• Directory
  • FAQ: about JURN
  • Group tests
  • Guide to academic search
  • JURN’s donationware
  • openEco: nature titles indexed

News from JURN

~ search tool for open access content

News from JURN

Category Archives: Open Access publishing

The COAR of the issue

29 Friday Jan 2021

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, Economics of Open Access, Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

A useful new analysis today from COAR, “Don’t believe the hype: repositories are critical for ensuring equity, inclusion and sustainability in the transition to open access”. Recent…

publishers’ comments portray gold open access as the only ‘legitimate’ route for open access, and attempt to diminish the repository (or green) route.

According to the author, some publishers are even implying that repositories have no aggregators, or are not present in Google Search or in specialist search-engines such as Scholar and GRAFT. Laughably, they apparently suggest that poor over-worked researchers will instead…

need to search through individual repositories to find the articles.

The publishers are also said to be trying to stop all but a sub-set of elite repositories from being used for data deposit, via…

proposing to define the repository selection criteria for where their authors’ should deposit research data. These criteria, which are very narrowly conceived, threaten to exclude thousands of national and institutional repositories as options for deposit.

Again, this sounds like it is designed to make researchers feel it’s more convenient to publish their article + data via a big publisher.

Altmetric Advantages

27 Sunday Sep 2020

Posted by David Haden in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

New from the University of Wolverhampton in the UK, “Open Access Books in the Humanities and Social Sciences: an Open Access Altmetric Advantage”…

“examines the altmetrics of a set of 32,222 books (of which 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 chapters (of which 7% are OA) indexed by the scholarly database Dimensions” in Humanities and Social Sciences.

Mind the Gap

09 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by David Haden in Official and think-tank reports, Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

MIT’s Mind the Gap is a new comprehensive survey report on open source publishing systems that can be used for scholarly purposes. The only one I can see that’s missing is WordPress. Which is open source, free, easy to use and rent a server for, and can be quickly tooled-up with plugins for such purposes. In fact, it’s not even mentioned once, even to explain why it and its plugins were omitted.

Open Access Week: Events

27 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by David Haden in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Open Access Week: Events listing for 22nd – 28th October 2018.

Szczepanski’s List

21 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by David Haden in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

My thanks to Jan Szczepanski for alerting me that his list has a new home. Szczepanski’s List of Open Access Journals is now available via the EBSCO.com website, as a freely downloadable .DOCX Word file. The page describes this 35,000-title / 9Mb / 672-page subject-ordered list as… “probably the world’s largest list of open access journals in the humanities and social sciences” plus Law, Statistics and Geology. No “probably” about it, this fine work is surely the largest OA-only list which is also freely available to the public. The EZB is at a similar scale, and does have 37,600 OA titles since 2010, but the EZB covers all disciplines including the sciences.

I had assumed the list had long since stopped updating circa 2015 and was now a legacy item, but the new header now notes “2,932 titles added 2017”. The file’s internal datestamp says the last update in Word was made March 2018. Unfortunately there’s no “First included in (date)…” component to the list entries, by which one might extract just the new 2016-18 finds. Nor does EBSCO appear to offer a rolling “What’s New”.

Having found the list again I’ve now added a link to it on the JURN Guide / Directory / FAQ pages. Despite its inevitable 15% linkrot (see below for details on that) Jan’s list has a big advantage over the JURN Directory. In that it can serve as a discovery tool for OA titles published in languages other than English, and which are unlikely to be on the DOAJ for various legitimate reasons. In contrast, the JURN Directory only lists titles which publish in English or are genuinely multi-language with English.

The home-page URLs given in Jan’s list appear to be hyperlinked with blue-underlining, but my copy of Word won’t allow me to launch these. That’s probably just a security thing on my PC. A simple “Save as…” to a .PDF does give me launchable URLs.

