利用开放存取资源提升馆藏质量

开放存取资源的有效利用可帮助图书馆提升馆藏质量,优化馆藏结构,促进图书馆事业的可持续发展.开放存取资源的利用策略包括:将开放存取资源的收集与管理作为馆藏发展政策的有机组成部分、利用开放存取资源优化馆藏体系、组织开放存取资源、利用开放存取资源的调查结果从出版商或数据库商获得更多优惠条件、加强开放存取资源建设与管理中的合作.     

Pricing principles used by scholarly open access publishers

The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries.     

“为开放而订阅”(S2O):从订阅期刊转向OA期刊的新兴模型

[目的/意义] 期刊从订阅模式转向开放获取模式有多种途径,其中"为开放而订阅（S2O）"是一种新兴模型,正越来越受到向开放获取过渡的传统出版商的认可与接纳。[方法/过程] 运用文献调研法与内容分析法,梳理S2O模型的背景、发展,比较9家出版商采用S2O模型的75种期刊的情况。[结果/结论] 指出S2O模型的潜在问题包含订阅机构的流失、图书馆/文献中心的财政预算审查障碍、订阅费用透明度较差;解决措施包括经费补充机制及提供S2O模型期刊的使用数据。从为出版商提供开放获取转换的新途径、有利于保障非营利性出版商的发展两个方面提出S2O开放获取模式,为我国开放获取的理论与实践带来重要启示。     

Threats to the Survival of the Author-Pays-Journal to Publish Model

While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model.     

2013年国际开放获取实践进展

通过跟踪2013年世界重要科研资助机构、科研机构、政府部门、出版机构的开放获取政策、研究报告和动态消息,从开放获取政策、开放出版实践、开放获取知识库的发展趋势以及新的开放获取学术信息交流模式（如开放数据和开放获取图书）等方面总结2013年国际开放获取实践方面的具体进展。     

国外教育科研机构支持作者发表开放出版论文的政策研究

提出开放出版支持政策的多维分析框架,从受资助者范围、可支持期刊范围、受资助论文的权益要求、经费资助方式、论文处理费控制、履行政策的检查机制六个方面,对国外典型资助机构和典型科研教育机构的开放出版支持政策进行实证分析,指出是否支持复合出版期刊、如何保障开放出版经费、如何争取开放论文权益、如何支持传统出版社和图书馆平稳过渡等已经成为开放出版支持政策的挑战。     

Piracy on the OA High Seas

Protecting intellectual property in all its variations is a serious international issue and challenge. While the theft of journal articles may not always be visible, there increasingly is evidence that it is occurring for both commercial publishers and open access publishers. The implications of massive downloading of journal content for unauthorized purposes will differentially impact the sustainability of the business model employed by the publisher. The resulting extremely serious implications, risks, and impacts are identified and considered in a high-hearted manner that contrasts with similar aspects previously encountered in managing unwanted journal donations.     

Getting the best out of data for open access monograph presses: A case study of UCL Press

This study of UCL Press sought to identify the extent to which data available to open access (OA) monograph presses can be combined with low‐cost analysis tools to provide insight into development and strategy. An additional goal was identifying practical steps that monograph publishers can take to ensure that they make the most of the data they have access to. The project team carried out an analysis of downloaded figures from platforms providing access to UCL Press monograph titles, social media activity, and sales patterns. Patterns of engagement with the books were cross‐referenced against key marketing and dissemination events in order to identify relationships between marketing approaches and awareness or use of a title. This study shows that it is possible to gain valuable insights into the uses of OA books by collating and analysing usage and social media data. It also identifies a series of relatively straightforward steps that can be taken by presses to maximize the richness of the data captured. These include proactively gathering and storing data; providing best practice advice to those engaging in promotion, particularly when promotion is via social media; and making it easier to track specific efforts to publicize books by using tagged links.     

Using Library Funds to Support Open Access Publishing through Crowdfunding: Going Beyond Article Processing Charges

Publishers commonly use Article Processing Charges (APCs) to fund open access publications, and some libraries and institutions help local authors pay these costs. However, this strategy is expensive and can usually only address one article at a time. A number of relatively new publishing initiatives rely on a crowdfunding model and allow many libraries to share the cost of open access, often at a fraction of the cost of APCs. This article highlights several alternative publishing projects to help librarians think further about how library funds could be used to support open access.     

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.     

Predatory journals and their article publishing charges

This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not.     

The Macro and Micro Scale of Open Access Predation

Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers.     

Children and Young Adult Readers in Morocco

The development of the publishing industry for children and young adults is very recent in Morocco. Indeed it was in the 1980s that people became aware of its importance for future generations. The first national publications were mainly in Arabic language, stories were very short, books were of paperback format and the subjects were very much dominated by moral, social and religious didacticism. In the late 1990s, publishers started being more and more concerned with the appearance of the book (size, cover, illustrations, topic, etc.) and there are nowadays two publishers specialized only in children’s books—Yanbow al Kitab and Yomad—who produce books that respond to international norms. They are both very active in promoting reading and especially allowing children from disadvantaged social backgrounds to have access to books, price being a main constraint for those children. But there is still a lack of publishers specialized in children’s books in Morocco (two publishers for the whole country), not enough pleasant reading spaces and no real government policy to allow mass access by making books cheaper.     

开放获取平台版权政策研究

出版商平台、集成平台是论文开放获取的重要途径。版权问题则是影响平台论文开放获取出版、集成或服 务的重要因素。首先研究出版商Springer、Wiley、SCIRP、PLOS及集成平台DOAJ、GoOA的版权政策,然后从版权许 可协议、让渡模式和利益相关方对集成平台和出版商平台的版权政策内容等方面进行比较分析,最后对国内开放获取 平台的版权政策的制定提出相应的建议。     

The digital library

Gives an overview of the current situation in the development of the Digital Library at Tilburg University, addressing positive experiences as well as problems, and focusing on the online provision of primary information to end–users, both of journal articles and of papers produced by the institution’s own researchers. The first results of the electronic use of our Elsevier journals are described, and the policy of libraries with respect to publishers considered.     

Between a rock and a hard place: the big squeeze for small publishers

The combination of decreased income as a result of the RoweCom collapse, cuts in library budgets internationally, and the success of ‘Big Deal’ bundling arrangements has serious repercussions for smaller and society publishers. This paper argues that the scholarly communications environment is going to become increasingly hostile for these publishers and that their best chance of survival may be to adapt to new business models, in particular open access.     

Open access: what comes next?

This article examines the effects that present decisions about open access (OA) will have over the next ten years. It will be shown that the consequences are affected both by deliberate choices of policy by librarians and publishers, as well as by the adoption of various alternatives by scientific authors. The eventual result could be excellent, or quite otherwise.     

Starting from Scratch on Perpetual Access

When library staff resources are limited, administering post-cancellation access to electronic journal content can often be neglected when other demands of managing electronic resources take priority. Difficulties handling perpetual access include determining access rights from publishers’ license terms, verifying the paid content to which the library is entitled, and retaining access when a journal is transferred to a new publisher. Libraries can utilize their existing electronic resources management tools to develop staff workflows for perpetual access entitlements. This article is based on a presentation given at the Mississippi State University Libraries eResource & Emerging Technologies Summit on August 3, 2012.