User:Beelzebubbs/sandbox

Be bold.

Source Evaluation
Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access by Alma Swan


 * Audience
 * Policymakers; any stakeholders who want to understand open access and its goals
 * Help institutions analyze their open access policies; provide information about options for adoption of OA policies and discuss challenges
 * Main topics and themes (abridged from TOC)
 * How UNESCO's mission aligns with OA
 * "Preservation of Digital Heritage" - Maintaining and preserving accessible digital materials
 * Information for All Programme (IFAP)
 * Background
 * Rising cost of journal subscriptions decreases accessibility; local copyright inhibits international sharing
 * Approaches
 * Green OA through repositories
 * Gold OA through the journals themselves
 * Objectives
 * Increase open access to journals
 * Why Open Access Matters
 * Accessibility
 * Increasing cost of journal subscriptions
 * Business & Legal Considerations
 * copyright
 * who retains the right to make something OA - author or institution
 * Assigning creative commons licences
 * Promoting Open Access
 * Policy (mandatory)
 * Continued advocacy
 * Additional support
 * Make sure researchers are complying (monitor repository)
 * Policy
 * Policy Framework
 * Policy Guidelines
 * Mandatory policies more effective than optional ones
 * Journal literature is the main focus, rather than monographs, which should not be subjected to mandatory policy. Research data is also recommended for a different policy approachmain focus, not monographs
 * "give-away" literature
 * encourage researchers to share data along with literature

Article Evaluation

 * Citations
 * Do links work? Do they support the claims? Are facts cited? Are the references reliable/unbiased?
 * Models, specifically open access journals and self-archiving need citations and can possibly be expanded
 * Generally most things are cited
 * Over ten randomly selected reference links are still good
 * Information up to date?
 * Citation [1] .edu but last updated 2015
 * Extent section could benefit from more recent information
 * Does any information need to be added?
 * History section should include summary of the History of Open Access page [?]
 * Part of me wonders if I should be doing this article instead, but it also seems very fleshed out and the UNESCO section on it isn't really that long
 * Maybe could update extent with some new numbers from UNESCO pub
 * Possibly could benefit from updates to criticism section, though I don't think my UNESCO pub will be the right source for that
 * Possible reference: The Journal of Academic Librarianship issue about OA mentioned in talk page
 * Shifting burden of payment from readers to scholars looking to get their work published, esp harmful in developing countries without sufficient funding to get publishing subsidized? [looks like this has been decided against as a good criticism]
 * What info from UNESCO publication is missing from the topic?
 * Potentially expand Policies and Mandates section
 * Section on best policy practice probably not neutral enough
 * Expand info about green/gold OA in models section
 * Could expand, but these also have their own pages so maybe it's not necessary
 * Could expand motivations section, but already too pro-OA
 * Missing citations that can be cited with UNESCO pub?
 * Notes on talk page
 * Rating: Class B | Completeness 68 | 1182 avg views/day
 * However, the talk page says it's rated as C-class
 * Level-5 vital article, requests improvement
 * Not a part of any wikiprojects
 * but "of interest to"
 * Wikiproject Open
 * Wikiproject Open Access
 * Wikiproject Academic Journals
 * General notes:
 * Requires cleanup: "Need to reduce repetition across sections and make language more concise and avoid advocacy in favor of open access" (May 2018)
 * Question of merging with open access journal
 * It will be challenging to implement the goal of "less pro-OA" tone the banner call for updates requested based on the UNESCO publication

Weeks 4&5 edit drafts
[continued in all sections beneath this one]

Copied from Open access Academic articles (as historically seen in print-based academic journals) have been the main focus of the movement. Conventional (non-open access) journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges. Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters, and monographs.

Possible edit: The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature." Historically, this has centered mainly on print-based academic journals. ...


 * Add history of open access section (maybe not the best fit for this project since it's not coming from the unesco source)
 * On summaries; copied from Summary_style:
 * Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a or comparable template.
 * To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.

in Gratis and libre open access section

[Add at the end of the paragraph]: Currently, it is seen as unrealistic to implement mandatory libre open access, as this would greatly limit the journals in which authors could publish.

author citation advantage
copied from Open access:

The main reason authors make their articles openly accessible is to maximize their research impact. [There have been claims of higher citation rates for open access authors. The overall citation rates for a time period of 2 years (2010–2011) were 30% higher for subscription journals, but, after controlling for discipline, journal age and publisher location, the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories, except for those launched prior to 1996. A study in 2001 first reported an open access citation impact advantage, ] [<< could be more concise] While there is some debate around the impact of open access, most studies conducted show increased citations with open access publications. [maybe reduntant]

Suggestion, for balanced viewpoints:


 * Move this so it's not sandwiched between two paragraphs saying open access has a positive relationship with citations: [Two major studies dispute the claim that open access articles lead to more citations. A randomized controlled trial of open access publishing involving 36 participating journals in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities found that open access articles (n=712) received significantly more downloads and reached a broader audience within the first year, yet were cited no more frequently, nor earlier, than subscription-access control articles (n=2533) within 3 years. ]

Many other studies, both major and minor and with varying degrees of methodological rigor, find that an open access article is more likely to be used and cited than one behind subscription barriers.

For example, a 2006 study in PLoS Biology found that articles published as immediate open access in PNAS were three times more likely to be cited than non-open access papers, and were also cited more than PNAS articles that were only self-archived. This result has been challenged as an artifact of authors self-selectively paying to publish their higher quality articles in hybrid open access journals, whereas a 2010 study found that the open access citation advantage was equally big whether self-archiving was self-selected or mandated.

A 2010 study of 27,197 articles in 1,984 journals used institutionally mandated open access instead of randomized open access to control for bias on the part of authors toward self-selectively making their better (hence more citeable) articles open access. The result was a replication of the repeatedly reported open access citation advantage, with the advantage being equal in size and significance whether the open access was self-selected or mandated.

A 2016 study reported that the odds of an open access journal being referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher than for paywalled journals, and suggested that this constitutes a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms.

Scholars are paid by research funders and/or their universities to do research; the published article is the report of the work they have done, rather than an item for commercial gain. The more the article is used, cited, applied and built upon, the better for research as well as for the researcher's career. Open access can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access.

policy - my suggested additions (in current Policies and madates section)
Make Open-access mandate a "see also" page, rather than the main page for this section, since policy and madates are related but not necessarily the same

History
In 2002, the University of Southampton's School of Electronics & Computer Science became one of the first schools to implement a meaningful mandatory open access policy, in which authors had to contribute copies of their articles to the school's repository. More institutions followed suit in the following years. [<<too similar to original text?] In 2007, Ukraine became the first country to create a national policy on open access, followed by Spain in 2009. Argentina, Brazil, and Poland are currently in the process of developing open access policies. Making master's and doctoral theses open access is an increasingly popular mandate by many educational institutions.

Policy Considerations
Copied from Open Access (policies and mandates), then edited.

Many universities, research institutions and research funders have adopted mandates requiring their researchers to make their research publications open access. For example, Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016.

The idea of mandating self-archiving was mooted at least as early as 1998. Since 2003 efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments, research funding agencies, and universities. While faculty and researchers often happy to support the open access policies of their institutions, some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates.

The Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) is a searchable international database charting the growth of open access mandates. As of February 2019, mandates have been registered by over 700 universities (including Harvard, MIT, Stanford, University College London, and University of Edinburgh) and over 100 research funders worldwide.

Compliance rates with voluntary open access policies remain low [too similar to original text?]. According to UNESCO's Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access, "Evidence has unequivocally demonstrated that to have real effect policies must be mandatory, whether institutional or funder policies. Mandatory policies at institutions succeed in accumulating content in their repositories, averaging 60% of total output after a couple of years of the policy being in place. "

As these sorts of mandates and policies increase in prevalence, researchers may be affected by multiple policies. New tools, such as SWORD (protocol), are being developed to help authors manage sharing between repositories. "In response to increasing incidents of this type, technical development work has been carried out to provide tools that enable the author Section 8. Policy framework for Open Access 47 to deposit an article once and for it to be copied into other repositories. "

Publisher embargoes are another challenge facing open access repositories. Swan says "Many publishers – but certainly not all – stipulate an embargo period before an article can be made Open Access. This is a result of publishers’ fears of falling sales. Most Open Access policies will acknowledge this and permit embargoes so that authors are not placed in a position of difficulty with respect to their publisher. In science, publisher embargoes are normally 6-12 months: anything longer than that is considered unreasonable by the community, and certainly not in the public interest, and most mandatory policies make a 12-month embargo the maximum permissible: in a considerable number of science funder policies the maximum embargo allowed is 6 months. " There is a push to make more specific policy about allowed embargoes, rather than leaving it up to publishers.