Community Peer Review for Resistance and Resilience

Growing concerns about political interference over what is allowed to be published, funder limits on paying publication fees, and rapid reductions in organizations' staff have all recently strained traditional scholarly communication.

upstream.force11.org

Coalition for Resilient Research Data Infrastructure (CRRDI): A Community-Driven Strategic Plan, 2027 – 2030

Federally funded research data is a public good, but the repositories and infrastructure that keep it findable, accessible, and usable have long been fragile — a fragility that recent funding, staffing, and policy disruptions have laid bare. Because the research data system is highly distributed, spanning thousands of repositories and practitioners across many domains, no single organization can address these vulnerabilities alone. This document is the draft strategic plan for the Coalition for Resilient Research Data Infrastructure (CRRDI), a proposed cross-sectoral coalition working to build a more resilient ecosystem for federally funded research data. It sets out the case for action, a shared vision and guiding principles, and three strategic pillars: assessing and monitoring the repository landscape; developing diverse, sustained funding and governance; and building a shared outreach, advocacy, and action strategy. It also includes a starting point for coalition governance and an outline of next steps toward implementation. The plan was developed by a planning committee convened by the Center for Open Science with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, drawing on expertise across open research infrastructures, data and information stewardship, data rescue and resilience, policy, and governance. It is released as a draft for community comment, intended to serve as an anchor the community can organize around rather than a finished blueprint. Comments are welcome through September 30, 2026 to inform development of the final draft and the coalition's ultimate structure.

zenodo.org

blogs.lse.ac.uk

AAP Welcomes Court’s Final Settlement Approval in Bartz v. Anthropic

Back To News July 20, 2026 * __ * __ * __ * __ ## AAP Welcomes Court’s Final Settlement Approval in Bartz v. Anthropic Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the parties’ proposed class settlement of certain infringement claims in Bartz v. Anthropic. The agreement requires Anthropic to pay $1.5 billion to the authors and publishers of nearly half a million books it downloaded from notorious pirate sites, as well as destroy all the original files of works torrented and downloaded from those sites and any copies that originate from the torrented copies. In aggregate, this decision marks the largest class action copyright settlement in history, with a reported claims rate of 92.77 percent. As defined by the court, the class includes legal or beneficial copyright owners, specifically the owners of the exclusive right to reproduce copies, of any book that was downloaded by Anthropic through Library Genesis (LibGen) in June 2021 or from Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) in July 2022, has an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN), was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within five years of first publication, and was registered before being downloaded by Anthropic, or within three months of first publication. The class covers hundreds of thousands of works of AAP member companies and their authors, and many other works. **Statement from AAP President and CEO Maria A. Pallante:** “We applaud the court’s final approval of this settlement, which represents an important victory in the larger battle to hold big tech accountable for its unscrupulous appropriation of intellectual and creative properties that clearly belong to authors and publishers. In this case, the court recognized that downloading from pirate sites is not a choice we should simply accept as an efficiency for the infringer; on the contrary, it’s abhorrent conduct that should never be normalized. Nor should fair use extend to training, which can easily be licensed like every other digital use in the modern copyright economy. Tech companies might like a copyright law with a giant hole in the place of exclusive rights, but that law does not exist. Partnerships, not piracy, are the best path forward.” The order granting final approval can be found here. ###

publishers.org

Preprints Without Curation Are Increasingly Cited by Journals

The recent strain on peer review systems necessitates the publish-review-curate model, where the public dissemination of manuscripts is decoupled from formal peer review and later editorial processes. Citation norms traditionally pointed to the curated version; those that subsequently appear in peer-reviewed journals. Citations to preprints are therefore generally expected to occur only to those eventually curated. Using metadata from six major preprint servers linked to the world's largest bibliographic reference database, and focusing on citations from long-established journals with rigorous editorial workflows, we compare observed citation rates with a null model reflecting the expected rate if authors were indifferent between preprints and journal articles. The growth is evident in both citation intensity and the breadth of adoption: at its peak in 2021, nearly one in five journal articles cited at least one preprint. The preference to cite preprints has grown exponentially since the mid-2010s, with key inflection points coinciding with the launch of bioRxiv (2013) and the introduction of a preprint content type in Crossref's DOI system (2016). An increasing share of these citations refer to non-curated preprints and this shift cannot be explained by confounding factors: the growing stock of preprints, faster publishing cycles, or the outsized influence of a small set of highly cited preprints. These findings reveal a structural shift in citing behavior: preprints are increasingly treated as legitimate, autonomous objects of citation, independent of their later publication status, motivating renewed attention to how citation conventions and journal policies should accommodate the expanding role of preprints in scholarly communication. The COVID-19 pandemic did not amplify this trend but instead coincided with a deceleration in preprint citation growth.

