Support Open Access Research Articles

Editorial

In this new editorial of Historical Life Course Studies key shifts are discussed. We welcome Joana Maria Pujadas-Mora as new co-editor in chief and Eva van der Heijden as associate editor. We thank Luciana Quaranta for her contributions to the development of the journal. Over the past years, Historical Life Course Studies has experienced substantial growth in terms of output and impact. The journal got indexed in Scopus and an application for admission to the Web of Science is pending. Social media engagement and upcoming video releases further enhance the journal's outreach. Gratitude extends to sponsors for Diamond Open Access support, as well as to all authors, reviewers, and readers who jointly contribute to the success of Historical Life Course Studies. The editors look with confidence to the future and hope to welcome many submissions over the next years.

Supporting Open Access Monographs: Penn State University Libraries’ Participation in the TOME Initiative

Supporting Open Access Monographs: Penn State University Libraries’ Participation in the TOME Initiative

Supporting Open Access Monographs: Penn State University Libraries’ Participation in the TOME Initiative

Supporting Open Access Monographs: Penn State University Libraries’ Participation in the TOME Initiative

Partners in Progress: Publishers and Librarians Support Open Access Publishing

Partners in Progress: Publishers and Librarians Support Open Access Publishing

Beyond BPCs: Reimagining and re-infrastructuring the funding of Open Access books

Joe Deville explores the rationale underpinning Open Book Collective's approach to generating funds for publishing and supporting Open Access books, counterposing it to the dominant funding mechanism: Book Processing Charges, or 'BPCs'.

SILVER JUBILEE OF BRAZILIAN DENTAL SCIENCE

January 2023 started in a hurry to recover the time delayed by the pandemic and we would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy new year to come. Before setting new goals and preparing new agendas for the current year, let’s take a step back and summarize last year’s pursuits that BDS Journal accomplished, the processes that were set, policies that were set, and goals that were defined to shape our successes in 2023. Last year the new publisher CUBO brought us a huge development in terms of speed and quality for our editorial process. It had its challenges and many wins. Let’s gather all the accomplishments that helped boost our spirit to do better each day including new rules such as: the change to continuous publication among the issues, new academic and assistant editors, new PDF configuration containing ORCID presented for each author, regulatory statement, the contribution of the authors. This noticeable improvement in our journal was only possible with weekly online meetings among the editors and the open access support through the new Article Processing Charge. The scientific community believed in our work and its contribution to our development was incredible. We published on time 95 papers amongst original articles, systematic reviews, critical reviews, case reports, short communications, and editorials [1-6]. The Annual Citescore index on SCOPUS database jumped from 0.3 to 1.5 (a growth of 5X), and we are now in the 77th position in the Dentistry field. To celebrate its Jubilee (25th anniversary) this year, BDS has just published a special issue with peer-reviewed papers from its editors and collaborators. Relishing success and learning from difficulties, we are even more motivated to create greater goals and objectives for ourselves with the mission of taking BDS journal to higher levels.

Factors influencing Canadian HASS researchers’ open access publishing practices

Despite increasing awareness and support for open access (OA) publishing, and the advantages of doing so, there is still a low uptake of OA in some disciplines. We surveyed 228 early and mid-career researchers from 15 public universities in Canada. The Social Exchange Theory provided a theoretical foundation that informed factors investigated in this study. Correlation and regression analyses were used to test research hypotheses, while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test level of effect sizes within subjects. Findings show that altruism (r =.352, β = .331) influenced researchers’ OA publishing practices whereas visibility and prestige do not, even though they are positively correlated. Furthermore, ANOVA results showed that researchers’ career stages have significant effect on their OA publishing practices as mid-career researchers published more in OA outlets. Therefore, building structures and policies that spur researchers’ altruism towards publishing OA should be a continuous and future approach to achieving the ideals of OA in Canada.