One can also save the list from Word to a filtered .HTML page, which gives a 23Mb Web page with launchable URLs. Despite being so large, my Linkbot software didn’t have problems with my saved Web page version of the list. 60 minutes later the Linkbot results reported that the list has the disadvantage of link-rot:

* Contains 45,536 individual home-page URLs across approx. 35,000 titles (some records have more than one URL). Of broken…

* After discounting the useful redirects (e.g.: http:/ to https:/ or the ubiquitous OJS redirects from the home-page to the current issue page), an Excel tally told me there were 6,808 ‘fatal’ URLs such as outright 404s, ‘Unauthorized’ or ‘Host not found’. That’s a 15% rot rate.

Perhaps someone could now look at helping Jan with a crowd-funder, to pay some Web-elves (on Fivver.com or similar) or unemployed recent graduates to fix the broken 15% of URLs? At $20 per batch of 25 URLs, I figure it should cost around $6,000.

itty.bitty

07 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by David Haden in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

itty.bitty, new from the design leader at Dropbox. Itty.bitty uses the URL to contain the text of a Web page. The page can have 2,000 bytes, or about 170-200 words, if you’re going to support legacy Web browsers such as Internet Explorer.

No hosting server is required, and as the data sits after the # symbol. What comes after the # is meant to be page-position related, and as such it never gets sent to the server.

The base64 link code is not pretty…

But the same link/page displays as…

How it works

This link is the page.

Scripting and hyper-linking is enabled in such pages, so long as it all fits in the URL length. The code can’t do images, but you can do old-school ASCII-art.

The main drawback seems to be that you’re going to have to be 1000% sure that your text is exactly as you want it before you make the link… because there’s no after-post editing for errors or updating of dead hyperlinks in the page.

In which case you’d ideally consistently version and date-stamp the

">How it works

bit, as…

">How it works (v.0.1 | 14/07/2018)

…so that people and search-tools can discover later updated versions of the same content. Otherwise the itty.bitty system risks becoming an intertwingled mess of half-baked and old/broken stuff that you (and probably Google) won’t want in search results.

I’m guessing that advanced Web browsers such as Brave will soon ‘add a feature’ in relation to this, by enabling much longer data-carrier code to be read from URLs. Perhaps also some simple automatic “…and can we find a later version of this itty.bitty.site?” query, done inside the browser. There would, however, also have to be some sort of dynamic ownership hash embedded in the page, to protect against impersonation of the page-author. Perhaps the system of authoring an ownership-hash and datestamp could be combined into a simple ‘one-click operation’ in a desktop authoring tool.

Anyway, it’s one example of the coming uncensorable Decentralized Web.

Massive Bronze figure unearthed

14 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

“The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles” (Feb 2018, PeerJ)…

“the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license.”

Of Bronze, “few studies have highlighted its role” [in OA]. “We manually inspected a small sample of Bronze articles in order to understand this subcategory more; we found that while many Bronze articles were Delayed OA from toll-access publishers, nearly half were hosted on journals that published 100% of content as free-to-read but were not listed on the DOAJ and did not formally license content (using CC-BY or any other license).”

Bronze was found to be at a whopping 47% of OA, from a one-week sample of Unpaywall-DOIs in 2017.

Open Access Journals in Commercial Databases

01 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ 1 Comment

“Open for Business: Open Access Journals in Commercial Databases”, a new article (dated 27th October 2017) in The Serials Librarian journal.

‘Table 3. Presence of OAs titles in databases’. Percent of DOAJ titles found in database:

Scopus – 29.18%
Academic Search Complete – 18.00%
Web of Science – 10.91%

… between 70.82% and 89.09% of DOAJ journals are not found in the databases analyzed here, which is potentially problematic given that most researchers depend on databases to locate scholarly information

Knowable Magazine

27 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by David Haden in New media journal articles, Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ 1 Comment

Launched today for Open Access Week, the free Knowable Magazine under CC BY-ND. Access the issue here.

