We have a guest speaker from the new journal 'eLife' joining us on Wednesday (1:15pm), organised via the Pharmacy & Pharmacology seminar series. The session will be of interest to all researchers - postgrads, postdocs and academic staff.
A brief outline of the session is provided below:
This years penulitmate Departmental seminar has been arranged in conjunction with the library staff to discuss a new model of open access publishing.
Kara Jones from the UoB library will briefly introduce some new developments at the University of Bath in relation to open access publishing - see attached - in light of the RCUK new guidelines that all RCUK funded research must be published in an open access manner - and the potential development that all REF output beyond REF2014 will need to be freely accessible
The seminar will be delivered by Mark Patterson, Executive Director of eLife
"eLife - designing a digital research journal fit for purpose"
The seminar will be followed by coffee and biscuits and an opportunity for people to interact with the seminar speaker and library staff answering any questions regarding the evolving face of open access publishing.
ABOUT MARK PATTERSON:
In June 2011, three of the world’s leading research funding agencies -the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society - announced plans to launch a top-tier, open-access research journal covering the life and biomedical sciences. eLife was launched in December 2012. Mark Patterson started his career as a researcher in genetics before moving into scientific publishing in 1994 as the Editor of Trends in Genetics. After a few years at Nature, where
he was involved in the launch of the Nature Reviews Journals, he moved to PLOS in 2003. As the Director of Publishing, Mark helped to launch several of the PLOS Journals and was one of the founders of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Mark is also a member of the UK Open Access Implementation Group. In November 2011, Mark joined eLife and currently serves as the Executive Director.
Publishers have a key role to play in enabling authors to make their work open access. This is a hot topic for authors obliged to meet funder requirements such as the RCUK’s open access policy.
Have you heard from any publishers recently about changes to their open access options and policies? If so, we’d love to hear from you. So far I’ve seen a real mix, including:
- Elsevier and IEEE now offer CC-BY licencing for gold open access
- ACM have introduced a new ‘gold’ open access publishing option and still support green open access
- Sage have removed their 12 month embargo period for green open access
- Conversely, Springer have introduced a 12 month embargo period for green open access
Please email email@example.com to let us know what the journals you publish with or edit for are offering.
RCUK have released revised guidance on their Policy on Open Access, which came into effect on 1st April, and some FAQs, see:
Are we all clear now on where we're up to in terms of feedback on revisions responding to feedback on the inquiry into the policy change?
Here's the response from Lord Krebs and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to the RCUK revised policy on open access.
There's been no announcement, as far as I can tell, on when and if the RCUK will be responding to the feedback they'd requested. I assume it won't be before the first of April.
If I had a pound for each time I've heard that statement over the last week (actually the RCUK policy calls it a 'process'), I'd almost have enough for a Gold OA article in an Elsevier journal.
The LSE Impact of Social Science blog today contains a response to an earlier post about institutional repositories and their role in the transition to Open Access. It was almost like the authors today's post had listened to the conversations in our office over the last few days. I'm joking, of course they haven't but the points raised echoed our own response to Mike Taylor's post.
The scholarly communications landscape is evolving. Repositories are a part of the transition - without them, and (note this point) the expertise developed through their use and promotion, the Open Access movement would not be where it is today, which is at the forefront of discussions on publications and the sharing of research.
The irony is that we are all for Open Access, it's the journey that's under discussion.
Readers may be interested in this tool recently announced by the group that manages the Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet services - SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT).
The recent announcement below:
"The Centre for Research Communications (CRC) is pleased to announce that Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Wellcome Trust have provided seed funding for the development of a SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT). SHERPA FACT will interpret data from SHERPA RoMEO, JULIET and other sources to provide clear guidance to RCUK and Wellcome Trust funded authors on compliance with their Open Access (OA) policies and advise on the options available.
SHERPA FACT will be available from 01 April 2013.
Further details and updates will be posted our blog (http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/)"
This article from Nature circulated the email list of a science department recently:
Predatory publishers are corrupting open access
The author of this article on predatory open access publishers is Jeffery Beall, Scholarly Initiatives Librarian at the University of Colorado Denver.
Unfortunately he has found a necessary niche. He maintains a list of publishers to watch out for, based on these criteria.
If authors receive emails soliciting publications, and are not sure about the publisher we'd like to know please, and help if we can. We have had instances of PhD students receiving invitations to have their theses published as books. This is potentially a great opportunity, and good for the ego/career, but a little investigation into the publisher's reputation (for any sort of publication, not just OA articles) has always been the sensible route.
HEFCE have announced their intention to “introduce a requirement that all outputs submitted to the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise are published on an open-access basis” (para 8), with some flexibility and exceptions for where this is not reasonably possible.
HEFCE’s proposals would require research outputs submitted to post-2014 REFs to be accessible through an institutional repository (such as the University of Bath’s Opus). Both green and gold forms of open access would be acceptable, and there would be an allowance for reasonable embargo periods for green open access.
For me, the most striking part of the proposal is the intention that “work which has been originally published in an ineligible form then retrospectively made available in time for the post-2014 REF submission date should not be eligible, as the primary objective of this proposal is to stimulate immediate open-access publication” (para 12). This means we need to start acting on this now. It can’t wait until the next REF!
Read the full document: ‘Open Access and Submissions to the Research Excellence Framework post-2014’.
HEFCE invite responses to this consultation by 25th March 2013.
Oh my. The New York Times has an opinion piece supporting the move towards Open Access for government funded research:
We Paid for the Research, So Let’s See It.
They even suggest a shorter embargo than 12 months.
HEFCE and the UK funding councils have issued a call for commentary on the role of OA publishing in the submission of outputs to the post-2014 REF. This appears to carry a good deal of support for repositories.
Interesting post by SPARC Europe on funder policies on Open Access from around the world. Note the lonely funder under 'Gold (journals) preferred where available'..