Scholarly communication and open access: Perspectives from Korea

This article reports on scholarly communication and open access (OA) in Korea. Drawing on a range of databases, articles, and reference sources, it provides unique insights. In contrast to the UK/US model of scholarly communication, in Korea, most scholarly journals are published by discipline‐based scholarly societies and research institutes affiliated to universities. Payment for publication is the norm, and typically features article processing charges and scholarly society membership fees for both OA and toll access (TA) journals. Online access to journals in Korea is provided by commercial vendors who enter into contracts with the scholarly societies for exclusive use. Three online access models apply – TA, gold OA, and dual access – with the use of these models varying between disciplines. In parallel with this access provided by commercial vendors, there are a number of government‐funded open access repositories (OARs) to which university researchers are requested to deposit their research outputs, as well as OARs run by universities and other research institutes.     

开放数字网络环境下学术交流体系的发展与共融

在开放数字网络环境下,学术交流的内涵发生了极大的扩展和变化。以开放存取理念和Web2．0技术应用为主导的新型学术信息交流模式和环境已经极大地改变了传统意义上的学术交流生态。学术交流系统得到重构,非正式学术交流渠道开始复兴,支撑数字科研的学术交流体系正在形成。     

国内外"开放存取"研究综述

“开放存取(OPEN ACESS)”基于“自由、开放与共享”的理念,依托网络技术,正在成为学术出版和科学信息交流的全新模式。本文着眼于学术信息交流障碍与网络技术两个方面,介绍了开放存取出现的背景;并结合已有的研究成果,分析了开放存取发展的历程,认为对开放存取的发展进行阶段划分为时尚早,至少是一种对“理念”与“模式”的概念不很清楚的表现;文章引证国际上权威机构的著名文献界定了开放存取的内容,并对开放存取的实现途径进行了探讨,认为开放存取期刊和开放存取仓储的创办具有发展前景,指出开放存取出版物的质量问题、运行经费问题、知识产权问题、合作建设与标准化问题等是开放存取中存在的主要问题;文章最后指出,作为传统学术出版模式的强有力的竞争对手,开放存取在国内外同行的关注下一定会取得长足进展。     

The scholarly publishing industry in China: overview and opportunities

The rapid growth of government investment in scientific research in China over past decades has also caused the scholarly publishing industry to go through great changes. Nevertheless, there is a big gap between the state of China's scholarly publishing industry and the current demands of international scientific communication. Globalization and digitization developments are currently widening this gap. Based on desk research, face‐to‐face interviews, observations, and experience, we identify the current business challenges for scholarly publishing in China, and provide a list of suggestions to narrow the gap.     

Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment

This paper examines changing research practices in the digital environment. A review of the literature and our own field research in Australia suggest that there is a new mode of knowledge production emerging, changing research practices and bringing new information access and dissemination needs. Adjustments will be required to accommodate these changes, but new opportunities are emerging for more cost‐effective and sustainable information access and dissemination. It will be necessary, however, to take an holistic approach and treat the creation, production and distribution of scholarly information, the management of information rights and access, systems of review and evaluation and the underlying infrastructure as parts of a single research information and scholarly communication system.     

Should scholarly societies embrace open access (or is it the kiss of death)?

In assessing the role that organizations of scientists with publishing activities – such as scholarly societies – can or should play in furthering the science and practice in their chosen fields, they face a dilemma: should they primarily be fund‐raising organizations for other activities in their disciplines, using their publications to bring in the necessary money, or should they be promoters of efficient scholarly communication and use their publications more directly to that end – for instance, by embracing ‘open access‘.     

Digital preservation: challenges and implementation

The research of the future requires access to the research of the past. This access cannot be assured without reliable long‐term preservation of scholarly digital content. Near‐term access can be guaranteed with backup and access system redundancy. Mid‐term access can be protected with byte replication. But assurance of long‐term access requires digital preservation – the series of management policies and activities necessary to ensure the enduring usability, authenticity, discoverability, and accessibility of content over the very long term. Portico, with a mission to preserve scholarly digital content, is one organization providing such long‐term digital preservation.     

学术信息的开放获取模式

开放获取为大学的研究团体，也为全社会提供了主要学术信息的免费电子获取途径。用户无需付费就能够阅读、印刷和发布没有商业目的的出版物。研究在学术信息交流架构变化中的开放获取模式，包括出版建档、索引编制、检索利用等过程。本文介绍了这一变化的背景，并就这一模式对学术信息交流的影响作了评论。     

Ceci n'est pas un hamburger: modelling and representing the scholarly article

Current approaches to publishing scholarly work are falling behind the growing demands of modern readers, who need easy access to the underlying data, as well as the ability to consume content on an ever‐growing variety of electronic devices. The pros and cons of the various formats for representing the scholarly article are hotly contested, but as yet these debates have had little tangible impact on the publishing world where, in spite of its apparent limitations, the PDF remains the dominant form of distribution. We discuss fundamental philosophical differences between a scholarly work and its representation, and describe Utopia Documents, which realizes those differences in software, aiming to resolve many of the current issues in this area.     