There doesn’t seem to be a portable PDF version, just a tablet-tastic Web site with no RSS feed. I don’t mind the lack of a PDF, but if they want to be in the newsfeeds of influencers then surely someone needs to plug in the RSS module.

Picture this

12 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by David Haden in Open Access publishing, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

A possible unwanted side-effect of making PhD theses open access in public repositories, if not actually Creative Commons… image libraries want hefty image reproduction fees…

“consider that your average art history PhD will have dozens, if not perhaps hundreds, of images, then soon even an unpublished PhD can become prohibitively expensive. You want to discuss mid-18th Century portraiture, and show perhaps 50 images? That’ll be £750. You want to turn that PhD into a book? £3,050 please, before you’ve even thought of printing costs. Want to put on a Hogarth exhibition, with a decent catalogue? £8,600. Ouch. And Tate [in the UK] are on the cheaper end of the scale.”

And that’s before many image libraries realise that the PhD might be made public as a PDF, and thus that their digital pictures could be extracted at print-res (pro version of Adobe Acrobat, go: Tools | Document Processing | Export All Images) and then whisked into the public domain by cackling anarchists.

But the image given in the article as an example seems to have already had something similar happen to it. It’s the Tate’s copy of “The Painter and his Pug” (£162, please… the Tate having already taken PhD PDFs in repositories into account, and gouged accordingly). The picture’s now on Wikimedia and gleefully marked as public domain.

Still, that picture is by Hogarth. If you’re writing on someone more obscure or more modern, or don’t have the time or search skills to go burrowing into Hathi and Archive.org, then I can see how the gouging ‘repository-increased’ fees could make it difficult.

And difficult not only for the hapless writer. But also for librarians. Once the PhD is in a repository and is the institution’s responsibility, one suspects that some especially viscous picture libraries may even decide to make a bundle of cash by finding ‘personal use’ images in PhDs and demanding institutional prices for their use. In which case in future might we see PhD PDFs with most of the pictures blanked out, due to a mis-match between the assumed ‘personal use, on the library-shelf only’ licence for the pictures (for instance, Google’s 10m-picture LIFE magazine archive) and the subsequent public and institutional status of the document once it hits the repository? (And does so with or without the permission of the author, increasingly). If so, who is then going to go through and censor? One suspects it’ll be too much trouble for librarians to do that by hand, and too much trouble to figure out what stays and what goes (I assume 100% reliable machine-readable rights tagging is a non-starter, due to the human author in the loop). In which case the university’s risk-averse lawyers would just recommend that some bot should automatically detect and delete all the pictures, or — as with the Digital Library of India books that I’ve seen recently — their contrast would be increased so far that the pictures become almost illegible.

One way an author might get around that is to also provide a search link with keywords and phrases embedded in the URL. Thus my URL, when clicked, searches multiple image search-engines for “The Painter and his Pug” etc with a size of more than 2MB. Of course, readers can do that for themselves, but it would be a nice future-proofing courtesy. Or what about ‘intelligent PDFs’ that do that for you, fetching and embedding the required image on-the-fly from wherever it can be best found? An AI might help with that, and perhaps the link might contain an AI-friendly formula for what the required image should look like (big red splotch here, eyes there, etc) to ensure that the correct one is fetched.

← Older posts
Subscribe: RSS News Feed.
I'm on Patreon!

JURN:

  • JURN : as a browser addon
  • JURN : directory of ejournals
  • JURN : main search-engine
  • JURN : openEco directory
  • JURN : repository search

Related sites:

  • 4 Humanities
  • Accuracy in Academia
  • Addsearch (CSE alternative)
  • Alliance Defending Freedom
  • ALPSP
  • alt.academy
  • AMIR
  • Anterotesis
  • Arcadia project
  • Archive Team
  • Arnetminer
  • Art Historicum (German)
  • AWOL
  • Beall's List (updated at 2018)
  • Beall’s List (old)
  • Beyond Search
  • Bibliographic wilderness
  • Booktwo
  • Campus Reform
  • Charleston Advisor
  • Coalition for Networked Information
  • Common Crawl
  • Communia (public domain watchdog)
  • Copy, Shake, and Paste
  • Cost of Knowledge
  • Council of Editors of Learned Journals
  • Current Cites
  • Dan Cohen
  • Digital Campus
  • Digital Koans
  • Digital Shift
  • Dissernet (Russian anti-plagiarism)
  • DOAB
  • doai.io (alt. DOI resolver)
  • DOAJ
  • Don't Block TOR
  • eFoundations
  • EIFL
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • ELO
  • Embargo Watch
  • ePublishing Trust for Development
  • Facebook: Arab Open Access
  • Facebook: Italian Open Access
  • Facebook: Open Access India
  • Film Studies for Free
  • FIQ
  • FIRE
  • Flaky Academic Conferences
  • Found History
  • Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
  • Free Speech Tech Alliance
  • Free Speech Union (UK)
  • Go to Hellman
  • Google Algorithm
  • Google Scholar Digest
  • Harvard OA Tag Team (discoverability feed)
  • Heterodox Academy
  • Hybrid Publishing
  • Iconclass
  • IFLA Serials blog
  • ImpactStory
  • infoDocket
  • InTech Blog
  • Intl. Journal of the Commons
  • Jinfo (formerly Free Pint)
  • Keepers' Registry
  • Kindle blog
  • L'edition Electronique (French)
  • La Criee : periodiques (French)
  • Leader Statement Database on Free Speech
  • LibX Fulltext Linker
  • Mark Ware
  • Monographer
  • National Association of Scholars
  • National Coalition of Independent Scholars
  • Neil Beagrie
  • OA Lookup : Fees
  • OA Lookup : Policies
  • OA Working Group
  • OASPA
  • Online Searcher
  • Open Academic Society
  • Open Access Bibliography
  • Open Access News (archive)
  • Open Access Newsletter
  • Open Access Week
  • Open and Shut?
  • Open Electronic Publishing
  • Open Folklore
  • Open Humanities list
  • Open Knowledge Maps
  • Open Library of Humanities
  • Periodiques en ligne (French)
  • Peter Murray Rust
  • PKP / OJS
  • Professor Watchlist
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Publishers for Development
  • Publishing Archaeology
  • Quackwatch
  • RBA Blog
  • Reclaim the Net
  • Research Information
  • Research Remix
  • Retraction Watch
  • Right to Research
  • River Valley TV
  • ROARS (Italian)
  • Scholarly Communication News
  • Scholarly Electronic Publishing
  • Scholarship Matters
  • Search Engine News
  • Searchblox
  • Searcher
  • Semantico
  • Serials Cataloger
  • Serials Review
  • Society of Young Publishers
  • SPARC
  • Speech First
  • TaxoDiary (taxonomies news)
  • Taxpayer Access
  • The Keepers
  • The Scholarly Kitchen
  • Thoughts from Carl Grant
  • Unlocking Research
  • Web Scale Discovery
  • Web Scale Discovery mag
  • Zotero blog

Some of the libraries linking to JURN

  • AIATSIS
  • Boston College Libraries
  • Brooklyn Public Library, NY
  • Duke University
  • Florida State Universities
  • Gulf University, Kuwait
  • Kobe University, Japan
  • Northwestern University
  • Rhode Island College
  • San Jose State University
  • UConn Stamford
  • Université Paris
  • University College Cork
  • University of Brittany
  • University of California
  • University of Cambridge (Casimir Lewy Library)
  • University of Cambridge (main)
  • University of Canberra
  • University of Georgia
  • University of Lille
  • University of Rennes
  • University of Tanzania
  • University of Toronto
  • URFIST de Bretagne
  • Washington University
  • West Virginia University
  • York University

Spare BitCoins? Please send donations to JURN via: 17e2KGuyzjzEEE7BsoYTwMo3MtUod6DrjP

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
    To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy