Is there a way to find out (a list somewhere?) which publishers, publishing industry organisations, universities and libraries etc have left X (Twitter)? We want to leave X - but as a small publisher we have to be where our audience is, and we have limited resources so we can't be everywhere. And building up a social media presence is slow, hard work.
I used to follow publisher announcements dealing with everything from new title offerings, open peer revew, research data etc on X.
As an alternative, would it be useful to set up a subscriber based email platform where information could be distributed? I already get a number of emails from the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, etc.
This Scholarly Kitchen post on social media <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/11/19/is-it-over-now-social-media-version/> (from November 2024) might be of interest Elaine? I'd say that since it was written there has been even more of an exodus to Bluesky and certainly a lot more engagement...
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 14:59, Elaine Stott < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > > > Is there a way to find out (a list somewhere?) which publishers, > publishing industry organisations, universities and libraries etc have > left X (Twitter)? We want to leave X – but as a small publisher we have to > be where
I suppose there are a bunch of questions you could ask yourselves, including:
* Is Twitter/X useful for our stakeholders (or has the noise ratio gotten too high, or have many of them abandoned the platform)? * Is Twitter/X useful to us (or has the noise ratio gotten too high, or have many of them abandoned the platform)? * Is there reputational risk to us being on Twitter/X (do our stakeholders approve of the platform)? * Is there a moral case for us to abandon Twitter/X based on the politics/behaviour of its owner (for example, do we appear to be
I’m still on X, but have also joined BlueSky. Annoyingly, I now feel compelled to say everything I used to say only on Twitter (which was never that much, honestly) on BlueSky as well. Also on LinkedIn. And often also on Facebook. For someone who doesn’t consider himself a social media junkie, I’m sure spending a lot of time repeating myself on social media these days…
Personally I have stopped posting to all my Twitter accounts - the journal I work for, EASE, my own work account, my YouTube account and miscellaneous personal one.
All these are in Bluesky now, and while follower numbers are lower, engagement numbers are much healthier and the environment is far less noisy and toxic.
PLOS recently left – I’d be happy to connect you with our Marcomms team to learn more about rationale, how we’ve handled comms, and where we are now. Ping me offline if this would be helpful.
Alison
Alison Mudditt Chief Executive Officer PLOS<http://www.plos.org/> | A catalyst for better
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Elaine Stott <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Elaine Stott <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 3:00 PM To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [OPENCAFE-L] X - still tweeting?
I'm not deactivating my X account, because once done, anyone can register and use my handle. I just stop using services that I leave. I'm overly attentive to the risks of others taking over aspects of my online identity. X terms say: "Once your account is deleted after the 30-day deactivation window, your username will be available for registration by other X accounts."
I haven't deactivated any of my accounts either, for those same reasons. Just let them idle. I suspect they might start to expire accounts that have no action after some time. maybe I'll log in to keep them active to avoid that, if it comes to it.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:30 PM Lisa Schiff < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
OASPA stopped using its X account in December. We talked about it for a while and just bit the bullet as it felt so odd to be in that space. Personally, apart from the politics, the broken user experience now makes it an unpleasant and infuriating place to be too.
We have approximately 10% of the follower numbers we had on X (1400 versus almost 14000) on Bluesky yet we see far more engagement there. Interesting and pleasing to see!
Hi Elaine: This was a hot topic last year at ISMTE in the open forum, with publishers sharing status reports. If you are a CSE member, you might try the listserv there for similar profile publishers or you could try the C3 for SSP, perhaps directed at the Marketing Committee. I'm hearing a mix. Journal editors still often like X, but publisher or brand level folks trying to think at a higher level. Heather
I’ve stayed on Twitter as well to lurk bc so many of the open science accounts in the global south are still active there. I didn’t know about the “saving your handle thing” so thank you for that education! Glad I’m leaving it for now.
Segueing from Lorcan's final comment on signatures - I like to use a linktr.ee for my signatures and main bio links. they are very tidy for collecting lots of links/roles/projects etc together, especially if you don't have your own website.
this one is mine > https://linktr.ee/dnjournals
Duncan
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 4:55 PM Lorcan Dempsey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Each year, OASPA compiles a dataset of open access publishing output and openly shares the data. We are delighted to once again have worked with Delta Think who have helped us by taking on the analysis, structuring and presentation of the data we most recently collected.
This blog post <https://www.oaspa.org/news/fully-oa-journals-output-shrank-in-2023-but-hybrid-oa-made-up-the-lost-ground/> published today highlights our findings which showed that, although total OA output continued to grow, fully OA journals output shrank for the first time and hybrid journals made up the lost ground.
I'm commenting on this article: https://www.oaspa.org/news/fully-oa-journals-output-shrank-in-2023-but-hybrid-oa-made-up-the-lost-ground/ It occurred to me that one reason for this drop could be consortia like my own (CRKN) signing "transformative" (read-and-publish) big deals in that time period that provide waivers for OA in hybrid journals but do not include gold OA journals.
Melissa Belvadi Collections Librarian University of Prince Edward Island [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 902-566-0581 ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4433-0189 my public calendar<https:[log in to unmask]> Make an appointment<https://mbelvadi.youcanbook.me/> via YouCanBookMe My pronouns are ಅವರು/ಅವರನ್ನು My emails are sent during the hours that I work and I understand that you will respond during the hours that you work.
Melissa, you nailed it. I think this is a big reason. Many of the EU funders/consortia say they’re going to stop funding hybrid journals, but the TAs really dominate and they absolutely effect author decisions. Authors want the path of least resistance and anywhere that meets their mandates, at no cost, while reaching their communities/enabling their careers is “good enough.”
I wonder if contributing factors to the overall fully OA journal article decline are is the Hindawi fallout and eLife changes?
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe [log in to unmask]
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025, 8:49 AM Melissa Belvadi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm commenting on this article: > https://www.oaspa.org/news/fully-oa-journals-output-shrank-in-2023-but-hybrid-oa-made-up-the-lost-ground/ > It occurred to me that one reason for this drop could be consortia like my > own (CRKN) signing "transformative" (read-and-publish) big deals in that > time period that provide waivers for OA in hybrid journals but do not > include gold OA journals. > > > Melissa Belvadi > Collections Librarian > University of
Anecdotally we have many examples of R&P deals causing an effect on researcher's publishing choices. We have talked about this in Australia and I was at Berlin 17 when it came up this week and multiple people from multiple countries also described examples of this.
My question is whether anyone has systematically looked at this question of whether the R&P deals are affecting publishing choices. My sense is this is quite an important question.
A reminder of Thursday's virtual seminar (*Thursday 6 February 2025, 3pm GMT/UTC)* which will focus on quality in open access (OA) publishing.
- What do researchers expect from OA journals and what do OA journals offer? - Are there any regional differences in the perception of publication quality?
During this webinar we will hear from researchers and journal editors from East and North Africa, a librarian from Southeast Europe and digital publishing and dissemination service from North America. Efforts to establish sets of criteria that OA publishers need to meet in order to ensure equitable, transparent, and high-quality OA publishing
My colleagues and I pondered the same questions about X vs BlueSky a lot and made the switch back in October. We did leave our account there but locked it so no one can hijack the name and put a simple pinned post saying "we're moving, please find us on Bluesky at blah blah".
Thanks for this Mel. It’s helpful to have this history / perspective!
Regards,
Scott Delman ACM Director of Publications
Assoc. Computing Machinery 1601 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, New York 10019 Office: +1-212-626-0659<tel:+12126260659> Mobile: +1-212-729-7515<tel:+12127297515> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottdelman ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-0696
ACM’s Latest Whitepaper: Feedback from early adopters of ACM’s Open Access Model<https://libraries.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/libraries/acmo/acm_open2023_v06_10-pagedigital.pdf>
ACM Reaffirms Its Commitment to Transition to 100% Open Access Publication by 2026<https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess#h-acm-reiterates-its-intention-to-transition-to-100%25-open-access-publication-by-2026>
That’s correct. The problem, of course, is that when the library says “well, we will do without it for a year or two,” it’s not the library that experiences the consequences of doing so – the library itself is not the end user of the content it decides to purchase or to decline. The consequences of the “we’ll do without it” decision are borne by the members of the campus community the library serves. That’s why we have to consider very carefully the implications of using such decisions as a “vote” either for or against particular modes of publishing or
Hi, I just want to jump in to represent the smaller academic libraries. We tend to have incredibly idiosyncratic usage of individual journals beyond the usual top ones. This is often described as the "long tail" effect more accurately than the "80-20 rule".
For us, the Big Deal journal packages have been a godsend, because it allows us to have incredibly cheap access to a huge swath of journals that we could never afford but that collectively can account for something like 50% of our usage of the entire collection from that publisher. We have many Big Deals (including what
Universities support or not of a society publisher’s journals is not alone the threat to society/NFP survival. The OA at all cost movement is what is causing the biggest threat. See my prior posts on here regarding a list of costs that have to be covered in order to survive.
Bob Henkel Senior Director of Publications American Society of Nephrology 1401 H Street NW #900 Washington, DC 20005 p. 202-557-8360 http://www.asnjournals.org/
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Carden Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 3:47 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] OPENCAFE-L Digest - 29 Jan 2025 - Special issue (#2025-14)
Yes, but...
When dealing with a monopoly supplier (as you describe, Rick) pretty much the ONLY leverage you have as a buyer, is to say "well, we will do without for a year or two". If libraries had done this about 20 years ago, publishers