网络环境下学术信息的开放存取

开放存取思想迎合了网络时代信息交流的特点,开创了一种新的、高效的交流模式。开放存取包含两层含义:一是指学术信息免费向公众开放;二是指学术信息的可获得性。网络环境下的学术信息开放存取服务有多种类型,如:在线文档发布、科学家与研究组内部的直接交流、通过电子邮件的自由辩论、搜索引擎的索引与检索服务、第三方集成检索服务等。图3。参考文献10。     

促进中国科技文献信息开放存取的法律与制度研究

科技文献信息的开放存取涉及很多相关的法律制度,为实现开放存取,需要减少法规的限制并寻求法律的保护。作者建议,修订著作权法有关条款,把合理使用的范围扩大到非商业利用;制定与实施中国特色的出版物法定送存制度;制定和实施国家许可制度;建立防止信息垄断的机制;保护信息网络传播权,维系信息网络传播权保护与信息公共获取的平衡,为开放存取的发展争取更大的制度空间,实现传播效益最大化。     

网络期刊的成本分析

网络期刊是现有学术交流体系的重要变革力量，人们也普遍认为网络期刊比传统的印刷期刊成本更低。因此，本文通过全面分析网络期刊的成本结构（尤其是对其成本结构进行微观分析），以说明其对现有学术交流体系产生深刻影响的经济学原因。     

Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing

Recent developments in Web technology can be used for semantic enhancement of scholarly journal articles, by aiding publication of data and metadata and providing ‘lively’ interactive access to content. Such semantic enhancements are already being undertaken by leading STM publishers, and automated text processing will help these enhancements become affordable and routine. Publisher, editor, and author all have primary roles in that process; an incremental approach is needed. Publication of data and metadata to the Web make possible added‐value ‘ecosystem services‘; semantic publishing will bring substantial benefits to scholarly communication.     

新一代学术交流生态系统的研究与构建——以北京大学为例

[目的/意义] 通过学术交流生态系统的研究与北京大学学术交流生态系统的初步构建,为高校与科研机构建设学术交流生态系统,推动学术交流和开放获取服务提供研究与实践参考经验。[方法/过程] 梳理学术交流概念、模式、功能与国内外研究发展情况,分析学术交流环境变化,指出开放获取、数据驱动研究范式、软件工具发展、社交媒体、教育教学新变革等因素驱动学术交流生态系统重构。介绍北京大学新一代学术交流生态系统的研究成果、架构设计、构建经验与服务效果,总结机构知识库、研究数据服务、开放出版、学者主页与研究支持服务等建设经验与效果。[结果/结论] 研究提出新一代学术交流生态系统,是以开放学术交流为目标,以学术资源数据汇集为基础,覆盖完整学术交流生命周期,提供研究准备、学术发现、研究与分析、写作、发布、传播与评价等学术交流全流程服务,并利用文献计量、数据挖掘、机器学习等新技术,为教学、科研、科研管理、学科评估等提供支持。总结研究成果和经验,为高校与科研机构建设学术交流生态系统提供有价值的研究与建设参考经验。推动学术交流发展,促进研究创新。     

Beyond online preprints: formalization of open initiatives in China

A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication.     

一种全新的学术出版模式:开放存取出版模式探析

开放存取是一种学术信息共享的自由理念和出版机制。其产生背景主要是:基于订阅 的学术期刊传统出版模式带来了严重的学术交流障碍;网络的运用使学术期刊出版和传播成本 大大降低。近年来相关的机构和项目已出现并初步取得成效。参考文献12。     

学术交流模型研究

系统阐述Garvey Griffith模型、信息流模型、生命周期模型、价值网络模型、Bjrk模型、供应链模型、网络结构模型7种学术交流模型的内涵、发展及其特点,深入比较分析上述7种学术交流模型各自的优势与不足。认为Bjrk模型是比较完善的学术交流模型,是对当前传统与现代交织的混合型学术交流模式的最好阐释。     

Scholarly publishing and open access in the Nordic countries

This study examines aspects of scholarly journal publishing in the Nordic countries. On average half of Nordic journals publish online. In most Nordic countries, commercial publishers predominate; however, in Finland the majority are society publishers. The number of open access journals is low, in line with international figures. There is concern to maintain local languages in journal publishing. A majority of the journals publishing in local languages are within social science, humanities, and arts; the STM sector publishes in English. English‐language publications are favoured in research assessments, international recognition, and impact, while the visibility of local‐language scholarly journals in international databases is low. The Nordbib program supports Nordic scholarly journals and fosters co‐operation with publishing companies and learned societies over migration to e‐publishing; it also supports open access. The article discusses future challenges for journal publishing, pointing out the problems of small journal publishers and the need for co‐operation between stakeholders.     

不同学术出版模式的特征及其影响研究

随着学术交流方式的演变,传统学术出版模式已经不能有效服务于学术信息的交流和传播,导致不同学术出版模式的产生。学者们的深入研究发现当前情况下出版模式还不可能完全转变,实现理想中的免费且无限制的模式,因此,订阅出版、开放存取和自存档三种学术出版模式并存的同时,还产生了一些混合模式和可选择模式。文章在系统分析订阅出版,开放存取和自存档三种学术出版模式的特征之后,从宏观角度探讨了不同学术出版模式对科研和社会经济产生的影响,并从访问和许可两个角度分析了不同学术出版模式的影响因素和影响机制。该文为2009年第六期“医学OA期刊”专题文章之一。