Open Access – Page 3 – DigitalKoans

"Back to Basics: Considering Categories of Data Services Consults"

Consultations are fundamental to data librarianship, serving as a vital means of one-on-one support for researchers. However, the topics and forms of support unique to data services consults are not always carefully considered. This commentary addresses five common services offered by data librarians—dataset reference, data management support, data analysis and software support, data curation, and data management (and sharing) plan writing—and considers strategies for successful patron support within the boundaries of a consultation.

https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.931

"Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies"

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00491-3

Research Organization Registry: "Using ROR for Funder Identification"

Several widely used scholarly systems are using ROR IDs to identify and disambiguate funding organizations. In this post, we’ll give you a glimpse of how and why these systems use ROR IDs as funder identifiers. . . .

DataCite, the DOI registration agency that most data repositories use, has supported ROR identifiers in the fundingReferences element of its metadata schema since August of 2019. This early schema change encouraged data repositories to send ROR IDs to DataCite in DOI metadata. Note, too, that DataCite is now encouraging funders to register DOIs for awards, and ROR is DataCite’s recommended funder identifier in award metadata.

DataCite’s API shows that nearly one-third of DataCite DOIs with an identifier in the funding reference use ROR as the funder identifier. Out of a total of about 1.4 million DataCite DOIs with funding identifiers, over 432,000 of them include ROR IDs. . . .

Another factor that has driven early adoption of ROR for funder identification in repository systems is the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Generalist Repository Ecosystem Initiative (GREI), whose primary aim is to develop “a common set of cohesive and consistent capabilities, services, metrics, and social infrastructure across generalist repositories” so that NIH-funded researchers can more easily discover and share their research data. Seven generalist repository systems are participating: Dataverse, Dryad, Figshare, Mendeley Data, the Open Science Framework (OSF), and Vivli. All seven have agreed to implement ROR for author affiliations, and some have also taken the opportunity to implement ROR for funder identification sooner rather than later. . . .

See the full list of ROR Integrations to see more systems that are using or planning to use ROR for all kinds of purposes beyond funder identification — author affiliations, Open Access deal management, publisher identification, internal statistics, and more.

https://tinyurl.com/yva66cy4

Germany: "Achievements of the First DEAL Agreement Phase"

In a new publication, the German-wide DEAL consortium presents the key achievements of its first contract phase with the publishers Wiley and Springer Nature. The newly published infographic brochure provides a comprehensive insight into the background, objectives and results of the DEAL initiative. . . .

A particular focus is on the enormous increase in Open Access publications. Between 2019 and 2023, more than 105,000 publications from German scientific institutions were published under the DEAL agreements, 97 percent of which are Open Access. This remarkable success means that two-thirds of all research output from Germany is now freely accessible worldwide — a significant increase from the 30% before the DEAL initiative began.

https://tinyurl.com/mu99w2kz

“The First DEAL Agreements 2019-2023: Setting the Path for Open Access and Transparency“

"The State of Open Infrastructure Funding: A Recap of IOI’s Community Conversation "

In July, IOI hosted its second State of Open Infrastructure Community Conversation — this time, exploring the state of open infrastructure grant funding.

To set the stage,, IOI’s senior researcher Gail Steinhart provided an overview of the methods that were used to gather over $415M USD in grant funding data for open infrastructures (OIs) and broke down some of the key findings from the analysis. To dive further into the topic of funding data, IOI Executive Director Kaitlin Thaney facilitated a panel conversation that featured Steinhart, collaborators Cameron Neylon and Karl Huang from the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI), and John Mohr, CIO of Information Technology for theMacArthur Foundation and co-founder of the Philanthropy Data Commons. With their extensive experience in grant funding from diverse perspectives of the scholarly ecosystem, the panel shed light on the trends, impact, and limitations of grant funding for OIs. . . . .

