Open Access Publishing as a Para Academic Proposition…

Statut

Open Access Publishing as a Para-Academic Proposition: OA as Labour Relation :

“In this commentary, I ask what is meant by the phrase Open Access (OA)? If OA publishing has emancipatory potential for the publics that are thought to benefit from the practice, why is there so much business as usual? Para-academic practices are about affirming scholarship as a symptom and creating a common good, creating a public knowledge that is a knowledgable public. It is because OA shares this concern for publics that para-academic practices include OA publishing. By debating the merits of, experimenting with, and invigorating our understanding of OA I believe para-academic practices become more apparently necessary because ultimately OA, like Academia, is haunted by the figure of the public as an already-formed thing.”

URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/529

De l’intérêt des bibliothèques nationales pour l’Open Access…

Statut

De l’intérêt des bibliothèques nationales pour l’Open Access :

“Il y a de cela dix ans, la Déclaration de Berlin sur le libre accès à la connaissance en sciences exactes, sciences de la vie, sciences humaines et sociales, désormais reconnue comme l’un des textes fondateurs du mouvement de l’Open Access (OA), précisait les deux conditions requises pour qu’une publication soit dite de libre accès :
• l’attribution d’un droit d’accès « gratuit, irrévocable et mondial » et d’une licence de réutilisation, d’une part ;
• l’archivage électronique de sa version complète, d’autre part.

À ce jour, quatre bibliothèques nationales figurent parmi les 451 signataires de ce texte : la Bibliothèque royale du Danemark, la Bibliothèque royale de Suède, la Biblioteca de Catalunya et la Bibliothèque nationale islandaise. Cela paraît bien peu et interroge sur les raisons qui pourraient pousser ces établissements à s’intéresser à la pratique de la diffusion en ligne, sans intermédiation et sans barrière financière, de la littérature scientifique.

Tout d’abord, la Déclaration de Berlin embrasse dans sa définition du libre accès non seulement les données et travaux de la recherche mais aussi les biens culturels : « Nous définissons le libre accès comme une source universelle de la connaissance humaine et du patrimoine culturel ayant recueilli l’approbation de la communauté scientifique. » Permettre à tous d’accéder à « la connaissance, la pensée, la culture et l’information » est un des engagements des bibliothèques publiques. Certes, « [l]e fonds commun de la pensée et de l’information scientifiques est [déjà] de libre parcours. » Toutefois la tendance aujourd’hui est à une privatisation du savoir. Peuvent être évoqués ici le phénomène d’extension du domaine du brevetable (au vivant, aux mathématiques, aux découvertes elles-mêmes), l’allongement de la durée des droits d’auteur et l’octroi d’une protection juridique aux « digital barbed wire 6 » (« fils de fer barbelés numériques »). Les bibliothèques nationales peuvent dès lors soutenir l’émergence de nouveaux modèles de diffusion de l’information.

Les bibliothèques nationales se sont saisies de la question de l’Open Access à des degrés divers. Certaines ont usé de leur position stratégique pour défendre la cause du libre et engager le politique à s’y intéresser à son tour. D’autres ont choisi de mettre à profit leurs compétences et leurs moyens pour faire avancer un dossier particulier, qu’il s’agisse de signalement, d’archivage ou d’édition électronique. D’autres encore ont voulu s’associer au mouvement de l’OA par la libre publication de leurs ressources sur internet.”

URL : http://bbf.enssib.fr/consulter/bbf-2013-06-0020-003

From Sustainable Publishing To Resilient Communications

In their opening reflection on Open Access (OA) in this special section, Fuchs and Sandoval (2013) argue the current policy debate on Open Access publishing is limited by a for-profit bias which blinds it to much of the most innovative activity in Open Access.

They further argue for a refocusing of the policy debate within a public service, commons based perspective of academic knowledge production. I pick up these themes by looking at another key term, sustainable publishing, in an effort to contextualize the policy debate on OA within the broader context of the privatization of the university.

From this perspective, the policy debate reveals an essential tension between top-down and bottom-up cultures in legitimizing knowledge. This is a tension that has profound implications for scholarly practices mediated through digital networked communications. Explicitly acknowledging this fundamental tension gives additional insight into formulating strategies for maintaining an academic culture of free and open inquiry.

