Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of open access journal publishers globally in all scientific and scholarly disciplines. Along with promoting open access publishers, OASPA sets best practices and provides a forum for the exchange of information on and experiences of open access. OASPA brings together the major open access publishers on the one hand and independent—often society-based or university-based—publishers on the other, along with some hybrid open access publishers. While having started out with an exclusive focus on open access journals, it is now expanding its activities to include matters pertaining to open access books too; the mission of OASPA is to support and represent the interests of open access publishers globally in all scientific and scholarly disciplines, to advocate for Open Access journals in general. To this end, it provides a forum for professional exchange on matters of open access publishing in scholarly contexts, it engages in standardization efforts and outreach and promotes best practices for scholarly communications by open access, supports the continuous development of viable business and publishing models.
With the growth of the open access movement, the interactions between different open access publishers intensified, as they met each other at a multitude of trade or scientific conferences, workshops or similar events. Yet open access publishing and its peculiarities with respect to traditional publishing or scholarly communication were in the focus of such gatherings, which brought about the need for a dedicated forum. With the intention to provide that, OASPA was launched on October 14, 2008 at an "Open Access Day" celebration in London hosted by the Wellcome Trust; the following organizations are founding members: OASPA organizes an annual Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing. The conference covers the whole spectrum of open access publishing, including business models, publishing platforms, peer review modes, distribution channels. OASPA encourages publishers to use Creative Commons licenses the Creative Commons Attribution License, in line with most definitions of "open", e.g. the Open Definition by the Open Knowledge Foundation.
The organization engages beyond Open Access journals, e.g. for free access to scholarly works that have been awarded Nobel Prizes. OASPA members fall into the following groups: Professional publishing organisations – Organisations that include at least one full-time professional who manages the publication of OA scholarly journals or books; these organisations may be for-profit or nonprofit, they may own journals or books or manage the publication on a contract basis for societies or other groups of scientists or scholars. Members of this class may include organisations such as academic/research libraries, university presses, or other organisations in which the primary focus is other than publishing scholarly journals but still employ full-time professionals who manage the publication of OA scholarly journals. Scholar publishers – Individuals or small groups of scientists/scholars that publish a single scholarly journal in their field of study; the publication process is largely subsidised by volunteer effort.
Other organisations – Other organisations who provide significant services and/or support for OA publishing. In order to join OASPA as a member organization, a publisher must meet set criteria established to promote transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing; these criteria were set in 2013 and revised again in August 2018. There are seven categories of OASPA membership: Professional Publishing Organisation Professional Publishing Organisation Professional Publishing Organisation Professional Publishing Organisation Other Organisation Other Organisation Scholar PublisherAs of September 2018, OASPA has 134 members. Criticism has focused on OASPA's self-declared role as the "stamp of quality for open access publishing", because it is at odds with OASPA's application of its own criteria for membership. Another voiced concern is the fact that OASPA has been founded by BioMed Central and other open access publishers, which would cause a conflict of interest in their "seal of approval".
OASPA has been criticized for promoting gold open access in a way that may be at the expense of green open access. One member organization, Frontiers Media, is included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies; as a response to the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? investigation, OASPA formed a committee to investigate the circumstances that led to the acceptance of the fake paper by 3 of its members. On 11 November 2013, OASPA terminated the membership of two publishers. Sage Press, which accepted a fake paper, was put "under review" for 6 months. Sage announced in a statement that it was reviewing the journal that accepted the fake paper, but that it would not shut it down. Sage's membership was reinstated at the end of the review period following changes to the journal's editorial processes. Dove Medical Press were reinstated in September 2015 after making a number of improvements to their editorial processes. Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers Association of Publishing Agencies Directory of Open Access Journals International Association of Scientific and Medical Publishers International Publishers Association Category:Open access publishers Periodica
Adam Matthew Digital
Adam Matthew Digital is an academic publisher based in the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been an independent subsidiary of Sage Publications since 2012; the company specializes in online primary source databases and curated collections for the humanities and social sciences. Its corporate offices are in Wiltshire. Adam Matthew Publications was founded in 1990 by William Pidduck; the company focused on publishing microfilm collections with a back list of over 600 titles until publishing their first ‘digital’ collections in the late 1990s on CD-ROM, releasing its first online resources in the early 2000s. By the mid-2000s, the company directors – now including Khal Rudin - founded Adam Matthew Digital to focus on the development and production of digital collections, began trading as a separate entity from 1 January 2007. On 5 October 2012, the company was acquired by SAGE Publications; the company publishes collections of digitized primary source materials from different historical eras.
