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

Abstract Who decides the future of open access, or, rather, who has the power to make decisions that can affect the future of open access? We believe that large scale, transformative, and inclusive progress on these questions can transpire when several entities, each with different complementary powers, convene to collaborate on win-win solutions. We offer...Read More

Abstract The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along...Read More

Abstract / OSI2016 Workgroup Question This report summarizes the discussion of the Open Impacts workgroup held at the Open Scholarship Initiative meeting in Fairfax, VA, April 19-22, 2016. The workgroup tackled the following questions at OSI2016: How fast is open access growing? Is this fast enough? Why or why not? What are the impacts of...Read More