HELL TO THE GOTDANG YES.

OMICS Group buying up reputable journals, quite possibly in order to trash them. Not unlike accreditation-washing by for-profits.

Read the latest article version by Jonathan P. Tennant, François Waldner, Damien C. Jacques, Paola Masuzzo, Lauren B. Collister, Chris. H. J. Hartgerink, at F1000Research.

Book review candidate. OA.

The FTC is suing scientific publisher OMICS Group for deceptive practices. But what about the hundreds of other predatory publishers?

Wellcome has introduced a set of publisher requirements for open access (OA) publications. Robert Kiley, our Head of Digital Services, explains why we've taken this step.

It's easy to get an economist's paper online, but much harder to find a historian's.

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles—articles from scholarly journals made freely available to readers without requiring subscription fees—are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. Assertions that OA articles are also cited more often generate more controversy. Confounding factors (authors may self-select only the best articles to make OA; absence of an appropriate control group of non-OA articles with which to compare citation figures; conflation of pre-publication vs. published/publisher versions of articles, etc.) make demonstrating a real citation difference difficult. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years. Not surprisingly, better (defined as above median) articles gain more when made OA.

The Federal Trade Commission has charged the publisher of hundreds of purported online academic journals with deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding

Cost accounting.

American Chemical Society announces plans to host a ChemRxiv.

On Wellcome Trust's new venture.

This week SSRN removed from public view two of my papers with the following note in the comments attached to the files:   We have recently r...

On OLH.

Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘yellow’ and ‘white’) and related restrictions and conditions over time.  Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the twelve years, the volume of restrictions around how, where, and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively.  A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options.  Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access.  Compares the number of RoMEO ‘green’ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ‘redefined green’ (allowing embargo -free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository).  Finds that RoMEO ‘green’ increased by 8% and ‘redefined green’ decreased by 35% over the 12 years.  Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended.  Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what ‘green’ means to better reflect a publisher’s commitment to self-archiving.