For example, Empire Online covers the histories of colonial era United States, India, South Africa, Britain. Other collection topics include gender studies, American history and consumer culture, Victorian England, Asian history, the First World War, others. Adam Matthew have collaborated with various source archives and institutions including the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, Newberry Library and The National Archives. An explanation of their relationship with The National Archives has been recorded in a short video which covers the process of selection and digitisation of materials required to produce resources on topics such as Apartheid South Africa, Confidential Print: Middle East and The Nixon Years. In January 2016, Adam Matthew partnered with Jisc to provide all UK Higher and Further Education institutions with access to their nineteenth century collection on global immigration, Migration to New Worlds. To gain permanent access without payment, UK institutions can register with Jisc to receive access details for their entire staff and students.
In 2013, the company entered into an agreement with the Texas State Libraries and Archives Commission to provide permanent access to two Adam Matthew digital collection via the TexShare consortium. The agreement allows the provision of access to rare and unique materials for the study of American history, to close to two thousand individual institutions across Texas, from K-12 to 4-year colleges, public libraries and community colleges. Official website
The Bookseller is a British magazine reporting news on the publishing industry. Philip Jones is editor-in-chief of the weekly print edition of the website; the magazine is home to the Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, a humorous award given annually to the book with the oddest title. The award is organised by The Bookseller's diarist, Horace Bent, had been administered in recent years by the former deputy editor, Joel Rickett, former charts editor, Philip Stone. We Love This Book is its quarterly sister consumer email newsletter; the subscription-only magazine is read by around 30,000 persons each week, in over 90 countries, contains the latest news from the publishing and bookselling worlds, in-depth analysis, pre-publication book previews and author interviews. It is the first publication to publish official weekly bestseller lists in the UK, it has created the first UK-based e-book sales ranking. The website is visited by 160,000 unique users each month; the magazine produces a dozen specials on an annual basis including its Books of The Year and four "Buyers Guides".
The Bookseller publishes three daily newspapers at the annual London Book Fair, in April, the Bologna Children's Book Fair and the Frankfurt Book Fair, in October. The Bookseller was founded by Joseph Whitaker, the first editor of the magazine, in January 1858, was marketed as "A Handbook of British and Foreign Literature", his sons, Joseph Vernon Whitaker and George Herbert Whitaker took over editorship of The Bookseller in 1875 and 1895 with George Herbert Whitaker taking the decision in 1909 to move the magazine from a monthly to a weekly publication. However, World War I disrupted publication and it was not until the late 1920s that the magazine resumed its weekly schedule. In 1928, The Bookseller entered troublesome years, with the magazine entering joint editorial control between both The Publishers Association and the Booksellers Association, it was edited by the Publishers Association president Geoffrey S. Williams and became known as The Publisher and Bookseller. However, the decision proved less than successful, in 1933 the decision was reversed, with editorship being awarded to Edmond Segrave – 28 years old at the time.
He remained in charge for 40 years. In 1945, he hired Philothea Thompson as his personal assistant, when Edmond Segrave died in 1971, she took over stewardship of the magazine until 1976. David Whitaker joined his family magazine in 1977 for little over two years, with Louis Baum assuming editorial responsibilities in 1980. Under Baum, the magazine went under radical change, with numerous design changes, culminating in the decision to become a full-colour publication in the late 1990s; the self-named "legendary diarist", Horace Bent, made his first appearance during this time, while the magazine began to feature the first Nielsen BookScan bestseller lists. In 1999, Nicholas Clee became editor, months before the magazine was sold to a division of Nielsen Business Media. In 2004 Retail Week′s Neill Denny arrived and oversaw another major redesign, which included the controversial decision to move its "Publications of the Week" information online only. Following the demise of Publishing News, The Bookseller is the only paper magazine reporting on the UK publishing and library industry on a weekly basis, although the magazine includes frequent stories and columns from the international scene.
