D3.2 Extensible Quality Standard in Institutional Publishing (EQSIP) V2.0 for Diamond Open Access


The objective of EQSIP for Diamond Open Access is to set a common quality standard for IPs that publish scholarly journals, based on the seven core components of scholarly publishing outlined in the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access[3] (Ancion et al. 2022, 4), which were subsequently revised and modified by the DIAMAS project team. These are:

  1. Funding
  2. Legal ownership, mission and governance
  3. Open Science
  4. Editorial management, editorial quality and research integrity
  5. Technical service efficiency
  6. Visibility, communication, marketing, and impact
  7. Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB), multilingualism and gender equity

EQSIP for Diamond Open Access applies to scholarly journals. EQSIP’s underlying goal is to set a common quality standard for publishing as a public good, i.e. defined and controlled by the public through expert communities, thus guaranteeing that academic contributions in scholarly journals are also a public good.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10726732

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

"The Challenges of Open Data Sharing for Qualitative Researchers"


"Open Science" advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data.

https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053241237620

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

Open Data: From Theory to Practice: Case Studies and Commentary from Libraries, Publishers, Funders and Industry


From theory to practice is the first time in the nine-year history of The State of Open Data that a supplementary publication has expanded upon the main report’s years of survey results about open data, involving tens of thousands of researchers globally.

Each case study and commentary is told from the perspective of a research stakeholder group:

  • Funding bodies: The NIH Generalist Repository Ecosystem Initiative: meeting community needs for FAIR data sharing and discovery
  • Scholarly Publishers: Operationalize data policies through collaborative approaches – the momentum is now
  • University Libraries: One size does not fit all: an investigation into how institutional libraries are tailoring support to their researchers’ needs
  • Industry: How Open Pharma supports responsible data sharing for pharma research publications.

https://tinyurl.com/ytcxprn7

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

"Evaluating an Instructional Intervention for Research Data Management Training "


At a large research university in Canada, a research data management (RDM) specialist and two liaison librarians partnered to evaluate the effectiveness of an active learning component of their newly developed RDM training program. . . . This study relies on a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental intervention during introductory RDM workshops offered 12 times between February 2022 and January 2023. . . . Comparing the overall average scores for each participant pre- and post-instruction intervention, we find that workshop participants, in general, improved in proficiency. The results of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrate that the difference between the pre- and post-test observations is statistically significant with a high effect size.

https://tinyurl.com/2wvt5bhj

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

"OurResearch Receives $7.5M grant from Arcadia to Establish OpenAlex, a Milestone Development for Open Science"


OurResearch is proud to announce a $7.5M grant from Arcadia, to establish a sustainable and completely open index of the world’s research ecosystem. With this 5-year grant, OurResearch expands their open science ambitions to replace paywalled knowledge graphs with OpenAlex. . . .

OpenAlex indexes more than twice as many scholarly works as the leading proprietary products and the entirety of the knowledge graph and its source code are openly licensed and freely available through data snapshots, an easy to use API, and a nascent user interface. . . .

Development of OpenAlex started only two years ago and it already serves 115M API calls per month; underlies a major university ranking; is displacing proprietary products at Universities; and has established partnerships with national governments. We are excited by these early successes of OpenAlex and its promise to revolutionize scholarly communication and democratize the world’s research.

You can use OpenAlex‘s Author Profile Change Request Form, to correct certain types of errors about your publications, such as "My work has been incorrectly attributed to another author."

There is also a Submit a Request form, but it is not clear if this can be used to correct citation count or other types of errors not covered by the above form.

https://tinyurl.com/3396s27m

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

"Fair Use Rights to Conduct Text and Data Mining and Use Artificial Intelligence Tools Are Essential for UC Research and Teaching"


The UC Libraries invest more than $60 million each year licensing systemwide electronic content needed by scholars for these and other studies. (Indeed, the $60 million figure represents license agreements made at the UC systemwide and multi-campus levels. But each individual campus also licenses electronic resources, adding millions more in total expenditures.) Our libraries secure campus access to a broad range of digital resources including books, scientific journals, databases, multimedia resources, and other materials. In doing so, the UC Libraries must negotiate licensing terms that ensure scholars can make both lawful and comprehensive use of the materials the libraries have procured. Increasingly, however, publishers and vendors are presenting libraries with content license agreements that attempt to preclude, or charge additional and unsupportable fees for, fair uses like training AI tools in the course of conducting TDM. . . .

If the UC Libraries are unable to protect these fair uses, UC scholars will be at the mercy of publishers aggregating and controlling what may be done with the scholarly record. Further, UC scholars’ pursuit of knowledge will be disproportionately stymied relative to academic colleagues in other global regions, given that a large proportion of other countries preclude contractual override of research exceptions.