Researchers’ Perceptions and Experiences with an Open Access Subvention Fund

Objective – This study investigated researchers’ perceptions of open access publishing and the ways in which the university’s open access subvention fund could evolve to meet the campus community’s needs. Methods – In spring 2021, two librarians conducted an anonymous survey using a convenience sample to recruit participants. The survey was directly distributed to 113 University of Idaho (U of I) affiliates who had received funding from, or expressed interest in, the open access subvention fund during the previous three years (FY 2019 to FY 2021). Other U of I affiliates were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey via a link shared in the U of I’s daily email newsletter as well across the U of I’s graduate student email list. The researchers received 42 usable survey responses. The survey included 26 closed and open-ended questions and analysis included cross-tabulations based on fund applicant status as well as respondent role. Of the 26 questions, 4 were modified from a colleague’s previous study with U of I faculty members (Gaines, 2015). Results – Survey responses showed that interest in and support for open access were common among respondents. Although a majority of respondents had published an open access journal article and would like to continue to publish open access in the future, only 17% agreed that they had departmental support to do so. Results also demonstrated that researchers were less willing to pay article processing charges (APCs) out-of-pocket and preferred for funding to come from grant budgets first, followed by Office of Research Budgets, department or college budgets, and library budgets. Respondents expressed support for many of the open access subvention fund’s current criteria and processes, but they also indicated an interest in establishing a more equitable fund distribution cycle and allowing researchers to seek pre-approval once their article was accepted for peer-review. Findings related to open access publishing perspectives built upon previous research conducted at the U of I (Gaines, 2015) and across other institutions. Conclusion – This study confirmed the importance of evaluating and assessing library programs and services to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of campus communities. Through the study results, the researchers demonstrated that respondents were interested in open access publishing and the continuation of the open access subvention fund, as well as offering the U of I an opportunity to adjust the open access subvention fund’s processes to better serve researchers. These results also highlighted the need for those involved in open access publishing support to investigate new open access advocacy and education efforts to ensure that researchers receive the philosophical and financial support they need to pursue different models of scholarly publishing.

Promoting a culture of openness: Institutional open access policy development and evaluation at a Canadian university

Institutional open access (OA) policies can act as a solid foundation on which to build university-wide support for open access. This is the first paper to reflect on the entire process of developing, implementing, and reviewing an institutional open access policy at a Canadian post-secondary institution. Simon Fraser University (SFU) is one of a few Canadian universities with an institutional open access policy. As a leader in open access, SFU is well positioned to share observations of our experiences in the first three years of our OA policy. Throughout this paper, we reflect on the role that the policy plays in the broader culture of openness at SFU and on the OA resources and supports provided to SFU researchers. Other institutions may find our observations and adoption of the SOAR (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, results) appreciative inquiry framework useful as they explore future policy development or review and work to promote a culture of open access within their university community.

Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit.

As part of a larger project to understand the publishing choices of UVA Health authors and support open access publishing, a team from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library analyzed an open data set from Europe PMC, which includes metadata from PubMed records. We used the Europe PMC REST API to search for articles published in 2017–2020 with “University of Virginia” in the author affiliation field. Subsequently, we parsed the JSON metadata in Python and used Streamlit to create a data visualization from our public GitHub repository. At present, this shows the relative proportions of open access versus subscription-only articles published by UVA Health authors. Although subscription services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions allow users to do similar analyses, we believe this is a novel approach to doing this type of bibliometric research with open data and open source tools.

Health Information Portal - One-stop-shop for health information

Abstract Background A vast amount of health information in the form of data sources, experts, research networks, and tools related to collection, use and knowledge transfer of health information exists in EU Member States (MSs) but this information is scattered around and often difficult to find. Researchers and policy makers don't have a centralized place where information could be easily obtained. This hampers effective use of existing information and materials for research and evidence informed policy making. Methods There is a need for a centralized place where different components of health information can be easily found. Information should be described in structured, standardized format to allow comparisons and searchability. Results InfAct and PHIRI have established the Health Information Portal (HIP, healthinformationportal.eu), a one-stop-shop for health information. This portal brings together health information from different EU MSs and research networks and projects as well as from international organizations. HIP has catalogues on health information data sources, research networks, national nodes, health information initiatives and projects, health information related publications and guidelines including legal and ethical guidelines, and available capacity building activities. These catalogues are searchable and support open and fair access to the health information. Conclusions The Health Information Portal will facilitate secondary use of existing health information data for research and evidence informed policy making. Through HIP, researchers can find experts from different domains of health information as well as existing tools for data collection, analysis and knowledge transfer. It also facilitates health information capacity building within the EU. Aim is to support a more effective, also more cost-effective, health research environment which can enhance population health and healthcare in the EU, and through that productivity and European economy.