arxiv.org

Role of Institutional Repositories in Deemed University Libraries in Telangana. | JOURNAL OF NOVEL RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT

Role of Institutional Repositories in Deemed University Libraries in Telangana., UGC CARE Journal, UGC CARE Approved Journals, UGC CARE Journal List, UGC CARE Journal Impact Factor, UGC CARE Journal Publication Guidelines, UGC CARE Journal Call for Papers, UGC CARE Journal Review Process, UGC CARE Journal Ranking, UGC CARE Journal Author Guidelines, JOURNAL OF NOVEL RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT, UGC CARE Journal Subscription

tijer.org

How preprints accelerate the time to first citation of the subsequent journal articles? - Scientometrics

This study examines whether journal articles with preprints are cited more rapidly than those without preprints. We construct a matched sample of articles published in the same journal, year, volume, and issue to ensure comparability between articles with and without preprints. Survival analysis is employed to estimate the temporal advantage of articles with preprints in receiving the first citation relative to those without preprints, while OLS regression quantifies this advantage in terms of days. The key findings are as follows: (1) articles with preprints have a 35.2% higher hazard of receiving their first citation than those without preprints; (2) among articles that received at least one citation during the observation period, articles with preprints were associated with a 69.042-day shorter time to first citation than comparable articles without preprints; (3) both early visibility and the additional dissemination channels of preprint platforms are associated with a shorter time to first citation, with early visibility showing a relatively stronger association. Notably, these estimates reflect conditional associations rather than causal effects, given the observational design.

link.springer.com

Federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges

A lawsuit filed under the U.S. False Claims Act accuses four major publishers of perpetrating a decade-long scheme to defraud the government by charging exorbitant article processing charges. The case, which became unsealed July 30, claims Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Informa forced U.S. research institutions to submit false claims to the government for reimbursement … Continue reading Federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges

retractionwatch.com

OA or Nonchalant: A Survey of Open Access Dissemination Initiatives of Higher Education Institution Library Websites and Systems in the Philippines | Balbin | College & Research Libraries

OA or Nonchalant: A Survey of Open Access Dissemination Initiatives of Higher Education Institution Library Websites and Systems in the Philippines

crl.acrl.org

Original post on fediscience.org

fediscience.org

Springer Nature reports continued growth in TAs and OA publishing - Research Information

Publisher signed 19 new transformative agreements and renewed a further 17 during the year, bringing its global total to 101 agreements

researchinformation.info

Announcing the Coalition for Resilient Research Data Infrastructure (CRRDI) Strategic Plan

The Center for Open Science collaborated with research data infrastructure experts on a strategic plan for the Coalition for Resilient Research Data Infrastructure—a coalition working to build a more resilient ecosystem for federally funded research data. The draft is available for community comment.

cos.io

Securing the Knowledge Commons: How Open Science Fights Academic Fraud

​Earlier this year, an international team of researchers published the BuyTheBy dataset, shedding light on the dark economy of academic fraud. With academic fraud polluting more and more the research ecosystem, the role of Open Science gains higher importance; transparency becomes the key to ensuring the authenticity of outcomes, and automation of...

openaire.eu

Sylla

Sylla has joined VitalSource.

get.vitalsource.com

EXCLUSIVE – Amy Brand: Publishing for a new era - Research Information

EXCLUSIVE: The director and publisher of MIT Press reflects on risk-taking, leadership, innovation and human judgement

researchinformation.info

Open GLAM as OER: Digital cultural heritage and the intersections of primary source literacy and information literacy

dal.scholaris.ca

Figshare and the Future of Repositories: How Figshare is Adapting to the Ever-Changing Present to Enhance Institutional Impact

