Open Access – Page 6 – DigitalKoans

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

Before FAIR training, 81.1% of students suggest scientific actions not in line with the FAIR guiding principles. However, after the training, there is a 3.75-fold increase in scientific actions that adhere to these principles. 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. It explicates safe space, participation, motivation, usefulness, and satisfaction as the five highest-rated learning factors in FAIR training.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3409769/v1

"Dissemination Effect of Data Papers on Scientific Datasets"

This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. . . . The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations.

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24843

"Repository Staff Perspectives on the Benefits Of Trustworthy Digital Repository Certification"

This paper reports on the results from a qualitative study that asks whether and how staff members from TRAC certified repositories find value in the audit and certification process. While some interviewees found certification valuable, others argued that the costs outweighed the benefits or expressed ambivalence towards certification. Findings indicate that TRAC certification offered both internal and external benefits, such as improved documentation, accountability, transparency, communication, and standards, but there were concerns about high costs, implementation problems, and lack of objective evaluation criteria.

https://tinyurl.com/bddmuwjy

"FAIR EVA: Bringing Institutional Multidisciplinary Repositories into the FAIR Picture"

The FAIR Principles are a set of good practices to improve the reproducibility and quality of data in an Open Science context. Different sets of indicators have been proposed to evaluate the FAIRness of digital objects, including datasets that are usually stored in repositories or data portals. However, indicators like those proposed by the Research Data Alliance are provided from a high-level perspective that can be interpreted and they are not always realistic to particular environments like multidisciplinary repositories. This paper describes FAIR EVA, a new tool developed within the European Open Science Cloud context that is oriented to particular data management systems like open repositories, which can be customized to a specific case in a scalable and automatic environment. It aims to be adaptive enough to work for different environments, repository software and disciplines, taking into account the flexibility of the FAIR Principles. As an example, we present DIGITAL.CSIC repository as the first target of the tool, gathering the particular needs of a multidisciplinary institution as well as its institutional repository.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02652-8

"Reclaiming (Parts of) Scholarly Communication"

Regardless of these differences, "scholar-led" and "community-driven" publishing projects are an integral part of a diverse publishing ecosystem and fulfill two main functions within academia. First, they contribute to a culture of experimental, collaborative, and community-owned approaches to disseminating knowledge. This culture facilitates, for example, the creation of new output formats that lie beyond the standardized peer-reviewed article and make the research process more transparent and participatory (Steiner, 2022b). They also take part in the ongoing publishing movement of developing and implementing more inclusive processes of quality control, paradigmatically displayed by the idea of either or both open and collaborative peer review systems (Knöchelmann, 2019). With these new forms of research assessment, it seems possible to become aware of biases while making the review process more instructive and helpful. Much of this extends to editorial work in general, with workflows digitized to meet the needs of remote work and diverse editorial teams, such as by using open-source editorial management software and collaborative editing tools. Of course, these developments are inherently connected to advancements in electronic publishing in general and are not limited to the community-driven publishing segment.

Second, community-driven publishing projects have a protective function in the sense that they enable self-determined and autonomous decision-making at a time and in an age where the "digital sovereignty" of consumers and researchers is at stake (see Pohle & Thiel, 2020). Because many such projects use open-source software and applications (see Open Journal Systems), they can control the flows of publishing (meta) data and be transparent about its usage. At the same time, many community-driven journals question the widespread and nontransparent system of assessing impact using the over-simplified interpretation of bibliometrics and instead consider other evaluation forms, such as alt metrics (Sugimoto et al., 2017). This open approach extends to the use of licensing models that are approved for the creation of "Free Cultural Works" (see Creative Commons). Acknowledging that research benefits society as a whole and must be available for reuse, we find community-driven publishing projects widely applying the most open licenses to their publications.

https://tinyurl.com/ywzcyk5n

"The Gray Zone between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Scientific Publishing"

