Max Planck Digital Library

Hinter dem Thema Open Access steht eine Bewegung, die in den letzten Jahren sehrviel erreichen konnte. Beeindruckend ist, an wie vielen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungenentsprechende Policies und Mandate verabschiedet wurden, wo überall institutionelleRepositorien als Instrumente des „Grünen Weges“ eingerichtet wurdenund über welche Vielfalt an Handreichungen und anderen Dokumente einer breitangelegten Advocacy-Strategie wir heute verfügen. Es ist unverkennbar, dass OpenAccess als Zielsetzung des wissenschaftspolitischen Diskurses auf der ganzen Weltfest verankert ist. So kam es nicht von ungefähr, dass sich der erst 2012 ins Lebengerufene Global Research Council gleich diesem Thema zugewandt und binneneines Jahres eine entsprechende Resolution ausgearbeitet hat.1 Auch auf nationalerEbene, vor allem in einigen europäischen Ländern, werden die gesteckten Zieledurch Selbstverpflichtungen immer ambitionierter. Erst kürzlich wurden diese Entwicklungenim Rahmen der niederländischen EU-Ratspräsidentschaft im erstenHalbjahr 2016 auf europäischer Ebene aufgegriffen. In einem Beschluss des Rats fürWettbewerbsfähigkeit2 wurde festgelegt, dass ab 2020 alle wissenschaftlichen Publikationenzu Ergebnissen öffentlich finanzierter Forschungsarbeiten frei zugänglichsein müssen.

The following study was commissioned by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the <em>swissuniversities </em>within the “Scientific information: access, processing and safeguarding” program (SUC P-2) and was executed by the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL). The analysis focuses on the international journal publishing activities in Switzerland with special emphasis on gold open access publishing. The main data source describing the publishing activity in Switzerland was Scopus, an abstract and citation database for peer reviewed scientific articles provided by Elsevier. The raw data provided were processed, cleaned and enriched from the Directory of Open Access Databases (DOAJ) and MPDL in-house databases to derive a data warehouse appropriate for the intended analytics. Additional to the analysis for Switzerland in total, 10 institutions selected by the contractor were prepared for a separate analysis. The idea was to build up a selection that would be representative for Switzerland as a whole. Thus, the two Polytechnic Federal Institutes were selected, as well as the six biggest cantonal universities. Furthermore, a University of Higher Education and a University of Applied Sciences were chosen for the selection. • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich • Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne • Universität Zürich • Université Genève • Universität Bern • Universität Basel • Université Lausanne • Université Fribourg • Berner Fachhochschule • Hochschule Luzern For this selection, MPDL conducted an individual unification of Scopus affiliation strings. Publication data were analysed with respect to the number of articles published and aggregated at the levels of the publishing journal and the publisher for Switzerland in total and the 10 selection institutions. Gold open access publishers and journals were compared to subscription journals at all aggregation levels. For the estimation of open access costs, the share of articles with a reprint affiliation from Switzerland or selected institutions was calculated. Open access numbers from Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Austria as well as from worldwide publishing are presented for comparison. <strong>Contact</strong> Swiss National Science Foundation Ingrid Kissling-Näf, Head of the Humanities and Social Sciences division Tel.: +41 (0)31 308 22 56; E-mail: ingrid.kissling@snf.ch Scientific Information programme (SUC P-2, swissuniversities): Gabi Schneider, Deputy Programme Manager Tel.: +41 (0)61 267 29 90, E-mail: gabi.schneider@swissuniversities.ch

