‘Héloïse’: towards a co‐ordinated ecosystem approach for the archiving of scientific publications?

Dillaerts, Hans; Chartron, Ghislaine

doi:10.1087/20130304

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to this study, a country‐specific scholarly journal overview incorporating an analysis of retained author rights has been carried out in France (Dillaerts & Chartron, ). The authors analysed the self‐archiving policies of journals included in the French national Héloïse index (http://www.Heloise.ccsd.cnrs.fr, ), an initiative that was inspired by the Spanish DULCINEA index (http://www.Accesoabierto.net, ) that will be the focus of this study.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Héloïse index covers 32 publishers and a total of 299 journals. Of all these journals, 88% allowed self‐archiving of some version of a published article (as per March 2013) (Dillaerts & Chartron, ). From a global perspective, Laakso () conducted an analysis of the copyright agreements of the 100 largest scholarly journal publishers in Scopus (by annual article volume) based on information on their websites.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Openness of Spanish scholarly journals as measured by access and rights

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metrics on open access (OA) availability of content published in scholarly journals (i.e. content licences, copyright ownership, and publisher‐stipulated self‐archiving permissions) are still scarce. This study implements the four core variables of the recently published Open Access Spectrum (OAS) (reader rights, reuse rights, copyright, and author posting rights) to measure the level of openness in all 1,728 Spanish scholarly journals listed in the Spanish national DULCINEA database at the end of 2015. Data exported from the database and used as variables for the analysis were: journal research area, type of publisher, type of access, self‐archiving and reuse policy, and type of Creative Commons (CC) licence used. Out of the total number of journals (1,728), 1,285 (74.5%) published their articles OA immediately after initial publication and thus received the maximum OAS score for reader rights; 37.5% of all journals used CC licences, and 79.5% allowed self‐archiving in some form. In 72% of journals, authors retained or publishers granted broad rights, which included author reuse and authorization rights (for others to reuse), whilst 13.5% did not specify any terms for copyright transfer. Similar studies could be carried out on other countries as this would enable comparisons of the general adoption and form of openness in different parts of the world.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Openness of Spanish scholarly journals as measured by access and rights

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En mars 2013, tout domaine confondu, lorsque les éditeurs autorisaient le dépôt de l'article, l'embargo était majoritairement ixé à 3 ans (Dillaerts, Chartron, 2013). Pour les SHS, les données relatives aux barrières mobiles en vigueur pour les 370 revues de la plate-forme Cairn.info (voir Figure 4) sont plus signiicatives : la majorité des revues (85 %) ont ixé des délais à 3 ans et plus.…”

Section: L'embargo La Clé De Voûte De L'équilibreunclassified

Open access et SHS : Controverses

Chartron¹

2014

ress

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Référence électroniqueRésumé. Après avoir rappelé la genèse du mouvement pour l'Open Access et fait état de la vivacité des débats actuels autour du sujet, cet article s'attache à discuter le bien-fondé de l'injonction politique en faveur du libre accès aux publications scientiiques au regard des spéciicités de la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Partant du constat que les politiques publiques s'élaborent majoritairement selon des caractéristiques empruntées aux sciences biomédicales, technologiques ou de la nature, l'auteur questionne la pertinence des postulats avancés, notamment la barrière d'accès aux savoirs, et examine les enjeux en matière d'innovation, de croissance et de retour sur l'investissement public, en particulier dans la perspective des données ouvertes et du datamining. L'article souligne les risques d'une transformation numérique non mesurée pour l'édition des sciences humaines et sociales et esquisse différents scénarios possibles selon les politiques publiques qui auront été décidées.Mots-clés : communication scientiique, libre accès, politiques publiques, revues scientiiques, sciences humaines et sociales.Abstract. After dealing with the genesis of the Open Access movement and reporting the current controversial debates on the subject, this article aims to discuss the political injunction towards the open access to scientiic publications considering the characteristics of the Human and Social Sciences ield. On the principle that these public policies are mostly based on features that derived from the techical, biomedical or natural sciences, the author challenges the pertinence of some of the common assumptions, namely the barrier to access of knowledge, and examines the stakes in regard to innovation, growth and return of investment, particularly in the prospect of open data and datamining. The article stresses the possible impact that the digital transformation may have on publishing in the ield of human and social sciences and outlines different scenarios depending on the public policies implemented.

show abstract

“…This information has been collected in a database attached to the portal DULCINEA, 15 which also classifi es journals using SHERPA/RoMEO color taxonomy. While RoMEO was the inspiration for the directory, DULCINEA has provided the groundwork for a number of other directories: the directory of French scholarly journals Héloïse, 16,17 the Brazilian portal Diadorim, 18 and the Portuguese project Blimunda 19 (all of which also share RoMEO taxonomy).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%