Certain open access publishers based on the article processing charges model have found it highly profitable to operate within a gray zone that encompasses both legitimate and predatory publishing practices. In this context, maximum profits can be obtained by adequate combinations of journal acceptance rates and elevated article processing charges. Considering that the gray zone can be particularly challenging to identify and that it poses risks for authors aiming to establish academic careers, we believe it is important to provide a comprehensive description of it.

https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.23000191

"Understanding the Value of Curation: A Survey of Researcher Perspectives of Data Curation Services from Six Us Institutions"

Data curation encompasses a range of actions undertaken to ensure that research data are fit for purpose and available for discovery and reuse, and can help to improve the likelihood that data is more FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). The Data Curation Network (DCN) has taken a collaborative approach to data curation, sharing curation expertise across a network of partner institutions and data repositories, and enabling those member institutions to provide expert curation for a wide variety of data types and discipline-specific datasets. This study sought to assess the satisfaction of researchers who had received data curation services, and to learn more about what curation actions were most valued by researchers. By surveying researchers who had deposited data into one of six academic generalist data repositories between 2019–2021, this study set out to collect feedback on the value of curation from the researchers themselves. A total of 568 researchers were surveyed; 42% (238) responded. Respondents were positive in their evaluation of the importance and value of curation, indicating that the participants not only value curation services, but are largely satisfied with the services provided. An overwhelming majority 97% of researchers agreed that data curation adds value to the data sharing process, 96% agreed it was worth the effort, and 90% felt more confident sharing their data due to the curation process. We share these results to provide insights into researchers’ perceptions and experience of data curation, and to contribute evidence of the positive impact of curation on repository depositors. From the perspective of researchers we surveyed, curation is worth the effort, increases their comfort with data sharing, and makes data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293534

"Where Is All the Research Software? An Analysis of Software in UK Academic Repositories"

This research examines the prevalence of research software as independent records of output within UK academic institutional repositories (IRs). There has been a steep decline in numbers of research software submissions to the UK’s Research Excellence Framework from 2008 to 2021, but there has been no investigation into whether and how the official academic IRs have affected the low return rates. In what we believe to be the first such census of its kind, we queried the 182 online repositories of 157 UK universities. Our findings show that the prevalence of software within UK Academic IRs is incredibly low. Fewer than 28% contain software as recognised academic output. Of greater concern, we found that over 63% of repositories do not currently record software as a type of research output and that several Universities appeared to have removed software as a defined type from default settings of their repository. We also explored potential correlations, such as being a member of the Russell group, but found no correlation between these metadata and prevalence of records of software. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings with regards to the lack of recognition of software as a discrete research output in institutions, despite the opposite being mandated by funders, and we make recommendations for changes in policies and operating procedures.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1546

"Project MUSE Accelerates Move to Open Access with Publisher S2O Commitments"

Leading humanities and social sciences platform Project MUSE announces that many of our university press and related scholarly publisher partners have already committed to participate in the launch of our Subscribe to Open (S2O) program for journals in 2025. Fifty journals from more than 20 publishers are confirmed for participation to date, with more expected to join before the end of the year.

https://tinyurl.com/2h95xs2f

| Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography | Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography | Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Paywall: "FAST Headings in MODS: Michigan State University Libraries Digital Repository Case Study"

Since 2016, the [MSUL] digital repository has been using Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject headings as its primary subject vocabulary. . . The MSUL FAST use case presents some challenges that are not addressed by existing MARC-focused FAST tools. This paper will outline the MSUL digital repository team’s justification for including FAST headings in the digital repository as well as workflows for adding FAST headings to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) metadata, their maintenance, and utilization for discovery.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2023.2213708

| Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography | Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography | Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"The Impacts of Changes in Journal Data Policies: A Cross-disciplinary Survey"

