Excellent news this morning in a press-release from the Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics : The part that I like most here is the sense that it’s part of an inevitable and historic shift away from legacy publishers and their subscription paywalls.

Ende 2016 veröffentlichen die Niederländischen Universitäten ihre Subskriptionskosten an die grossen wissenschaftlichen Verlage. Auf eine weitere Anfrage gestützt auf das Niederländische Öffentlichkeitsgesetz haben die Universitäten nun gar die Verträge mit den grösseren Verlagen offengelegt. Diese sind wegen den weltweit einzigartigen Offsetting-Vereinbarungen besonders interessant.

This week, psychologists are the newest group of scholars to learn that their “publishers” are dedicated to preventing their work from being made public. The American Psychological Association launched a pilot to monitor and seek removal of unauthorized online postings of APA journal articles.

Bis 2024 sollen alle mit öffentlichen Geldern finanzierten wissenschaftlichen Publikationen aus der Schweiz im Internet frei zugänglich sein. So sieht es die Open Access Strategie vor, welche Ende Januar 2017 durch swissuniversities verabschiedet wurde und zu der nun bis Ende Jahr ein Aktionsplan ausgearbeitet wird.

This is an important question, and one that is all too easy to overlook. No doubt the editorial board of Lingua assumed that they owned and controlled their journal, right up to the moment they decided to find a different publisher who would help them transition to reasonably priced open access.

This tired old argument came up again on Twitter this evening, in light of Elsevier’s me-too announcement of a preprint archive: And elsewhere in the same thread: So what’s the problem? Mendeley and SSRN are still around, right Yes, they are. But they continue to exist only by the grace of Elsevier. At any moment, that could change. And here’s why.

For a long while, there has been a lot of anger among researchers and academic librarians towards the legacy publishers: the big corporations that control access to most of the world’s scholarly output. But what exactly is the problem? Let’s briefly consider several possibilities, and see if we can figure out which ones really matter.

New goodies out today in PeerJ: Tschopp and Mateus (2017) on the new diplodocid Galeamopus pabsti, and Mannion et al. (2017) redescribe and name the French ‘Bothriospondylus’ as Vouivria damparisensis. Both papers are packed with interesting stuff that I simply don’t have time to discuss right now.

Should you cite preprints in your papers and should journals allow this? This is a topic that gets debated periodically. The most recent round of Twitter debate started last week when Martin Hunt pointed out that the journal Nucleic Acids Research wouldn’t allow him to cite them. A couple of days later I suggested that journals that don’t allow citing preprints are putting their authors’ at risk by forcing them not to cite relevant work.

This morning, I was invited to review a paper — one very relevant to my interests — for a non-open-access journal owned by one of the large commercial barrier-based publishers. This has happened to me several times now; and I declined, as I have done ever since 2011. I know this path is not for everyone.