Explore the vast range of titles available.

[Purpose/Significance] With the advancement of open science, the signing of transformative open access agreements will have a profound and long-term impact on the acquisition of library information resources. How libraries respond to this trend, how to evaluate open access conversion agreements, whether to sign reasonable open access conversion agreements, and actively adopt them suitable for China's domestic conditions, and scientific and effective collection acquisition and transformation strategies in an open publishing environment, how to ensure reasonable investment of institutional publishing funds, and how to play a role in promoting positive academic exchanges in an open scientific environment are all important issues that deserve industry attention and exploration. [Method/Process] We first reviewed the research progress on open access transformation at home and abroad. Second, based on the data statistics and analysis of DOAJ and related research reports and institutions, the relatiave concepts were elaborated, the impact on stakeholders was examined, and the trend of practical development was understood. Through the analysis and induction of practical cases in domestic and foreign university libraries, especially through the case analysis of the library of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, we elaborated on the issues that Chinese university libraries need to pay more attention to in the process of open access transformation, and proposes related strategies. [Results/Conclusions] To cope with the open access movement, on the one hand, we need to be vigilant against the emergence of new knowledge \"barriers\" and \"paywalls\" due to profit-driven, high APC, and transformative costs, as well as the lack of regulatory norms for author payments and the existence of financial risks and loopholes such as taxation. On the other hand, all parties adhere to the original intention of promoting the dissemination of academic knowledge, forming a transparent and reasonable APC price ecological market, establishing a hierarchical, reliable, and sustainable open publishing funding support, transformation, and regulation mechanism, and creating an economic and healthy academic information exchange environment. In this process, it is necessary for university libraries to comprehensively coordinate subscription fees and publishing fees, and fully guarantee and restructure knowledge exchange and information dissemination. This paper summarizes the three issues that need to be considered in the process of open access transformation, including the impact of open access on stakeholders, the phenomena that need to be monitored, and the key to ensuring sustainability. We proposed implementation strategies based on practical cases, including research and data preparation, analysis and evaluation, focusing on specific implementation points such as controlling elements of contract terms. The OA transformation is still in the transition period, and in order to avoid the loss of funds due to double payments, some overall management and guidance systems are needed during this period. For some publishers that prioritize commercial profit, it is necessary to send strong signals and strengthen supervision of APC pricing rationality through alliances and other levels. In addtion, we must strengthen China's leadership and discourse power in open science, and carry out the construction of related supporting systems.

Dedicated funds for open access (OA) publishing have been a strategic instrument at German university libraries for many years. As the number of OA publications grows dynamically, the question arises as to whether the processes of handling article processing charges (APCs) are being sustainably organized among libraries and publishers so as to enable a full transition to OA. The Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) processes about 600 invoices for OA articles per year centrally on behalf of Max Planck researchers. This paper describes the individual steps required in order to assume charges centrally as well as the barriers emerging during this process. It is shown that the main desiderata for the establishment of smooth and scalable processes are the optimization of article submission systems, better author identification and assignment, and improved reporting.

Nature Index analysis 2014 rates India at the 13th place for its high-quality scientific publications. Despite this achievement, several studies have revealed that India is also among the major contributors of articles published in poor-quality predatory open access journals. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to estimate which category of educational and research institutes predominately publishes in predatory open access journals in India and to understand whether academicians in India are aware of predatory journals. It was found that private/government colleges contribute to about 51% of predatory publications, followed by private universities, state universities, national institutes, central universities and industries, for research articles published from September 2015 to mid-February 2016. The publication pressure among researchers and lack of monitoring the research being conducted are the major factors contributing to articles published in poor-quality predatory open access journals from India.

Objective To measure the effect of free access to the scientific literature on article downloads and citations.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 11 journals published by the American Physiological Society.Participants 1619 research articles and reviews.Main outcome measures Article readership (measured as downloads of full text, PDFs, and abstracts) and number of unique visitors (internet protocol addresses). Citations to articles were gathered from the Institute for Scientific Information after one year.Interventions Random assignment on online publication of articles published in 11 scientific journals to open access (treatment) or subscription access (control).Results Articles assigned to open access were associated with 89% more full text downloads (95% confidence interval 76% to 103%), 42% more PDF downloads (32% to 52%), and 23% more unique visitors (16% to 30%), but 24% fewer abstract downloads (−29% to −19%) than subscription access articles in the first six months after publication. Open access articles were no more likely to be cited than subscription access articles in the first year after publication. Fifty nine per cent of open access articles (146 of 247) were cited nine to 12 months after publication compared with 63% (859 of 1372) of subscription access articles. Logistic and negative binomial regression analysis of article citation counts confirmed no citation advantage for open access articles.Conclusions Open access publishing may reach more readers than subscription access publishing. No evidence was found of a citation advantage for open access articles in the first year after publication. The citation advantage from open access reported widely in the literature may be an artefact of other causes.

Il mondo dell’editoria scientifica ha subìto, negli ultimi decenni, una serie di profonde trasformazioni sostenute da continue innovazioni tecnologiche e fortemente motivate dal movimento nato per promuovere l’accesso libero (Open Access - OA) e senza restrizioni all’informazione scientifica. In questo contesto ancora in evoluzione emerge il modello di Diamond Open Access, in cui riviste e piattaforme non richiedono tariffe né agli autori né ai lettori. In questo articolo, dopo una breve panoramica su come si sia sviluppata l’editoria scientifica dal tradizionale modello di pubblicazione all’OA e di come si sia arrivati al modello di Diamond OA, ci si sofferma a esaminare in particolare quest’ultimo. L’obiettivo del contributo, infatti, è quello di fornire un resoconto per quanto possibile esaustivo dei numerosi progetti, delle iniziative e delle organizzazioni che attualmente sostengono e promuovono il modello Diamond OA e, al contempo, di riflettere sulla sua sostenibilità e sulle concrete problematicità che ne ostacolano una maggiore diffusione all’interno del variegato ecosistema nel quale si muove oggi l’informazione scientifica.

The growing demand for the transportation of goods and people has led to an increasing reliance on transportation infrastructure, which, in turn, subjects the pavements to high traffic volumes. In order to maintain adequate service and safety standards for users, it is essential to establish effective maintenance strategies that ensure the preservation of pavement conditions. As a result, emerging innovations in pavement surface inspection methods, surpassing traditional techniques in terms of inspection and data processing speed and accuracy, have garnered significant attention. One such groundbreaking innovation in inspection systems that has been tested and used in recent years to assess infrastructure condition is the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This study aims to present a critical open-access literature review on the use of UAVs in the inspection of transportation infrastructure pavement in order to assess the type of equipment used, the technology involved, applicability conditions, data processing, and future evolution. The analysis of relevant literature suggests that the integration of intelligent technologies substantially enhances the accuracy of data collection and the detection of pavement distress. Furthermore, it is evident that most applications and research efforts are oriented towards exploring image processing techniques for the creation of 3D pavement models and distress detection and classification.

Conservation science is a crisis discipline in which the results of scientific enquiry must be made available quickly to those implementing management. We assessed the extent to which scientific research published since the year 2000 in 20 conservation science journals is publicly available. Of the 19,207 papers published, 1,667 (8.68%) are freely downloadable from an official repository. Moreover, only 938 papers (4.88%) meet the standard definition of open access in which material can be freely reused providing attribution to the authors is given. This compares poorly with a comparable set of 20 evolutionary biology journals, where 31.93% of papers are freely downloadable and 7.49% are open access. Seventeen of the 20 conservation journals offer an open access option, but fewer than 5% of the papers are available through open access. The cost of accessing the full body of conservation science runs into tens of thousands of dollars per year for institutional subscribers, and many conservation practitioners cannot access pay‐per‐view science through their workplace. However, important initiatives such as Research4Life are making science available to organizations in developing countries. We urge authors of conservation science to pay for open access on a per‐article basis or to choose publication in open access journals, taking care to ensure the license allows reuse for any purpose providing attribution is given. Currently, it would cost $51 million to make all conservation science published since 2000 freely available by paying the open access fees currently levied to authors. Publishers of conservation journals might consider more cost effective models for open access and conservation‐oriented organizations running journals could consider a broader range of options for open access to nonmembers such as sponsorship of open access via membership fees.

Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

The rise of the World Wide Web represents one of the most significant transitions in communications since the printing press or even since the origins of writing. To Open Access and Open Data advocates, the web offers great opportunity for expanding the accessibility, scale, diversity and quality of archaeological communications. Nevertheless, Open Access and Open Data face steep adoption barriers. Critics wrongly see Open Access as a threat to peer review. Others see data transparency as naively technocratic and lacking in an appreciation of archaeology's social and professional incentive structure. However, as argued in this paper, the Open Access and Open Data movements do not gloss over sustainability, quality and professional incentive concerns. Rather, these reform movements offer much needed and trenchant critiques of the academy's many dysfunctions. These dysfunctions, ranging from the expectations of tenure and review committees to the structure of the academic publishing industry, go largely unknown and unremarked by most archaeologists. At a time of cutting fiscal austerity, Open Access and Open Data offer desperately needed ways to expand research opportunities, reduce costs and expand the equity and effectiveness of archaeological communication.

The intellectual capital of medicine is the creativity linking clinical practice and research. Intellectual freedom, that allows the emergence of new paradigms, is the basic component of scientific progress in medicine. There have been major threats to intellectual freedom in the past decades: financial conflicts of interest that allowed the drug industry to gain control of scientific societies, clinical practice guidelines and reporting investigations in meetings and journals; special interest groups suppressing the pluralism of viewpoints; financial thresholds for investigators reporting their data and views (open access journals); the totalitarian derive of Evidence-Based Medicine. Further, there have been growing attacks of publishers to the independence of editors and editorial boards, with the ensuing resignations of editors and members of the editorial boards. Such events recently occurred in a journal, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, that was a symbol of independent thinking, pluralism and innovations.