Open Access – Copyright Clearance Center Rights Licensing Expert Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:33:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Open Access – Copyright Clearance Center 32 32 Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2018 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:30:16 +0000 Browse our top picks from the STM Week 2018 agenda, including sessions led by CCC’s Chuck Hemenway on Plan S and Babis Marmanis on AI.

The post Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Join us in London for STM Week 2018 from 4 to 6 December. This year’s agenda boasts vital topics and expert speakers unified by the theme Processes, Products and People in Publishing. Read on for our top picks from the packed schedule, including sessions led by CCC’s Chuck Hemenway and Babis Marmanis.

Day 1: Tools & Standards – Collaboration, standardization and consolidation

January 2020: A Call for Unity?

Moderated by: Chuck Hemenway, Director Business Development, Copyright Clearance Center

Panelists include:

  • Will Schweitzer, Director, Product & Custom Publishing, AAAS
  • Tasha Mellins-Cohen, Director of Publishing, Microbiology Society
  • Ian Potter, Solutions Specialist, Publishing & Associations, Clarivate Analytics
  • Rob Johnson, Director, Research Consulting Limited

The dynamic Open Access environment presents many challenges to longstanding practices in scholarly research publishing, particularly from funders, whether public or private. In the EU, government agencies are pushing the so-called Plan S principles, even while in the UK, Wellcome Trust considers further revisions to its funding and publishing guidelines.

What lies ahead for OA and how should publishers respond? What kinds of partnerships for publishers with other industry stakeholders are likely to yield a “win-win-win” scenario for researchers, funders, institutions and the public? This expert panel will explore the state of publisher commitment and investment in OA infrastructure and workflow, as well as consider how adoption of partnerships, tools, and standards could address any impasses, perceived or real.

Day 2: Innovation – Open Science and the protection of excellence

Industry Update, dedicated to Karen Hunter (1945-2018)

Moderated by: Gerry Grenier, Senior Director of Content Management, IEEE

STM Industry Report: Innovations in the Publishing Universe

Michael Mabe, CEO, International Association of STM Publishers

Rob Johnson, Director, Research Consulting

Johnson and Mabe, lead-authors of the new STM Industry Report, its special edition launched at STM’s 50th anniversary celebration in Frankfurt, will provide an overview of the current state of the STM Publishing universe, including the importance and impact of the latest developments in technology and innovation.

Digital Humanities and Open Science – A Librarian’s Perspective

Overview and introduction by Liam O’Dwyer, Special Collections and Digital Humanities Librarian, Dublin City University

A brief overview of Digital Humanities (DH) and its relationship with ‘traditional’ humanities. A snapshot at the DH landscape, method and praxis, the role of libraries, and implications for open science and publishing in the field. What are the current challenges and tensions? What roles and approaches are emerging?

Searching for images in the era of deep learning

Babis Marmanis, CTO, Copyright Clearance Center

AI and machine learning have the potential to radically speed up operations and increase the efficiency of the STM publishing sector. Existing AI-based technologies have already been developed or acquired by publishers to assist with the identification of peer reviewers, identify and combat plagiarism, recognize fabricated data, bolster the decision-making process behind the acceptance and rejection of papers. Likewise, AI has the potential to offer brand new services to researchers and the research community to empower Open Science and open knowledge creation. Come and listen to what is available now and what vendors have on offer and are developing for smarter information applications.

Day 3: Diversity and Inclusion in Publishing

Science benefits from diversity

Elisa De Ranieri, Editor-in-Chief Nature Communications, Springer Nature (effective January 2019)

For publishers, action on diversity and inclusion can’t begin and end with our own internal processes.  There is an imperative for us to find ways to address any problem that is standing in the way of great research. Find out about how Springer Nature is working with the academic community to increase representations of diversity in the scholarly work they publish, and how internal diversity program also play their part. What actions can the scholarly publishing industry take, together, to help drive change more quickly?

Follow all of the activity from STM Week 2018 at #STMWeek with @copyrightclear.

Related Reading:

The post Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Do Books Belong in Open Access? Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:41:14 +0000 Publishing professionals examine the relevance of the almost 13,000 academic peer-reviewed open access books, monographs and chapters from 282 publishers.

The post Do Books Belong in Open Access? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Open access is transforming scholarly journal publishing, yet the looming size of the journal ecosystem has thrown into deep shadow an equally remarkable transformation in scholarly books. In recent years, e-book acquisition rates and usage have soared. E-books offer multiple advantages, from acquisition models to accessibility and researcher engagement metrics.

In parallel with research coming out of the UK, an ongoing study by the US-based Book Industry Study Group is identifying the challenges in understanding the usage of OA e-books. This research will provide much needed documentation on e-book impact levels, especially for funders of open access publishing programs.

At the recent 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair, CCC’s Carl Robinson moderated a panel discussion on the viability of business models and the unique needs of OA books compared to OA journals. Guests were Brian O’Leary, executive director of the New York City-based Book Industry Study Group (BISG),and David Worlock, a longtime independent publishing analyst and co-chair of Outsell’s leadership programs.

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading

The post Do Books Belong in Open Access? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:53:33 +0000 Two scholarly publishing executives offer an informal Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment for society and independent publishers.

The post A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

To explore what Plan S could mean for the future of publication programs at researcher-supported societies, we spoke with two leading executives – Malavika Legge of the Biochemical Society and Portland Press and Tasha Mellins-Cohen of the Microbiology Society – who offered an informal Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment for society and independent publishers.

Guide to a "Plan S" Impact Assessment


“The key message in the context of Plan S is we want to make that transition sustainable, i.e., that we can continue on our mission to return sustainable revenues to our parent society.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“[At] The Microbiology Society…75-80% of all revenue is derived from publishing. Now, that supports our grants programs for early-career and mid-career microbiologists… our policy work… lots of our events programs… and all of the professional development activities that we do. Societies don’t have a God-given right to exist, but if we’re going to pull the plug on all of these activities, which Plan S might well threaten to do, we might want to have a bit more of a conversation about it.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“What is the practical detail around payment workflows [in Plan S]? That remains to be explored, particularly where you’ve got international collaborations, and you’ve got part-funded work, and you’ve got authors or researchers… focusing on their science [who] don’t need to be distracted by administrative burden around bills and part payments and things like this.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“What about humanities scholars?  What about social sciences and arts and all the rest of those fields, which we know do not have the same kind of funding, certainly don’t have the same kind of acceptance of open access that our fields enjoy?  We know that the cOAlition’s thought about having a different ruling for social sciences, arts, and humanities and decided against it.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“That’s very worrying to me that you’re having this very broad-brush approach with no flexibility to allow for differences in fields and publisher types.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We do see this as risk, but we also see it as an opportunity.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society “There’s an opportunity for us to look to transformative business models, transformative editorial models, and also potentially to really force a change in the way that research metrics are looked at to … make the break with the impact factor.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We’re mapping every affiliation metric that we have, every piece of XML that includes affiliation details… back to what we’re calling parent organizations. We are then creating a global map of where our authors are, where our subscribers are, and we are looking at what Plan S could do. Something that came through very clearly when we started doing this mapping exercise was that even those authors within Plan S countries … [do] not all have Plan S funding. So, you can’t simply say, ‘20% of our author base is going to go away because they’ve got Plan S funding.’ You’ve got to be more nuanced than that.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“There is a route to just doing a very, very quick proxy analysis… You could look at authors [based in Plan S countries] publishing in the journals in a particular time period and get a very quick reading of what the possible scale of impact is. Straightaway… you might find that … different journals are affected in different ways… Taking a quick reading can really help to focus … on where the risk is falling.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“[It] has been made very clear by cOAlition S is that they’re not expecting us to have our new model in place on the 1st of January 2020… [but rather] we need to provide a document stating how we will get to a pure open access world.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“Editorial options include things like doubling the size of our portfolio by providing Open Access B versions of all of our journals. That obviously has huge overhead implications. [Would] your authors who are open access-funded move to a B version? It takes several years to get indexed properly, to get all the metrics you might want, and so on and so forth.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“On the business model side, obviously there’s … the read and publish model. The question that you have to ask is if, you’re very small … how many librarians are going to want to talk to you about a bespoke read and publish model?” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“Do you want to leverage the existing relationships with librarians’ existing workflows that currently exist around subscriptions, but change the conversation to talking about funding open access?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“Something that is potentially quite exciting and positive about that [Open Access B version] model is you take away the individual APC payment. You start having a conversation about institutions and consortia [funding] the journal … open access and able for everybody to access the content. …The risk that one has to consider with that is one of institutions saying, ‘Well, not me. I’ll wait for somebody else to stump up that money.’” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“It would be great to hear from the funding bodies how they plan to influence [institution and consortia funding] so that [publishers] can continue to operate and provide on the editorial front the rigorous peer review, being the independent validator of research communications.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“Isn’t there benefit in having an independent party that is not deciding what research is funded –independent to the funder, [to the institution] and to the researcher – coming in and having a very robust validation process for that work, whatever the output might look like?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“We looked through nine different options around how we could respond to Plan S, ranging from do nothing to complete flip to APC-driven OA through things like institutional membership models, subscribe to open along the lines of the Knowledge Unlatched model and so on.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“I have taken a whole lot of the affiliation data and a whole lot of other data around funding, around APCs, around institutions who have open access mandates, so on and so forth, and I also looked at deposited green copies of articles that we’ve published, and I have crunched all of that data through a nifty little script that I wrote to give us an exposure level journal by journal to open access risk and potential.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We’re now seeing a huge new market for … an institutional membership model, which would allow us to go way beyond the existing subscriber base and actually reach out to all of our affiliated institutions one way and another.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading:


The post A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Get Smart About Plan S Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:25:35 +0000 Streaming now: In a special “pop-up” program for the Frankfurt Book Fair, a trio of leading scholarly publishers shared what it takes for Open Access publishers to be smart about Plan S.

The post Get Smart About Plan S appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

An initiative of 13 European national research funding organizations announced only a month ago, “Plan S” puts pressure on Open Access (OA) publishing business models by capping article fees, ending embargoes and withdrawing support for “hybrid” OA journals.

Not only publishers but also authors are affected by Plan S’s ambitions. Researchers are concerned that under Plan S, funders can decide where they may publish their work – with adverse effect on their academic careers.

Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s Open Access special envoy and mastermind of Plan S, says the “S” in “Plan S” can stand for “science, speed, solution, shock.” In a special “pop-up” program for the Frankfurt Book Fair, Copyright Clearance Center welcomed a trio of leading scholarly publishers who shared what it takes for Open Access publishers to be smart about Plan S.


  • Tim Britton, Managing Director of the Open Research Group at Springer Nature
  • Malavika Legge, Acting Director of Publishing at Portland Press, the wholly-owned publishing arm of the UK’s Biochemical Society
  • David Ross, Executive Publisher for Open Access at SAGE Publishing


“Plan S is an initiative of 13 national research funding organizations, and it puts pressure on open access publishing business models by capping article fees, ending embargoes, and withdrawing support for hybrid OA journals. Not only are publishers affected by Plan S ambitions, but authors as well. Authors and researchers are concerned that under Plan S, they may have limited choice about where they can publish their work, which could adversely affect their careers.” – Chuck Hemenway, CCC

“Plan S…overtly recognizes that and says hybrid as part of a transitional arrangement is acceptable. But more generally than that, why would we want to relaunch or recreate a whole existing journal network to kind of have a separate OA offer? It does seem to me that the use of the existing journals [that have] been around for hundreds of years [such as] society journals – why are we trying to shut them out of the market? It doesn’t make sense to me. We should use…the capital that we’ve already got as a way of helping us move forward.” – Tim Britton, Springer Nature

“There is no direct funding in social sciences and in the humanities. So, how [could] a model that was [clearly] being developed for highly funded biomedical disciplines…just be read across to these disciplines? …Within that, many social science [and humanities] journals…are small niche journals, and they’re communities in themselves. There’s actually no way you could convert them to a charge per article basis. They just would never be sustainable. …For all those small social science publishers, of which there are thousands, …literally would not be able to operate under this model.” – David Ross, Sage

“The social sciences and humanities…has to rely on a combination of hybrid and green archiving. …The idea that…anyone could just flip some of these journals and create brand new vehicles…is beyond me.” – David Ross, Sage

“If you take transformational agreements as I’m currently reading them to be, read and publish deals or some kind of arrangement like that, [niche society publishers] are just too small from a librarian’s perspective to have those individual conversations, because from an institute’s perspective, the output from their researchers in our tiny portfolio of journals is not high enough that it warrants a conversation around a bespoke read and publish deal or some other kind of bespoke arrangement. If Plan S is going to say, ‘Hybrid is only compliant in a world where you have these kind of deals,’ well, these kind of deals can only be done by the biggest publishers with the largest scale. So where does that leave the kind of publisher that we are?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“Science doesn’t have borders. Science is about international collaboration these days. It’s getting more multicultural, more interdisciplinary. You’ve got people collaborating across the globe. So, when you have a group of funders in a ring-fenced number of countries saying, ‘Where we are funding things, we want these rules to play out,’ what happens? What happens when a Chinese author is collaborating with somebody based in Europe, is collaborating with somebody based in the US, and the work is only [partially] funded by one of these funders? Whose rules are going to play out?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“APCs… is there a bill to be paid… This sort of administrative burden matters, because ideally none of us want to burden a researcher’s life with the hassle of any of this.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“Is Plan S possibly going to drive further consolidation in the market? If the major complaint of the science funding bodies is that the major publishers have too much leverage, this type of fast movement can force the hand of smaller societies to give over their programs.” – Chuck Hemenway, CCC

“With Plan S, what we have is the problem, perhaps, or a challenge, of a lack of consultation or consideration, around perspectives [of small society publishers]. [Plus] potentially, a lack of details – certainly at the moment, and it remains to see what that detail is. A lot rests on what that detail looks like. And thirdly, a lack of time, because 2020 is essentially right here.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

[The value of publishers in an Open Access environment.] “We have a number of different stakeholder groups, of which our shareholders are one, of which our authors are one, of which our employees are one, of which our funders are one, and that is why, ultimately, we do have a mixed model. All we can do is continue to point out what we do and the value that we bring.” – Tim Britton, Springer Nature

“There’s a lot of the US societies kind of shrugging their shoulders at this and going, well, we just won’t publish that 2% of researchers in our journals, then, and we’ll move on, because it’s not impacting the US.” – David Ross, Sage

“This is academic publishing. Every journal is different. That’s why they’re not fungible goods – they’re communities. And many of these communities, if it were played out as in the 10-points of Plan S, would be destroyed by that. That’s how you’ve got to engage.” – David Ross, Sage

“I think where we have to work is with the funding bodies, with the institutions, to make workflows and make ways that can shield the researcher community from this, because their focus needs to be on the science.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading:

The post Get Smart About Plan S appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Considerations for Using Open Access Content at Work Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:52:03 +0000 Professionals in corporations using tools like PubMed and Google regularly find Open Access content. Here are a few best practices to get the most from OA.

The post Considerations for Using Open Access Content at Work appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

Open access (OA) has been a disruptive force in the publishing industry, providing researchers with free access to content, but as with any agent of change, it has also introduced some confusion. As publishers work with academic institutions and governmental bodies to establish viable business models around open access, content consumers in the corporate sphere increasingly encounter open access content in their daily work. A recent study published in PeerJ estimated that at least 28% of scholarly content is available as open access. Professionals in corporations using tools like PubMed and Google regularly find OA content. During a time-crunch in the middle of putting together a regulatory filing, responding to an HCP or trying to identify a new medical breakthrough, what isn’t to love about content that’s instantly and freely available?

Everyone wants simple access to scientific literature at a reasonable cost, but there are some special considerations when using open access content in a corporate setting.

Read the Fine Print

There’s a whole rainbow of open access models and a handful of OA Creative Commons licenses that have different rules about how content can be used.

Reading the terms and conditions isn’t everyone’s idea of fun, but it’s important to make sure you are responsibly using the content in a way that’s consistent with the open access license terms and your company’s compliance policies.

Everyone wants simple access to scientific literature at a reasonable cost, but there are some special considerations when using open access content in a corporate setting.

For instance, a great deal of open access content is published under a Creative Commons (CC) license. There are several flavors of CC licenses that indicate how the content can be used. Some of these licenses do not allow for commercial use, but they do not clearly define what commercial use is, and interpretation varies across publishers and across corporations consuming the content. Confusion can also arise between the types of commercial use, like individual research versus large-scale copying and distribution for Sales and Marketing purposes.

Each organization must define its own risk tolerance. It can be common for large pharmaceutical to interpret these licenses as not allowing use of the articles by anyone in their corporation because they are by definition a corporate entity, while others feel that this content can be used for individual research purposes in the workplace but not for promotional activities that directly lead to revenue.

It’s important to know your company’s policy on the use of OA content and to read the terms provided along with the article.

Not All OA Content is Created Equal

There are many excellent OA journals that publish groundbreaking research, but unfortunately there are also some OA journals that do not maintain rigorous publication standards.

Studies published in Nature and The Scholarly Kitchen have exposed problematic journal practices and demonstrated the threat to the integrity of scientific discourse posed by such practices. In response to predatory journal practices, the Think Check Submit initiative was formed, which offers authors some criteria to consider when evaluating what publications to submit to.

The advice of ‘buyer beware’ applies to OA consumers as well as OA authors. It would be wise to follow a similar path of vetting when using open access content in a corporation, like checking a journal title’s record in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). When offering research to support a patent submission, a regulatory filing or a key business decision, no one wants to accidentally cite papers full of incorrect or misleading science.

Some OA consumers may prefer to avoid content published in the “Green OA” model, in which an article is published in a traditional journal, but the author is also allowed to post it on a personal blog or in an OA repository. The copies posted on blogs or in OA repositories may not be the exact same as the final published version of the article. For example, copyediting and pagination may not yet have been performed.

Green OA is indexed on Google Scholar, which means what you find freely available there and on other websites may be an early version of an article instead of the final published version. The earlier version of an article might be perfectly fine for your purposes, but some activities such as submitting a regulatory filing or responding to an HCP’s question about dosing, necessitate that you use the version of record of an article.

More Content and More Availability Means More Discovery

As more content is published as Open Access, the burden to determine if and how corporations can use this content increasingly falls on content consumers to ensure that they are using these articles compliantly.

When working with OA publications, remember to take these best practices into consideration:

  • Take stock of the context of your usage
  • Read the fine print
  • Check your company’s policies
  • Make sure you are using credible publications
  • Obtain the version of record of the article
  • Seek out only content with the best reputation when investing research time or making key business decisions

And don’t forget, Open Access is only possible because researchers are willing to openly share their work with the world. No matter how you are using open access content, always make sure to properly attribute the author.

The post Considerations for Using Open Access Content at Work appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Highlights from the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:26:36 +0000 Even those who didn't make it to Germany in person can still access the top highlights from the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair with this roundup.

The post Highlights from the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

From breaking industry news to intelligent analysis of business trends, there were plenty of highlights from the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair to remember. Browse the social media posts below for an insight into the exciting topics that defined #FBM18.



The post Highlights from the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Get Smart About “Plan S” with Rob Johnson [Webcast] Wed, 26 Sep 2018 20:47:40 +0000 "Plan S" was top of mind for scholarly publishers at the 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair. Listen to this webcast to learn what it's all about.

The post Get Smart About “Plan S” with Rob Johnson [Webcast] appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

“Plan S” was announced just weeks ago and now everyone in scholarly publishing is talking about its potential market impact. “Plan S” was a key topic of discussion at Frankfurt Book Fair and will continue to be a focus at STM Week and other events.

Ahead of Frankfurt, CCC hosted the ‘Get Smart About “Plan S”’ webinar with Rob Johnson (Research Consulting). Stream the webcast here.

What is “Plan S”?

Following 1 January 2020 “scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.”

An initiative of 13 European national research funding organizations (cOAlition S), “Plan S” puts pressure on Open Access publishing business models by capping article fees, ending embargoes and withdrawing support for “hybrid” OA journals. Delta Think, an independent publishing and digital media consultancy, estimates that “Plan S” funders account for roughly 3.3% of articles published globally.

At the broadest level, the information industry continues to struggle with the migration from traditional subscription publishing to Open Access publishing (and open science and open data more broadly). The stakeholders – authors, publishers, institutions, and funding agencies (including government bodies) – consider Open access from very different perspectives. Recently, given the Horizon 2020 mandates in Europe (originating at the Belin Conference in 2016) and now in the U.S., “Plan S” indicates that the institution and funding community is pushing harder than ever on the traditional publishing community to change their business models or be replaced.

So, where is your organization’s publishing program on the path to making the transition to OA? How will you respond to “Plan S”?

Listen now: Get Smart About “Plan S” with Rob Johnson

In 30 minutes, OA expert Rob Johnson of the UK’s Research Consulting will give you all the details and the insights you’ll need about “Plan S” as you continue to make the transition to OA.

The “S” in “Plan S” can stand for “science, speed, solution, shock,” says Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s OA special envoy. But you can make it stand for “Smart.”


Recommended Reading:

The post Get Smart About “Plan S” with Rob Johnson [Webcast] appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
COASP 2018: Top Session Suggestions Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:55:11 +0000 COASP 2018 brings the open access community together to discuss new developments and to unite in the shared goal of making research around the world open.

The post COASP 2018: Top Session Suggestions appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

The 10th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing (COASP) kicks off on Monday, 17 September, 2018 at the University of Vienna, Austria. Hosted by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), this major annual scholarly publishing conference brings the open access community together to discuss new developments and innovations in scholarly publishing and to unite in the shared goal of making research around the world openly accessible. The program is tailored for those working in publishing, librarianship, government, higher education, funding agencies, nonprofits, and other affiliated industries.

There’s a full agenda for this event, so we’ve asked CCC colleagues in attendance to share their top-priority sessions to help you get the most out of COASP 2018.

Jen Goodrich, Principal Consultant

Panel 1 | Early Movers
Monday, September 17
2:00pm – 3.30pm
I’m really looking forward to this special panel kicking off COASP 2018, which features key leaders from the early years of the open access movement, including Vitek Tracz, David Prosser, Susan Murray, Marin Dacos, Leslie Chan, and Caroline Sutton. Since COASP held its first conference in 2008, the OA movement has made great progress and become, in many ways, significantly more complex than anyone first imagined. This is a wonderful chance to get these visionaries’ take not only on the history of the movement, but the road ahead.

Kurt Heisler, Sales Director

Panel 2 | Transformative Agreements
Tuesday, September 18
11.00am – 12.15pm
As the scholarly communications ecosystem travels down the road to more open research, agreements between publishers, university libraries, and research funders are increasing in number and innovative design. Consortia deals, offsetting arrangements, read-and-publish agreements: new business models are having a significant impact on stakeholders at all levels, from strategic to tactical. This panel, made up of publishers (Xenia van Edig, Business Development, Copernicus Publications; Kamran Naim, Director of Partnerships & Initiatives, Annual Reviews), a university consortia representative (Wilma van Wezenbeek, Programme Manager, Open Access, VSNU), and a repository network association (Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR) represents the movers-and-shakers of this new landscape where OA agreements of all varieties are essential to program sustainability. Don’t miss out on getting their first-hand take.

Chuck Hemenway, Sales Director

Panel 4 | Open Access Monographs
Wednesday, September 19
9.45am – 11.00am
This session feels timely and significant, making it a “must attend” for me. As I recently discussed in this post, by now journals are well established in the OA space, and attention is turning to monographs. While open access articles and books share an undergirding philosophy, they differ significantly in practice. We need to pay particular attention to key issues of use, discoverability, rights, and perhaps most importantly, implementation infrastructure. I look forward to hearing OA heavy hitters like Ros Pyne (Head of Policy & Development, Open Research, Springer Nature) and Mark Edington (Director, Amherst College Press) weigh in on how we can make OA books a success and possibly what learned lessons we can possibly transfer from OA journal programs to this space.

Interested in meeting up with CCC during COASP 2018? Send us a message and we’ll contact you to set up an appointment! Follow the event at #COASP10.

The post COASP 2018: Top Session Suggestions appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Know Before You Go: Hot Sessions at ALPSP Conference 2018 Thu, 06 Sep 2018 14:05:53 +0000 Fill your schedule at ALPSP Conference 2018 with the top picks from CCC's team. OA policy, e-textbooks, data collection - there's something for everyone.

The post Know Before You Go: Hot Sessions at ALPSP Conference 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

CCC’s partner, The Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), will host its annual conference at the Beaumont Estate, Old Windsor, Berkshire, UK from 12-14 September.

The ALPSP Conference, a key date on the scholarly publishing calendar, provides a critical environment in which to share information and knowledge, learn about new initiatives, as well as engage in open discussion on the challenges and opportunities facing publishing today. This year’s key themes of discussion are:

  • Openness and Policy –how do funder policies and mandates affect publishers of all sizes, researchers in all disciplines, and various regional markets?
  • Business and Technology – how are practical applications for AI, blockchain, new monetization strategies around data, sustainable publishing partnerships, and new markets such as online teaching materials driving innovation in content creation and content consumption?
  • Researchers and Ethics – how can publishers better support researcher and author workflows around journals and books across all disciplines, including data and metrics, as well as researcher and author experiences during peer review, ensuring a diverse environment with freedom to publish?

The three-day program is packed with terrific sessions, so plan your attendance wisely. Below, CCC colleagues attending this year share their top picks.

Kurt Heisler, Sales Director

Plenary 1 – Openness and Policy: How should we accelerate a transition to open access?

Wednesday September 12
3:15 PM – 4:15 PM
Hanover Suite, Ground Floor

I’m looking forward to getting the take of this expert panel on one of the most pressing questions across publishing today: where are we in the transition to OA, and how can we come closer to achieving open research goals set by the likes of Horizon 2020? Bringing all stakeholders from across the OA landscape to the table is really the first step toward progress in this area, and so I’m quite excited that the panel includes perspectives from a research funder (Steven Hill, Director of Research for Research England), publishers (Kamran Naim, Director of Partnerships and Initiatives, Annual Reviews; and Sarah McKee, Senior Associate Director for Publishing, Emory University), and researchers (represented by Prof. Sarah Kember, University of London), making for a can’t-miss discussion.

Jamie Carter, Manager of Publishing Solutions

Plenary 2: Harvesting and Analyzing Data

Thursday September 13
9:15 AM – 10:15 AM
Hanover Suite, Ground Floor

I’m most excited about this session focused on data, with experts from key industry players like Maverick Publishing Specialists (Lettie Conrad), BMJ (David Hutcheson), Delta Think (Ann Michael), and Emerald Publishing Group (Chris Leonard). While there are a lot of different conversations happening at the moment on this topic, this panel is really asking the right questions:

  • What data can we collect? What data should we collect?
  • How do we move beyond vanity metrics and measure what drives usage?
  • How can we create transparency in data collection so multiple stakeholders can turn insights into innovations?

Michael Healy, Executive Director of International Relations

Parallel Session 2a – The Impact of Open Access on Library Sales, Strategies and Solutions

Thursday September 13
10:45 AM – 11:30 AM
Hanover 2, Ground Floor

Following on the theme of looking at all aspects of openness and transparency, this panel is a terrific opportunity for members of the scholarly publishing community to hear directly from world-class institutional librarians (University of Tulsa, Université de Lorraine, and Stockholm University) and gain first-hand insight into the direct and indirect implications of OA on the library market. Publishers, technology partners, funders, and authors alike can benefit from a more thorough understanding of how librarians’ roles, purchasing strategies, and library solutions are changing as the scholarly communications landscape evolves. Don’t miss it!

Chuck Hemenway, Sales Director

Parallel Session 2b – Innovations in Publishing: Collaborative approaches and open data infrastructure

Thursday September 13
11:35 AM – 12:20 PM
Hanover 2, Ground Floor

This is a fantastic line-up of publishing experts from across the industry with deep knowledge of collaborative approaches and infrastructures for open data sharing for open science, particularly as it relates to helping researchers align and coordinate with publishers and funders. Insufficient metadata passed between these key parties leads to poor reporting and a lack of transparency, but even more importantly, reliance on author knowledge of policies, licensing, and payment requirements introduces errors and creates a highly frustrating user experience. The more we can connect stakeholders across the OA publishing ecosystem with data-driven, cross-publisher solutions, the better positioned we are to solve these challenges. I look forward to hearing more about projects in this space from Research Consulting, Digital Science, and OpenAIRE.

Matt Pedersen, Senior Director of Rightsholder Relations

Parallel Session 1d – The E-Textbook Conundrum

Thursday September 13
2:50 PM – 3:35 PM
Hanover 1, Ground Floor

I’m admittedly a bit biased, but I’m excited about a panel I’ll be moderating on e-textbooks. There are a lot of prominent challenges in this space at the moment, with publishers needing to deliver content online or in multiple formats at an increasingly granular level; university libraries and faculty faced with limited budgets; and students having high expectations but little appetite or time for learning the ins and outs of new tools. The focus of this session will be on sharing different perspectives on how publishers might go about developing the next generation of easy-to-use-and-access educational resources against the backdrop of this landscape, and it promises to give attendees a lot to consider.


Interested in meeting up with CCC during the ALPSP Conference? Send us a message and we’ll contact you!

The post Know Before You Go: Hot Sessions at ALPSP Conference 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0
Are We Ready for the Open (Access) Book? Thu, 09 Aug 2018 08:00:31 +0000 Where do we stand on use, discoverability, rights, and implementation infrastructure for Open Access Books? New industry reports published recently offer insights.

The post Are We Ready for the Open (Access) Book? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

In 2015,  Karin Wulf asserted in her Scholarly Kitchen post, Books, Glorious Books: Explorations in Open Access Monograph Publishing, that while open access articles and books share an undergirding philosophy, they differ significantly in practice:  “The basic issues are the same for OA journals and monographs, yet cost, use, licensing, distribution, and the varied significance of the form across disciplines and within fields play out very differently.”

In the intervening years since Wulf’s writing, we’ve gained more clarity around one of the central, practical uncertainties circling OA books – who will pay? Similar to the journal model, books published via the gold route are made freely available to the reader with a book processing charge (BPC) generally applied by publishers to cover the costs of editorial, production, and digital publication. With increasing frequency, funders are expanding their mandates to cover OA monographs. In addition to the Austrian Science Fund, which was one of the first to fund OA for scholarly publications including monographs, UK funding bodies intend to extend the open access (OA) requirements of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) to include books, though the policy has yet to be implemented, fostering lively debate. Switzerland has likewise applied a mandate for OA books, and even more recently, the French Minister for Higher Education and Research and Innovation unveiled a National Plan for Open Science, which will make OA mandatory when publishing articles and books resulting from government-funded projects – just to call out a few.

But where do we stand on key issues of use, discoverability, rights, and perhaps most importantly, implementation infrastructure?  A number of new, insightful and thorough industry reports have been published over the last year, tackling these very topics. Below, we’ve assembled key highlights from each to help you stay abreast of open access book developments.

1)  Knowledge Exchange’s  Summary: A Landscape Study On Open Access (OA) And Monographs

Published in March 2018 and revised in July, this report from Knowledge Exchange is a landscape study analyzing existing information about how OA monographs operate in relation to OA policies, funding streams and business models in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Austria, using a literature review, a series of web-based questionnaires and qualitative interviews.  In addition to painting a very detailed picture of the state of open access books in each of these geographies, the report also makes key recommendations for funders (e.g. streamline compliance and requirements in how BPCs are administered and monitored between funders), policymakers (e.g. work with funders on cost effective ways to make monographs OA), authors (e.g. become more educated about the benefits of OA books), university administrators (e.g. address issues around the reward system), publishers (e.g. use a common set of metadata), and librarians (e.g. look at OA licensing and acquisitions in a coordinated manner).

2) Universities UK Open Access Coordination Group’s Open Access Monographs

This report from Universities UK provides an overview of the open access (OA) landscape for monographs, significant publishing activities, and recent reports that provide an insight into the transition to OA for academic books. Headline findings include evidence that the cost of making a monograph OA varies, as do book processing charges (BPCs). Some publishers offer reduced BPCs for early career researchers (for example School of Advanced Study [SAS] Digital Humanities Library) or cover the costs for their own institution’s authors to publish with their own university press (for example, UCL Press at University College London). Likewise, new publishing routes for OA monographs are being established at a rapid rate, with innovative models emerging year-on-year, which stands in contrast to the relatively linear transition to OA for journal articles.

3) Springer Nature’s The OA Effect

A new report from Springer Nature presents interesting findings about the tangible benefits of publishing academic books under a gold OA model. Specifically, their research illustrated that OA books are downloaded seven times more frequently than non-OA books, pull 50% more citations over a four-year period, and increase online mentions by a factor of 10 over a three-year period. Much like OA for journal content, the study finds that increased visibility and wider dissemination of research are the most popular motivations for OA monograph authors. In tandem with the report, Springer Nature also hosted an event to document authors’ attitudes toward OA books, with only 20% of respondents saying they were ‘very likely’ to publish an OA book, despite the benefits.  Funding uncertainty was frequently cited as the major obstacle.

4) Swiss National Science Foundation’s The Impact of Open Access on Scientific Monographs in Switzerland

The OAPEN-CH pilot project was designed to acquire know-how and first-hand experience of the publication and funding of open access monographs in Switzerland. Quantitative data on use, sales and costs was collected in order to investigate the effect of open access. The perceptions and expectations of authors and publishers were also integrated into the analysis. Key findings, made public in April 2018, are as follows:

  • Open access had a statistically significant positive influence on the trackability and visibility of the monographs
  • Placing open access monographs in the OAPEN Library increased international reach, with monographs used mainly in neighboring cultural and language regions (70% of downloads were from France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland).
  • Open access had a statistically significant influence on the use of monographs (number of book visits, page views and downloads).
  • Statistically, open access did not have a negative influence on the sales figures for printed books.

In the light of the OAPEN-CH findings, the SNSF has fundamentally reframed its open access policy and now pays a modular book processing charge (BPC) to cover the costs of producing an open access monograph as well as the costs of the peer review process, distribution and metadata creation.

5) Book Industry Study Group’s Understanding OA E-book Usage: Toward a Common Framework

Although not yet published, another key study to watch comes from the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) in collaboration with KU Research and faculty from the universities of Michigan and North Texas. With funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, this collective recently launched a one-year project designed to foster a community conversation focused on improving usage and engagement tracking for open access (OA) e-books.  In addition to identifying the challenges in understanding the usage of OA e-books, this project will also suggest some opportunities for resolution and create a framework for future action through community consultation. It will focus on the challenges of identifying and aggregating relevant information from different platforms, analyzing what has been gathered in ways that respect user privacy, and communicating relevant information about usage to stakeholders. An important objective is to connect strands of research currently being conducted separately in the United States and Europe, by both for-profit and non-profit entities. Following the conclusion of this research project in May 2019, BISG will publish a white paper of findings and propose a pathway for future action.


Related Reading:

The post Are We Ready for the Open (Access) Book? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]> 0