In an era of increasing federal mandates and the rapid rise of machine learning, the role of the institutional repository is being redefined. It is no longer enough to simply host PDFs; modern repositories must serve as flexible, integrated, and FAIR-compliant ecosystems that elevate an institution’s entire research output. This session provides an inside look at how Figshare is adapting to meet these ever-changing requirements. We will discuss the following: The Power of Metadata Flexibility: An overview of Figshare’s metadata restructure, which allows institutions to seamlessly manage data, articles, and nontraditional outputs in a single location. This flexibility ensures that the IR can adapt to any discipline's needs without compromising schema standards. Future-Proofing for AI: As the State of Open Data 2025 showed, AI tools are a critical part of research. AI bot harvesting can negatively affect repository performance, but AI-driven discovery also depends on the high-quality data stored in repositories. We will discuss how AI harvesting affects Figshare and how Figshare’s built-in features facilitate FAIR principles, so your institution’s research is not just "online," but is machine-readable and ready to power the next generation of AI insights. The Global-Institutional Symbiosis: Figshare’s unique model supports a global community of independent researchers while providing robust, "turnkey" solutions for institutions. We will explore how institutional partners gain enhanced visibility and analytics, showcasing how the repository can move from a compliance requirement to a strategic asset for the university. Join us to learn how Figshare is building a sustainable, scalable future for institutional repositories, ensuring your researchers' work remains discoverable, citable, and impactful.

