US agency public access plans continue to appear in response to the OSTP memo from March, 2014. We are collecting this information at http://libguides.wustl.edu/publicaccess and http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/papotherfed:
- All the Health and Human Services agencies (NIH, FDA, CDC, AHRQ, and ASPR) have now released public access implementation plans focusing on PubMed Central for publications and good data management planning for data. SPARC has a summarizing post about this: HHS releases comprehensive plans to provide public access to research outputs.
- The Department of Defense has also released draft plans for public access, summarized by SPARC at http://sparc.arl.org/blog/dod-releases-draft-public-access-plan. Details will be developed over the next 24 months.
- The National Science Foundation has begun to release its plan. SPARC comments on NSF plan: NSF Releases Incremental Plan for Public Access.
The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act was introduced March 18, 2015. Public access advocates believe that OSTP mandates and federal agency public access plans would not be as permanent as changes in the law. More information about FASTR from SPARC and from Berkman Center for Internet & Society. SPARC has an editable letter available if you would like to register support for this bill.
As they did last year, Wellcome Trust shares information about how much they spend on article publishing charges (APCs) in The Reckoning: An Analysis of Wellcome Trust Open Access Spend 2013-14. Gold open access in practice: How will universities respond to the rising total cost of publication?, from London School of Economics and Political Science blog, deals with the same issue. Washington University does not pay APCs for authors, although some WU authors pay fees out of external grant funds. But open access (or at least making a version of your publications free-to-read) can be free. The library supports this on Open Scholarship whenever publishers allow and authors request; this is sometimes called the "green route" to open access. Often authors don't need to negotiate anything special because many publishers allow this with some restrictions. You may check journal self-archiving policies here: http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ or ask your librarian to check for you. If you are interested in learning more about getting WU authors' articles into Open Scholarship, please contact your subject librarian.
APC discounts for WU authors for Science Advances (AAAS) and Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene have been added to Subsidized Open Access Fees for WU and WUSM Authors this month.
- I'm beginning to see discussion about Science Advances' fees which are $1000/article more for CC-BY than for CC-BY-NC license; many open access advocates prefer CC-BY because of confusion about what NC (non-commercial) really means and whether educational uses are sometimes excluded. [Example discussion here: How commercial is "non-commercial"? A reader asks ...; More about Creative Commons licenses.]
- Also Science Advances is charging more for longer articles which seems a little odd to me since it's an online-only journal.
Predatory publishing and false impact factors in the news this month:
- Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers, by Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella. College & Research Libraries News vol. 76 no. 3 132-135.
- Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective, by Gutierrez, Fredy RS, Jeffrey Beall, and Diego A. Forero. BioEssays (2015 epub ahead of print). DOI: 10.1002/bies.201500011
- New Predatory Publishing in Old Bottles, blog post by Barbara Fister on Library Babel Fish @insidehighered
The library has an Author Beware guide on this issue.
Open access for humanities - is it different from OA for STEM? This post on Scholarly Kitchen blog says a lot of things about open access that I hear from humanities librarians. Guest Post: Karin Wulf on Open Access and Historical Scholarship; it links to an interesting working paper by Eric Slauter and Karin Wulf, Open Access for the Humanities: A View from the William and Mary Quarterly and already has several good comments too.
OA articles found behind a paywall: This month Ross Mounce reported Elsevier illegally sold me a Creative Commons non-commercial licensed article and Wiley [journals] are charging for access to thousands of articles that should be free. In both cases, commercial publishers failed to maintain open access on articles after a publisher change but fixed the access when they were alerted publicly. I agree with this sentiment: "Journal transitions are complicated and sometimes errors happen, which should be (and in this case were) quickly corrected" (from More Creative Commons Confusion: When Does NC Really Mean “Non-Commercial”?) But when an author or funder sometimes pays thousands of dollars to publish an open access article, I also think such errors are worth screaming about.
“PeerJ can’t possibly last because the numbers don’t add up” I found this blog post interesting because it is hard to believe $99 can pay for publication of one open access article/ year for life. I thought you might find the post and comments interesting also.