哥廷根大学开放获取发展战略与举措

哥廷根大学开放获取运动的具体举措,涉及开放获取出版、开放获取知识库建设、开放获取项目组织和宣传等各个方面,通过相应的开放获取出版与存储协议、激励政策等机制建设,主持或参与德国、欧洲和全球的开放获取项目及组织来推进开发获取发展,为建设开放获取基础设施和推动欧洲及全球的开放获取进程做出了积极贡献。     

国外开放获取图书出版模式研究

OA图书出版是开放获取运动中相对较新的领域。借鉴OAPEN开放获取出版模式的内容框架,从商业-出版模式、服务模式、法律框架3方面分析国外20个典型OA图书出版项目。总结出商业-出版模式的6种类型:机构资助、OA出版成本支付、合作出版、复合内容出版、免费内容+增值服务、其他;从OA图书内容与质量控制、成员-作者服务、用户服务3方面分析服务模式;最后,阐述使用不同类型创作共用许可的法律框架。     

2015-2016年国际开放获取相关政策与实践进展

[目的/意义]通过跟踪全球开放获取发展态势,以期为我国的开放获取实践提供参考借鉴。[方法/过程]以2015年1月到2016年12月为时间窗口,通过网络调研和归纳研究的方法,从开放获取知识库、开放出版、开放数据和开放科学四个方面分析和总结全球开放获取相关政策和实践进展,并对开放获取发展趋势和所面临的挑战进行了归纳。[结果/结论]全球开放获取知识库从重点关注资源存储向资源利用转变;开放出版由通过政策促进规模出版转向价格和质量控制;开放数据关注重点从行业领域上升到国家发展战略的高度,发展重点由基础设施建设转向数据存储和利用等政策的制定;开放科学从制定理想规划和落实方案到不确定的阶段。     

科技期刊公开发表专家审稿意见的方法及意义

专家审稿意见是科技期刊在同行评议过程中学术价值最高的部分,具有一定的发表价值,但在目前多数科技期刊普遍实行的盲法审稿方式下,审稿意见只在专家、编辑和作者之间传递,造成学术资源的巨大浪费。而今同行评议方式向着更多元、更公开的方向发展,公开发表专家审稿意见可以作为实施开放式同行评议的尝试和突破,具有可行性和实践意义。本文建议采取先“精选”后“普及”、逐步推进的审稿意见发表方式,总结出精选审稿意见的遴选标准和程序,讨论了公开发表专家审稿意见对编辑工作的意义,以期为促进同行评议模式的转变,实施开放式同行评议打下基础。     

欧洲《大气化学和大气物理学》的交互式开放存取办刊模式

对欧洲地球科学联盟(EGU)的刊物《Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics》(ACP,大气化学和大气物理学)的办刊模式进行了探究。通过对《ACP》模式运作流程的分析,总结出其特点和成功的原因。《ACP》在创刊初始就采用了开放存取(OA)的出版模式。更为重要的是,它在全世界首次创立了"交互式开放存取"和"二阶段出版"的办刊程序。《ACP》模式对我国期刊的发展有一定的借鉴作用。     

How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S

Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA. This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S. We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project. We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream. We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit. Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.     

学术期刊从订阅模式向开放获取模式转化的经费可行性研究:OA2020的启示

[目的/意义] 对文献订购经费转化为开放出版资助经费实现学术期刊从订阅获取模式向开放获取模式转化的经济可行性进行分析,以期引起科研管理机构、科研教育机构、图书馆及学者对国际发展趋势和有关行动计划的关注,促进开放获取学术交流环境的发展。[方法/过程] 分析期刊论文全面开放获取所需APC经费与当前期刊订购体系总体投入比较的案例,对国家层面参与学术期刊向开放获取转化国际行动计划所面临情况评估、判断的基础数据需求和有关监控、报告、共享机制及规范的建立提出建议。[结果/结论] 国家有关部门应支持图书馆开展有关基础性分析研究,为文献订购经费向支持开放出版转化的策略和措施的制定提供重要支持和参考。     

The library's role in the management and funding of open access publishing

This survey presents information on library management of open access resources, institutional involvement in open access funding, and the role librarians see themselves playing in this model in the future. 149 responses from 30 different countries were included. 94% of respondents were librarians, and the remaining 6% consisted of faculty, students, and other library staff. Results showed that most libraries are cataloging open access journals, though they usually represent only 1–5% of total listings. The responsibility for funding open access is more likely to fall on the author or a granting organization than the library or institution. 23% of libraries in this survey help finance open access, and one‐third of these had established criteria for funding. While librarians disagreed on the appropriate level of their involvement in the publishing process and financing of article charges, the majority viewed the library as an important advocate for open access publishing in their institution.     

麻省理工学院图书馆的开放存取出版服务

美国国会及基金资助机构、一些大学都制定政策支持开放存取出版。麻省理工学院图书馆开展的开放存取出版服务主要有:建立机构知识库、管理开放存取文章出版补助基金、支持多渠道开放存取出版、指导开放存取出版等;其服务人员配置合理,并将Libguides应用到开放存取出版服务。借鉴于此,我国高校图书馆应提高对开放存取出版服务的重视程度,为开放存取出版创造条件,积极倡导开放存取出版学术成果,开展学术研究相关的版权服务以完善服务体系。     

Foreign and Russian scientific electronic publications on priority research areas and critical technologies

The results of an analysis of the international flow of periodical and proceedings publications in different priority areas (the nanosystem industry and materials, information-telecommunication systems, rational wildlife management, and power and power conservation) and of critical technologies entering into them are presented. As the main sources of the information on foreign and Russian databases (SCOPUS, Current Contents. CSA, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, RZH VINITI, and the Russian Academy of Sciences) open scientific Internet resources were used. For correctness, a separate preparation of the terminological base of each subject area was made. Lists of publications on the detailed publishing and data about the availability of access to them on various Internet platforms were compiled as a result. The characteristics of the most important electronic resources for each area are given. The publishing houses and companies responsible for the major publications on the considered subjects not accessible at present to the Russian scientific community through widely known consortia (NEIKON and the Russian Federal Property Fund) are revealed.     

国外会议文献开放出版进展与思考

[目的/意义]针对传统模式下学术会议文献发布与出版现状,提出引入开放出版模式以解决其出版周期长、资源过于分散和获取与利用不便等现实问题。[方法/过程]调研国外已有的若干会议文献开放出版平台,将其分为自主出版、委托出版和开放期刊出版3种不同类型,分别对其运作模式和特点进行介绍,并总结得出其具有的先进经验。[结果/结论]指出中国科学院学术会议文献收集及管理现状,分析建立中国科学院会议文献开放出版平台的必要性,并提出初步建议。     

Publishing in Open Access Education Journals: The Authors’ Perspectives

Open access publishing is now an accepted method of scholarly communication. However, the greatest traction for open access publishing thus far has been in the sciences. Penetration of open access publishing has been much slower among the social sciences. This study surveys 309 authors from recent issues of open access journals in education to determine why they choose to publish in open access journals and to gain insight into the ways publishing practices within the discipline itself impact the willingness of authors to engage in open access publishing.     

开放获取出版模式研究

开放获取是一种新的学术出版与交流模式，与传统期刊出版在办刊理念、运作模式、编审过程、经费来源、版权问题以及期刊评价等方面均有很大的不同。文章论述了开放获取出版模式的意义和特点，对中国出版界推动和实施开放获取出版提出了政策建议。     

开放获取转换协议及其对全球学术生态的影响研究

随着开放科学运动轰轰烈烈地开展,旨在将支付给学术期刊出版社的费用由订阅费转为出版费的转换协议成为关注的焦点。文章首先从电子期刊价格问题、开放获取的进展状况两个方面梳理开放获取转换协议兴起的背景、转换协议的类型,在此基础上阐述为推动开放获取转换协议的签署,各国所采取的措施及签约实例。研究表明,依靠APC实现完全即时的开放获取很难实现,国家层面可以考虑加入S计划,并采取措施在与出版商的谈判中占据主导地位。     

Open publishing

There is increasing pressure from academia to make the results of publicly funded research freely available to all. Preprint archives have grown up in some disciplines, and institutional archives are now being developed. While openly accessible preprints seem to have damaged publishers less than was originally feared, the final published versions of articles – when combined with sophisticated retrieval software – may turn out to be a different matter. Publishers have already done much to make their content more accessible through bundling, consortia licensing, access for less‐developed countries, more liberal customer and author agreements, and collective licensing. Some are experimenting with open access journals, although this may not work in all disciplines. It seems clear, however, that there are elements of value in journals themselves, and in the functions performed by journal publishers, which should survive.     

巨型开放获取期刊发展现状及未来影响分析

在开放出版背景下,选取10种代表性的巨型开放获取期刊为研究对象,以期刊官方网站、期刊引证报告、Scopus数据库为数据来源,从期刊的影响因子、发文数量、论文处理费、论文接受率、论文出版周期等5个方面分析10种巨型开放获取期刊的发展现状,并讨论巨型开放获取期刊未来可能产生的正面影响及问题,以期为期刊界政策的制订、作者论文的发表提供参考.     

Critical issues in the development of STM journal publishing

Access to generations of scientific literature has never been more widespread. The advent of electronic publishing has improved the spread and speed of access while at the same time reducing unit costs. The current ‘open access’ debate raises interesting questions about the future of publishing and archiving. The declining growth of author‐pays titles, however, suggests that innovations that are sustainable long term and do not threaten the quality and integrity of scholarship are likely to be within the framework of the established model.