Numerous famous names from the UK book trade contribute to the magazine via the opinion columns, including Kate Mosse and Anthony Horowitz, while the website provides a forum for anyone to voice their opinions on news and features concerning the trade. In 2010, The Bookseller was acquired from Nielsen by its Managing Director, Nigel Roby, who owns it to this day. Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year Home page Hathi Trust; the Bookseller
Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open-access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by as many fee-charging open access publishers; the papers, writes Bohannon, "were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected by editors and peer reviewers", but 60% of the journals accepted them. The article and associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access; the first fee-charging open access scientific journals began appearing in 2000 with the creation of BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science. Rather than deriving at least some of their revenue from subscription fees, fee-charging open access journals only charge the authors a publication fee; the published papers are freely available on the internet. This business model, gold open access, is one of several solutions devised to make open access publishing sustainable.
The number of articles published open access, or made available after some time behind a paywall, has grown rapidly. In 2013 more than half of the scientific papers published in 2011 were available for free. In part because of the low barrier to entry into this market, as well as the fast and large return on investment, many so-called "predatory publishers" have created low-quality journals that provide little to no peer review or editorial control publishing every submitted article as long as the publication fee is paid; some of these publishers additionally deceive authors about publication fees, use the names of scientists as editors and reviewers without their knowledge, and/or obfuscate the true location and identity of the publishers. The prevalence of these deceptive publishers, what the scientific community should do about them, has been hotly debated. Bohannon used Python to create a "scientific version of Mad Libs"; the paper's template is "Molecule X from lichen species Y inhibits the growth of cancer cell Z".
He created a database of molecules and cancer cells to substitute for X, Y, Z. The data and conclusions were identical in every paper; the authors and their affiliations were unique, fake. The papers all described the discovery of a new cancer drug extracted from a lichen, but the data did not support that conclusion and the papers had intentionally obvious flaws. To build a comprehensive list of fee-charging open access publishers, Bohannon relied on two sources: Beall's List of predatory publishers and the Directory of Open Access Journals. After filtering both lists for open access journals published in English, that charge authors a publication fee, that have at least one medical, biological, or chemical journal, the list of targets included 304 publishers: 167 from the DOAJ, 121 from Beall's list, 16 that were listed by both; the investigation focused on fee-charging open access journals. Bohannon did not include other types of open access journals or subscription journals for comparison because the turnaround time for reviews in traditional journals is too long.
The study makes no claim about the relative quality of the different types of journals. In total, 157 of the journals accepted the paper and 98 rejected it, with the other 49 not having completed their evaluation by the time Bohannon wrote his article. Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire peer review process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of actual peer review. For rejections, that may have reflected filtering at the editorial level, but for acceptance can only reflect a flawed process. Only 36 submissions generated review comments recognizing any of the paper's scientific problems. 16 of those 36 papers were nonetheless accepted, in spite of poor to damning reviews. Many of the journals that accepted the paper are published by prestigious institutions and publishing companies, including Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, several universities. Among those that rejected the paper are journals published by PLOS, BioMed Central, Hindawi; the peer review provided by PLOS ONE was reported to be the most rigorous of all, it was the only journal that identified the paper's ethical problems, for example the lack of documentation of how animals were treated in the creation of the cancer cell lines.
Among the publishers on Beall's list that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Bohannon stated "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control". According to Jeffrey Beall, who created the list, this supports his claim to be identifying "predatory" publishers. However, the remaining 18% of publishers identified by Beall as predatory rejected the fake paper, causing science communicator Phil Davis to state, "That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five". Among the DOAJ publishers that completed the review process, 45% accepted the paper. According to a statement published on the DOAJ website, new criteria for inclusion in the DOAJ are being implemented. Along with the report, Science published a map that shows the location of publishers and their bank accounts, color-coded by acceptance or rejection of the paper; the locations were derived from IP address traces within the raw headers of e-mails, WHOIS registrations, bank invoices for publication fees.
India emerged as the world's largest base for fee-charging open-access publishing, with 64 accepting the fatally flawed papers and only 15 rejecting it. The United States is the next largest base, with 29 publishers accepting the paper and 26 reje
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an American international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with over 120,000 members, is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which had a weekly circulation of 138,549 in 2008; the American Association for the Advancement of Science was created on September 20, 1848 at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a reformation of the Association of American Naturalists; the society chose William Charles Redfield as their first president because he had proposed the most comprehensive plans for the organization. According to the first constitution, agreed to at the September 20 meeting, the goal of the society was to promote scientific dialogue in order to allow for greater scientific collaboration.