Indeed, in more than forty countries—including all those within the European Union (EU)—publishers are prohibited from using contracts to abrogate exceptions to copyright in non-profit scholarly and educational contexts. Article 3 of the EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market preserves the right for scholars within research organizations and cultural heritage institutions (like those researchers at UC) to conduct TDM for scientific research, and further proscribes publishers from invalidating this exception by license agreements (see Article 7). Moreover, under AI regulations recently adopted by the European Parliament, copyright owners may not opt out of having their works used in conjunction with artificial intelligence tools in TDM research—meaning copyrighted works must remain available for scientific research that is reliant on AI training, and publishers cannot override these AI training rights through contract. Publishers are thus obligated to—and do—preserve fair use-equivalent research exceptions for TDM and AI within the EU, and can do so in the United States, too. . . .

In all events, adaptable licensing language can address publishers’ concerns by reiterating that the licensed products may be used with AI tools only to the extent that doing so would not: i. create a competing or commercial product or service for use by third parties; ii. unreasonably disrupt the functionality of the subscribed products; or iii. reproduce or redistribute the subscribed products for third parties. In addition, license agreements can require commercially reasonable security measures (as also required in the EU) to extinguish the risk of content dissemination beyond permitted uses. In sum, these licensing terms can replicate the research rights that are unequivocally reserved for scholars elsewhere.

https://tinyurl.com/4fvpdz35

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

Advancing Ireland’s Open Repository Landscape: A Strategic Roadmap


This report presents an in-depth analysis and strategic roadmap for advancing the open repository landscape in Ireland. Drawing on comprehensive data from interviews, surveys, self-assessments, and both national and international initiatives, the document outlines the current status, challenges, and future prospects for open repositories in Ireland. Key findings highlight significant advancements in open access adherence. Despite these successes, persistent challenges such as metadata quality, resource limitations, and sustainability issues underscore the need for concerted effort and strategic planning.

The report proposes a forward-looking roadmap spanning from 2025 to 2030 and beyond, prioritising the enhancement of repository infrastructures, metadata quality improvement, open mandates promotion, technological advancements, capacity building, and fostering collaborative partnerships. This strategic vision aims to develop and encourage Ireland’s transition to open research, leveraging innovative practices and collaborative efforts to facilitate a more open, inclusive, and sustainable research environment. By addressing current limitations and embracing future opportunities, the roadmap sets the stage for a transformative shift in Ireland’s scholarly communication landscape, with potential significant impacts on researchers, institutions, and society at large.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10810233

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

"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

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

"The Cost and Price of Public Access to Research Data: A Synthesis"


Beginning on or before 31 December 2025, all recipients of United States federal research funding will be required to make their federally funded scholarly outputs, including scientific data, freely available via public access venues with no delays or embargos. This paper focuses on research data as one of the key scholarly output types impacted by the requirements outlined in the Memorandum on Ensuring Free, Immediate and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research issued by the US Office of Science and Technology Policy ?OSTP?, commonly called the "Nelson memo."

This paper sets out working definitions of four key terms: cost, price, reasonable, and allowable. Using these terms, we describe some of the pathways research data take to final publication, and summarize some of the extensive body of research on the costs of research data curation and sharing. We conclude that, for repositories leveraging sources of revenue other than deposit fees or other revenue streams that do not immediately scale up with increased deposits, sustainability is an important concern.

In the process, we look at cost modelling experimentation in the fields of research data management and digital preservation to consider what might be relevant from their approaches. Labour is the most significant cost for repositories and data curation, particularly in support of ingest and access, although the actual cost of data curation in repositories varies by discipline, characteristics of data, and level of curatorial services provided. If "reasonable” cost is not readily generalizable, greater clarity regarding allowable activities and more transparency in repositories" costs would aid researchers and funders in evaluating whether any deposit, membership, or other form of fees that are charged are appropriate for the services rendered. Where some or all of the effort associated with meeting public access requirements is performed by members of the research team, costs could be properly allocated to research and to publication components of grant budgets.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10729575

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"NIST Releases Version 2.0 of Research Data Framework (RDaF)"


The NIST RDaF is a resource for the entire research data community, including both organizations and individuals engaged in research data management in any discipline, community members from industry, universities, government departments and agencies, funders, and scholarly publishers. . . .

[It is:]

  • a map of the research data management ecosystem, organized by a canonical data lifecycle, into topics and subtopics;
  • a dynamic guide for research data stakeholders to understand best practices in research data management and dissemination;
  • a resource for understanding costs, benefits, and risks associated with research data management;
  • and a consensus document based on inputs and conversations amongst stakeholders in research data.

