Open Access – Page 8 – DigitalKoans

"A Decade of Progress: Insights of Open Data Practices in Biosciences at the University of Edinburgh"

Our analysis of research data sharing from 2014 to 2022 manually reviewed 193 journal articles against criteria for Openness and FAIRness, including the Completeness of data shared relative to data generated. The findings reveal an uptick in data completeness and reusability, with a clear influence of data type, and genomic data being shared more frequently than image data. Data availability statements (DAS) and preprint sharing show a strong correlation with higher Openness and FAIRness scores. Since 2016, when the FAIR guidelines were published, data Reusability increased along with the inclusion of Data Availability Statements. On the other hand, since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have found a substantial increase in preprint sharing and significant improvements in Completeness, Reusability, and Accessibility scores. This paper documents a local research institute’s journey towards Open Data, addressing the changes and advocating for best practices to nurture this progression.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.18.580901

"Choice of Open Access in Elsevier Hybrid Journals"

Open access articles in hybrid journals have recently increased despite high article processing charges. This study investigated the impacts of grants and transformative agreements on authors’ choice of open and non-open access articles by comparing two article types. The samples were hybrid journals launched independently by Elsevier. The results revealed that the authors who received more grants in countries with transformative agreements were more likely to choose open access articles. By contrast, authors in developing countries were likely to publish non-open access articles. These findings imply that authors’ choices depend on the funding systems and open access policies in individual countries. Consequently, open access may become a barrier to the dissemination of work for researchers who have financial difficulty choosing open access, although it enables everyone to access articles free of charge.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-024-09978-0

"eLife’s New Model: One Year On"

On January 31 2023, we launched our new model for publishing, combining the speed and transparency of preprints with the expert scrutiny and evaluation of peer review. We committed to publish everything that we reviewed. We would publish preprints together with public reviews and assessments. By doing so we would reshape the purpose of a journal. . . .

More than 6,200 teams of researchers have submitted their research (fig.1), choosing our journal and publishing model. Our month-on-month submissions have been stable since launch, but this January marks the highest number so far with 615.

At present, 27.7% of submissions (fig. 2) to our new model are sent for review. This is compared to 31.4% of submissions sent for review in our legacy model (from February 1, 2022–January 31, 2023). . . .

Reviewed Preprints help researchers share their peer-reviewed and assessed research faster. For a Reviewed Preprint, the median time from submission to publication of the first version with reviews and eLife assessment is 91 days (fig. 3). This is over two and a half times faster than the median submission to publication time in the legacy model. . . .

By the end of January 2024 we had published 1332 Reviewed Preprints, and this figure rises to 1836 when we include revised versions. These articles have been viewed over 850,000 times by more than 320,000 readers.

https://tinyurl.com/yknkm2fn

"How Open Are Hybrid Journals Included in Transformative Agreements?"

This study presents a novel approach based on open data, which leverages metadata on over 700 agreements and nine million journal articles to estimate the extent to which transformation agreements contribute to the transition of this journal business model. The results highlight a strong growth in open access between 2018 and 2022, driven by an increasing number of institutions that had transformative agreements in place. However, the majority of research literature published in hybrid journals in this five-year period remained behind publisher paywalls. Growth in the adoption of open access in hybrid journals, in particular through transformative agreements, can be largely attributed to three large commercial publishers — Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley — but varies substantially across journals, publishers, disciplines, and country affiliations. Despite the limitations of the data, the findings indicate that the current level of implementation of transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to fully open access.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18255

"Plan S: Annual Review 2023"

Plan S is an initiative for Open Access (OA) publishing, which requires that from 2021 scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms. . . .

In this annual review, we provide an overview of our activities in 2023, along with the latest advancements in our policies. Furthermore, we delineate ongoing initiatives that will significantly influence our future steps. The review sheds light also on specific actions taken by cOAlition S funders in the realm of scholarly communication.

http://tinyurl.com/5n8nkc7y

"Does It Pay to Pay? A Comparison of the Benefits of Open-Access Publishing across Various Sub-Fields in Biology"

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013–2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

https://peerj.com/articles/16824/

"How Transformative Are Transformative Agreements? Evidence from Germany across Disciplines"