By doing so the association aimed to use resources to conduct science with increased efficiency and allow for scientific progress at a greater rate. The association sought to increase the resources available to the scientific community through active advocacy of science. There were only 78 members; as a member of the new scientific body, Matthew Fontaine Maury, USN was one of those who attended the first 1848 meeting. At a meeting held on Friday afternoon, September 22, 1848, Redfield presided, Matthew Fontaine Maury gave a full scientific report on his Wind and Current Charts. Maury stated that hundreds of ship navigators were now sending abstract logs of their voyages to the United States Naval Observatory, he added, "Never before was such a corps of observers known." But, he pointed out to his fellow scientists, his critical need was for more "simultaneous observations." "The work," Maury stated, "is not for the benefit of any nation or age." The minutes of the AAAS meeting reveal that because of the universality of this "view on the subject, it was suggested whether the states of Christendom might not be induced to cooperate with their Navies in the undertaking.
William Barton Rogers, professor at the University of Virginia and founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offered a resolution: "Resolved that a Committee of five be appointed to address a memorial to the Secretary of the Navy, requesting his further aid in procuring for Matthew Maury the use of the observations of European and other foreign navigators, for the extension and perfecting of his charts of winds and currents." The resolution was adopted and, in addition to Rogers, the following members of the association were appointed to the committee: Professor Joseph Henry of Washington. This was scientific cooperation, Maury went back to Washington with great hopes for the future. By 1860, membership increased to over 2,000; the AAAS became dormant during the American Civil War. The AAAS did not become a permanent casualty of the war. In 1866, Frederick Barnard presided over the first meeting of the resurrected AAAS at a meeting in New York City. Following the revival of the AAAS, the group had considerable growth.
The AAAS permitted all people, regardless of scientific credentials. The AAAS did, institute a policy of granting the title of "Fellow of the AAAS" to well-respected scientists within the organization; the years of peace brought the expansion of other scientific-oriented groups. The AAAS's focus on the unification of many fields of science under a single organization was in contrast to the many new science organizations founded to promote a single discipline. For example, the American Chemical Society, founded in 1876, promotes chemistry. In 1863, the US Congress established the National Academy of Sciences, another multidisciplinary sciences organization, it elects members based on the value of published works. Alan I. Leshner, AAAS CEO from 2001 until 2015, published many op-ed articles discussing how many people integrate science and religion in their lives, he has opposed the insertion of non-scientific content, such as creationism or intelligent design, into the scientific curriculum of schools.
In December 2006, the AAAS adopted an official statement on climate change, in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, it is a growing threat to society.... The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years; the time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."In February 2007, the AAAS used satellite images to document human rights abuses in Burma. The next year, AAAS launched the Center for Science Diplomacy to advance both science and the broader relationships among partner countries, by promoting science diplomacy and international scientific cooperation. In 2012, AAAS published op-eds, held events on Capitol Hill and released analyses of the U. S. federal research-and-development budget, to warn that a budget sequestration would have severe consequences for scientific progress. AAAS covers various areas of sciences and engineering, it has twelve sections, each with a committee and its ch
SAGE Publishing is an independent publishing company founded in 1965 in New York by Sara Miller McCune and now based in Newbury Park, California. It publishes more than 1,000 journals, more than 800 books a year, reference works and electronic products covering business, social sciences, science and medicine. SAGE owns and publishes under the imprints of Corwin Press, CQ Press, Learning Matters, Adam Matthew Digital, it has more than 1,500 employees in its principal offices in Los Angeles, New Delhi, Washington DC, Melbourne. SAGE was the Independent Publishers Guild Academic and Professional Publisher of the Year in 2012. SAGE was founded in 1965 in New York City by Sara Miller with Macmillan Publishers executive George D. McCune as a "mentor". SAGE relocated to Southern California in 1966, after McCune married. Sara Miller McCune remained president for 18 years, shifting to board chairman in 1984; the couple continued to develop the company together until George McCune's death in 1990. SAGE Publishing was a founding member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association when it was established in 2008.
In November 2013, OASPA reviewed SAGE's membership after the Journal of International Medical Research published a false and intentionally flawed paper created and submitted by a reporter for the journal Science as part of a "sting" to test the effectiveness of the peer-review processes of open access journals. SAGE's membership was reinstated at the end of the six month review period following changes to the journal's editorial processes. Journals published by SAGE Cambridge University Press v. Patton, a copyright infringement case in which SAGE Publications is a plaintiff Official website