This discipline-specific survey of journal DSP and SMP highlighted the increasing adoption rates and rankings of DSP over time. Furthermore, the findings suggest that DSP adoption may have a notable impact on the increase in JIF. The adoption of DSP by journals may be associated with the increased attention and credibility of the articles.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.924

| Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography | Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography | Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Measured in a Context: Making Sense of Open Access Book Data"

Open access (OA) book platforms, such as JSTOR, OAPEN Library or Google Books, have been available for over a decade. Each platform shows usage data, but this results in confusion about how well an individual book is performing overall. Even within one platform, there are considerable usage differences between subjects and languages. Some context is therefore necessary to make sense of OA books usage data. A possible solution is a new metric — the Transparent Open Access Normalized Index (TOANI) score. It is designed to provide a simple answer to the question of how well an individual open access book or chapter is performing. The transparency is based on clear rules, and by making all of the data used visible. The data is normalized, using a common scale for the complete collection of an open access book platform and, to keep the level of complexity as low as possible, the score is based on a simple metric. As a proof of the concept, the usage of over 18,000 open access books and chapters in the OAPEN Library has been analysed, to determine whether each individual title has performed as well as can be expected compared to similar titles.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.627

Octopus Publishing Platform: A Snapshot of the Academic Research Culture in 2023 and How It Might Be Improved

Our evaluation revealed a wide variety of barriers to more open sharing of research. While some are related to perceived or experienced biases based on personal characteristics such as gender or inequitable access to support, most result from a research culture that primarily assesses achievement and quality through traditional, peer-reviewed papers. This focus, and the resulting competition, encourages researchers to hide their work at least until a traditional journal paper is published. In some situations, these pressures lead to questionable research practices, such as data manipulation to achieve an "interesting" or statistically significant result more likely to appeal to a journal with higher impact metrics or perceived "impact". In general, open research practices are viewed as not beneficial, or even detrimental, to job security and career advancement. This is especially true given competing demands and the need for academics to prioritise their time on outputs that count in assessments that they are subject to.

https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8165703

$2,500 Fee: "COAR’s response to the American Chemical Society’s New Fee or Repository Deposit"

COAR strongly objects to this charge for the following reasons:

Authors own their manuscripts and should retain their rights. Authors typically hold the copyright to their research, but too often transfer those rights to publishers when publishing their manuscript. When authors retain the copyright to their manuscript, they have the right to disseminate and use their own manuscript as they choose. If authors’ rights are retained, publishers do not own an article accepted manuscript (AAM) and researchers should not be duped into paying a fee to exercise a right they already have.

This fee is in direct contravention with the ethos of open science and scholarship and equity. . .

ACS is charging $2,500 while providing no added value. There is not a fee for an extra service offered. It requires no extra work on the side of the publisher, but rather is an attempt to develop a new revenue stream, while at the same time they will be receiving funds from subscriptions and pay-to-access for this same article.

ACS is creating a false impression about compliance with funder policies. . . . A fee is only required if you want to publish in an ACS journal and sign over your rights.

See ACS’ "Open Access Pricing for Authors: The Power of Choice" for more fee details.

https://tinyurl.com/4u4dfxsk

"On the Culture of Open Access: The Sci-Hub Paradox"

Based on a large randomized sample, this study first shows that OA publications, including those in fully OA journals, receive more citations than their subscription-based counterparts. However, the OACA has slightly decreased over the seven last years. The introduction of a distinction between those accessible or not via the Sci-hub platform among subscription-based suggest that the generalization of its use cancels the positive effect of OA publishing. The results show that publications in fully OA journals are victims of the success of Sci-hub. Thus, paradoxically, although Sci-hub may seem to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, it negatively affects the OA movement as a whole, by reducing the comparative advantage of OA publications in terms of visibility for researchers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5

Delta Think Open Access Journals Report: "Market Sizing Update 2023"

2022’s OA market grew by a little over 24% from 2021. This is around two thirds of the growth we saw in 2021. . . .

Given the exceptionally high growth in 2020 and 2021, a correction in 2022 was expected. . . .

