"The Societal Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review"


Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society’s problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240286

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers Persists in Exclusive Database"


Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the ‘oligopoly’ of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions’ and OpenAlex’ inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17893

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Research Data Alliance: Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives


Open Science contributes to the collective building of scientific knowledge and societal progress. However, academic research currently fails to recognise and reward efforts to share research outputs. Yet it is crucial that such activities be valued, as they require considerable time, energy, and expertise to make scientific outputs usable by others, as stated by the FAIR principles. To address this challenge, several bottom-up and top-down initiatives have emerged to explore ways to assess and credit Open Science activities (e.g., Research Data Alliance, RDA) and to promote the assessment of a broad spectrum of research outputs, including datasets and software (e.g., Coalition for Advancement of Research Assessment, CoARA). As part of the RDA-SHARC (SHAring Rewards and Credit) interest group, we have developed a set of recommendations to help implement various rewarding schemes at different levels. The recommendations target a broad range of stakeholders. For instance, institutions are encouraged to provide digital services and infrastructure, organise training and cover expenses associated with making data available for the community. The funders should establish policies requiring open access to data produced by funded research and provide corresponding support. The publishers should favour open peer-review models and open access to articles, data and software. Government policymakers should set up a comprehensive Open Science strategy, as recommended by UNESCO and followed by a growing number of countries. The present work details different measures that are proposed to the stakeholders. The need to include sharing activities in research evaluation schemes as an overarching mechanism to promote Open Science practices is specifically emphasised.

https://tinyurl.com/4rhk44mn

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Effects of Research Paper Promotion via ArXiv and X"


In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, it is important to understand the drivers of high-impact research, to equip scientists with actionable strategies to enhance the reach of their work, and to understand trends in the use of modern scientific publishing tools to inform their further development. Here, we study trends in the use of early preprint publications and revisions on ArXiv and the use of X (formerly Twitter) for promotion of such papers in computer science and physics. We find that early submissions to ArXiv and promotion on X have soared in recent years. Estimating the effect that the use of each of these modern affordances has on the number of citations of scientific publications, we find that peer-reviewed conference papers in computer science that are submitted early to ArXiv gain on average 21.1±17.4 more citations, revised on ArXiv gain 18.4±17.6 more citations, and promoted on X gain 44.4±8 more citations in the first 5 years from an initial publication. In contrast, journal articles in physics experience comparatively lower boosts in citation counts, with increases of 3.9±1.1, 4.3±0.9, and 6.9±3.5 citations respectively for the same interventions. Our results show that promoting one’s work on ArXiv or X has a large impact on the number of citations, as well as the number of influential citations computed by Semantic Scholar, and thereby on the career of researchers. These effects are present also for publications in physics, but they are relatively smaller. The larger relative effect sizes, effects of promotion accumulating over time, and elevated unpredictability of the number of citations in computer science than in physics suggest a greater role of world-of-mouth spreading in computer science than in physics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11116v2

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"An Empirical Examination of Data Reuser Trust in a Digital Repository"


Most studies of trusted digital repositories have focused on the internal factors delineated in the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model—organizational structure, technical infrastructure, and policies, procedures, and processes. Typically, these factors are used during an audit and certification process to demonstrate a repository can be trusted. The factors influencing a repository’s designated community of users to trust it remains largely unexplored. This article proposes and tests a model of trust in a data repository and the influence trust has on users’ intention to continue using it. Based on analysis of 245 surveys from quantitative social scientists who published research based on the holdings of one data repository, findings show three factors are positively related to data reuser trust—integrity, identification, and structural assurance. In turn, trust and performance expectancy are positively related to data reusers’ intentions to return to the repository for more data. As one of the first studies of its kind, it shows the conceptualization of trusted digital repositories needs to go beyond high-level definitions and simple application of the OAIS standard. Trust needs to encompass the complex trust relationship between designated communities of users that the repositories are being built to serve.

