Abstract Repositories are a vital tool in modern information management and a key component of preser­vation and long-term availability. They are not well-suited, however, to the current chal­lenges posed by our information-rich society and the multitude of stakeholders involved in the modern scholarly publishing system. Strengthening repositories and standardizing preserva­tion processes are critically important. This...Read More

OSI2016 Workgroup Question Are 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...Read More

Abstract The duality of information overload and underload is a defining issue of our age. Scholarly information is abundant but not universally accessible to all scholars and learners, thereby hindering or prohibiting equitable engagement in ongoing scholarly conversations. Access is a core aspect of the issue of overload and underload—both access to research materials and...Read More

OSI2016 Workgroup Question Do researchers and scientists participate in the current system of scholarly publishing because they like it, they need it, they don’t have a choice in the matter, or they don’t really care one way or another? What perceptions, considerations and incentives do academicians have for staying the course (like impact factors and...Read More

Abstract / OSI2016 Workgroup Question The At-Large workgroup was the largest and most diverse in terms of stakeholder representa­tion. At-large delegates observed workgroup conversations during the meeting and contributed to these conversations while letting the workgroup teams answer their questions. At-large delegates met during the conference and convened online both before and after the conference...Read More

Abstract A small, self-selected workgroup was convened to consider issues surrounding impact fac­tors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a partic­ular focus on research assessment. The workgroup’s report notes that the...Read More

Abstract The Usage Dimensions of Open workgroup came together and considered definitions and priorities around its topic. From priorities, themes were identified. One theme included the character of research outputs and the actual research workflow process. The second theme represented economic considerations. Stakeholders were identified, and solutions consid­ered. Solutions included both short- and long-term actions....Read More

Abstract The Embargo workgroup began by defining “embargo,” encapsulating it into four main types and then focusing on the post-publication and subscription embargoes. Among other things, we discussed the dispersed nature of usage metrics and their possible impact on the duration of embargoes. This, in part, led us to recognize the lack of an evidence...Read More

Abstract Scholarly publishing is currently undergoing a digital-era transition that provides both opportunities and challenges for improving the moral dimensions of this enterprise. The stakeholders in scholarly publishing need to consider the moral foundations of knowledge production and access that underlie models of scholarly publishing. This report identifies seven moral dimensions and principles to open-access...Read More

Abstract The OSI2016 Peer Review workgroup focused on peer review in the context of open scholar­ship. The group agreed that greater openness and transparency would improve accounta­bility, minimize bias, and encourage collaboration, but did not underestimate the challenges of openness, nor the variation in readiness across disciplines and publishing mod­els. The group recommended facilitation of...Read More