#Repost @roadcyclinguk ・・・ We’ve been in Wales this week with @madison.cycles and @genesisbikesuk checking out some interesting developments. An exclusive look at new things to come on RoadCyclingUK.com . .
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye
seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from Malaysia

seen from Argentina
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from France
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from China
#Repost @roadcyclinguk ・・・ We’ve been in Wales this week with @madison.cycles and @genesisbikesuk checking out some interesting developments. An exclusive look at new things to come on RoadCyclingUK.com . .

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
UK India working together to address anti-microbial resistance through joint research
http://www.diplomaticsquare.com/uk-india-working-together-to-address-anti-microbial-resistance-through-joint-research/
How quick can you complete the first zone on Sonic? #sonic #megadrive #sega #retrogaming #retrogamer #kapowemag #retrostation #retrocast #videogame #ukgaming #ukretro #rceurope #rcuk #like
Bianchi Specialissima Review - RCUK 100
Springer Compact Update... Some Concerns
Further to attending the JISC & CNI 2016 Conference in Oxford last week and seeing the released blog on the update of the Springer Compact Deal I have some concerns, and wonder if I am not alone! The Springer Compact Agreement is being pushed as the way forward for open access, portrayed as a great success. I am slightly concerned as to what this agreement and the predictable “success” of this will lead to when the agreement needs to be renewed, and the price cap is removed.
The Springer Compact enabled Universities to pay “a set fee for unlimited APCs based on their 2014 APC expenditure with Springer and a top up fee to cover access to all the subscription content1” Thereby combining the subscription and article processing charges costs (APCs). I would assume that Springer intend to use the same pricing model to work out the costs for institutions to renew this agreement in three years time. By which time our academics will have become accustomed to publishing with Springer for “no cost”!
Whilst the cost is absorbed by the library, as an academic, the cost for the article processing charge is zero, therefore making Springer a good choice of where to publish if there is no funding available, especially when similar journals would cost around £2000. We are continually told that academics don’t take the cost of APCs into consideration when choosing where to publish, but I would beg to differ, especially amongst our early career researchers, and those with no funding from RCUK/Wellcome Trust. If funds are not available, and the academic is keen for “gold” open access, with immediate access to their work (as is often the case in the sciences), then the cost can become a major factor in decision making.
Within my open access role, I have been contacted by a number of academics who want to know the prices of the article processing charges for various journals, and what discounts are available, and what the embargo periods are if going the “green” route prior to submitting their articles. Based on this information I am aware of a number of academics who had been looking to publish elsewhere, choosing to instead publish with Springer.
The increase that we are seeing as an Institution in relation to academics publishing with Springer, as would be expected is mirrored across the UK. “In only five months (January to May), 86% of UK institutions have already published open access articles equivalent to or in excess of their total 2014 APC spend1.” That is great for now, but when this deal needs to be renegotiated, do we not anticipate that the prices will increase substantially to take into account the increased amount of APCs covered? Jisc states: “This means that researchers from these institutions are publishing more OA articles than they did in 2014 but the cost to the institutions is capped.1”
Which is, incredibly positive… That is until the period of the cap is over and Springer renegotiates… based on number of articles published… Which to my mind is an extremely good business plan for Springer, but a dangerous prospect for future library budgets. IEEE has recently begun marketing to follow the same pathway, with emails and tweets informing us of how many articles we published with them this year, and how if we pay that same price, then all our articles will be made open access “for free” for the next year. Firstly, there is no guarantee that we would publish as many articles in the next year with IEEE. Which if we did not, would lead to a loss for us, and a gain for IEEE! Secondly, out of the 40 articles that we as an institution published with IEEE this year, no APCs came from a library budget (we don’t have an institutional account for APCs), 9 were funded by RCUK, which leaves 31 that were either published “green” or came out of departmental or other budgets. We are now being presented with a “deal” that will cost us the price of having paid for all 40 articles to have been made “gold” open access – which we would never have done!
Most, if not all of IEEE journals meet RCUK and HEFCE open access requirements via the “green” route, with no requirement to pay for an APC. It is fairly easy to predict that if such “flipped” models are accepted, then the number of articles published will increase, much as it has with Springer. I am sure that our faculty of Engineering would be delighted if all their articles in IEEE had the published version made open access immediately on publication at no cost to them, and many would be encouraged to publish there. If all major publishers follow this same pattern then I fear that we will be in much the same position as we were before, with journal subscription costs reaching a record high, and being unable to determine the true cost of an article processing charge, as it has been lumped together with the cost of the journal subscription.
On one hand the Springer Compact deal does cut down on the financial administration of APCs and speeds up the process of publication for authors. However, the claims that all articles published with Springer are “automatically compliant with funder requirements.1” is far from true. Being open access and published under a CC-BY licence whilst going a long way towards compliance, is not enough to meet funder requirements. Especially RCUK and Wellcome Trust/COAF – where acknowledgment of funders and inclusion of information about the datasets used must be included in the paper. If authors have neglected to do this, there is no checking mechanism in place.
Some Institutions say that these papers wouldn’t have previously been picked up as being non-compliant, and seem content to count these as non-compliant for RCUK purposes. However, I am unwilling to take this route, and with the work processes we have in place at our Institution, if funding were required for the APC, then they would not have been funded until they were compliant. We now carry out a check prior to approving with Springer that the author is affiliated with our organisation, and thus we are able to ensure compliance, so far, approximately 5o% of the articles that we have published with Springer have needed funder acknowledgments added to the papers submitted. It is an extra administrative burden, but one that I feel is necessary.
So, is the Springer Compact deal the best option that we have for efficient and cost effective payment of APC’s or is there a better way? What will the costs be when it’s time to renew this deal? Will compliance rates with RCUK/Wellcome Trust be affected?
1 mafalda (2016) Jisc scholarly communications. Available at: https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2016/07/06/the-springer-compact-offset-model-update-on-progress/ (Accessed: 11 July 2016).

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Springer Compact Agreement - Impact on Compliance for RCUK Funded Research
The Springer Compact Agreement started in October 2015, whereby rather than paying for an annual subscription fee and then additional article processing charges (APCs) per articles, the cost of the subscription fee (an amount considered to be equal to the cost of subscriptions and APCs from 2014) would cover all APCs that were written by academics within the Higher Education Institution (HEI) in addition to the journal access. The articles would be published under a CC-BY licence, thereby meeting the open access requirements of funders.
Whilst this certainly makes it easier for academics, from an RCUK compliance point of view, this has increased our workflow, and has caused frustration for some of our academics. At a recent workshop in relation to offsetting deals I was surprised to learn that other HEI’s represented had not added into their workflow a check as to whether the paper was funded by RCUK if there was no acknowledgment of funding in the paper, or if it was not recorded in the Springer dashboard. Other HEI’s were confirming whether the author was within their institution, and recording the paper for RCUK reporting if this information was already included. Whilst not all research articles that are published in Springer will be a result of RCUK funding, I thought that it would be worth the extra administration to add a further step to the process, checking with the author whether the research was funded. I had hoped that the answer for the most part would be no, and we would then confirm the author with Springer and the process be complete. However, what I have found is that at least 50% of the articles that we are being asked to confirm don’t have any funder acknowledgment or indication of funding in the paper, have actually been funded by RCUK, and therefore need this and information regarding the dataset/s used need to be added to the paper in order to be compliant with RCUK. This then leads to a delay in publication of the article, and we have found Springer to be slow to respond to requests to have this information added. These papers would normally have been brought to our attention far earlier in the process, as we would have had to approve payment of the APC. It is concerning that if other HEI’s research outputs follow the same pattern as our own that potentially a large number of research outputs that are funded by RCUK will not be compliant with their policies. The focus of open access has been on HEFCE’s OA policy for the next REF, however, it is important that academics do meet the requirements of their funders. By stepping up our advocacy in terms of RCUK we hope that the number of non-compliant articles reaching us via Springer decrease. This additional step does add extra work to the process, but it does ensure that as much of our research as possible is compliant with RCUK. It would be interesting to hear if other HEI’s had considered this extra step, and if doing so were receiving similar results to us.
Super GPS - Selected as one of the top 100 best products of 2016 by Road Cycling UK. #lezyne #rcuk #gps #cycling
Macro Drive 600XL and Super GPS Win RCUK Accolades
Macro Drive 600XL and Super GPS Win RCUK Accolades
Macro Drive 600XL and Super GPS Win RCUK Accolades We are just over a month into 2016 and we’ve already picked up two significant awards. Along with the three products that won the Design & Innovation Award 2016, Road Cycling UK has just announced that our Super GPS computer and Macro Drive 600XL front light have been honored as one of the industry’s top 100 hottest road cycling products of 2016.…
View On WordPress