aquila.usm.edu

Munich Manifesto

# Munich Manifesto for Equitable Open Science Jump directly to the Manifesto ↓ The manifesto was launched by the PHIL_OS project in June 2026 following extensive consultations with research communities, research institutions, and Open Science advocates. The Manifesto is intended to spur research and policy action on Open Science, with the goal of supporting reliable, responsible, and equitable research worldwide. **VERSIONING** : The world of research is diverse and subject to very different constraints across contexts, and we do not intend the Manifesto to be the only or best perspective on how responsible and equitable Open Research can be achieved. **We therefore strongly encourage interested communities worldwide to produce their own versions of this document** , which we will post on this page alongside our own. Some groups are already at work on this, and we look forward to these documents spurring meaningful, constructive and impactful conversations. **BECOME A SIGNATORY** : To sign the Manifesto, either as individuals or institutions, please fill out the form below. Munich Manifesto Signatory Form Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form. Name * First Last Email * City/Country (optional) Support Declaration * * I support this Manifesto and wish to be listed as a Signatory City/Country Comments Email Publication Consent * * I consent to my name being published as a Signatory. Comments Submit # MUNICH MANIFESTO FOR EQUITABLE OPEN RESEARCH The archived version of this Manifesto is available on **Zenodo.** The Manifesto is intended for all Open Research [OR] contributors, and particularly institutions, funders, industry and policymakers responsible for developing OR governance and infrastructure. We take OR to encompass practices in all domains of expertise (including humanities, arts, social sciences and non-academic contributors) that enable members of the wider society to scrutinize, contribute to, and reuse the processes and outputs of research. OR therefore includes elements typically associated with open science (e.g. open publishing, data, methods, software, education and peer review) as well as trustworthy and secure research environments, access to equipment, archive and materials, contributions from local and indigenous knowledge, and relevant forms of research assessment and funding. Our perspective is informed by qualitative research on research conditions and researchers’ perspectives across a variety of locations and domains, consultation with numerous research organisations, and philosophy and social studies concerning equity and quality in research. Urgent global challenges demand transnational cooperation, placing the value of intelligent strategies and formats for OR beyond doubt. OR fuels discovery in ways that promote high-quality innovation, societal engagement and trust in research processes and findings, and the ability to respond effectively to complex problems. Key to realising OR’s potential is equity, which we define as _ensuring that the experiences, methods and findings of research contributors are visible and valued regardless of geographical provenance, material resources, institutional status, social background or personal attributes_.[1] And yet, the world of research is far from equitable. National and international policies tend to implement OR guidelines, tools and principles in a top-down manner and across domains, with scarce consideration of the diverse capacities, motivations and methods characterising different research communities. Typically, OR tools are produced by the best-resourced research environments, which thereby set the goals that those tools are meant to serve, and define what counts as relevant standards and methods. In consequence, already advantaged contributors end up benefiting disproportionally from OR, which may in turn widen disparities in the research landscape, making some forms of expertise more visible than others regardless of their scientific and societal value. Such inequity is made worse by the widespread reliance of OR initiatives on digital systems. Digital technologies, including databases, repositories, web services and AI-powered tools, are key vehicles for sharing research. However, they also demand distinctive expertise, resources and skills that many researchers around the world do not possess, either due to local constraints or to the irrelevance of such expertise for their own goals and circumstances. This has significant consequences for the content and quality of research. Well-documented forms of discrimination and disparities in resources affect which voices are heard, which findings are pursued and recognised, and which methods are considered as best practice. Such divides are compounded by for-profit exploitation of OR initiatives that negatively affect the trustworthiness and sustainability of OR (such as the monetisation of open access publishing or the AI-driven scraping of data shared online), and the failure to reward commercial initiatives committed to enhancing equity within the global research community. The quest for universal computational tools serving any kind of user, such as general-purpose AI, fuels a tendency to overlook the diverse needs of researchers. In the absence of meaningful consultation with users, the drive towards common standards and unified digital platforms may result in silencing significant contributions and excluding relevant perspectives, thus ultimately skewing scientific results and lowering the quality of the knowledge being produced. Some forms of OR thus risk compounding the very problems they promise to solve. We maintain that research communities and organisations bear a shared responsibility to manage the unintended consequences of how OR is implemented, and actively enhance participation in OR design, development and governance. OR initiatives gain quality and resilience from tracking diverse research conditions around the globe and across domains, and actively supporting a plurality of circumstances and goals. This requires substantial investment, local engagement, responsiveness to the societal dimensions of inquiry, and attention to what forms of expertise should be included, and for which purposes, in the practice and governance of research. Specifically, OR requires **domain- and location-specific****input** on researchers’ needs and constraints as well as **institutional mechanisms** to implement equitable