Updates & Insights

• Green OA: publishers and journals allowing zero embargo and CC-BY (Jul 2020) - Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, Utrecht University, July 2020Accompanying spreadsheet: https://tinyurl.com/green-OA-policies Introduction We witness increased interest in the role of green open access and how it can contribute to the goals of open science. This interest focuses on immediacy (reducing or eliminating embargoes) and usage rights (through open licenses), as these can contribute to wider …
• Open access potential and uptake in the context of Plan S – a partial gap analysis (Nov 2019) - Today we released the report Open access potential and uptake in the context of Plan S – a partial gap analysis, which aims to provide cOAlition S with initial quantitative and descriptive data on the availability and usage of various open access options in different fields and subdisciplines, and, as far as possible, their compliance …
• Towards a Plan S gap analysis? (2) Gold open access journals in WoS and DOAJ (Dec 2018) - (NB this post is accompanied by a another post, on open access potential across disciplines, in the light of Plan S) In our previous blogpost, we explored open access (OA)  potential (in terms of journals and publications) across disciplines, with an eye towards Plan S. For that exercise, we looked at a particular subset of journals, …
• Towards a Plan S gap analysis? (1) Open access potential across disciplines (Dec 2018) - (NB this post is accompanied by a second post on presence of full gold open access journals in Web of Science and DOAJ) In the proposed implementation guidelines for Plan S, it has become clear there will be, for the coming years at least, three ways to open access (OA) that are compliant with Plan …
• Stringing beads: from tool combinations to workflows (Dec 2016) - With the data from our global survey of scholarly communication tool usage, we want to work towards identifying and characterizing full research workflows. Two ways of using co-occurence data for this are by looking at clusters and cliques.
  
  
• Academic social networks – the Swiss Army Knives of scholarly communication (Dec 2016) - For a presentation at the STM Innovations Seminar on academic social networks, we looked at the functionalities and usage of three of the major networks (ResearchGate, Mendeley and Academia.edu) and also offer some thoughts on the values and choices at play both in offering and using such platforms.
  
  
• Tools that love to be together (Nov 2016) - We want to explore which tool combinations occur together in research workflows more often than would be expected by chance.
  
  
• GitHub and more: sharing data & code (Oct 2016) - A recent Nature News article 'Democratic databases: Science on GitHub' discussed GitHub and other programs used for sharing code and data. Our survey results can provide another measurement of use of these online platforms for sharing data and code.
  
  
• The number games (Jul 2016) - Focusing on the number of people that answered specific questions in our survey, and on the number of tools people indicate they use (regardless of which tools that are) already reveals a lot about research practices in different subsets of our (largely self-selected) sample population.
  
  
• Mozilla Science Lab Global Sprint 2016 – getting started with analysis (May 2016) - On June 2-3 between 9:00-13:00, we want to bring a group of smart people together in Utrecht to kickstart the analysis of our survey data. This event will be part of the Mozilla Science Lab Global Sprint 2016.
  
  
• Data are out. Start analyzing. But beware. (Apr 2016) - Now that we have our data set on research tool usage out and shared the graphical dashboard, let the analysis start! We hope people around the world will find the data interesting and useful. When looking at the charts and when carrying out your analyses, please note two things.
  
  
• Support for Open Science in EU member states (Apr 2016) - In preparation for the EU Open Science Conference on April 4-5 in Amsterdam, we looked at what our survey data reveal about declared support for Open Access and Open Science among researchers in the EU.
  
  
• Rising stars: fastest growing tools on Twitter (Jan 2016) - To gain some insight in the popularity of online tools for scholarly communication, we have been tracking the number of Twitter followers monthly for each of the 600 tools in our growing database. Looking over time, the rate of growth in Twitter followers can give an indication of tools that are most rapidly gaining interest.
  
  
• Timeline of tools (Dec 2015) - The number and variety of online tools and platforms for all phases of the research cycle has grown tremendously over the years. We have been charting this ‘supply side’ of the scholarly communication landscape, first in our figure of 101 innovative tools in six different phases of the research cycle, and subsequently in our growing database of tools for 30 distinct research activities within these phases.
  
  
• 101 days to go for 101 innovations survey (Nov 2015) - With 101 days to go before the 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication survey closes it seems a good moment to let you know how far we have come and what's still ahead.
  
  
• Tools and sites used for impact measurement (some preliminary results) (Oct 2015) - For the 2:AM Altmetrics conference on Oct 7-8, 2015 in Amsterdam, we looked at some of our preliminary survey results on tools and sites used for impact measurement. For this, we did a brief non-statistical analysis of responses up until October 1 from researchers (PhD-students, postdocs and faculty) and librarians.
  
  
• 4000 survey responses – geographical distribution and the need for translation (Aug 2015) - Last week we silently passed the 4,000 responses mark on our survey. The survey has been running for 15 weeks, with another 23 weeks to go. We're glad to have 4,000 responses, but they are not nearly enough to allow for detailed analyses. To increase levels outside Europe and Anglo-Saxon countries, we want to translate the survey into six world languages.
  
  
• First 1000 responses – tool combinations (Jul 2015) - Apart from looking at the most popular tools for single research activities, we can also look at which tools are used together. We visualized this for the first 1000 responses to our survey on scholarly communication, looking at the four most popular tools listed for each research activity.
  
  
• First 1000 responses – most popular tools per research activity (Jun 2015) - In this post we present a straight percentage count of the preselected options for the 17 research activities that we asked about in our survey Innovations in Scholarly Communication. These figures represent the first 1000 responses.
  
  
• First 1000 responses – demographics (Jun 2015) - Within the first month, we received over 1000 responses to our survey. In this and the next few posts, we’ll present some preliminary results based on these first 1000 responses.