OASPA Response to European Commission Expert Group Report on the Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) recently published their invited response to the European Commission Expert Group Report: Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication  

As a paid and qualified member of OASPA, UTS ePRESS would like to share a link to the OASPA response which, on the whole, it supports.

A key paragraph within the OASPA response includes the identification of the heavy burden researchers are carrying in the move toward open scholarship / open research practices. Indeed, to show our support for the need for research funding bodies and institutions to adjust the system of academic evaluation to enable cultural change toward open research practices, we would like to highlight that paragraph here:

At the crux of it all, then, lies the system of academic evaluation which OASPA also sees as a key barrier to both open access and open scholarship. This is something which affects all actors – but which those working towards open access publishing, open infrastructure and related support services are less able to influence directly. Policies and research practices of funders and institutions need to undergo significant change if open research practices and an open system of scholarly communication is to be realised. Scholars lie at the heart of the system and the burden of responsibility to change has largely rested with them, but they do not have the appropriate support, resources and incentives to change.

For the OASPA response and links to the original European Commission report please go here.


Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), UTS ePRESS supports the excellent work done by these organisations and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) to help establish Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

UTS ePRESS, therefore, would like to promote the release of the third and most recent version of those principles and best practice:


UTS ePRESS Management

SocArXiv media spotlight: Excess mortality in Puerto Rico

SocOpen: Home of SocArXiv

People walking in flood waters in Condado, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Sept. 22, 2017.Condado, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Sept. 22, 2017. Puerto Rico National Guard photo by Jose Ahiram Diaz-Ramos.

A paper by Alexis Santos and Jeffrey T. Howard, posted on SocArXiv, has received wide media attention, highlighting some of the advantages of using SocArXiv. The paper, “Estimates of excess deaths in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria,” was posted as a preprint before peer review.

The abstract reports a “descriptive finding” on excess deaths following Hurricane María for September and October. Using historical data from the Puerto Rico Vital Statistics system, the authors estimated expected deaths for each month. Then, using statements from the Puerto Rico Department of Public Safety, they compared the number of deaths for September and October 2017 to those from previous years, taking variability into account. The difference between their estimates of actual deaths in 2017 and the high-end estimates for those months was 518 deaths for…

View original post 352 more words

Stephen Hawking and Open Access


More Thoughts About Scholarly Publishing


This post presents some of my own views. It does not represent or reflect the views of the institution that I work for.

The post comes about as a result of a late night and early morning Twitter exchange and after hearing about the obscene charges a publisher has quoted us for perpetual licenses to academic e-texts.

Here’s the Twitter exchange:

twitter exchange.jpeg

And here is the link to Richard Poynder’s tweet above: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/897021213507297280

I don’t always agree with Richard, but I do in this case. Pay-to-publish Gold OA is defective and not sustainable; the research cycle does need more transparency; and there is a need for more public involvement in discussions about Open Access.

Publicly funded research in many universities, like those here in Australia, is not shared openly and the tax-paying public pay for it many times over:

1. Government funded universities.
2. Subscriptions or purchases of all the research…

View original post 1,091 more words

My thoughts on revolutionising scholarly publishing in the digital age

Source: MalBooth.com – My thoughts on revolutionising scholarly publishing in the digital age

Author: Mal Booth

On 14 February I was on a panel talking about the future of academic publishing for ALIA Information Online 2017. As there was no time for me to explain all of this I thought I’d post it all here with all the relevant links.

Essentially, I’m exploring the following key issues that need to be dealt with if we are ever to substantially improve, let alone revolutionise, academic publishing: speed (to access); improved reach (wider audience, not just the privileged); transparency of process; openness (for access); an expectation to use multi-media (sound, video, images); appropriate metrics; better facility and recognition for collaboration across disciplines; and interactivity.

And as a university librarian (i.e. not a scholar), I can’t stop myself from thinking that maybe we also need to decide whether scholarly publishing is really about the sharing of knowledge or just a competitive game where points are scored for individual and institutional reputations.

I must also thank some of my colleagues at UTS for their advice and suggestions, but what is written here is my personal view and it is not necessarily reflective of our institution.

For the full post go here.

Special Issue on Ethnocracy


Dear Reader,

In order to highlight the excellent content provided by UTS ePRESS Journals and Books we would like to take this chance to draw your attention to the (Open Access) Special Issue on Ethnocracy recently published by Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: an Interdisciplinary Journal. Below is the abstract of the Editorial Welcome to that Special Issue by James Goodman and James Anderson. Below the abstract is the DOI link which will take you to the full Editorial Welcome in PDF or HTML.

In addition, we would also like to draw your attention to an article in The Conversation that references articles in the Special Issue which provide more context and discussion on this important topic.

Enjoy your reading!

Editorial Welcome: Special Issue on Ethnocracy

James Anderson


This Special Issue of Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal focuses on the domination of social and political relations by Ethnocracy – rule or would-be rule by an ethnic group or ethnos, as distinct from Democracy or rule by the demos of all the people. Ethnocracy encompasses state regimes and associated political movements and parties that discriminate systematically in favour of a particular ethnic group (or groups) and against others. When we proposed the Special Issue in late 2014 ethnocratic practices were as prevalent as they had ever been; and now two years later they appear to be on the increase with an ethno-populist upsurge and the election or threatened election of governments pursuing ethnocratic agendas. From India to the USA, from Russia to Hungary, leading politicians openly discriminate against ethnic ‘others’ to attract support from ‘their own’ ethnic groups; across the European Union and in other liberal democracies they increasingly scapegoat ‘immigrants’ to hide their own inadequacies and further their political objectives. Now, more than ever, it is critical that the dynamics of ethnocracy are more clearly understood. This Issue documents the logics of ethnocracy in a variety of different contexts, posing questions about how it develops and how it can be challenged.
For the full text of this article go to DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v8i3.5283