There is an ever-growing number of small-scale Open Access journals and publishers. These are run largely by research communities, who manage to reach out from their local contexts to the global landscape of scholarly communication and became established international forums. At ScienceOpen, these are what we call true Open Access success stories!
Part of our mission is to contribute to these success stories by recognizing the great efforts behind high-quality OA journals with no APCs (article processing charges), and by offering them our next-generation indexing services for free.
The winners of our monthly free indexing competition benefit from increased visibility, usage and branding for their indexed content. By getting indexed on ScienceOpen, these journals:
Reach new audiences and maximize readership
Drive more usage to their journals
Integrate their content to a unique search/discovery and communication platform
The winners of the June round are coming from the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), and join a growing corpus of research from this field on ScienceOpen. All 3 journals enjoy the benefits of the ‘by researchers – for researchers’ publishing model which enables them to assess precisely the needs in their fields of research, set clear goals, and to adopt a critical voice without making compromises.
Europe’s Journal of Psychology is a free online quarterly peer-reviewed journal publishing original studies, research, critical contributions, interviews and book reviews written by and intended for psychologists worldwide. Although primarily targeted at a European audience, EJOP gladly hosts contributions from psychologists irrespective of their geographical location. The journal was conceived in such a manner as to be accessible to both young researchers and established professionals and also to a very large area of scientific psychological ‘genres’ and schools.
We asked Prof. Dr. Armin Günther, Managing Editor of PsychOpen, about why they chose to enter the competition. He said:
“At PsychOpen, the European Open Access Platform for Psychology, we are very happy to be among the winners of the monthly ScienceOpen free indexing competition! This will not only help us to increase the visibility of our journal(s) but it’s also a great encouragement for our work, pursuing a community based, non-profit approach in scholarly publishing.”
Publisher: Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Skopje
Country of publisher: Republic of Macedonia
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation (JSER) is a multidisciplinary peer reviewed international journal edited by the Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation of the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje, Macedonian Scientific Society for Autism and Macedonian Association of Special Educators. Although it began as a local and specialized journal, it managed to develop into an international and scientific one and to attract a large number of authors from over 30 countries around the world.
The aim of the journal is to share and disseminate knowledge between all disciplines that work in the field of special education and rehabilitation. The subject matter is broad and includes findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies. It publishes ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the prevention and treatment of disability, and/or inform public policy and practice. The articles are bilingual (Macedonian and English).
This journal seeks to disseminate research on modern languages and literatures with special emphasis on anglophone literatures and cultures. Their main aim is to foster critical resistance towards hegemonic and hierarchical models of culture, and positively promote, as viable alternatives, discourse practices of partnership and mutuality. Articles cover topics like “hybridisation” of languages and literatures, migrant writing, intercultural and transcultural identities and subjectivities, post-colonial studies or subaltern studies.
Taking the ‘diamond’ way, all these journals prove that ‘gold’ Open Access is much more than APCs, and that you don’t need high costs to maintain high quality.
If you know free to publish Open Access journals you would like to see indexed on ScienceOpen, let us know. If you run one, participate in our competition today and get indexed on ScienceOpen for free! See our guidelines for indexing here.
Today at ScienceOpen we’re pleased to welcome Hogrefe, a major publisher in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and mental health, among our new partners in 2017. Their open access collection, Hogrefe OpenMind is now available on our platform and waiting for you to read, share, comment on or review.
The collection makes a significant contribution to keeping society’s mind open about relevant social psychological issues surrounding us. The collection consists of a diverse portfolio of highly-regarded, peer-reviewed articles in English and German covering many subject areas of psychology and psychiatry. As well as studies addressing highly-professional audience, such as psychometric tests, assessment reports, or experiment design updates, articles of the collection are centred around issues in psychology touching upon the functioning of any given society but are considered to be taboo topics by convention. These form the center-pieces of the OpenMind collection, and have the potential to facilitate a better understanding of these taboos and thus to raise awareness of them. So what are these issues?
1. The evolution and functioning of stereotypes
Stereotypes are something we all live by. Being part and parcel of our very basic cognitive mechanism and categorization, they unconsciously shape our worldview. This group of studies give us a chance to develop a reflexive, deliberate view of them as well as to gain a better understanding on how they work and how they influence us and structure our thinking.
