Author: marcus burkhardt

Omeka + BookCore = A Lightweight Repository for Open Access Book Pulishing

Leave a comment
Monograph Publishing / Open Access / Technology

When talking about Open Access to technologists, developers etc. the focus quickly shifts to repositories as well as the issue of automated metadata exchange. Essentially repositories are huge document stores that allow for the systematic description of documents with metadata. Additionally contemporary repository systems like DSpace, Fedora, Opus etc. usually provide a standardized OAI-PMH interface allowing data aggregators to harvest data from the repository and to include this data into their own catalogues. That’s an […]

Introducing the Open Access Journal Canvas

Leave a comment
Journal Publishing / Open Access

A while back we published the infographic „How to Start an Open Access Journal“ on this blog. Drawing on existing research on Open Access journals and the experiences we gained in the Hybrid Publishing Lab we originally assembled the poster for a workshop with a group of scholars interested in starting their own Open Access journal. Recently my colleague Andreas Kirchner and I have been conducting another workshop with doctoral and postdoctoral researchers from the […]

Paving the Road to Open Access

comment 1
Links / Open Access

Christoph Kratky, current president of the Austrian Science Fund, published an insightful piece on the state of Open Access in Nature. For Kratky the disequilibrium between local OA policies and global publishers remains one of the biggest challenges the Open Access movement faces: Yet despite this progress, a worrying imbalance remains between the efforts of research funders (including organizations that perform research), which can act only at a local level, and big publishing houses, which act […]

Open Access (Books) vs. Double Dipping: An Ongoing Struggle

Leave a comment
Business Models / Open Access

The dispute amongst scholars and policy makers about which road to take to Open Access (gold or green) revolves to a great extend around the problem (or danger) of double dipping. It is widely acknowledged that publishers ought not to be allowed to charge twice for scientific publications, that is scholars and their public funders on the one hand and publicly funded libraries and readers on the other hand. On first glance this claim seems […]

RIP Douglas Engelbart (1925-2013)

Leave a comment
Current

He is one of the ancestors and masterminds of today’s digital media culture. Yesterday, Douglas Engelbart died at age 88. In 1968 Engelbart gave a presentation which is since widely regarded as the mother of all demos. To catch a glimpse of the history of computer culture the video of the event is still worth watching – even more so today.

A victory for Open Access in Germany? Not quite!

Leave a comment
Current

Yesterday the German parliament passed a law granting scientists the right to make their research available online after a period of twelve month independent of former agreements with publishers. On first glance this appears to be a good thing. Yet as always the devil lies in the detail. The law excludes the regular everyday research done in universities. This limitation has been justly criticized. Moreover the legislation falls short in another respect which is especially […]

Another challenge for digital publishing: A quick and dirty thought piece

Leave a comment
Information

The recent launch of the Digital Public Library of America and the Internet Archive’s release of a vast collection of historical software once more shows that the quest for Open Access to scientific publications is just one side of the story of scholarly digital publishing. Especially in the humanities the findability or even accessibility of historical resources on the Internet is considered to be of great importance. Even if their scope is not limited to […]

Open Access Is Not Necessarily Good

comment 1
Open Access

Late last year Jeffrey Beall published an update to his list of Predatory Open Access Publishers. The list grew from 23 questionable publishers in 2011 to 225 in 2012.  With his list Beall reminds us that there is not just good in Open Access publishing: The gold open-access model has given rise to a great many new online publishers. Many of these publishers are corrupt and exist only to make money off the author processing […]