Characteristics of available studies and dissemination of research using major clinical data sharing platforms.

Over the past decade, numerous data sharing platforms have been launched, providing access to de-identified individual patient-level data and supporting documentation. We evaluated the characteristics of prominent clinical data sharing platforms, including types of studies listed as available for request, data requests received, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests. We reviewed publicly available information listed on the websites of six prominent clinical data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Project Data Sphere, Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project. We recorded key platform characteristics, including listed studies and available supporting documentation, information on the number and status of data requests, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests (i.e. publications in a peer-reviewed journals, preprints, conference abstracts, or results reported on the platform's website). The number of clinical studies listed as available for request varied among five data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (n = 219), ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (n = 2,897), Project Data Sphere (n = 154), Vivli (n = 5426), and the Yale Open Data Access Project (n = 395); Supporting Open Access to Researchers did not provide a list of Bristol Myers Squibb studies available for request. Individual patient-level data were nearly always reported as being available for request, as opposed to only Clinical Study Reports (Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center = 211/219 (96.3%); ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 2884/2897 (99.6%); Project Data Sphere = 154/154 (100.0%); and the Yale Open Data Access Project = 355/395 (89.9%)); Vivli did not provide downloadable study metadata. Of 1201 data requests listed on ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project platforms, 586 requests (48.8%) were approved (i.e. data access granted). The majority were for secondary analyses and/or developing/validating methods (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 262/313 (83.7%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 22/30 (73.3%); Vivli = 63/84 (75.0%); the Yale Open Data Access Project = 111/159 (69.8%)); four were for re-analyses or corroborations of previous research findings (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 3/313 (1.0%) and the Yale Open Data Access Project = 1/159 (0.6%)). Ninety-five (16.1%) approved data requests had results disseminated via peer-reviewed publications (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 61/313 (19.5%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 3/30 (10.0%); Vivli = 4/84 (4.8%); the Yale Open Data Access Project = 27/159 (17.0%)). Forty-two (6.8%) additional requests reported results through preprints, conference abstracts, or on the platform's website (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 12/313 (3.8%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 3/30 (10.0%); Vivli = 2/84 (2.4%); Yale Open Data Access Project = 25/159 (15.7%)). Across six prominent clinical data sharing platforms, information on studies and request metrics varied in availability and format. Most data requests focused on secondary analyses and approximately one-quarter of all approved requests publicly disseminated their results. To further promote the use of shared clinical data, platforms should increase transparency, consistently clarify the availability of the listed studies and supporting documentation, and ensure that research findings from data requests are disseminated.

Developing a Model of Indian Women Library Association to Support Open Access Environment in Academic Libraries in India

Short article – no abstract.

Supporting open access publishing in the field of dynamic decision making

Supporting open access publishing in the field of dynamic decision making

Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier

In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (<em>n</em> = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (<em>n</em> = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.

Climate change and COVID-19: reinforcing Indigenous food systems

Climate change and COVID-19: reinforcing Indigenous food systems

Perceptions and Practice of Openness Among Academic Librarians

Librarians from a multi-institution, public higher education system were invited to participate in an online survey to assess their current practices in support of open access (OA) activities and their attitudes and behaviors related to the use of open educational resources (OER). This descriptive, small-sample survey was conducted after the first year of a multi-million dollar infusion in state funding to “move the dial” in textbook affordability using OER. The results provide insight into librarians’ perceptions of the support for, adoption of, and usefulness of open activities. Open-ended qualitative responses related to the sustainability of an OER program complement and provide additional narrative for discussion. Findings indicate that after the first year of increased sup- port, some librarians are deeply involved in OER activities, while the majority are still in the early stages of learning about OER and are not yet comfortable with offering OER assistance to others. Based on the survey results, a number of innovative ways that librarians are infusing components of openness into their work are described. Suggestions identified relate to additional recognition and rewards for instructors and librarians, training and education, and administrative, staffing, and financial support. The developmental life-cycle for implementing change and measuring impact is also discussed, leading to a call to move forward toward more open pedagogical practices. Challenges are noted and suggestions offered for improvements in OER programs. The study concludes with how other libraries can use these results to inform plans for further adoption of open initiatives at their institutions.

