blog category

Let us not reinvent the wheel: Institutional repositories as innovative publishing infrastructures

We are pleased to share our publication titled “No-pay publishing: use institutional repositories” (Nature 619, 698; 2023). This letter is a contribution to the ongoing debate about an “open, equitable, and sustainable scholarly publishing system” without costs to readers or authors, which has been revitalized by the recent recommendations of the EU Council.

Neuromatch and the Open Letter to the WHOSTP and Subcommittee on Open Science

Today we host a post by Daniel Goodman, Senior lecturer at Imperial College London, a member of the organization Neuromatch, and co-author of the recent Open letter to the WHOSTP and Subcommittee on Open Science. The initiatives Daniel describes in this brief post are in perfect alignment with the vision of our own organisation and we therefore recommend our members to read and sign the open letter and support the NMOP platform.

A model for overlay peer review on repositories is open for public comment

COAR presents and makes available for public comment a new model for overlay peer review on repositories. This model is a significant step towards the development of a highly distributed architecture for overlay services that takes us beyond the current landscape with many silos, in which every organisation maintains its own separate system, to a decentralised, global, interoperable, scholarly infrastructure. The present work can scale, respond to different needs and priorities related to language, region, and discipline, and has the potential to liberate scholarly communication from the short-sighted interests of private groups and organisations.

Open scientists in the shoes of frustrated academics part I: Open-minded scepticism

By Pandelis Perakakis Originally published in // Last week I was in Oslo, invited by the organising committee of Eurodoc2017, to give an introductory talk on Open Science [1]. One thing that became apparent during this two-day event was that, although irresistibly trendy, Open Science remains an elusive concept. Many continue to confuse Open Science with …

Open scientists in the shoes of frustrated academics part I: Open-minded scepticism Read More »

Report back from the COAR 2016 annual meeting

Last week Pandelis Perakakis attended the COAR (@COAR_eV) 2016 annual meeting hosted by the University of Vienna. I was invited by COAR’s executive director Kathleen Shearer to give a talk on peer review on top of repository networks and to participate in a working group that will discuss and provide recommendations for “Next Generation Repositories”.

Open access repositories start to offer overlay peer review services

Open access repositories administered by Universities or research organizations are a valuable infrastructure that could support the transition to a more collaborative and efficient scholarly evaluation and communication system. Open Scholar has coordinated a consortium of six partners to develop the first Open Peer Review Module (OPRM) for institutional repositories. The module integrates an overlay peer review service, coupled with a transparent reputation system, on top of institutional repositories.