Open access / public access:
>>WU Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research page on NIH Public Access Policy was revised and renamed: Public Access Mandates.
>>New open access requirements for publications and data from the Gates Foundation: More information and post in Nature News blog: Gates Foundation announces world’s strongest policy on open access research
>>Don't miss the OpenCon2014 links!
>>Let It Go: Cancelling Subscriptions, Funding Transitions, blog post by Cameron Neylon [also reposted on the Impact of Social Sciences blog with title: Let Elsevier Go: The potential savings from cancelling journal subscriptions would cover the Open Access transition] I've heard Cameron Neylon speak about the economics of open access, saying that there is enough money in the current publishing/subscription system to pay for the open access publishing model. Here he works with numbers from Elsevier and the Netherlands and shows that the transition is NOT simple. While this doesn't apply to WU since we don't support open access publishing fees (APCs) institutionally, the message does come home since, as far as I know, we are still negotiating with Elsevier and do not yet have a contract for 2015.
>>Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future by Martin Eve is now available open access. It is Cambridge University Press's second open access book, joining The History Manifesto. In one book review in LSE Review of Books Jonathan Gray says "essential reading for anyone interested in the future of open access and scholarly communication in the humanities."
>>Publishing: The peer-review scam Self-reviewing discovered at BMC
>>Two slide sets from open peer review session at Open Education Conference 2014:
1. A researcher's perspective on open peer review (slide set by Erin McKiernan)
2. Open peer review as educational resource for science PhD students (slide set by Eva Amsen)
>>Two items from "The Conversation" which I thought were worth sharing:
1. What counts as an academic publication? I thought this was an interesting post. I see undergraduates struggle with this when seeking "scholarly articles" for an assignment. "Scholarly writing should be distinguishable from other forms of publication by its transparency." If peer review processes were more transparent, students might be able to judge for themselves? This made me remember this post from last February, Peer-review mysteries and simple things publishers can do to help readers, by Bonnie Swoger.
2. Peer review is fraught with problems, and we need a fix
>>Fran Berman's slides available from her October 28th talk at WU Libraries: Got Data? Building a Sustainable Environment for Data-Driven Innovation
>>Scientific Data now inviting submissions from the social sciences
>>Journals unite for reproducibility Nature editorial about Principles and Guidelines in Reporting Preclinical Research