|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>How often are the OA monitor data updated? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The data are updated every weekend. This means that every Monday, up-to-date data are available for your analyses.
|
|
|
Please note that we have no influence on the up-to-dateness of the [source databases](/Quelldatenbanken/Quelldatenbanken).
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Is it possible to estimate what percentage of journals published by international scientific publishers is covered by the OA monitor?</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OA monitor analyses all publications from scientific journals that have a DOI. The analysis is independent of the open access status of the articles. The open access status is assigned to publications via their DOI using the data from [Unpaywall](https://unpaywall.org/).
|
|
|
The coverage depends on the scientific field. In the humanities, for example, the DOI has not yet become established across the board, whereas in the geosciences over 90 % of publications from the last few years are covered by the monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>What does the open access model “closed” mean in the “Publications in total”, “Publications according to publisher”, and “Publications according to journal” analyses? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the publications level, “closed” means that an article was neither published open access nor could a freely accessible version of the article be found.
|
|
|
Articles can be labelled as “closed”, “bronze”, “hybrid”, “green”, or “gold” OA models.
|
|
|
On the publishers and journals levels, a distinction is only made between “closed” and “gold” open access. “Closed” means that a publisher does not only publish open access or that articles in a journal are not exclusively open access.
|
|
|
Subscription publishers or subscription journals (which are both labelled as “closed” in the OA monitor) may sometimes publish “hybrid”, “bronze”, or “green” open access articles. These articles are labelled accordingly on the publications level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Do I have to register my institution to be able to carry out analyses of my own publications and APCs via the OA monitor? Is there a workflow for recording publications and APCs? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not need to register your institution to use the OA monitor. We obtain all data on publications from [Unpaywall](https://unpaywall.org/) and the source databases [Dimensions](http://app.dimensions.ai) and [Web of Science](http://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/wosccurl). Therefore, you do not have to submit any data directly to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to submitting data on publication fees, however, you have to take action yourself. In principle, we recommend that you submit APCs to the [OpenAPC](https://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/openapc/) initiative ([guide to submitting data, OpenAPC](https://github.com/OpenAPC/openapc-de/wiki/Handreichung-Dateneingabe)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OA monitor automatically uses the data from OpenAPC and integrates them into the analyses. On a trial basis, users can also submit data on publication fees directly to us. Similar to OpenAPC, a specific data schema must be used for this purpose. If you require further information, please contact the Central Library of Forschungszentrum Jülich:
|
|
|
<info@open-access-monitor.de>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Do I have to create a user account in the OA monitor</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A user account for the OA monitor is not (yet) necessary. The login facility for the OAM is primarily intended for users whose libraries use the ERM system [LAS:eR](https://laser.hbz-nrw.de/) and have agreed to share their subscription fees stored there with the OA monitor. These institutions can view their subscription fees for individual journals or publishers in the OA monitor and retrieve analyses of the ratio between subscription and publication fees.
|
|
|
Under the “Publication analysis” option, non-authorized users are only shown aggregate subscription costs, which do not allow conclusions to be drawn about individual institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>What transformative agreements are included in the OA monitor? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transformative agreements that are listed in the [ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry](https://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/agreement-registry/) are eligible for DFG funding. These contracts will gradually be included in the OA monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Why do the data sources “Web of Science” and “Dimensions” provide different results?</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Web of Science](http://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/wosccurl) makes a selection when indexing journals. Therefore, fewer publications are included in Web of Science than in [Dimensions](http://app.dimensions.ai).
|
|
|
Deviations in the results may also be due to the fact that the standardization of institutions in the OA monitor has not yet been fully completed. To enable author affiliations and institution searches, organizations’ names – based on their spelling in Web of Science – are assigned to the [GRID](https://www.grid.ac/)-organization IDs. This procedure has not yet been completed for all organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>When searching for publications by my institution, do I obtain results for all publications we are involved in, or only for those with a corresponding author from our institution?</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The search result in the OA monitor always refers to all institutions involved, not only to those with the corresponding author. When the data source [Web of Science](http://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/wosccurl) is selected, the “corresponding author” filter option is offered. This way, the search result can be limited accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Why am I not offered the “corresponding author” filter option when I select “Dimensions” as the data source?</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The [Dimensions](http://app.dimensions.ai) Dimensions source database does not currently provide sufficient information on corresponding authors. Therefore, it is not useful to show this filter option at the moment.
|
|
|
This will most likely change in the medium term. Until then, it can be assumed from experience that approx. 50 % of the publications shown for an institution can be counted as corresponding author publications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>What does the citation analysis in the OA monitor involve? Are citations counted that originate from an article or does the analysis show how often an article has been cited? Is the analysis based on forward or backward citations? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The citation analysis counts the number of citations an article has received in other publications. It is based on forward citations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>In the OA monitor, a particular article is labelled as “green” open access. Why am I brought to a closed access version when I click on the DOI that is displayed?</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your institution has licensed the journal in which the selected article appeared, you will automatically be directed to the closed access version. This is independent of the OA model assigned to the article in the OA monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>In the OA monitor, some publications are incorrectly assigned to our institution. Who do I contact about this? </strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please send an email indicating the incorrectly assigned publications to the Central Library of Forschungszentrum Jülich:
|
|
|
<info@open-access-monitor.de>
|
|
|
We will fix the incorrect affiliations where possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>Why do we not get any results when setting the “Web of Science” filter for our institution? As soon as I remove this filter, I get a greater number of results.</strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is due to the fact that the standardization of the institutions in the OA monitor has not yet been fully completed.
|
|
|
To enable author affiliations and institution searches, organizations’ names – based on their spelling in Web of Science – are assigned to the [GRID](https://www.grid.ac/) organization IDs. This procedure has not yet been completed for all organizations. In urgent cases, please send an email to the Central Library of Forschungszentrum Jülich:
|
|
|
<info@open-access-monitor.de>.
|
|
|
We will then prioritize the standardization for your institution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
</details>
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
<details>
|
|
|
<summary><strong>From which [source database](/Quelldatenbanken/Quelldatenbanken) does the publication date originate? What date is this exactly?<strong></summary>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The publication date is taken from [Unpaywall](https://unpaywall.org/).
|
|
|
In Unpaywall, the field is described as follows: _"As reported by the publishers, who unfortunately have inconsistent definitions of what counts as officially 'published'. Returned as an [ISO8601-formatted](https://xkcd.com/1179/) timestamp, generally with only year-month-day."_ (s. Unpaywall, [published_date](https://unpaywall.org/data-format))
|
|
|
|