The Role of Libraries as Publishers in the Open Education Landscape: Reflecting Modern World Practice of Open Textbooks

Objective. The study aims to analyse the experience of university libraries in different countries in working with the Open Textbook (OT) and to consider the prospects of creating a similar pilot project in Ukraine. Methods. The analysis covered the world publications (journals, books, conference proceedings, posts on social networks) in the field of Library and Information Science, devoted to the role of libraries in OT support, that have appeared since 2014. The author studied the aspects revealing that publication, namely OT, support services are areas with great potential for the future development of academic / university libraries. Results. Numerous evidence is presented that the topic of library as a publisher in OT support is most developed in the universities and colleges in economically developed countries, especially in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. Library strategies for OT projects have been identified. The author clarified the nature of the initiatives and partnerships of libraries in supporting OT, as well as the basic services and roles of libraries in these projects. Conclusions. Today, the global practice of Scholarly Communication has enough evidence that the functions of the Library, lost in the course of evolution, as a Knowledge Publisher have returned under its “roof” and supplemented the existing function of Knowledge Managers. Digital Library Publishing (DLP) services in OT support help to change the learning environment and life of students (including persons with disabilities), pedagogical practices of teachers by means of free textbooks with an open license, as well as to receive reputation benefits for the university, improving the image of the latter. The possibility of eliminating systemic inequalities in access to academic resources increases the significance and changes the role of libraries in open education. The successes of Ukrainian librarians in supporting digital scholarly communication initiatives and the successful implementation of Open Access support projects (repositories, e-journals, e-conferences) give confidence that they can act as initiators and key partners in creating affordable textbooks.

‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support

In the context of a growing international focus on open access publishing options and mandates, this paper explores the extent to which the ideals of ‘openness’ are also being applied to physical knowledge resources and research spaces. This study, which forms part of the larger Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative project, investigates the relationship between academic library access policies and institutional positions on open access or open science publishing. Analysis of library access policies and related documents from twenty academic institutions in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Africa and the United Kingdom shows that physical access to libraries for members of the public who are not affiliated with a university is often the most restricted category of access. Many libraries impose financial and sometimes security barriers on entry to buildings, limiting access to collections in print and other non-digital formats. The limits placed on physical access to libraries contrast strongly with the central role that these institutions play in facilitating open access in digital form for research outputs through institutional repositories and open access publishing policies. We compared library access policies and practices with open access publishing and research sharing policies for the same institutions and found limited correlation between both sets of policies. Comparing the two assessments using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient confirmed open access policies have a direct association with the narrow aspects of public access provided through online availability of formal publications, but are not necessarily associated (in the universities in this study) with delivering on a broader commitment to public access to knowledge. The results suggest that while institutional mission statements and academic library policies may refer to sharing of knowledge and research and community collaboration, multiple layers of library user categories, levels of privilege and fees charged can inhibit the realisation of these goals. As open access publishing options and mandates expand, physical entry to academic libraries and access to print and electronic resources has contracted. This varies within and across countries, but it conflicts with global library and information commitments to open access to knowledge.

Opinions of citizen scientists on open access to UK butterfly and moth occurrence data

Citizen science plays an increasingly important role in biodiversity research and conservation, enabling large volumes of data to be gathered across extensive spatial scales in a cost-effective manner. Open access increases the utility of such data, informing land-use decisions that may affect species persistence, enhancing transparency and encouraging proliferation of research applications. However, open access provision of recent, fine-scale spatial information on the locations of species may also prompt legitimate concerns among contributors regarding possible unintended negative conservation impacts, violations of privacy and commercial exploitation of volunteer-gathered data. Here we canvas the attitudes towards open access of contributors (104 regional co-ordinators and 510 recorders) of species occurrence records to two of the largest citizen science biodiversity recording schemes, the UK’s Butterflies for the New Millennium project and National Moth Recording Scheme. We find that while the majority of participants expressed support for open access in principle, most were more cautious in practice, preferring to limit the spatial resolution of records, particularly of threatened species, and restrict commercial reuse of data. In addition, citizen scientists’ opinions differed between UK countries, taxonomic groups and the level of involvement volunteers had in the schemes. In order to maintain successful and democratic citizen science schemes, organisers, funders and data users must understand and respect participants’ expectations and aspirations regarding open data while seeking to optimise data use for scientific and societal benefits.