Research institutions across the globe attempt to change the academic publishing system as digitization opens up new opportunities, and subscriptions to the large journal bundles of the leading publishers put library budgets under pressure. One approach is the negotiation of so-called transformative agreements. I study the "DEAL" contracts between nearly all German research institutions and Springer Nature and Wiley. I investigate 6.1 million publications in 5,862 journals covering eight fields in the years 2016–2022 and apply a causal difference-in-differences design to identify whether the likelihood of a paper appearing in an eligible journal increases. The effect strongly depends on the discipline. While material science, chemistry, and economics’s tend to shift towards these journals, all other disciplines in my sample do not react. Suggestive evidence hints at the market position of the encompassed publishers before the "DEAL" was established: Springer Nature and Wiley appear to benefit more from the contracts in disciplines in which they possessed a higher market share ex ante. The transformative vigor of these agreements in terms of publication behavior seems to be limited. It and highlights that the developments in this intertwined market require further examination.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04955-y

"Collaborating to Support the Use and Development of Open Educational Resources: A White Rose Libraries Research Project"

Interest in open educational resources (OER) has grown recently due to many external factors, including the restrictive, unsustainable and expensive business models for teaching materials that are being used by some publishers. In February 2021, the libraries of the UK White Rose University Consortium (White Rose Libraries) initiated a research project to explore the potential of OER and to create guidance in the form of an OER toolkit that could be used across all three institutions, and more widely. The project also aimed to seek improvements in the discovery of OER in the Ex Libris Primo discovery service which is used by all three libraries. This article outlines the methodology used to ascertain the needs of the libraries’ user groups to inform the development of the toolkit. A survey of academic staff across all three institutions was conducted, followed by user experience interviews. The survey findings established that more than half of respondents knew little or nothing about OER, and over half also said that they would be likely or extremely likely to consider using or adapting OER, clearly demonstrating the need for more awareness raising and guidance. The survey interview findings were then used to develop and refine the toolkit.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.622

"Stamp—Standardized Data Management Plan for Educational Research: A Blueprint to Improve Data Management across Disciplines"

To provide more tailored, discipline-specific guidance on data management, Science Europe suggested the concept of domain data protocols. Based on this concept, the project Domain Data Protocols for Educational Research developed a first domain data protocol for educational research, titled Standardized Data Management Plan for Educational Research (Stamp). Its multi-level approach includes minimal conditions on managing data according to the FAIR Data Principles and checklists with concrete activities to reach each minimal condition; also included are auxiliary materials to support researchers in educational research in planning, implementing, and realizing different data management activities. Although we developed the Stamp for educational research, its design and flexible structure enables transferring it to other (research) domains and communities. To investigate this flexibility, we organized two workshops, discussing to what extent the Stamp can be used beyond educational research, with representatives from other social science domains as well as from research domains beyond the social sciences. In sum, there was consensus among participants of both workshops on the usability of the Stamp outside educational research, at least if the same types of data are processed and analyzed with similar methods. For other types of data, the Stamp serves as a blueprint to develop further domain data protocols, in terms of standardized data management plans, according to the specific needs of the respective domain.

https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2024-007

"Scaling up Open Access Publishing through Transformative Agreements: Results from 2019 to 2022"

The Biochemical Society’s transformative Read & Publish (R&P) agreements follow an all-inclusive and unlimited model (developed in collaboration with other society publishers) that cover all titles, both hybrid and fully open access (OA), and does not place caps on article numbers.

This case study shows that these R&P agreements have significantly boosted OA uptake in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

It also shows that the agreements are most effective in regions where there is adequate funding, high research output and a willingness from institutions to engage collectively (through consortium agreements).

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1601

"Establishing a Library as an Open Science Partner for Economic Research through Impact-Oriented Public Relations Work"

The article describes how ZBW — Leibniz Information Centre for Economics is working to strengthen its perception as a competent partner and promoter of Open Science for its target group of economic researchers. This article describes the challenges, goals and opportunities of impact-oriented communication for libraries using the example of the ZBW. The article describes the path from the challenges and goals of the concrete communication activities and the evaluation of the impact-oriented communication work.

https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.15060

"Platformisation of Science: Conceptual Foundations"

The digital platforms we are dealing with in this article are auxiliary tools that do not produce anything themselves but provide an infrastructure for service providers and users to meet. They have potentially unlimited scaling potential and have become the central places of exchange. In academia, we can also observe that research and its communication become more digital and that digital services are aiming to become platforms. In this article we explore the concept of digital platforms and their potential impact on academic research, firstly addressing the question: To what extent can digital platforms be understood as a specific type of research infrastructure? We draw from recent literature on platforms and platformisation from different streams of scholarship and relate them to the science studies concept of research infrastructures, to eventually arrive at a framework for science platforms. Secondly, we aim to assess how science platforms may affect scholarly practice. Thirdly, we aim to assess to what extent science is platformised and how this interferes with scientific understandings of quality and autonomy. At the end of this article, we argue that the potential benefits of platform infrastructure for academic pursuits cannot be ignored, but the commercialization of the infrastructure for scholarly communication is a cause for concern. Ultimately, a nuanced and well-informed perspective on the impact of platformisation on academia is necessary to ensure that the academic community can maximize the benefits of digital infrastructures while mitigating negative consequences.

http://dx.doi.org/10.53377/lq.16693

"A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing Into Open Science"

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5

"On the Challenges of Open Access Monitoring"

Monitoring systems are essential for tracking the progress in open access (OA) and particularly the goal of transitioning from paywalled to OA publications in many European countries. In this work, we express our opinion about the challenges faced by monitoring dashboards in providing a complete view of the OA status, ensuring accuracy in measuring OA production and achieving efficiency in the entire process. We analyze the characteristics of various monitoring systems from European countries, including the sources of data, formats, visualization methods, update frequencies, granularity and types of access recorded. We conclude by underlining the importance of monitoring systems in showcasing policy implementation, aiding decision-making, ensuring compliance and measuring impact in the pursuit of a more open scholarly landscape.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.641

"Identifying the Most Important Facilitators of Open Research Data Sharing and Reuse in Epidemiology: A Mixed-Methods Study"

To understand how open research data sharing and reuse can be further improved in the field of Epidemiology, this study explores the facilitating role that infrastructural and institutional arrangements play in this research discipline. It addresses two research questions: 1) What influence do infrastructural and institutional arrangements have on open research data sharing and reuse practices in the field of Epidemiology? And 2) how could infrastructural and institutional instruments used in Epidemiology potentially be useful to other research disciplines? First, based on a systematic literature review, a conceptual framework of infrastructural and institutional instruments for open research data facilitation is developed. Second, the conceptual framework is applied in interviews with Epidemiology researchers. The interviews show that two infrastructural and institutional instruments have a very high influence on open research data sharing and reuse practices in the field of Epidemiology, namely (a) access to a powerful search engine that meets open data search needs and (b) support by data stewards and data managers. Third, infrastructural and institutional instruments with a medium, high, or very high influence were discussed in a research workshop involving data stewards and research data officers from different research fields. This workshop suggests that none of the influential instruments identified in the interviews are specific to Epidemiology. Some of our findings thus seem to apply to multiple other disciplines. This study contributes to Science by identifying field-specific facilitators and challenges for open research data in Epidemiology, while at the same time revealing that none of the identified influential infrastructural and institutional instruments were specific to this field. Practically, this implies that open data infrastructure developers, policymakers, and research funding organizations may apply certain infrastructural and institutional arrangements to multiple research disciplines to facilitate and enhance open research data sharing and reuse.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297969

"Additional Experiments Required: A Scoping Review of Recent Evidence on Key Aspects of Open Peer Review"

Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what OPR is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of diverse communities, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarize research on OPR to May 2022. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: "What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to May 2022 regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of OPR (Open Identities and Open Reports)?" The review identifies, analyses and synthesizes 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported in those studies examining those issues. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude with an overview of evidence gaps and suggestions for future research. Also, we discuss implications for policy and practice, both in the scholarly communications community and the research evaluation community more broadly.Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what OPR is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of diverse communities, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarize research on OPR to May 2022. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: "What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to May 2022 regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of OPR (Open Identities and Open Reports)?" The review identifies, analyses and synthesizes 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported in those studies examining those issues. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude with an overview of evidence gaps and suggestions for future research. Also, we discuss implications for policy and practice, both in the scholarly communications community and the research evaluation community more broadly.

https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004

"From Data Creator to Data Reuser: Distance Matters"

Sharing research data is complex, labor-intensive, expensive, and requires infrastructure investments by multiple stakeholders. Open science policies focus on data release rather than on data reuse, yet reuse is also difficult, expensive, and may never occur. Investments in data management could be made more wisely by considering who might reuse data, how, why, for what purposes, and when. Data creators cannot anticipate all possible reuses or reusers; our goal is to identify factors that may aid stakeholders in deciding how to invest in research data, how to identify potential reuses and reusers, and how to improve data exchange processes. Drawing upon empirical studies of data sharing and reuse, we develop the theoretical construct of distance between data creator and data reuser, identifying six distance dimensions that influence the ability to transfer knowledge effectively: domain, methods, collaboration, curation, purposes, and time and temporality. These dimensions are primarily social in character, with associated technical aspects that can decrease — or increase — distances between creators and reusers. We identify the order of expected influence on data reuse and ways in which the six dimensions are interdependent. Our theoretical framing of the distance between data creators and prospective reusers leads to recommendations to four categories of stakeholders on how to make data sharing and reuse more effective: data creators, data reusers, data archivists, and funding agencies.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07926

"Strategies for Negotiating and Signing Transformative Agreements in the Global South: The Colombia Consortium Experience"

The article presents the methodology used by the Colombia Consortium to negotiate the first transformative agreements (TAs) in Latin America. These TAs are a strategy to manage costs associated with Article Processing Charges (APCs), facilitate the transition to Open Access (OA) and increase the visibility of Colombian publications.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2023.2287945

Inteview with Stevan Harnad: "Open and Impactful Scholarly Communication"

We posed selected questions to Stevan Harnad thirty years after his "subversive proposal" to self-archive online scholarly articles in university-hosted or disciplinary repositories to make them openly available and thus maximize research impact. A combination of factors including unfounded scepticism concerning open access, and bureaucratic access to the few institutional repositories launched by universities chiefly drove this outcome. The conclusions of the study may further inform educational efforts on scholarly communication in the digital era aimed at undergraduate students and researchers alike.

http://tinyurl.com/383u7nfe

Open Scholarship in the Humanities

The book begins with the history of digital developments and their influence on the founding of international policies toward open scholarship. The concept of making research more freely available to the broader community, in practice, will require changes across every part of the system: government agencies, funders, university administrators, publishers, libraries, researchers and IT developers. To this end, the book sheds light on the urgent need for partnership and collaboration between diverse stakeholders to address multi-level barriers to both the policy and practical implementation of open scholarship. It also highlights the specific challenges confronted by the humanities which often makes their presentation in accessible open formats more costly and complex. Finally, the authors illustrate some promising international examples and ways forward for their implementation. The book ends by asking the reader to view their role as a researcher, university administrator, or member of government or philanthropic funding body, through new lenses. It highlights how, in our digital era, the frontiers through which knowledge is being advanced and shared can reshape the landscape for academic research to have the greatest impact for society.

http://tinyurl.com/2453s6du

The European Landscape of Institutional Publishing — A Synopsis of Results from the DIAMAS Survey

The Institutional Publishing Landscape Report is built on 685 survey responses from institutional publishers and publishing service providers across the European Research Area. The findings illustrate the state of institutional publishing in Europe and show that a large portion of these organisations are operating with a diamond OA model. The report also discusses how institutional publishers are run and sustained, what activities they are involved in, and which services are outsourced. While the surveyed group is not necessarily representative of all institutional publishers and service providers in Europe, the findings broadly demonstrate the current operations of institutional publishers, their challenges, and the opportunities for supporting them in the future.

https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10551709

"Is Gold Open Access Helpful for Academic Purification? A Causal Inference Analysis Based on Retracted Articles in Biochemistry"

The results showed that compared to non-OA, Gold OA is advantageous in reducing the retraction time of flawed articles, but does not demonstrate a significant advantage in reducing citations after retraction. This indicates that Gold OA may help expedite the detection and retraction of flawed articles, ultimately promoting the practice of responsible research.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103640

"Do Disappearing Data Repositories Pose a Threat to Open Science and the Scholarly Record? "

Only little more than half of the research data repositories in the sample have detailed strategies they use to mitigate data loss. It is important to note that none of the strategies analysed offers a permanent solution; instead, infrastructure maintenance requires continuous efforts. The burden of infrastructure maintenance and data preservation is currently placed on individual repositories alone; preservation systems comparable to those for scholarly texts, such as CLOCKSS, are not widely spread and can be difficult to realise.

http://tinyurl.com/3snrhxpk

Paywall: "The Scientific Periphery and New Flows of Knowledge: The Case of Regional Preprint Servers"

It is unclear whether regional rather than global or discipline-focussed preprint platforms as an innovation in the communication of science are removing any of the barriers faced by researchers in the scientific periphery or whether they are increasing access to and visibility of science from the periphery. In response, this paper focusses on the uptake, visibility and academic impact of regional preprint publishing platforms in two peripheral regions (Africa and Latin America) to gain insights into the use and possible impact of regional preprint servers.

https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2023-0153

"DataCite Launches First Release of the Data Citation Corpus"

DataCite, in partnership with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), is delighted to announce the first release of the Data Citation Corpus. A major milestone in the Make Data Count initiative, the release makes eight million data citations openly available and usable for the first time via an interactive dashboard and public data file.

https://makedatacount.org/first-release-of-the-open-global-data-citation-corpus/