"Anyone, anywhere in the world should have free, unhindered access to not just my research, but to the research of every great and inquiring mind across the spectrum of human understanding." – Stephen Hawking #oaweek https://t.co/eMkYlG0dor
— LIBEReurope (@LIBEReurope) October 23, 2017
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:
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
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.
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
Johann. N. Neem’s article Coming Down From the Clouds, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, brilliantly explores both sides to the question: Should academics write for each other or for the public?
We increasingly live in an age of hard-fought-for and, at times, diminishing transparency: in government; in media; and now, at times, in scholarly communication. When the tax-paying public becomes aware that their taxes are paying for the vast majority of research conducted within this country (and most others) many would like the opportunity to share in that knowledge creation and dissemination of which they are an integral part. To know, for example, that two black holes are colliding and that the impact of that collision can now be measured and conveyed to us in layers of profound meaning is, indeed, human progress. Neem writes:
We want physicists who write for each other. I appreciate that, at conferences and in academic papers, they have challenged each other’s conclusions and, in doing so, have pushed forward the boundaries of knowledge. Yet I am also grateful for my scientist friends who posted on Facebook links to videos and essays in which scientists explained, in terms that I could understand, why it was so significant that we had heard black holes colliding.
Has the time come for researchers to embrace lay summary dissemination services such as GrowKudos.com? Then, even if the scholarly work is impenetrable, at least the common Google researcher could find a trace of it and perhaps links to other works that may help explain it.
To explore more of Neem’s insightful piece please go here Coming Down From the Clouds: On Academic Writing