I suggest that the frame of resilient communications expresses the dynamic nature of scholarly communications better than that of sustainable publishing, and that empowering scholars through practice-based OA initiatives is essential in broadening grass roots support for equitable Open Access amongst scholars.

URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/528

The Open Access Movement is Not Really about…

Statut

The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access :

“While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals. The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.”

URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525

Opening the Dissertation Overcoming Cultural Calcification and Agoraphobia…

Statut

Opening the Dissertation: Overcoming Cultural Calcification and Agoraphobia :

“This article places the struggle to open access to the dissertation in the context of the crisis in doctoral education and the transition from print to digital literacy. It explores the underlying cultural calcification and agoraphobia that deter engagement with openness. Solving the problems will require overhauling the curriculum and conventions of doctoral education. Opening access to dissertations is an important first step, but insufficient to end the crisis. Only opening other dimensions of the dissertation – the structure, media, notion of authorship, and methods of assessment – can foster the digital literacy needed to save PhD programs from extinction. If higher education institutions invested heavily in remedying obsolete practices, the remedies would reverberate throughout the academy, accelerate advancement in the disciplines, and revolutionize scholarly publishing. The article ends with a discussion of the significant role librarians could play in facilitating needed changes given appropriate institutional commitment.”

URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/522

The Diamond Model of Open Access Publishing: Why Policy Makers, Scholars, Universities, Libraries, Labour Unions and the Publishing World Need to Take Non-Commercial, Non-Profit Open Access

This reflection introduces a new term to the debate on open access publishing: diamond open access (DOA) publishing. The debate on open access is a debate about the future of academia.

We discuss the problems of for-profit academic publishing, such as monopoly prices and access inequalities and point at the limits of contemporary perspectives on open access as they are frequently advanced by the publishing industry, policy makers and labour unions.

The article introduces a public service and commons perspective that stresses the importance of fostering and publicly supporting what we term the model of diamond open access.

It is a non-profit academic publishing model that makes academic knowledge a common good, reclaims the common character of the academic system and entails the possibility for fostering job security by creating public service publishing jobs.

Existing concepts such as “gold open access” have serious conceptual limits that can be overcome by introducing the new term of diamond open access. The debate on open access lacks visions and requires social innovations.

This article is a policy intervention and reflection on current issues related to open access (OA) publishing. It reflects on the following questions:

  • What should the role of open access be in the future of academic publishing and academia?
  • How should the future of academic publishing and academia look like?
  • Which reforms of academic policy making are needed in relation to open access publishing?

We want to trigger a new level of the open access debate. We invite further reflections on these questions by academics, policy makers, publishers, publishing workers, labour unions, open access publishing associations, editors and librarians.

URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/502
Un résumé français de l’article est accessible sur http://oadesk.hypotheses.org/298 (ce résumé a été rédigé par Benjamin Caraco)

Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE PLOS

Statut

“PLOS ONE (formerly PLoS ONE) is an international open access online journal published by the Public Library of Science. The periodical covers all science and medicine categories and has published as many as 28,852 documents from 2007 to 2011. PLOS ONE will be used to show the range of journal metrics and informetric methods regarding validity, practicability and informative value. To assess this data as specifically as possible and to address all relevant factors, the evaluation is split into five dimensions, each of which involves distinct metrics. The five dimensions are journal output, journal content, journal perception, journal citations and journal management. Each of them is pointed out in the process of the analyses, and all significant evaluation results are presented. The results show that PLOS ONE has experienced an enormous development. Because of a relatively low rejection rate of 31%, its openness towards a multitude of different research areas, an internationally large peer review community, and its open access, a plurality of documents can be published in comparison with a print-journal or other online periodicals. The results of the evaluation indicate that PLOS ONE should be assessed from numerous perspectives because there are a variety of indicators beyond the impact factor that can be made use of in order to evaluate exhaustively the standing of the journal as well as its prestige and impact.”

URL : http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/libr.2013.63.issue-4/libri-2013-0021/libri-2013-0021.xml?format=INT