2 other stereotype-related studies survey how stereotype awareness affects our behavioural patterns. More precisely, how awareness of stereotypes could affect a person’s behaviour and performance when they complete a stereotype-relevant task. They also point out which kind of stereotypes are stronger in this respect: race or gender.
2. How well do you know your biases? Priming factors underlying our moral decisions
These set of studies take us closer to the unconscious physical biases that might influence our moral judgements or self-evaluation.
3. Suicide intervention
A significant part of the collection comes from the journal Crisis and contains potentially life-saving information for all those involved in crisis intervention and suicide prevention. These studies show the more general, social dimensions and implications of these, for the first sight isolated, individual-level crises. As such, the collection helps to strengthen social awareness and the perception of responsibility towards suicide phenomena, and complements our existing collection on stigmatisation of mental health issues and suicide prevention.
2 of these studies sketch primary and multilevel suicide prevention strategies and show evidence-based best-practices for these efforts.
Not surprisingly, one of the biggest “suicide-magnets” of the world, the Golden Gate Bridge also has its rightful place in the collection. One study examines whether the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge is effective enough. Its results hold special relevance considering the recently growing number of committed suicides (second most-used suicide site in the world) despite the existence of the countermeasures.
Finally, Coveney et al. surveys another means of practical aid and shows how callers’ feedback on Samaritans National Suicide Prevention Helpline can help in providing a better service and therefore save more lives.
+1 Gender bias in academia
Gender bias is definitely a highly-debated issue in current academic discourse, and even the most read article on our platform is on the subject! Mutz, Bornmann, and Hans-Dieter contribute to a clearer picture by examining whether gender matters in grant peer review in an Austrian context. Here you can see their results. Peer review option is just 3 clicks away!
The importance of the free availability of these studies for everyone is beyond question. With the help of our new discovery tools and multiple filtering options you can easily find the most relevant pieces of the collection for you. Furthermore, you can also share them with your research community by adding them to your own collection. Take a look and get engaged!
The Open Science Stars series has been one of the most pleasurable aspects for me of working at ScienceOpen, seeing the great diversity of researchers all around the world working to make science a better field to be in. For the latest, we spoke with Chris Hartgerink, a PhD student at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Chris has a strong background in open research practices, and is a prolific member of the data mining community. Here’s his story!
When did you first hear about ‘open science’? What was your first reaction, do you remember?
I first heard about Open Science in late 2012/early 2013 during my Masters. My then supervisor (Jelte Wicherts) said to me, “Let’s put all this online”, and I remember thinking this seemed so obvious but that I simply hadn’t considered it before – nor had I been taught about this during my education. This helped multiple puzzle pieces to fall into place. Since then transparent research has been central to all that I do. I also remember asking myself how to do this because it is non-trivial if you simply know nothing about it, and it has been a gradual process since then learning how to share in an easy-to-comprehend way. But it doesn’t have to be perfect from the beginning because open science is more a way of approaching science than it is a checkmark.
What has inspired your dedication to open research? What sort of things do you do on a daily basis to commit to this?
To be honest, what you call dedication is an ethical responsibility in my eyes. The old, opaque way of doing science is based on the analogue age with severely outdated standards. This is irresponsible, just like a current-day astronomer using Galileo’s antique telescope would be irresponsible. This antique telescope gives relatively imprecise measures compared to modern telescopes, so nobody would pay attention to new results based on it. I don’t think the science done with the antique telescope in the old days is invalid, I just think we have to build on the old, create the new, and then use the new. Closed research, as you might call it, is stuck in the old. I would even go so far to say that such unnecessarily (!) closed research obfuscates science and can be deemed pseudo-science. I hardly pay attention to new research that is unverifiable.
The old, opaque way of doing science is based on the analogue age with severely outdated standards.
By the way, when I say irresponsible, I mean irresponsible to others and to yourself. Our work is complex and making your work shareable and understandable to others helps others to understand what you did – including your future self. Transparent research has saved my skin repeatedly.