Watch the VIDEO of the presentation.In March 2016, the ESAC initiative brought together offsetting users from all over Europe to discuss principles and mechanisms of a new business model, currently referred to as offsetting (http://esac-initiative.org/activities/offsetting-workshop-2016/). Participants agreed upon a “Joint Understanding of Offsetting”. The document most importantly includes the claim for agreements to lead to a “pay as you publish” model, meaning that institutions should be billed only for those articles published by their authors rather than making prepayments or pay lump sums, which still include reading or access fees.Subsequently, offsetting users like the Max Planck Digital Library, JISC, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) or the Netherlands started using the Open APC Initiative to aggregate data from offsetting big deals (http://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/offsetting/). The collection already provides insights on the allocation of offsetting publications over a publisher's journal portfolio, which allows predictions not only on the popularity of journals among researchers in terms of preferred places for publications, but also for a “pay-as-you-publish-model”. Currently the publication data from the Springer offsetting pilot participants (“Springer Compact”) show a distribution of publications over not even the half of Springer’s journal fleet.The conference contribution analyses the data together with bibliometric information and subscription based usage statistics in order to draw conclusions for a truly publication based open access business model in terms of re-implementing individual choices made by authors, price sensitivity, price setting, and market competition. It will be discussed, how offsetting contributes to the desired large-scale open access transformation, as outlined by the Open Access 2020 initiative (http://oa2020.org/).

The steadily growing amounts of digital neuroscientific data demands for a reliable, systematic, and computationally effective retrieval algorithm. In this paper, we present Neuron-Miner, which is a tool for fast and accurate reference-based retrieval within neuron image databases. The proposed algorithm is established upon hashing (search and retrieval) technique by employing multiple unsupervised random trees, collectively called as Hashing Forests (HF). The HF are trained to parse the neuromorphological space hierarchically and preserve the inherent neuron neighborhoods while encoding with compact binary codewords. We further introduce the inverse-coding formulation within HF to effectively mitigate pairwise neuron similarity comparisons, thus allowing scalability to massive databases with little additional time overhead. The proposed hashing tool has superior approximation of the true neuromorphological neighborhood with better retrieval and ranking performance in comparison to existing generalized hashing methods. This is exhaustively validated by quantifying the results over 31266 neuron reconstructions from Neuromorpho.org dataset curated from 147 different archives. We envisage that finding and ranking similar neurons through reference-based querying via Neuron Miner would assist neuroscientists in objectively understanding the relationship between neuronal structure and function for applications in comparative anatomy or diagnosis.

OSI2016 Workgroup QuestionAre the scholarly publishing tools we’re using today still the right ones? Is the monograph still the best format in the humanities? Is the journal article still best in STM? These products can be difficult to produce and edit, nearly impenetrable to read, and—as in the case of clinical research information—they aren’t necessarily the best-suited formats for capturing every piece of necessary information (like protocols and datasets in medical research) and showing how this information is all connected to other scholarship. What other formats and options are being considered or used? What are the prospects of change? How about the stakeholder universe itself? How are roles, responsibilities and expectations changing (and where might they end up)? Are we “settling” on half-measures or on the best possible solutions?

The SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) project has analyzed the current supply and demand situation in the open access journal landscape. Starting from the Directory of Open Access Journals, several sources of data were considered, including journal websites and direct inquiries within the publishing industry to comprehensively map the present supply of online peer-reviewed OA journals. The demand for open access publishing is summarised, as assessed through a large-scale survey of researchers' opinions and attitudes. Some forty thousand answers were collected across disciplines and around the world, reflecting major support for the idea of open access, while highlighting drivers of and barriers to open access publishing.

The Entrepreneurial University is a failed idea. This is not to disparage the entrepreneurial activities of faculty, graduates and students. Neither is it to criticise industry-sponsored research and co-authorship. University research and higher education have a role in innovation. However, if entrepreneurialism is institutionalised as a policy of governments and universities, all manner of things start to go wrong. Not only do participants suffer from disappointed expectations, as expected returns fail to materialise, but also, more importantly, universities that ‘go entrepreneurial’ ultimately destroy the science commons essential to the university's continued existence. A systematic critique of the concept of the Entrepreneurial University is offered and key data is reviewed. Simultaneously, a broader research programme on university autonomy and finance is advanced.

Es wird uber die Lizenzierung und Nutzung von E-Books in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft berichtet; kunftige Anforderungen an E-Book-Anbieter werden vorgestellt.