responsiveness to this input. Without such input and mechanisms, OR initiatives risk amplifying dangerous forms of discrimination in the production, use, and evaluation of knowledge, thereby damaging the research system instead of delivering improvements. This is a missed opportunity to capitalise on the commitment to dialogue, reciprocal learning and sustainable knowledge creation characterising many OR participants, as well as their ability to substantively improve research systems to support planetary health. In what follows, we identify five key priorities for OR initiatives to ensure responsiveness to both global needs and local perspectives. These priorities are: _**DIVERSITY:**_ research contributors’ capacity to be different or varied in ways that affect the development and/or understanding of knowledge _**RESILIENCE:**_ the long-term dependability and sustainability of OR initiatives _**ENGAGEMENT:**_ regular and consequential dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders **_JUSTICE:_ **the moral framework through which rights, duties and resources are distributed and deployed by researchers and research institutions **_HONESTY_ :** the ability and willingness to candidly and explicitly articulate the fragilities, vulnerabilities and limits of OR systems and procedures, including security concerns, inequity, exclusions, possible misuse, and constraints on format and interoperability. Realizing the promise of OR requires actively fostering these priorities. Relevant measures and training need to be shared by all participants in the research system, including research communities and organisations, funding bodies, industry, public agencies and civil society organisations. In what follows we briefly outline each priority and related recommendations. ## **CORE ELEMENTS FOR EQUITABLE OPEN RESEARCH** ### 1. DIVERSITY Diversity, understood as exhibiting variety in ways that affect the development and/or understanding of knowledge, is essential to research evaluation, advancement and creativity. Relevant expertise is found across all disciplines and domains, as well as in local knowledge held by skilled communities around the world. Diversity in research encompasses not just a variety of opinions, but of the coexistence of different systems of practice — each with its own combination of methods, goals, standards of evidence, and socio-cultural contexts. Debate and exchange among diverse research systems is crucial to upholding the quality, reliability and innovation potential of OR. To encourage and recognise diversity in OR, we recommend: * investing in domain-specific empirical studies of research conditions and impact * regularly evaluating existing systems of research assessment in light of such studies * acknowledging and rewarding relevant expert knowledge, including from communities operating outside established institutional settings * identifying and explicitly articulating tensions in research values and priorities * supporting openness across public and private institutions, and avoiding singling out publicly funded institutions as the sole target for OR policies and assessment ### 2. RESILIENCE Resilience in OR concerns the long-term dependability and sustainability of OR initiatives, which are integral to building stable research communities and achieving high-quality, robust and valid research outcomes. A key aspect of resilience is the long-term maintenance of both digital and analogue OR infrastructures, such as repositories, collections, databases and modelling tools. To enhance the resilience of OR initiatives, we recommend: * investing in domain-specific studies of the role, impact and costs of research infrastructures * regularly evaluating the robustness, sustainability, relevance and inclusivity of existing hardware, software, semantics and modes of maintenance and use, including for proprietary digital services * conducting periodic audits comparing existing solutions against emerging standards and community benchmarks * expanding infrastructures by consulting with a diverse pool of experts, experimenting with novel approaches, and engaging with a wide range of relevant publics * investing in curation (including maintenance, repair and updates) to ensure long-term usability and environmental sustainability for existing infrastructures * incentivising rigorous stewardship for research infrastructures and results, including comprehensive metadata for data and sample collection * encouraging foresight practices such as scenario modelling, risk assessment, observatories, and the exploration of forefront and counter-cultural spaces of innovation ### 3. ENGAGEMENT Engagement in OR involves regular dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders, which is vital to the quality, diversity, resilience and impact of OR and its related infrastructures. To support meaningful engagement with OR initiatives, we recommend: * explicitly stating, and regularly reassessing, the intended use for OR resources, methods, and infrastructures * providing opportunities for interactions with OR processes, infrastructures and outcomes, including through regular consultations and feedback channels * prioritising OR procedures and tools that support trustworthy exchanges among individuals and communities, and actively discouraging exploitative practices such as uncredited data extraction * supporting users’ ability to utilize OR processes and outcomes for a wide variety of purposes, and seeking user input on the meaning, significance, and impact of existing tools * investing in and learning from metascience, social science, and humanities scholarship that document the changing demands, expertise and perspectives of research participants ### 4. JUSTICE Justice in OR consists of the moral framework through which rights, duties, credibility and resources are distributed and deployed by researchers and research institutions. Cases of injustice include, for instance, the discrimination of researchers based on personal attributes or location; and the exclusion of contributors with relevant expertise but no access to reliable infrastructures or institutional support. Existing forms of injustice are damaging to the quality and trustworthiness of OR, and must be considered and addressed when developing and implementing OR practices. At the very least, mitigation measures are required to ensure that OR initiatives do not worsen the divides, discrimination, and inequities already plaguing