Growth in hybrid revenues was a major factor driving growth in OA, although all types of OA saw improved revenues per article, which helped to drive growth.

Currency effects contributed to reduced growth. Many publishers operate in non-USD currencies, which lost value against the US dollar in 2022. . . .

Just over 49% of all scholarly articles were published as paid-for open access in 2022, accounting for just under 20% of the total journal publishing market value.

We anticipate a 2022-2025 CAGR (average growth each year) of 13% in OA output and 13% in OA market value.

https://tinyurl.com/5n7m6n5k

"Open Science 2.0: Towards a Truly Collaborative Research Ecosystem"

This Essay reviews achievements in open science over the past few decades and outlines a vision for Open Science 2.0, a research environment where the entire scientific process from idea generation to data analysis is openly available. Where researchers seamlessly interact to build on the work of others, and where the research infrastructure and cultural norms have evolved to foster efficient and widespread collaboration. We use this term not simply to suggest a large step forward but to invoke transformational change in the capacity and purpose of a system, as was observed with the Web 2.0.

Realizing this vision requires that we challenge traditional research norms and embrace a collaborative spirit to iteratively improve our research practices and infrastructures. In this sense, we end this Essay with recommendations for how funders, institutions, publishers, regulators, and other stakeholders can foster a research environment that cultivates openness, rigor, and collaboration. We argue for concerted and persistent efforts, supported by sustained public funding mechanisms, that treat open science as a milepost toward a more effective research ecosystem. But first things first: What do we mean by "open science"?

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362

"An Open Book: Launching a Library-Based Open Access Books Hosting Service"

Edinburgh University Library launched a journal hosting service in 2009, initially to support two journals. The service has since grown into a portfolio of 19 journals and a handful of conference proceedings. The purpose of this case study is to review the 2021 launch of our book hosting service and our service rebrand to Edinburgh Diamond, looking at the reasons for launching, the timeline and challenges, and offering recommendations for those wishing to launch their own service.

https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13745

"Researchers Express Growing Enthusiasm About Open Access, New Wiley Survey Reports"

Open access is quickly becoming the preferred publishing choice among researchers, according to new research from Wiley. 75% of respondents who have published research articles in the past three years have published open access, up from 44% just two years ago.

The survey of more than 600 scholars around the globe revealed the following insights:

Growing enthusiasm for open access. In addition to the increase in authors publishing open access, 75% of respondents agree that transformative agreements (TAs) are the right solution at this time to make research findings more openly available.

At least half of researchers engage in open research practices such as open data, open peer review and self-archiving. This demonstrates that researchers are embracing all the practices that will lead to a fully open research landscape, and are not limiting their activities to open access publishing.

Researchers who are publishing open access are motivated more by the benefits than by requirements. Respondents chose "visibility and impact" (65%) and "public benefit" (54%), followed by “transparency and reuse” (33%), when asked why they engage in open access publishing, significantly more often than journal requirements (25%) and institutional requirements (22%).

Lack of funding presents the most prominent roadblock for publishing open access. The top barrier, reported by 58% of respondents, is no or limited funds available to pay fees for open access publishing. 77% of respondents said they were likely to very likely to publish open access if their APCs were paid by their funder or institution. In addition, more than half of authors who publish open access are not clear on the license requirements from their funder (51%) or institution (55%).

https://tinyurl.com/bdetnz7y

Paywall: "The New Information Retrieval Problem: Data Availability"

In this paper, we discuss a method for exploring and locating datasets made available by scientists from federally funded projects in the US. The data pathways method was tested on federal awards. Here we describe the method and the results from analyzing fifty federal awards granted by the National Science Foundation to pursue data resources and their availability in publications, data repositories, or institutional repositories. The data pathways approach contributes to the development of a practical approach on availability that captures the current ways in which data are accessible from federally funded science projects –ranging from institutional repositories, journal data deposit, PI and project web pages, and science data platforms, among other found possibilities

https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.796

"Preprint Review Services: Disrupting the Scholarly Communication Landscape?"