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24933

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Updated Report to the U.S. Congress on Financing Mechanisms for Open Access Publishing of Federally Funded Research


This current report elaborates on:

  • Implementation to advance federal public access policies. Updated agency public access policies will go into effect by December 31, 2025, in accordance with the 2022 Memorandum.
  • Trends in scholarly publishing since the release of the November 2023 Report, including further discussion of business models to enable public access to federally funded research, as well as domestic and global developments in advancing public access to research results.
  • An expansion of the analysis of estimated article processing charges paid to publish federally funded research from 2016 to 2022, with further discussion of limitations associated with calculating these charges.
  • Efforts to advance research integrity, including through implementation of federal public access policies and open science practices.
  • Continuing trends in peer review as they relate to research integrity, equity, and sustainability.

https://tinyurl.com/yryw9ejv

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Switzerland and Elsevier Sign R&P Agreement 2024-2028 "


On 10 June 2024, swissuniversities signed a comprehensive Open Access agreement with Elsevier on behalf of the Swiss universities and other mandating organisations. The agreement with Elsevier guarantees to members of Swiss universities and participating organisations a full reading access to Elsevier’s entire journal portfolio. The agreement also allows to publish, without restriction, in over 2,500 Elsevier Open Access journals, including the Cell Press and The Lancet journal series, at no additional cost. Furthermore, all institutions now receive permanent access to journal content that was published during the years of their participation in the agreement ("Post Cancellation Access"). . . .

The agreement now explicitly regulates the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in connection with licensed content. It guarantees members of Swiss universities and mandating organisations the greatest possible liberty in the use of AI tools for the analysis of Elsevier publications for research, teaching and innovation purposes. The agreement allows the analysis of open-access publications (under licences such as “CC BY”) with any AI tool or their use for the development of AI applications. The agreement also authorises any use of AI tools as long as it is guaranteed that the licensed content is not used for the further development of the model. The use of learning AI tools or the development of the university’s own AI applications is permissible insofar as these are hosted locally by the institution or operated by third parties exclusively for the institution.

https://tinyurl.com/2tkhekwv

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Towards an All-Ireland Diamond Open Access Publishing Platform: The PublishOA.ie Project—2022–2024quot;


The Government of Ireland has set a target of achieving 100% open access to publicly funded scholarly publications by 2030. As a key element of achieving this objective, the PublishOA.ie project was established to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an all-island [Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland] digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access journals and monographs designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers, and research funding organisations in Irish scholarly publishing. It should be noted in this context that there is substantial "north–south " cooperation between public bodies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, some of whom operate on what is commonly termed an "all-island " basis. The project commenced in November 2022 and will run until November 2024, with the submission of a Final Report. This article originated as an interim project report presented in September 2023 at the PubMet2023 conference in Zadar, Croatia. The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will encompass scholarly publishing across the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the European Union (EU): the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is co-led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland’s leading body of experts in the Sciences and Humanities, and the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute of Trinity College Dublin. There are sixteen partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. The feasibility study will be based on a review of the publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices, and funding models for Diamond OA, benchmarking against other national platforms, and specifications of the requirements, leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors. PublishOA.ie aims to deliver an evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. This paper provides an interim report on progress on the project as of September 2023, ten months after its commencement.

https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12030019

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Achieving Global Open Access The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness


Often assumed to be a self-evident good, OA has been subject to growing criticism for perpetuating global inequities and epistemic injustices. It has been seen as imposing exploitative business and publishing models and as exacerbating exclusionary research evaluation cultures and practices. [Stephen] Pinfield engages with these issues, recognising that the global OA debate is now not just about publishing business models and academic reward structures, but also about what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge, how we know, and who gets to say. The book argues that, for OA to deliver its potential, it first needs to be associated with ‘epistemic openness’, a wider and more inclusive understanding of what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge. It also needs to be accompanied by ‘participatory openness’, enabling contributions to knowledge from more diverse communities. Interacting with relevant theory and current practice, the book discusses the challenges in implementing these different forms of openness, the relationships between them, and their limits.

https://tinyurl.com/msn9k945

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Copyright, the Right to Research and Open Science: About Time to Connect the Dots"


In this contribution, we highlight the necessity to design a research-enabling copyright framework that provides researchers with access to the necessary knowledge, information and data, and to tackle the challenges of the future.