the global research landscape. To foster just and responsible OR, we recommend: * investigating the history and impact of injustice and discrimination in OR, including social and material barriers to participation * identifying and acknowledging the views of research communities with divergent scientific goals and means, for instance by establishing protocols to attest and validate knowledge claims concerning vulnerable groups * supporting academic freedom via frequent opportunities for respectful, constructive exchange * supporting the development of commons and other forms of intellectual property geared towards fair use and just rewards for contributors * ensuring meaningful representation for marginalised voices to identify tensions among stakeholders and potential harm stemming from OR initiatives, and to propose solutions * identifying and rewarding substantive participation in OR in ways that are recognised by relevant institutions and funders * fostering ethical assessment of the potential benefits and harms of OR initiatives, including the cumulative effects of adding individual projects to the broader landscape of OR tools * establishing social and environmental safeguards, including liability measures to deal with dual use and misuse of OR practices and infrastructures * identifying paths for potential misuse to prevent risks, monitor compliance with established safeguards, and promote trust ### 5. HONESTY Honesty in OR consists of the ability and willingness to candidly and explicitly articulate the fragilities, vulnerabilities and limits of OR initiatives, including security concerns, inequity, exclusions, possible misuse, and constraints on format and interoperability. Such vulnerabilities can never be fully avoided or prevented, especially given unforeseeable shifts in geopolitical, economic and technological developments, and the unanticipated effects of the ever-evolving landscape of interacting research activities. OR initiatives must identify and regularly reassess potential sources of vulnerability, make efforts to inform participants, and adapt their strategy accordingly. To promote honesty within OR, we recommend: * documenting the history and governance of OR initiatives, with clear indications of who created them, who habitually participates and uses them, who controls their ongoing development and outcomes, and who bears responsibility for errors or misuse * highlighting and regularly reassessing the positionality, legacy, and intended goals of OR initiatives, including who may benefit from them, and how beneficiaries may change over time * explicitly declaring and regularly reassessing OR limitations and constraints, including through documented examples or illustrative use cases * considering governance mechanisms to monitor access and intended use, and to control or limit such access where appropriate – for instance, by prioritizing findability over direct accessibility to socially sensitive materials and practices * establishing clear accountability procedures for the development and use of OR tools (including AI), and enforcing penalties for developers, curators and users who fail to follow established guidelines and are responsible for breaches in privacy, regulation, and governance arrangements * investing in cybersecurity to reduce the risk of unwanted uses, such as anonymization breaches and socially or environmentally harmful forms of data extraction ## **CITATION** This is version 1.0 of the Munich Manifesto from 2 July 2026. Please cite as: _PHIL_OS (2026) Munich Manifesto for Equitable Open Research. URL:__https://doi.org/__10.5281/zenodo.20700870_ _._ ## **CALL TO ACTION: SIGNATORIES AND VERSIONING** This Manifesto aims to spur global efforts towards improving equity in OR. This involves moving beyond definitions of OR that are centred on the natural sciences and are focused primarily on improving access to research outputs. Instead, we advocate paying closer attention to the human agency, social relations and infrastructures underpinning OR practices. Our key audiences are institutions and individuals who are involved in (1) OR governance and funding; (2) infrastructure design, development and maintenance; and (3) everyday deployment of OR solutions. Sympathetic readers, including both individuals and institutions, can add their signature to the Manifesto by clicking here: https://opensciencestudies.eu/for-2026-conference/munich-manifesto/ In the spirit of openness and pluralism that underpins this document, we invite readers with views that differ from those expressed here to create their own version of a Manifesto for Equitable OR and send it to us, thereby documenting the rich diversity of global OR experiences and perspectives. We shall collect all versions on the website www.opensciencestudies.eu as a testimony to the existing diversity of interpretations and solutions to the challenge of equity in OR, and the significance of considering viewpoints from a wide variety of backgrounds and locations. ## **BACKGROUND AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS** This manifesto was created by the PHIL_OS project team (“A Philosophy of Open Science for Diverse Research Environments”) with funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement No. 101001145. The initial draft was put together by the PHIL_OS team in April 2026, received generous feedback by delegates in occasion of the Munich Conference for Responsible Open Science in May 2026 (https://opensciencestudies.eu/for-2026-conference/), and was revised by Sabina Leonelli in collaboration with members of the PHIL_OS advisory board between May and June 2026. It was circulated to a list of prospective signatories, who support its public launch in September 2026. We acknowledge and thank the hundreds of colleagues active in OR who have engaged with us over the last decade. The research findings underpinning the views expressed in this Manifesto are available on the project website:www.opensciencestudies.eu/publications. This document reflects only the authors’ views and the Commission / Agency __ is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. * * * [1] E.g. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021), United Nations Declaration on Open Science (2025) https://www.un.org/scientific-advisory-board/en/open-science and Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information (2024) https://barcelona-declaration.org/downloads/BarcelonaDeclaration.pdf.