Across the grants the team mapped for the 36 open infrastructures represented in this dataset, awards were categorized to reflect whether they provide direct support to an OI, indirect support (meaning the OI is referenced in the award title or abstract, but the funding does not directly support the OI though it may provide some indication of on OI’s broader impact), adoption support (funding that supports the implementation of an instance of an OI at a local or community scale), and grants we were unable to classify (unknown). While a significant amount (42%) of funding goes to direct support, the majority of the funding (52%) goes to indirect support.

https://tinyurl.com/ye2yfzsr

Video

Dataset

"The OpenCitations Index"

This article presents the OpenCitations Index, a collection of open citation data maintained by OpenCitations, an independent, not-for-profit infrastructure organisation for open scholarship dedicated to publishing open bibliographic and citation data using Semantic Web and Linked Open Data technologies. The collection involves citation data harvested from multiple sources. To address the possibility of different sources providing citation data for bibliographic entities represented with different identifiers, therefore potentially representing same citation, a deduplication mechanism has been implemented. This ensures that citations integrated into OpenCitations Index are accurately identified uniquely, even when different identifiers are used. This mechanism follows a specific workflow, which encompasses a preprocessing of the original source data, a management of the provided bibliographic metadata, and the generation of new citation data to be integrated into the OpenCitations Index. The process relies on another data collection: OpenCitations Meta, and on the use of a new globally persistent identifier, namely OMID (OpenCitations Meta Identifier). As of July 2024, OpenCitations Index stores over 2 billion unique citation links, harvest from Crossref, the National Institute of Heath Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), DataCite, OpenAIRE, and the Japan Link Center (JaLC). OpenCitations Index can be systematically accessed and queried through several services, including SPARQL endpoint, REST APIs, and web interfaces. Additionally, dataset dumps are available for free download and reuse (under CC0 waiver) in various formats (CSV, N-Triples, and Scholix), including provenance and change tracking information.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02321

cOAlition S: "Pricing Framework to Foster Global Equity in Scholarly Publishing"

cOAlition S is pleased to announce the release of a new pricing framework designed to foster global equity in scholarly publishing. Developed by Information Power following consultation with the funder, library/consortium, and publisher communities, the framework is introduced to enable discussion, promote greater transparency and inspire publishers and other service providers to implement more equitable pricing across different economies. To support this, the framework provides users with guiding principles, data, information, and tools. The approach is adaptable, allowing publishers to implement changes gradually and in line with their specific circumstances. It can be applied to various pricing models, including article processing charges (APCs), subscriptions, and transformative agreements.

Global differentiated pricing that fosters equity is:

Part of a broader commitment to equity, inclusion, diversity, and belonging.

Aligned ideally with a single consistent approach developed in meaningful, open, and transparent consultation with the research community.

Relative to the context of each country, including income and purchasing power.

Communicated clearly, easy to understand, and transparent to all.

Transparently based on independent, open datasets that are regularly updated and that can be accessed, validated, and reused by everyone.

Based on shared risk. Customers and publishers should share currency risks.

Key features of the framework include:

Open, Transparent Data: Utilizing World Bank International Comparison Program data, reflecting each country’s income and ability to pay.

Banding: Grouping countries into bands eases administration.

Excel-Based Tool: Allowing publishers to explore and set their own bands and differential prices using the same transparent data.

Local Currencies: Issuing invoices in local currencies where possible.

Comprehensive Appendices: Detailed guidance on data sources, downloading World Bank datasets, and changes in country indices from 2017 to 2021.

The full report on the Pricing Framework to Foster Global Equity in Scholarly Publishing is available for download at https://zenodo.org/uploads/12784905, along with the More Equitable Pricing Tool and a set of frequently asked questions.

https://tinyurl.com/2jf7z43v

"Reproducible and Attributable Materials Science Curation Practices: A Case Study"

While small labs produce much of the fundamental experimental research in Material Science and Engineering (MSE), little is known about their data management and sharing practices and the extent to which they promote trust in and transparency of the published research. In this research, a case study is conducted on a leading MSE research lab [at MIT] to characterize the limits of current data management and sharing practices concerning reproducibility and attribution. The workflows are systematically reconstructed, underpinning four research projects by combining interviews, document review, and digital forensics. Then, information graph analysis and computer-assisted retrospective auditing are applied to identify where critical research information is unavailable orat risk.

Data management and sharing practices in this leading lab protect against computer and disk failure; however, they are insufficient to ensure reproducibility or correct attribution of work,especiallywhen a group member withdraws before the project completion.Therefore, recommendations for adjustments in MSE data management and sharing practices are proposed to promote trustworthiness and transparency by adding lightweight automated file-level auditing and automated data transfer processes.

https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.940

Paywall: "What Is Research Data ‘Misuse’? And How Can It Be Prevented or Mitigated?"

