Hardin Scholarly Communication News

Open Access for the Medical Librarian

September 22nd, 2006 by UI Libraries

Morrison, Heather and Waller, Andrew (2006) Open access for the medical librarian. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 27(3):pp. 69-73.

Abstract:
In this article open access is defined, and the resources and issues of greatest relevance to the medical librarian are discussed. The economics of open access publishing is examined from the point of view of the university library. Open access resources, both journals and articles in repositories, are already significant and growing rapidly. There are close to 2300 fully open-access peer review journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (320 health sciences titles are included). DOAJ is adding titles at a rate of 1.5 per day. An OAIster search of resources in repositories includes more than 7.6 million items (a rough estimate of the number of articles in repositories, although not all items are full text), and this number will exceed one billion items before the end of 2007. Medical research funders, including the US National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, either have implemented or are considering open access policies. This will drive greater growth in open access resources, particularly in the area of medicine. There are implications and leadership opportunities for librarians in the open access environment.

Encouraging Society Publishers to Experiment with OA

September 22nd, 2006 by UI Libraries

John Willinsky, Why Open Access to Research and Scholarship? Journal of Neuroscience, September 6, 2006.

Excerpt:
The Internet has changed how we conduct and share research, primarily by increasing the global reach of scholarly communication. With scholarly journals, this possibility of expanding the circulation of knowledge has led to an “open access” movement that is making an increasing number of published, peer-reviewed articles free to read on-line. Authors, editors, publishers, and librarians are exploring new ways of using the Internet to make more of their research available in this way. The Society for Neuroscience provides an excellent example. It has recently increased the level of open access to The Journal of Neuroscience by making back issues, once they are 6 months old, freely accessible to on-line readers. The current president of the Society for Neuroscience, Stephen Heineman, explained that the move to increase access made sense, not only in light of National Institutes of Health and patient advocacy group initiatives, but because “open access is also consistent with the mission of the Society to promote research and to educate the public” (Heineman, 2006), and to that end, the Society is a signatory to the Washington D.C. Principles for Free Access to Science….

The question that scholarly societies and publishers are asking is that even if no one disputes the public good represented by the greater circulation of this knowledge, how can a journal be expected to offer free access to its content and remain financially viable? More than that, why would a scholarly society put subscription revenues at risk to further increase free access to its content? …

To begin with the simplest of points, made across a growing number of studies, open access leads to a work being cited more often and more quickly (Hitchcock, 2006)…

The most important reason for pursuing open access comes down to first principles. With its proven ability to increase the circulation of research (meaning that more researchers are turning a critical and appreciative eye to this work), open access strengthens the scientific claims of articles and overall quality of the research literature. Open access to research literature may prove to be the most important scientific gain afforded by the Internet…

Yet, open access is also part of a larger set of worries for the executive directors of scholarly associations. Many of them are witnessing the slow attrition of journal subscriptions among institutions, as libraries face tough choices between the big publishers’ bundled titles and the smaller society titles. At the same time, individuals are seeing less value in subscribing to titles that the library delivers to their laptops. How, then, are societies to serve member-authors, whose primary interest is in increasing their readership (rather than seeing it dwindle) and realizing the full benefit of their contributions to the public good? …

[T]Internet is already leading, much as the printing press did centuries ago, to a greater circulation of this work. How much greater that circulation will be, and to whose benefit, are the questions that we should all be asking. The answer will depend, in part, on the leadership and vision of scholarly societies such as this one, as well as the actions of its members (when it comes to self- archiving their published work). At the very least, this is a time to experiment (the very thing we do so well, after all) with new ways and models of scholarly publishing….

Also see Gary Westbrook’s (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Neuroscience) editorial titled “An Open Question”:

Excerpt:
Certainly there are legitimate reasons why government-funded research should be available to those who paid for it, but the reality, at least for the Journal of Neuroscience is that 96% of the articles published since 1981 are already freely available to anyone with Internet access. Only the 600 papers published in the last 6 months are under access control, and those are freely available to each of the >35,000 members of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) as a benefit of membership, as well as at more than 1000 libraries across the world. A recent survey of the membership indicated strong support for the concept of open access, but an unwillingness to pay the ~$3000 cost of each article published in the Journal, perhaps not a surprise in this year of uncertain grant funding.

Open Access News, 9/08/2006

‘Nature’ Opts for Open Peer-Review Systems

September 22nd, 2006 by UI Libraries

Scientific journal Nature has reportedly adopted an open peer-review system to review papers submitted for publication. Under the initiative, manuscripts will be uploaded to a pre-print server and made available online to members of the scientific community in a blog format.

Comments submitted are subject to review themselves prior to being published, and those commenting will be required to put their name and institution to their words. In addition to public review via the Peer Review Trial, manuscripts will continue to be sent to Nature’s experts for a closed review. Also, authors can choose not to have their work reviewed in this manner, as there are some disadvantages associated with having an open peer-review. Although access is intended primarily for the scientific community, anyone can access the pre-published material.

However, the journal will discard any comments found to be irrelevant, intemperate or inappropriate. According to Nature’s editors, both sets of comments — the traditional peer-review opinions as well as the online remarks – will be taken into consideration while deciding whether or not to publish a study.
Interested readers can also visit the Nature web debate on Peer Review, and are invited to comment on the articles published there.

Knowledgespeak, 9/18/06 (and Issues in Scholarly Communication: SC News for the UIUC Community, Sept 18, 2006)

The Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance (CBCRA) Provides OA to the Research it Funds

September 22nd, 2006 by UI Libraries

From the CBCRA web site:

We have created a unique [open-access] repository of peer-reviewed literature on breast cancer research, research supported by CBCRA. We believe it is the first of its kind, initiated by us because we believe that the public should have free access to research results funded by public agencies….CBCRA is the primary granting agency for breast cancer research in Canada….To date, CBCRA has allocated $138 million to top-quality breast cancer research in Canada.

The CBCRA doesn’t mandate OA to its research, although it’s thinking about a mandate for the future. It simply tries to provide OA to all the CBCRA-funded research that it can. Instead of doing this by contract, at the time of funding, it does it by painstaking requests for permission sent to grantee-authors and their publishers after they have published research based on CBCRA funding. First it tracks down authors and asks them to sign a license. Then it contacts their publisher and asks for permission to post an OA copy of the article to the CBCRA repository. It doesn’t send its queries until at least 12 months after publication, when publishers are more likely to agree. When it gets no replies, it sends out its letters again.

Using this arduous method since February of this year, CBCRA has been able to provide OA to about 25% of its research. About 62% of authors and 70% of publishers have agreed to the OA proposition. It’s considering a mandate in part to enlarge its OA coverage to 100% and in part to reduce or eliminate the large administrative burden of permission-seeking.

Kudos to the CBCRA for the steps it has already taken and for considering a mandate for the future. Unlike the Wellcome Trust, which is private, and the Research Councils UK, which are public, the CBCRA is an alliance with members on each side of the line. Its motto is: “Canada’s unique collaboration of public, private and non-profit organizations.”

The Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance (CBCRA)
http://www.breast.cancer.ca/

The CBRCA’s OA repository, hosted by the University of Toronto
https://researchspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807.1/1
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_07_02_fosblogarchive.html#115231219745255122

SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #100/August 2, 2006

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, September Issue Includes Three Essays on OA

September 22nd, 2006 by UI Libraries

The September issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has three articles/essays addressing open access:
• Stevan Harnad, Open access: the evidence and the verdict (Letters: http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/9/435-a)
• Mark Walport and Robert Kiley, Open access, UK PubMed Central and the Wellcome Trust (Essays: http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/9/438)
• Richard Smith, The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research (Series: http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/9/452)

(Currently articles are restricted to U of Iowa affiliates and other subscribers)

Hardin Scholarly Communication News is proudly powered by WordPress MU