The Conversation 13 December 2013
The publishing giant Elsevier owns much of the world’s academic knowledge, in the form of article copyright. In the past few weeks it has stepped up enforcement of its property rights, issuing “take-down notices” to Academia.edu, where many researchers post PDFs of their articles.
The articles in question were published in Elsevier-owned journals, and are legally available only by subscription, often at exorbitant prices.
Sydney Morning Herald Asa Wahlquist 21 November 2013
One Australian university is pushing the boundaries of unrestricted access to its scholarly research.
t is one of the greatest challenges so far to the claim that academics live in ivory towers. Peer-reviewed research from academics at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) will soon be available to the general public, free of charge, on iTunes, the so-called jukebox software used to download music, film and book files.
The Conversation James Bradley 4 November 2013
Open access has become the catch-cry of academic science, demanding all research be freely available to anyone. But it leaves open the question of how publishers are to make money.
Science, the widely respected magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently commissioned a sting operation aimed at revealing serious abuses within the world of open access publishing.
Predatory open-access publishing is discussed.
The Conversation 1 October 2013
“Publish or perish” is a well-known maxim within academia.
A paper published overnight by American researchers Heather Piwowar and Todd Vision in the open access journal PeerJ has finally reliably demonstrated what many data sharing advocates have been saying for a long time.
Far from hurting the ability to publish, sharing data in a public repository can actually lead to a tangible benefit to your publication record through increased citations.
The Conversation 18 September 2013,
Few things are changing faster in the research world than publishing. The “open access” movement recognises that publicly-funded research should be freely available to everyone. Now more than a decade old, open access is changing where researchers publish and, more importantly, how the wider world accesses – and assesses – their work.
As the nation’s medical research funding body, we at the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) mandate that all publications from research we’ve funded be openly accessible. We and the government’s other key funding organisation, the Australian Research Council, are flexible on how it’s done, as long as the paper is made available.
Nature 495, 433–435 (28 March 2013) doi:10.1038/495433a
The goal of predatory open-access publishers is to exploit the open-access model by charging the fee without providing all the expected publishing services. These publishers typically display “an intention to deceive authors and readers, and a lack of transparency in their operations and processes”. Some researchers say that they thought their papers had been poorly peer reviewed or not peer reviewed at all, or that they found themselves listed as members of editorial boards they had not agreed to serve on.
Click here to read full-text
“Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)” New York Times, 7 April 2013
This article about the predatory behaviour of pseudo-academic conferences and journals is being widely discussed on the internet (Richard Dawkins, Science-Based Medicine, etc.). Damages include high hidden fees, promotion of anti-vaccination and other agendas and possible theft of intellectual property.
“… some researchers are now raising the alarm about what they see as the proliferation of online journals that will print seemingly anything for a fee. They warn that nonexperts doing online research will have trouble distinguishing credible research from junk. “Most people don’t know the journal universe,” Dr. Goodman said. “They will not know from a journal’s title if it is for real or not.””
Research Information 15 April 2013
In response to the seismic shift in the publishing landscape brought on by open access (OA), Taylor & Francis has asked its author community for its views and behaviour related to the subject. The company received 14,769 responses.
The findings included:
- 79 per cent of authors still want traditional rigorous peer review of their work, all or most of the time when publishing OA;
- 68 per cent of authors are happy for their work to be reused for non-commercial gain; and
- It is important to 70 per cent of authors that the general public can access and read their work.
Read full report