Newly announced for the UK…

“Today Jisc announced that OCLC, the global library cooperative, has been awarded the contract to develop a new national bibliographic knowledgebase (NBK).”

Judging by the initial press-release, the focus seems likely to rest first on cohering UK academia’s metadata management for digital book collections. This will in time…

“enable shared bibliographic metadata to flow into … global search engines”

Hopefully that means Google Search, as well as Google Scholar (which are two separate systems and databases).

“Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed”, 3rd January 2017. For…

“the period 1966–2015 (50 years). Of the 496,665 articles studied over this period, 201,055 have DOIs (40.48%).”

So just under 60% are without DOIs, and that’s for biomedical in PubMed — albeit when including thirty years of pre-1995 (pre the mass Internet) coverage. More recently, for 2015, the study found that 13.5% of new content was still without a DOI.

The DOI-free figures for the humanities will be far higher, according to “Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus”, February 2016…

“Many journals related to the Natural Sciences and Medicine with considerable impact have no DOI. Arts & Humanities WoS [Web of Science] categories have the highest percentage of documents without DOI.” … “exceeding 50% only since 2013. The observed values for Books and Proceedings are even lower despite the importance of these document types …”

As for DOI availability within articles in repositories, IRUS-UK provides a “DOI Summary” field giving “the numbers and percentages that have DOIs available” in UK repositories, although the access to their datasets is controlled. IRUS-UK has no summary infographics that I could find, relevant to DOI availability. But it would be interesting to determine what proportion of UK repository free/open journal articles have DOIs.

A new Medium article, from the head of Ingenta Connect, “Is the Open Access discoverability problem solvable? And whose problem is it?”. It’s a cursory look at the problem, but even then it’s interesting for what it doesn’t say…

* For “institutional librarians” the author seems to imply that their future role is only to be in one-to-one “mentoring and facilitation” of researchers. No mention of anything else, like the big publishers working with librarians to craft and adopt universal OA-status tagging code for discoverability.

* For “scholarly authors” he only suggests academics might become marketeers for their own papers. Frankly, this seems like a waste of their valuable time. Given the salaries that full-time research academics get, they can afford to hire a virtual assistant. To promote four or five papers a year outside of one’s own disciplinary niche, simply go to UpWork (or similar) and hire your personal marketeer at $180 a paper (to get someone of quality, for a day and-a-half of work). One could probably find a way to write the $900 bill off against tax each year. Of course that assumes one is publishing something worth reading, rather than academic shovel-ware intended to tick boxes inside one’s own institution.

* For the big “publishers” the article vaguely suggests they need to embrace openness. Though perhaps only in order to capture it for their own purposes, via a… “drawing-together of all the dispersed OA content silos into one place”. Well, for their own limited set of OA content, the big publishers can solve that on Monday morning if they really want it. They just have to allow the seemingly-stalled Paperity to import the OA-only article feeds of Elsevier, Brill, Degruyter, Wiley and others, so that Paperity has full coverage of all OA articles from the big publishers.

A new OA tool from the French, doai.io. If you’ve found a live DOI Web link that can only take you to a paywall article, then replacing http://dx.doi.org/ with http://doai.io/ will get a URL that tries to find a free version via BASE.

BASE is only middling for finding open access articles. It currently has 3.1m OA journal articles in English, with those being overwhelmingly in science, technology and medicine…

… but it’s reported that doai.io now also looks for the article posted on ResearchGate.

The doai.io coding was completed back in November and it’s only just gone public, so it’s early days. They don’t yet have a Web browser add-on that will automate the fallback from dx.doi.org to doai.io. One has to wonder if the same add-on, which would presumably be open sourced, would be quickly forked to also serve Sci-Hub (which at present only has a Chrome add-on, and no Firefox add-on).

Byron Russell, manager of Ingentaconnect, wants to search only for freely re-usable Open Access articles, but finds that ‘the Google moment’ for such a search hasn’t arrived yet…

Run a Google search on “Mendelian dominance open access” and the first two hits are for one publisher – the OMICS Group.

Judging from my Google Search results to recreate his search, what he actually tried to search for was: Mendelian dominance open access — without the quote marks. Difficult to see how such a loose search would find something worth having. But even if he’d then gone on to say… ‘so, we need to teach students how to search Google properly…’, his article’s point would have been much the same. Even using sophisticated Google search methods, one still gets mired amid a swamp of Powerpoints, K-12 lesson plans, student quizzes, wikis, high-ranking predatory journal articles and other junk.

JURN does a fairly good job with…

     Mendel “dominance” “Commons Attribution” -noncommercial

Having Mendel without quote marks in that way, catches Mendel | Mendel’s | Mendelian | since Google automatically expands the name.

The target CC content, as currently found on OA journals via JURN, seems to reside almost entirely in PLOS, Pubmed, Springer and a few others.

But there’s more in the hybrid journals. So one can also approximate a main Google Search across the large publishers, Elsevier for instance, via something like…

     site:www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ “Commons Attribution” -noncommercial -“non-commercial”

For Oxford Journals it’s slightly different…

     inurl:oxfordjournals.org “Commons Attribution” -“non-commercial”

(Google will probably flash up an annoying “captcha” to make sure you’re not a robot, at that point, if you’ve worked the examples down to this point).

And so on… one could just work through the larger publishers that way. For Springer most of the work has already been done by Paperity, although Paperity still lacks coverage of a couple of OA Springer titles.

It’s certainly not ideal, as Russell suggests. On the other hand, one might ask why someone needs to find just the CC-BY content on a topic. Perhaps it’s actually quite useful that a big publisher would find it difficult to automatically siphon all known CC-BY articles and books into its own giant repository, slap on some search, mining, overlay journal and themed book-compiling tools, and then sell access to it.

Have you spotted an academic who is supposed to have made their work OA, but who hasn’t done so? Dissemin checks their OA status, and provides a way to upload their papers to the Zenodo repository (CERN’s data repository).