For that purpose, we examine copyright through the prism of the Open Science movement and in the light of a "right to research " and connect both to a larger, constitutional argument which suggests that enabling research through copyright law is a pressing constitutional imperative. Based on this theoretical framework, we suggest substantive and institutional modifications to copyright law, through legislative interventions and judicial interpretations that would remove significant barriers towards open science as envisaged by European and international institutions. The conflict between the proprietary interests of rightholders and the societal interests in unhindered, purpose-bound research should, in case of doubt, be decided in favour of research and open science as crucial enablers for innovation and progress. For authors, remuneration is most of the time not the primary motivation or incentive to produce research; they can often rely on other revenues (e.g. through institutional employment) and other interest prevail, such as the broadest possible dissemination of their works that will secure them reputation and career advancement. The incentive mechanisms therefore are entirely different in the research field compared to other creative sectors, an aspect that must be taken into account when designing a research-friendly copyright system.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4857765

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Analyzing Research Data Repositories (RDR) from BRICS Nations: A Comprehensive Study"


As of March 2, 2024, re3data.org indexes a total of 3,192 Research Data Repositories (RDRs) worldwide, with BRICS nations contributing 195. China leads among BRICS nations, followed by India, Russia, and Brazil. . . . "House, tailor-made " software is widely used for creating RDRs, followed by Dataverse and DSpace. . . . Most repositories are disciplinary, followed by institutional ones. Most repositories specify data upload types, with "restricted " being the most common, followed by closed types. Open access is predominant in data access, followed by restricted access and embargo periods, while a small number restrict access entirely.

https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-04-2024-0040

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Diamond OA 2024: The World of No-Fee Open Access Journals

The overall picture for 2023, the last year covered here:

  • 422,941 articles in 2023—down a bit from 2022.
  • 12,991 journals, of which 11,847 had 2023 articles when checked.
  • Diamond OA is about half humanities & social sciences (49%of articles and 63% of journals).
  • Diamond OA is almost entirely (97%) either published or funded by universities and societies and is mostly in small and medium-sized journals.

"Evaluating Open Access Advantages for Citations and Altmetrics (2011-21): A Dynamic and Evolving Relationship"


Differences between the impacts of Open Access (OA) and non-OA research have been observed over a wide range of citation and altmetric indicators, usually finding an Open Access Advantage (OAA) within specific fields. However, science-wide analyses covering multiple years, indicators and disciplines are lacking. Using citation counts and six altmetrics for 38.7M articles published 2011-21, we compare OA and non-OA papers. The results show that there is no universal OAA across all disciplines or impact indicators: the OAA for citations tends to be lower for more recent papers, whereas the OAAs for news, blogs and Twitter are consistent across years and unrelated to volume of OA publications, whereas the OAAs for Wikipedia, patents and policy citations are more complex. These results support different hypotheses for different subjects and indicators. The evidence is consistent with OA accelerating research impact in the Medical & Health Sciences, Life Sciences and the Humanities; that increased visibility or discoverability is a factor in promoting the translation of research into socio-economic impact; and that OA is a factor in growing online engagement with research in some disciplines. . . .

Furthermore, the advantages of OA are not evenly distributed: while there is evidence that some fields (Medical & Health Science, Life Sciences, Humanities) are being strengthened by OA adoption, there is the possibility that others (Social Sciences) are being weakened. Additionally, it is notable that while some fields appear to have their visibility and socio-economic impact boosted by their OA status, others (Humanities, Social Sciences) are not similarly benefited.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10535

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

D5.2 National Overviews on Sustaining Institutional Publishing in Europe


This report shows how national contexts differ and create unique conditions for Diamond OA publishing in each country. Diamond OA particularly flourishes in countries with strong community leadership and public funding. In some countries, national journal publishing is financially supported through public financing to maintain a prosperous and locally relevant scholarly communication environment in national languages, often realised through Diamond OA publishing. In countries where institutional publishers are coordinated at the national level, more public funding may be available for Diamond OA. However, this is not necessarily a condition for robust national infrastructures to support Diamond publishing. Creating conditions for Diamond OA publishing to flourish in a national context requires recognising the following factors:

The role of Diamond OA in the scholarly publishing landscape differs across countries

Large mature Diamond publishing platforms have been developed through collaboration and are mature in France and Croatia. Most publishers operate on the basis of not-for-profit models in Croatia, and Diamond OA journals predominate. Learned societies are also a significant driving force among Diamond OA publishers in Poland, and especially in Finland, where a national umbrella organisation coordinates learned societies. The scholarly publishing landscape in the UK has become notably diverse over the last decade as new university presses and scholar-led publishers that offer Diamond publishing or related services have emerged on the scene. However, Gold and Hybrid remain the dominant OA models nationally. Academic institutions and their libraries are the most prevalent Diamond journal publishers here. Some well-established large commercial publisher communities in certain countries, such as Germany, have yet to transition from Gold or hybrid to Diamond OA publishing. Many countries have limited quantitative data on the number of Diamond journals, which speaks to the need for better discovery and indexing services for these types of publications internationally.

Diamond OA is by and for the national community

Collaboration between higher education institutions and research funders is vital for OA publishing industries to flourish and a condition for Diamond OA. The level at which institutional publishers are coordinated within a country varies between national contexts. Bottom-up initiatives promote and enable Diamond OA in several national contexts. Croatia is exemplary in demonstrating how national OA publishing in small countries can almost exclusively follow the Diamond model when serving the national community. In Norway, a consortium for journal funding organises the funding through a central model. In Finland, a robust national umbrella organisation for learned societies is a crucial driving force for delivering technical services, distributing public financing, and speaking to policymakers on behalf of institutional publishers. In contrast, even though the quality of journals is evaluated by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland, scholarly publishing in this country is notably decentralised.

Diamond OA must be incentivised

Researchers in Norway and the Netherlands are incentivised to publish OA via the national research assessment systems, while in Finland, OA is incentivised through the funding model of public higher education institutions. Strategic changes to research evaluation in the Netherlands support the national transition to 100% open science, especially by rewarding researchers who have an open science track record. Spain is one of several countries where the primary research funding bodies require that publications from publicly-funded research and the data necessary to validate them be deposited in open access repositories. However, in Italy, the relatively small presence and limited monitoring of Diamond OA publishing reflects the fact that researchers are not incentivised to publish OA. Comparing the state of institutional publishing in different European countries reveals a connection between research evaluation practices and Diamond OA publishing.

Public funding is necessary for IPSPs and infrastructures that enable Diamond

Across Europe, more institutional funding needs to be directed towards Diamond. Public research funding in Norway requires that all nationally funded journals comply with the Diamond OA business model. This form of organised national support for Diamond OA differs from most other countries. In Poland, institutional publishers are primarily institutionally funded, while government funds are available to those striving to increase their impact or quality rather than those publishing OA. Some universities/libraries fund Diamond OA publishing independently of national funding bodies. Community-led and publicly-funded infrastructures enable the prevalence of Diamond OA publishing in Croatia. A very high level of collaboration in France has created a system of national infrastructures for OA, but these infrastructures are still underfunded. Even as this sector grows, as in the UK, thanks to institutional and library support, dedicated public funding is still needed to extend the reach of Diamond publishers and service providers.

National strategies for open science can, but do not always, promote Diamond publishing

Some countries have developed effective strategies to achieve their open science goals via robust, centralised mandates. In the UK, despite the absence of national funding to support Diamond OA journals or publishing platforms (although a funding programme for Diamond OA books exists), government and research funders have had a pivotal role in driving the shift towards OA since 2003. Norway has a long-term plan for research and higher education that includes OA promotion and, specifically, a transition to Diamond OA publishing for journals. This stands apart from the national plans of other countries like Spain, where Diamond is not yet prioritised over other routes to OA publication.

https://zenodo.org/records/11383941

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Understanding the Value of Curation: A Survey of Us Data Repository Curation Practices and Perceptions"