In the article, we emphasize the challenge of defining misuse broadly and identify various forms that misuse can take, including methodological mistakes, unauthorized reuse, and intentional misrepresentation. We pay particular attention to underscoring the complexity of defining misuse, considering different epistemological perspectives and the evolving nature of scientific methodologies. We propose a theoretical framework grounded in the critical analysis of interdisciplinary literature on the topic of misusing research data, identifying similarities and differences in how data misuse is defined across a variety of fields, and propose a working definition of what it means to "misuse" research data. Finally, we speculate about possible curatorial interventions that data intermediaries can adopt to prevent or respond to instances of misuse.

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24944

"Training to Act FAIR: A Pre-Post Study on Teaching FAIR Guiding Principles to (Future) Researchers in Higher Education"

With a pre-post test design, the study evaluates the short-term effectiveness of FAIR training on students’ scientific suggestions and justifications in line with FAIR’s guiding principles. The study also assesses the influence of university legal frameworks on students’ inclination towards FAIR training. Before FAIR training, 81.1% of students suggested that scientific actions were not in line with the FAIR guiding principles. However, there is a 3.75-fold increase in suggestions that adhere to these principles after the training. Interestingly, the training does not significantly impact how students justify FAIR actions. The study observes a positive correlation between the presence of university legal frameworks on FAIR guiding principles and students’ inclination towards FAIR training.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09547-2

"The Promotion and Implementation of Open Science Measures among High-Performing Journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain"

This study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. . . . Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1616

"Big Ten Academic Alliance + Next Generation Library Publishing Announce the Launch of a Pilot Project"

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) is excited to announce a partnership with the Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) project. This collaboration aims to test and enhance infrastructure solutions for academy-owned scholarly publishing programs that are open source, community-led, and rooted in academic values. The pilot project will create a unified discovery layer for the diverse publishing platforms of participating libraries, presenting them as a single, shared collection of open access materials.

Through this BTAA-funded initiative, Penn State University Libraries and Indiana University Libraries will work with the NGLP team to implement the Meru display layer, enhancing infrastructure and service models specifically for the BTAA. The project will involve migrating select content from the partners’ catalogs into the NGLP ecosystem, improving interface design, and expanding the types of content displayed. The goal is to support and strengthen academy-owned scholarly publishers with scalable solutions.

https://tinyurl.com/ychk5hc2

"Estimating Global Article Processing Charges Paid to Six Publishers for Open Access Between 2019 and 20"

This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. APCs are fees charged for publishing in some fully open access journals (gold) and in subscription journals to make individual articles open access (hybrid). There is currently no way to systematically track institutional, national or global expenses for open access publishing due to a lack of transparency in APC prices, what articles they are paid for, or who pays them. We therefore curated and used an open dataset of annual APC list prices from Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley in combination with the number of open access articles from these publishers indexed by OpenAlex to estimate that, globally, a total of $8.349 billion ($8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars) were spent on APCs between 2019 and 2023. We estimate that in 2023 MDPI ($681.6 million), Elsevier ($582.8 million) and Springer Nature ($546.6) generated the most revenue with APCs. After adjusting for inflation, we also show that annual spending almost tripled from $910.3 million in 2019 to $2.538 billion in 2023, that hybrid exceed gold fees, and that the median APCs paid are higher than the median listed fees for both gold and hybrid. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APCs paid and offers much needed insight into an otherwise opaque aspect of the business of scholarly publishing. We call upon publishers to be more transparent about OA fees.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551

"On the Modification and Revocation of Open Source Licences"

Historically, open source commitments have been deemed irrevocable once materials are released under open source licenses. In this paper, the authors argue for the creation of a subset of rights that allows open source contributors to force users to (i) update to the most recent version of a model, (ii) accept new use case restrictions, or even (iii) cease using the software entirely. While this would be a departure from the traditional open source approach, the legal, reputational and moral risks related to open-sourcing AI models could justify contributors having more control over downstream uses. Recent legislative changes have also opened the door to liability of open source contributors in certain cases. The authors believe that contributors would welcome the ability to ensure that downstream users are implementing updates that address issues like bias, guardrail workarounds or adversarial attacks on their contributions. Finally, this paper addresses how this license category would interplay with RAIL licenses, and how it should be operationalized and adopted by key stakeholders such as OSS platforms and scanning tools.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13064

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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