione scientifica dell’Università di Padova (D.R. 2745 -07.08.2017) www.unipd.it/download/file/fid/55401


Università di Padova and OA/PhD theses � Linee guida per il deposito delle tesi di dottorato negli archivi

aperti - Commissione biblioteche della CRUI (november2007)

� Decreto Ministeriale 224/99 art.11Regolamento in materia di dottorato di ricerca

� Regolamento di Ateneo in materia di Scuole di dottorato diricerca - Testo vigente (modificato con D.R. n. 3325 del7.12.2012) “un esemplare cartaceo della tesi, la ricevuta cheattesti l’avvenuto deposito della tesi in formato elettroniconell ’’’’archivio di Ateneo Padua@Research per il depositopresso le Biblioteche nazionali di Roma e Firenze, al fine dirispettare quanto previsto dalla normativa vigente”


Suggestions for a roadmap to OA

1. raise awareness of OA (e.g. national or institutional OA advocacy campaigns,http://openaccessweek.org/ )

2. author incentives - create incentives and remove disincentives for authors toadopt OA publishing and archiving (e.g. reimbursement of OA publicationcosts)

3. publisher incentives - provide subscription publishers with a viable route toflip their business models to open access.

4. competition - improve transparency in the market, with the goal of making thecosts of publishing and accessing scientific research as open as the researchitself.

5. infrastructure - develop robust infrastructure, built on common, openstandards, to allow open access to scale rapidly and efficiently.

6. monitoring - implement effective mechanisms to monitor policy compliance,the proportion of open access content, and the sustainability of differentstakeholders in the scholarly communications process.

OpenAIRE, Report : Towards a Competitive and Sustainable OA Market in Europe - A Study of the OpenAccess Market and Policy Environment” , march 2017, https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1841


The times they are a’changing… or are they?The times they are a’changing… or are they?


Theresa Velden, Carl Lagoze, The value of new Scientific Communication models for Chemistry : white paper,october 2009https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/14150/whitepaper_final.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Jianguo Wu, Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond, Landscape Ecology, 2010, 26(10), p.1345-1349 http://leml.asu.edu/jingle/Wu-Publications-PDFs/2011/Wu-2011-ScientificWriting.pdf

Matthew P. Long, Roger C. Schonfeld , Supporting the changing research practices of Chemists, New York, IthakaS+R , 2013http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Supporting-the-Changing-Research-Practices-of-Chemists-FINAL.pdf

Mark Ware, Michael Mabe, The STM Report : an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 4. ed., The

References (1)

Mark Ware, Michael Mabe, The STM Report : an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 4. ed., TheHague : International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers,2015 http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf

Stephen Bosch, Kittie Henderson, Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On. Periodicals Price Survey 2017, LibraryJournal, 19april 2017, http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2017/04/publishing/new-world-same-model-periodicals-price-survey-2017/

Sarah Kaplan, Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak, Washington Post,18/08/2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/

Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P., The oligopoly of academic publishers in the Digital Era, PLoS ONE, 2015http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Chemical Information: retrieving, managing, evaluating, publishingGraduate course in Molecular sciences 2017Ernest Abadal , Open Access: L'accesso aperto alla letteratura scientifica , Leidi, 2014

http://ledibooks.com/openaccess/front-matter/introduction/

Danah Boyd, Open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals, 2008,http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/02/06/openaccess_is_t.htmlE traduzione/adattamento italiano “Dodici comandamenti per l’accesso aperto” a cura di Maria Chiara Pievatolohttp://btfp.sp.unipi.it/?p=1479

Antonella De Robbio, Accesso aperto in Italia: tra sogno e realtà, Vedianche, 23 (2), (2013)http://leo.cineca.it/index.php/vedianche/article/view/9418/8595

Mark J. McCabe, Christopher M. Snyder, Identifying the effect of Open Access on citations using a panel of Science Journals, October2013, Social Science Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269040

Stephen Pinfield, A mandate to self archive? The role of open access institutional repositories (Based on a paper presented at the

References (2)

UKSG seminar ‘Scientific Publications: Free for all?’, The Geological Society, London, Tuesday 23 November 2004)http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/152/1/mandate_to_archive.pdf

David J. Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk , A study of open access journals using article processing charges, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(8), p. 1485–1495 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22673/abstract;jsessionid=BB966A20BFE3DA2BF6DF58CEF7FFBAB4.f01t04

Peter Suber , Open Access, MIT press, 2012https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf

Alma Swan, Sheridan Brown, Open access self-archiving: an author study. (2005) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/260999/

Jingfeng Xia … [et al], A review of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate Policies, Libraries and the Academy, 12(1), (2012), pp. 85–102https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/portal_pre_print/current/articles/12.1xia.pdf

Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 (2013)http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

Scholarly communication and Open Access the times they are a … · 2017-10-23 · Scholarly...

Documents

Transcript of Scholarly communication and Open Access the times they are a … · 2017-10-23 · Scholarly...