Data curators play an important role in assessing data quality and take actions that may ultimately lead to better, more valuable data products. This study explores the curation practices of data curators working within US-based data repositories. We performed a survey in January 2021 to benchmark the levels of curation performed by repositories and assess the perceived value and impact of curation on the data sharing process. Our analysis included 95 responses from 59 unique data repositories. Respondents primarily were professionals working within repositories and examined curation performed within a repository setting. A majority 72.6% of respondents reported that "data-level" curation was performed by their repository and around half reported their repository took steps to ensure interoperability and reproducibility of their repository’s datasets. Curation actions most frequently reported include checking for duplicate files, reviewing documentation, reviewing metadata, minting persistent identifiers, and checking for corrupt/broken files. The most "value-add" curation action across generalist, institutional, and disciplinary repository respondents was related to reviewing and enhancing documentation. Respondents reported high perceived impact of curation by their repositories on specific data sharing outcomes including usability, findability, understandability, and accessibility of deposited datasets; respondents associated with disciplinary repositories tended to perceive higher impact on most outcomes. Most survey participants strongly agreed that data curation by the repository adds value to the data sharing process and that it outweighs the effort and cost. We found some differences between institutional and disciplinary repositories, both in the reported frequency of specific curation actions as well as the perceived impact of data curation. Interestingly, we also found variation in the perceptions of those working within the same repository regarding the level and frequency of curation actions performed, which exemplifies the complexity of a repository curation work. Our results suggest data curation may be better understood in terms of specific curation actions and outcomes than broadly defined curation levels and that more research is needed to understand the resource implications of performing these activities. We share these results to provide a more nuanced view of curation, and how curation impacts the broader data lifecycle and data sharing behaviors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301171

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"MDPI Sets a New Benchmark for Publishing Excellence"


MDPI, the leading open access (OA) publisher, proudly announces the release of its 2023 Annual Report, detailing remarkable achievements and reaffirming its leadership in advancing OA publishing. In 2023, MDPI received 655,065 submissions, of which 285,244 articles were published. The company now commands a 17% market share in gold open access articles, with a median publication time of six weeks.

https://tinyurl.com/2zcc74mj

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Accelerated Acceptance Time for Preprint Submissions: A Comparative Analysis Based on Pubmed"


This study compared the differences in acceptance time between 100,077 preprint papers from the platforms arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, and 1,314,973 non-preprint papers submitted to the same journal within the same year and month. . . . The findings demonstrate that manuscripts released as preprints before journal submission experience significantly shorter acceptance time compared to those without preprints. However, if preprints are posted after submitting to a journal, they do not confer an advantage in terms of acceptance time.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05056-6

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"NGLP [Next Generation Library Publishing] Awarded IMLS Funding to Move ‘From Pilot to Production’"


The Educopia Institute, in partnership with Open Weave Consulting, Inc., Cast Iron Coding, California Digital Library, Stratos, and Janeway, has been awarded $249,999 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to expand digital infrastructure options for library publishing programs that are open source, community-led, and grounded in academic values.

The project, to be implemented with the University of Iowa Libraries, will advance existing Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) infrastructure and service models by delivering a production-ready version of its modular, open-source display layer, Meru, that rivals proprietary publishing solutions; migrating a pilot library publisher into the NGLP ecosystem; and producing a suite of replicable tools, resources, and workflows that will enable other library publishers to follow suit. The University of Iowa Libraries will collaborate with the NGLP team to build out a production-ready instance of Meru that showcases its full publication portfolio.

https://tinyurl.com/6ajbmux8

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Paywall: "Journal Requirement for Data Sharing Statements in Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study"


Despite ICMJE [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] recommendations, more than 27% of biomedical journals do not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111405

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy for Non-data librarians" (Video)


The NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy went into effect early last year. That means that the policy that so many medical data librarians have been talking about is finally in place and affecting researchers. Libraries do not need a data expert or an institutional repository to get started with supporting NIH grants with this new policy. Reference interviewing skills and a basic knowledge of the NIH DMS Plan format can be combined to walk researchers through the basics. In this session, librarians who are new to the NIH DMS Policy will learn the essentials: what is the NIH DMS policy, who is affected, and how do researchers incorporate it into an NIH grant application.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JAj5rHpFd0

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Maggot: An Ecosystem for Sharing Metadata within the Web of Fair Data"