The most important tension that we identified relates to anonymisation of reviewers and authors. In line with the ideas of the Democracy & Transparency school, preprint review services promote more open forms of peer review in which authors and reviewers participate on a more equal basis. However, from the perspective of the Equity & Inclusion school, this raises concerns. To make peer review processes more equitable and inclusiv e, this school emphasises the importance of enabling anonymisation of reviewers and possibly also authors, which is in tension with the focus on openness and transparency of preprint review services.

https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8c6xm

"Wiley and German DEAL Consortium to Sign New 5-Year Agreement "

Wiley (NYSE: WLY) today announced its intent to enter a new five-year agreement with the DEAL Consortium, a countrywide consortium representative of more than 1,000 academic institutions in Germany, commencing January 2024. Wiley and DEAL are creating a blueprint for the next phase of open access publishing to better meet the evolving needs of the scholarly community.

Wiley and DEAL will build on the unprecedented success achieved in their first five years of partnership, which has resulted in:

Nearly 100% of eligible hybrid DEAL articles published open access across Wiley’s portfolio.

90% of Wiley’s article output from Germany published open access. Increased usage of research content in Germany by 83%, resulting in nearly 20 million full text downloads in 2022 alone.

Rapid growth in usage of German-authored content globally, especially in low-income countries.

https://tinyurl.com/3f8rvzd7

Paywall: "The Open Access Movement and its March in Africa"

While the goal of the OA movement remains good, it appears the epistemic disbalance in global knowledge creation and access has not abated. However, the promise of OA, the motivation on which it stands, its consequence and current state are reviewed in this paper with particular focus on the contribution of Africa to the global OA movement. It has been reported that the emergence of OA on the continent is albeit slow but with a mixed fortune of both progress and challenges. Notwithstanding, open access is seen as a development imperative for Africa that offers tremendous opportunities to the continent to actively contribute to global knowledge. It was reported that a number of universities and research institutions in Africa have adopted open access policies that require their researchers to publish their work in open access journals or repositories. The paper presented a number of open access initiatives and platforms that are actively being deployed to achieve OA mandate in the continent and concluded with recommendations.

https://tinyurl.com/f7zhss6m

"OER Discovery: Ensuring that OER Rise to the Top"

This paper discusses the challenges of ensuring discoverability of Open Educational Resources (OER) in the absence of clear standards for sharing them. Despite the efforts of librarians and instructors to create a wealth of OER, discoverability remains limited and often relegated to a list of links on a LibGuide. The authors address this challenge by highlighting technical and descriptive barriers to OER discoverability. The authors then describe the development of a hybrid metadata standard for OER and its deployment through the institutional repository. Although provisional, this approach ensures that OER records can be adapted to future metadata standards and exported to third-party repositories. This paper underscores the importance of developing an effective metadata standard for OER to ensure their discoverability for learners and educators.

https://doi.org/10.13001/joerhe.v2i1.7879

"Implementation of a Federated Information System by Means of Reuse of Research Data Archived in Research Data Repositories"

At universities, research data is increasingly stored in research data repositories according to a data management plan (DMP) and thus made available for further use. The challenge of reusing hundreds, thousands, or millions of data sets is to obtain an overview of the data in a short period of time and to search through all the data. The high variability of the formats used to store research data requires a new approach to data reusability that focuses on the visualisation and searchability of archived research data, which can also be combined with each other. In this article, we present a practical DMP that describes how information systems can be created on demand by reusing research data archived in research data repositories and how these systems can be merged into a federated information system. As a result, in our projects, information systems have been created in minutes or a couple of hours with few resources. The initial effort to create a federated system remains; however, this allows federated searches to be performed. Extending a federated system to include other information systems can then be accomplished by making a few configurations and manageable adjustments to the source code.

https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2023-039