Mastodawn

Nóra Papp Jan 26, 2024

Pablo de Castro Jan 24, 2024

@scidecode teams up w/ @OA_Works to base @cOAlitionS_OA study on #impact of #PlanS on open bibliographic data sources, https://scidecode.com/2024/01/22/choosing-a-data-sample-provider-for-our-study-on-the-impact-of-plan-s/
@OpenAlex @unpaywall etc
@scinoptica @ztirfhtor

Choosing a data sample provider for our study on the impact of Plan S | scidecode science consulting

Choosing a data sample provider for our study on the impact of Plan S The Invitation to Tender that cOAlition S put out on 10 Jul 2023 for a study to assess

scidecode science consulting

Nóra Papp Jan 26, 2024

cOAlition S Jan 25, 2024

Are open bibliometric data sources superior?
@scidecode ’s study for @cOAlitionS_OA impact reveals open sources outshine commercial ones in quality.📈
Read more from @Pappnor https://coalition-s.org/blog/are-open-bibliometric-data-sources-better-than-proprietary-ones
& check the full findings: https://scidecode.com/2024/01/22/choosing-a-data-sample-provider-for-our-study-on-the-impact-of-plan-s/

#OpenScience #ResearchData

Are open bibliometric data sources better than proprietary ones? | Plan S

<p>With the advancement of open science, the reliability of open bibliometric data providers compared with proprietary providers is becoming a topic of increasing importance. Proprietary providers such as Scopus, SciVal, and Web of Science have been criticised for their profit-oriented nature, their opaqueness, and lack of inclusiveness, notably of authors and works from the Global […]</p>

Nóra Papp Dec 9, 2023

Bianca Kramer Dec 8, 2023

Very inspiring: Sorbonne University unsubscribes from Web of Science and Clarivate's bibliometric tools, and will support open alternatives instead, in particular @OpenAlex.

‘By resolutely abandoning the use of proprietary bibliometric products, it is opening the way for open, free and participative tools.’

Hope to see more institutes follow this transition from closed to open systems for research information!

https://www.sorbonne-universite.fr/en/news/sorbonne-university-unsubscribes-web-science

Sorbonne University unsubscribes from the Web of Science

Sorbonne University has been deeply committed to the promotion and the development of open science for many years. According to its commitment to open research information, it has decided to discontinue its subscription to the Web of Science publication database and Clarivate bibliometric tools in 2024. By resolutely abandoning the use of proprietary bibliometric products, it is opening the way for open, free and participative tools.

Sorbonne Université

Nóra Papp Nov 22, 2023

Ludo Waltman Nov 22, 2023

20 minute action: provide feedback on a funder proposal that would support preprints & open review https://asapbio.org/20-minute-action-provide-feedback-on-a-funder-proposal-that-would-support-preprints-open-review

"these features support an ecosystem of preprint servers on top of which open peer review and curation may be layered ... @cOAlitionS_OA additionally addresses inequities associated with the APC model"

@ASAPbio

20 minute action: provide feedback on a funder proposal that would support preprints & open review

Take cOAlition S’s survey by the November 29th deadline to support a new model of publishing cOAlition S, an initiative of more than 2 dozen national funders and charitable organizations, has recently released the “Towards Responsible Publishing” proposal. The two key features of this proposal, as stated in an introductory blog post, are: 1. Authors,…

ASAPbio

Nóra Papp Nov 9, 2023

petersuber Nov 9, 2023

How much did the five biggest academic #publishers make in article processing charges (#APCs) 2015--2018?
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272

"We estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018."

That breaks down to $448.3m for APCs at #hybrid journals and $612.5m for APCs at full (non-hybrid) OA journals.

Here's the breakdown by publisher: Springer-Nature ($589.7m), Elsevier ($221.4m), Wiley ($114.3m), Taylor & Francis ($76.8m), Sage ($31.6m).

The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How the Big Five Academic Publishers Profit from Article Processing Charges

Abstract. This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.Peer Review. https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00272

MIT Press

Nóra Papp Nov 9, 2023

cOAlition S Nov 9, 2023

Couldn't make it to our #Plan_S at 5 years webinar? No problem! The recording is now up on our YouTube channel. Tune in to catch up on the enlightening discussions about the past of Plan S and the future of #ScholarlyCommunication.
#OpenAccess #Plan_S5 https://youtu.be/DZjPMlwIZdE

5 Years of Plan S

YouTube

Nóra Papp Nov 3, 2023

Mike Taylor 🦕Nov 3, 2023

My take on Plan S's refocussing on a publish-then-filter approach:

The first version of Plan S went out of its way to invite legacy publishers to be partners in the process of transition to a non-expoiltative Gold OA ecosystem.

Predictably, the legacy publishers instead grabbed the short-term gains of charging both APCs *and* subscriptions during a "transitional period" that they want to extend forever.

The new Plan S approach is a simple "no" to this. Publishers blew their chance to partner.

Nóra Papp Nov 3, 2023

Show thread

Mike Taylor 🦕Nov 3, 2023

For what it's worth, I think Plan S Phase 1 was necessary to get to Phase 2.

That take is corroborated by the postscript at https://www.jeffpooley.com/2023/11/the-redemption-of-plan-s/

"At today’s seminar, Robert-Jan Smits seemed to endorse the “Responsible Publishing” plan, calling it “Plan S 2.0” [...] In effect, he blamed the commercial publishers for digging their own graves."

The Redemption of Plan S | Jeff Pooley

Nóra Papp Nov 3, 2023

Richard Van Noorden Oct 31, 2023

The group behind the #openaccess #Plan_S launches a 'scholar-led' vision for science publishing: all open articles & peer reviews, authors decide when + where to publish [no jrnl gatekeeping], no fees for authors or readers.
report from Layal Liverpool | Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03342-6