We developed Maggot which stands for Metadata Aggregation on Data Storage, specifically designed to annotate datasets by generating metadata files to be linked into storage spaces. Maggot enables users to seamlessly generate and attach comprehensible metadata to datasets within a collaborative environment. This approach seamlessly integrates into a data management plan, effectively tackling challenges related to data organisation, documentation, storage, and frictionless FAIR metadata sharing within the collaborative group and beyond. Furthermore, for enabling metadata crosswalk, metadata generated with Maggot can be converted for a specific data repository or configured to be exported into a suitable format for data harvesting by third-party applications.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.24.595703

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Paywall: "K-Means Clustering of Dermatology Journals: Comparing the Distribution of ‘Free-to-Publish’ and ‘Pay-to-Publish’ Models"


The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03105-x

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

Classifying Open Access Business Models


The proliferation of Open Access (OA) business models has been rapid, presenting challenges for stakeholders in academic publishing in communicating and working effectively with one another. This article offers a comprehensive classification system for OA models, categorizing them into five core types (transactional, bundled, cooperative, sponsored, and alternative), each with distinct characteristics and implications for funding, equity, and implementation. This classification aims to clarify the myriad labels and terminologies used, addressing the inconsistencies and gaps in previous attempts to categorize OA models. By providing descriptions and analyses of different business models, the article seeks to enhance transparency around and understanding of OA options, ultimately supporting informed decision-making in the evolving landscape of academic publishing.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11242106

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Opening Science to Society: How to Progress Societal Engagement into (Open) Science Policies"


A broad understanding of the aims and objectives of the international open science movement was recently adopted with the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, expanding the focus of open science to include scientific knowledge, infrastructures, knowledge systems and the open engagement of societal actors. In response, recent discussions on science policy practice are shifting to the implementation of open science via national policy. While policy instruments to support some aspects of open science are well-studied, guidance on the emerging ‘social’ aspects of open science has lagged, prompting UNESCO to generate guidance. In this paper, authors of a UNESCO Open Science Toolkit guidance document on ‘Engaging societal actors in Open Science’ synthesize the scholarly underpinnings behind the guidance document’s recommendations. This work draws upon a targeted search from academic, policy, and grey literature in the fields of open science and community engagement, with a special focus on citizen science, to derive guidance on how to overcome barriers to the uptake of societal engagement approaches. The results present building blocks of what an enabling environment for the open engagement of societal actors could look like, identifying key considerations and reflecting on opportunities and challenges for progressing and evaluating sound open engagement of societal actors into regional & national (open) science policies.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231309

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"The O3 Guidelines: Open Data, Open Code, and Open Infrastructure for Sustainable Curated Scientific Resources"


Here, we introduce the Open Data, Open Code, and Open Infrastructure (O3) Guidelines for the creation and maintenance of curated resources which promote sustainability through a combination of technical workflows, social workflows, and progressive governance models. Together, these support and encourage community-facing curation (Fig. 1). In summary, (1) the technical aspect of O3 necessitates using open data, open code, and open infrastructure. Both data and code are permissively licensed and kept together under public version control. This enables anyone to directly suggest improvements and updates. Further, it recommends using hardware and software infrastructure that supports automation in response to various actions performed by contributors and maintainers. For example, this includes running quality assurance workflows in response to new contributions and the generation of exports in multiple formats in response to running a release workflow. (2) The social aspect of O3 prescribes the composition of training material, curation guidelines, contribution guidelines, and a community code of conduct that encourage and support potential community curators. It requires the use of public tools for suggestions, questions, discussion as well as social workflows for the submission and review of changes. (3) The governance aspect of O3 necessitates the division of responsibilities and authority across multiple institutions, making the resource more robust to fluctuation in funding and personnel, such as when reviewing and applying changes to the data or code. O3 prescribes liberal attribution and acknowledgment of the individuals and institutions, both internal and external to the project, who contribute on a variety of levels such as to data, code, discussion, and funding. More generally, the O3 Guidelines suggest that a minimal governance model be codified and instituted as early as possible in a project’s lifetime.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03406-w

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |