Skip to content

/oa-workshop

Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path

oa-workshop/bibliography.bib

Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
281 lines (260 sloc) 17.9 KB
Raw Blame History
@book{kreutzer_open_2014,
title = {Open {Content} - {A} {Practical} {Guide} to {Using} {Creative} {Commons} {Licenses}},
publisher = {Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO; Cologne: North Rhine-Westphalian Library Service Centre; Berlin: Wikimedia Deutschland},
author = {Kreutzer, Till},
editor = {Bernecker, Roland and Engelmann, Jan and Schomburg, Silke},
year = {2014},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: licenses, Open access: workshop}
}
@article{tennant_academic_2016,
title = {The academic, economic and societal impacts of {Open} {Access}: an evidence-based review},
volume = {5},
issn = {2046-1402},
shorttitle = {The academic, economic and societal impacts of {Open} {Access}},
url = {http://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v3},
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.8460.3},
language = {en},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {F1000Research},
author = {Tennant, Jonathan P. and Waldner, François and Jacques, Damien C. and Masuzzo, Paola and Collister, Lauren B. and Hartgerink, Chris. H. J.},
month = sep,
year = {2016},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: state of},
pages = {632}
}
@article{piwowar_state_2018,
title = {The state of {OA}: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of {Open} {Access} articles},
volume = {6},
issn = {2167-8359},
shorttitle = {The state of {OA}},
url = {https://peerj.com/articles/4375},
doi = {10.7717/peerj.4375},
abstract = {Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28\% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45\%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47\% of articles they view are OA. Notably, 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. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18\% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2018-05-22},
journal = {PeerJ},
author = {Piwowar, Heather and Priem, Jason and Larivière, Vincent and Alperin, Juan Pablo and Matthias, Lisa and Norlander, Bree and Farley, Ashley and West, Jevin and Haustein, Stefanie},
month = feb,
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: state of},
pages = {e4375},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/CD5FBH6N/Piwowar et al. - 2018 - The state of OA a large-scale analysis of the pre.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/F4RNIYRY/4375.html:text/html}
}
@article{bjork_open_2016,
title = {The open access movement at a crossroad: {Are} the big publishers and academic social media taking over?},
volume = {29},
issn = {1741-4857},
shorttitle = {The open access movement at a crossroad},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/leap.1021},
doi = {10.1002/leap.1021},
abstract = {Key points Traditionally, open access (OA) has been growing via two routes: full OA journals (gold) and open self-archiving of manuscripts (green). Gold OA is dominated by new OA publishers (charging APCs) and society/university journals that do not. Major commercial and society publishers are increasingly moving into the APC-funded OA market. The proliferation of big national or consortium-level e-licences bundling subscription and APCs for hybrid OA may lead to large-scale flipping of journals to OA. Authors appear to be choosing social networks over repositories for ‘green’ OA sharing of articles.},
language = {en},
number = {2},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {Learned Publishing},
author = {Björk, Bo-Christer},
year = {2016},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: state of},
pages = {131--134},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/HRHVPZAX/Björk - The open access movement at a crossroad Are the b.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/EAYI6DHK/leap.html:text/html}
}
@misc{redhead_why_2012,
title = {Why {CC}-{BY}?},
url = {https://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/},
abstract = {At OASPA, one of the criteria for membership is that a publisher must use a liberal license that encourages the reuse and distribution of content. We strongly encourage (but currently do not require) the use of the CC-BY license wherever possible. Given recent moves in the UK by the Wellcome Trust and the Research Councils... Read full article {\textgreater}},
language = {en-GB},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association},
author = {Redhead, Claire},
month = oct,
year = {2012},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: licenses, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{klimpel_freies_2012,
title = {Freies {Wissen} dank {Creative}-{Commons}-{Lizenzen}: {Folgen}, {Risiken} und {Nebenwirkungen} der {Bedingung} »nicht-kommerziell – {NC}«},
url = {https://irights.info/wp-content/uploads/userfiles/CC-NC_Leitfaden_web.pdf},
journal = {Wikimedia Deutschland, iRights.info, and Creative Commons Deutschland},
author = {Klimpel, Paul},
year = {2012},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: licenses, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{budapest_open_access_initiative_boai15_2017,
title = {{BOAI}15},
url = {http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai15-1},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {Budapest Open Access Initiative},
author = {{Budapest Open Access Initiative}},
year = {2017},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open access: definitions}
}
@misc{fund_guest_2018,
title = {Guest {Post}: {From} {Supermarkets} to {Marketplaces} — {The} {Evolution} of the {Open} {Access} {Ecosystem}},
url = {https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/05/14/guest-post-supermarkets-marketplaces-evolution-open-access-ecosystem/},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {The Scholarly Kitchen},
author = {Fund, Sven},
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open access: definitions}
}
@article{bourne_ten_2017,
title = {Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission},
volume = {13},
issn = {1553-7358},
url = {http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473},
language = {en},
number = {5},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {PLOS Computational Biology},
author = {Bourne, Philip E. and Polka, Jessica K. and Vale, Ronald D. and Kiley, Robert},
month = may,
year = {2017},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open access: definitions, Preprints},
pages = {e1005473},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/UBQBKJJ9/Bourne et al. - 2017 - Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint su.pdf:application/pdf}
}
@article{schiermeier_scientists_2017,
title = {Scientists in {Germany}, {Peru} and {Taiwan} to lose access to {Elsevier} journals},
volume = {541},
url = {http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-in-germany-peru-and-taiwan-to-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals-1.21223},
doi = {10.1038/nature.2016.21223},
abstract = {Libraries pursue alternative delivery routes after licence negotiations break down.},
language = {en},
number = {7635},
urldate = {2018-05-23},
journal = {Nature News},
author = {Schiermeier, Quirin and Mega, Emiliano Rodríguez},
month = jan,
year = {2017},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: closed publication system},
pages = {13},
file = {Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/MWUXQ86P/scientists-in-germany-peru-and-taiwan-to-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals-1.html:text/html}
}
@misc{buranyi_is_2017,
title = {Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?},
url = {https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {The Guardian},
author = {Buranyi, Stephen},
month = jun,
year = {2017},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: closed publication system}
}
@article{lariviere_oligopoly_2015,
title = {The {Oligopoly} of {Academic} {Publishers} in the {Digital} {Era}},
volume = {10},
issn = {1932-6203},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0127502},
abstract = {The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor \& Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50\% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70\% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20\% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.},
language = {en},
number = {6},
urldate = {2018-07-02},
journal = {PLOS ONE},
author = {Larivière, Vincent and Haustein, Stefanie and Mongeon, Philippe},
month = jun,
year = {2015},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open acces: closed publication system},
pages = {e0127502},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/KE5N3W59/Larivière et al. - 2015 - The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digita.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/NTVWEMA8/article.html:text/html}
}
@misc{open_science_mooc_notitle_2018,
url = {https://opensciencemooc.github.io/site/},
author = {{Open Science MOOC}},
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{bezjak_open_2018,
title = {Open {Science} {Training} {Handbook}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496},
author = {Bezjak, Sonja and Clyburne-Sherin, April and Conzett, Philipp and Fernandes, Pedro L. and Görögh, Edit and Helbig, Kerstin and Kramer, Bianca and Labastida, Ignasi and Niemeyer, Kyle and Psomopoulos, Fotis and Ross-Hellauer, Tony and Schneider, René and Tennant, Jon and Verbakel, Ellen},
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop}
}
@article{mckiernan_point_2016,
title = {Point of {View}: {How} open science helps researchers succeed},
volume = {5},
copyright = {© 2016 McKiernan et al.. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.},
issn = {2050-084X},
shorttitle = {Point of {View}},
url = {https://elifesciences.org/articles/16800},
doi = {10.7554/eLife.16800},
abstract = {Open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2018-05-24},
journal = {eLife},
author = {McKiernan, Erin C. and Bourne, Philip E. and Brown, C. Titus and Buck, Stuart and Kenall, Amye and Lin, Jennifer and McDougall, Damon and Nosek, Brian A. and Ram, Karthik and Soderberg, Courtney K. and Spies, Jeffrey R. and Thaney, Kaitlin and Updegrove, Andrew and Woo, Kara H. and Yarkoni, Tal},
month = jul,
year = {2016},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop},
pages = {e16800},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/QID79PUQ/McKiernan et al. - 2016 - Point of View How open science helps researchers .pdf:application/pdf}
}
@article{bjork_growth_2017,
title = {Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016},
volume = {5},
issn = {2167-8359},
doi = {10.7717/peerj.3878},
abstract = {Hybrid Open Access is an intermediate form of OA, where authors pay scholarly publishers to make articles freely accessible within journals, in which reading the content otherwise requires a subscription or pay-per-view. Major scholarly publishers have in recent years started providing the hybrid option for the vast majority of their journals. Since the uptake usually has been low per journal and scattered over thousands of journals, it has been very difficult to obtain an overview of how common hybrid articles are. This study, using the results of earlier studies as well as a variety of methods, measures the evolution of hybrid OA over time. The number of journals offering the hybrid option has increased from around 2,000 in 2009 to almost 10,000 in 2016. The number of individual articles has in the same period grown from an estimated 8,000 in 2009 to 45,000 in 2016. The growth in article numbers has clearly increased since 2014, after some major research funders in Europe started to introduce new centralized payment schemes for the article processing charges (APCs).},
language = {en},
urldate = {2018-07-17},
journal = {PeerJ},
author = {Björk, Bo-Christer},
month = sep,
year = {2017},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open access: definitions},
pages = {e3878},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/Q5WJH7YE/Björk - 2017 - Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/RA6TXSLP/3878.html:text/html}
}
@article{martin-martin_evidence_2018,
title = {Evidence of {Open} {Access} of {Scientific} {Publications} in {Google} {Scholar}: {A} {Large}-{Scale} {Analysis}},
shorttitle = {Evidence of {Open} {Access} of scientific publications in {Google} {Scholar}},
doi = {10.31235/osf.io/k54uv},
abstract = {This article uses Google Scholar (GS) as a source of data to analyse Open Access (OA) levels across all countries and fields of research. All articles and reviews with a DOI and published in 2009 or 2014 and covered by the three main citation indexes in the Web of Science (2,269,022 documents) were selected for study. The links to freely available versions of these documents displayed in GS were collected. To differentiate between more reliable (sustainable and legal) forms of access and less reliable ones, the data extracted from GS was combined with information available in DOAJ, CrossRef, OpenDOAR, and ROAR. This allowed us to distinguish the percentage of documents in our sample that are made OA by the publisher (23.1\%, including Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, and Bronze OA) from those available as Green OA (17.6\%), and those available from other sources (40.6\%, mainly due to ResearchGate). The data shows an overall free availability of 54.6\%, with important differences at the country and subject category levels. The data extracted from GS yielded very similar results to those found by other studies that analysed similar samples of documents, but employed different methods to find evidence of OA, thus suggesting a relative consistency among methods.},
urldate = {2018-07-17},
journal = {SocArXiv},
author = {Martín-Martín, Alberto and Costas, Rodrigo and Leeuwen, Thed van and López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado},
month = mar,
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop, Open access: definitions},
file = {Full Text PDF:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/FSJSP2A3/Martín-Martín et al. - 2018 - Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/home/philippe/Zotero/storage/IGMV2U6A/k54uv.html:text/html}
}
@misc{why_open_research?_image_nodate,
title = {Image gallery},
url = {http://whyopenresearch.org/gallery},
urldate = {2018-07-17},
author = {{Why Open Research?}},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{sherpa_romeo_romeo_2018,
title = {{RoMEO} {Statistics}},
url = {http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php},
urldate = {2018-07-17},
author = {{SHERPA RoMEO}},
month = jul,
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{creative_commons_about_2018,
title = {About {The} {Licenses}},
shorttitle = {17.07.2018},
url = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/},
author = {{Creative Commons}},
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: licenses, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{shaddim_file:creative_2016,
title = {File:{Creative} commons license spectrum.svg},
url = {https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Creative_commons_license_spectrum.svg},
urldate = {2017-07-17},
author = {{Shaddim} and {Creative Commons (original CC license symbols)}},
year = {2016},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: licenses, Open access: workshop}
}
@misc{wikimedia_deutschland_fellow-programm_2018,
title = {Fellow-{Programm} {Freies} {Wissen}. {Wissenschaft} offen gestalten.},
url = {https://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Fellowprogramm},
urldate = {2018-07-18},
author = {{Wikimedia Deutschland}},
year = {2018},
keywords = {Open access, Open access: workshop}
}
You can’t perform that action at this time.