opensciencestudies.eu

Manuscript Rejection on the Pretext of “Limited Space”: An Ethical and Economic Dilemma - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

In the digital age, where physical space constraints in scholarly publishing have largely diminished, the recurring editorial justification of “limited space” for manuscript rejection appears increasingly indefensible. This commentary critically examines the ethical and economic dimensions of this rationale, particularly when it results in redirection to fee-based open access (OA) sister journals. While peer-reviewed publication decisions are ideally grounded in scientific merit, novelty, and methodological rigor, the authors argue that the space limitation rationale may function as a pretext to curate journal branding or steer submissions toward revenue-generating platforms. The expansion of OA publishing, though intended to democratize knowledge dissemination, has in some cases evolved into a profit-driven model that imposes article processing charges on authors. Such practices risk compromising editorial transparency, fairness, and academic equity. The authors advocate for clearer editorial policies, increased transparency in decision-making, and the adoption of mechanisms such as dynamic submission dashboards to inform authors of real-time publication capacity. Rejections should be based on scholarly merit rather than logistical or commercial interests. This article calls for reinforcing the ethical foundations of academic publishing to ensure that decisions reflect genuine scholarly standards and not economic expediency.

link.springer.com

Editors of economics journal resign after association renews Taylor & Francis contract

Forty-one editors, associate editors and advisory board members resigned from their roles at the Review of Social Economy after the Association for Social Economics, which owns the journal, renewed its contract with publisher Taylor & Francis. The resigning members, who cited concerns the publisher would eventually transition the journal to a model based wholly on … Continue reading Editors of economics journal resign after association renews Taylor & Francis contract

retractionwatch.com

Doing Open Social Science

Read online or download for free Open science is a set of principles and practices that aims to make research from all fields accessible to everyone for the benefit of researchers and society as a whole. Doing Open Social Science: A Guide for Researchers is the first comprehensive book setting out the principles and practices of open research, tailored specifically for those in the social science disciplines, at every career stage, offering practical advice on how to make research more transparent, trustworthy and reusable.Divided into four parts, the book explores the core principles and philosophy of open social science. Part II addresses how to improve the reproducibility of research through open approaches, including chapters on the principles and tools of documenting research as you go and on open data practices. Part III focuses on open practices within the qualitative social sciences. Chapters examine interview-based research, case studies and fieldwork, systematic documentation analysis, archival data and the role of openness in citizen (social) science. Part IV addresses shifting research cultures, with chapters on strategies for presenting research clearly and accessibly to maximise reach and impact and on open access publishing. The book ends with a discussion of the future of open social science. Ultimately, it argues, openness as a wider cultural change can renew the social sciences and the core foundations for academic progress in more dynamic and sustainable ways.This is an essential guide for anyone working in the social sciences, from doctoral candidates and early career researchers to experienced academics and practitioners, who wants to engage more effectively with open research.Note: A new version of the book was uploaded on 04 June 2026. The new files correct an error on the imprint page in which the CC BY-NC-ND license was not written out in full; other mentions of the license were correct and have not been changed. Click here to read early praise for Doing Open Social Science: A Guide for Researchers "This handbook will undoubtedly be transformative amidst a looming move towards open research across disciplines. It will be of great value to postgraduate students, early career researchers, and researchers outside academia grappling with open research practices. Also, for theorists looking to better comprehend its underpinnings too. It is a significant and original contribution to the field, written in a highly accessible style, and will almost certainly feature highly on reading lists for research methods courses across the social sciences. Alongside the useful annexes and glossary, the authors’ use of anecdotal examples and humour bring the text to life, making it broadly accessible without superfluous pomp. From traditional social science to computational approaches, the handbook looks not only at how open science has been done, but also what its many futures may become as they unfold. It is landmark text for open science." — Matthew Hanchard, University of Sheffield "Dunleavy and Monteath have delivered a much-needed invaluable guide to help academics and students better understand open research through the lens of social sciences. Whether you are already practising open social science or starting from scratch, the authors showcase a wealth of knowledge and practical tips to help turn quantitative and qualitative outputs into something truly open and reusable." — Andy Tattersall, Consultant, Open Research Communications Expert "This book’s focus on open social science does much more than it seems. By using the openness philosophy as a lens, it offers a range of state-of-the-art discussions of social science methods and practicalities. As such, it will be a terrific guide to a wide range of social science researchers who are broadly open to the argument but wondering what to do next." — Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling "Doing Open Social Science: A Guide for Researchers provides conceptual clarity and practical guidance for improving rigor and transparency of research. Dunleavy and Monteath translate concepts like preregistration, reproducibility, replication and open data for both quantitative and qualitative researchers. After providing the reader with a conceptual framework for thinking about open science, the authors offer grounded advice and insight on translating those ideas into practice. The book powerfully blends theory and practice, helping social scientists improve their research." — Brian Nosek, Professor, University of Virginia, and Executive Director, Center for Open Science "This is the methods book that researchers really need. Covering subjects from how to write a data management plan to doing open science with qualitative data, the book is a practical guide to how to deliver rigorous and transparent research. It sets the agenda for how research should be done and shows the reader, step by step, how to get there. I only wish it were in print when I started my research career, it would have saved me a lot of head-scratching." — Rosie Campbell, Professor of Politics, Department of Political Economy, King's College London

press.lse.ac.uk

Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: Static in the Broadcast: Lyrasis, Outreach, and Collaborating Across Functional Areas. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.

In this session, the presenters will use the topic of open access initiatives to explore strategies to promote dialogue and community across the library in assessing and demonstrating the value of resources, services, and programs provided by libraries.

lyrasis.zoom.us