Providing perhaps the most comprehensive view of the research data ecosystem to date, the NIST RDaF comprises: 6 lifecycle stages, 50 topics, and 335 subtopics (programmatic and operational activities, concepts, and other important factors relevant to research data management with definitions), 14 overarching themes, 8 “generic” profiles (samples for common job functions or roles), and over 1,000 informational references (standards, guidelines, and policies, that assist stakeholders in addressing that subtopic).

http://tinyurl.com/fbep35xu

"Data Management in Distributed, Federated Research Infrastructures: The Case of EPOS"


Data management is a key activity when Open Data stewardship through services complying with the FAIR principles is required, as it happens in many National and European initiatives. Existing guidelines and tools facilitate the drafting of Data Management Plans by focusing on a set of common parameters or questions. In this paper we describe how data management is carried out in EPOS, the European Research Infrastructure for providing access to integrated data and services in the solid Earth domain. EPOS relies on a federated model and is committed to remain operational in the long term. In EPOS, five key dimensions were identified for the Federated Data Management, namely the management of: thematic data; e-infrastructure for data integration; community of data providers committed to data provision processes; sustainability; and policies. On the basis of the EPOS experience, which is to some extent applicable to other research infrastructures, we propose additional components that may extend the EU Horizon 2020 Data Management Guidelines template, thus comprehensively addressing the Federated Data Management in the context of distributed Research Infrastructures.

https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2024-005

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

"Librarians as Agents of Change: New Sparc Europe Strategy for Open Education 2024-2026"


We are pleased to announce a new Open Education strategy for 2024-2026, Librarians as Agents of Change. We will support Higher Education policymakers, librarians, ambassadors and facilitators of OE in Europe to implement the UNESCO OER Recommendations using a targeted and action-oriented approach. With this strategy, we aim to make the many connections between Open Science policy and Open Education ever clearer to both policymakers and academic institutions.

http://tinyurl.com/mr45cv3f

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

"Data Stewardship: Case Studies from North-American, Dutch, and Finnish Universities"


This work seeks to elaborate the picture of different data stewardship programs running in different institutional arrangements and research environments. Design/methodology/approach – Drawing from autoethnography and case study methods, this study described three distinct data stewardship programs from Purdue University (United States), Delft Technical University (Netherlands) and Aalto University (Finland). In addition, this work investigated the institutional arrangements and national research environments of the programs. The focus was on initiatives led by academic libraries or similar services. Findings – This work demonstrates that data stewardship may be understood differently within different national and institutional contexts. The data stewardship programs differed in terms of roles, organization and funding structures. Moreover, the mesh of policies and legislation, organizational structures, and national infrastructures differed.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04092

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

"Jupyter Notebooks and Institutional Repositories: A Landscape Analysis of Realities, Opportunities and Paths Forward"


Jupyter Notebooks are important outputs of modern scholarship, though the longevity of these resources within the broader scholarly record is still unclear. Communities and their creators have yet to holistically understand creation, access, sharing and preservation of computational notebooks, and such notebooks have yet to be designated a proper place among institutional repositories or other preservation environments as first class scholarly digital assets. Before this can happen, repository managers and curators need to have the appropriate tools, schemas and best practices to maximize the benefit of notebooks within their repository landscape and environments.

This paper explores the landscape of Jupyter notebooks today, and focuses on the opportunities and challenges related to bringing Jupyter Notebooks into institutional repositories. We explore the extent to which Jupyter Notebooks are currently accessioned into institutional repositories, and how metadata schemas like CodeMeta might facilitate their adoption. We also discuss characteristics of Jupyter Notebooks created by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to provide additional insight into how to assess and accession Jupyter Notebooks and related resources into an institutional repository.

https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/17751

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

"Fair Sharing of Health Data: A Systematic Review of Applicable Solutions"


Health science researchers face additional specific challenges. Firstly, ethical and legal issues are barriers regarding the sharing of IPD. Legislation, like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR [16]) in Europe or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA [17]) in the USA, prevents research data from being openly shared. IPD can only be shared publicly after the removal of all information allowing the identification of the individual participants, unless explicit consent has been obtained from the individual participants. Furthermore, the legislation has been growing stronger over the years. State laws have emerged in the USA, like the CCPA in California [18], as well as European legislation such as the Convention 108 [19] or the proposal for a reform of ePrivacy legislation [20].

Secondly, health data are diverse and heterogeneous and can be of very different types and formats, depending on the field they belong to, e.g., imaging, genomics, and mass spectrometry. Handling these data requires specific expertise and tools which can usually only be found in the specialized, dedicated communities.

The objective of this paper is to identify and evaluate technical solutions to implement systematic data sharing in an academic context, in order to help researchers making their data FAIR. We will evaluate various software programs and online platforms used in academic projects to manage and store data through a systematic literature review focusing on the implementation of the FAIR principles and the ability to support sharing of Individual Participant Data (IPD).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-023-00789-5

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

"Eleven Strategies for Making Reproducible Research and Open Science Training the Norm at Research Institutions"


Reproducible research and open science practices have the potential to accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs, and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. However, these practices are uncommon in many fields, so there is a clear need for training that helps and encourages researchers to integrate reproducible research and open science practices into their daily work. Here, we outline eleven strategies for making training in these practices the norm at research institutions. The strategies, which emerged from a virtual brainstorming event organized in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, are concentrated in three areas: (i) adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements; (ii) training; (iii) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation, and provide links to resources. We also highlight the importance of allocating resources and monitoring impact. Our goal is to encourage researchers — in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees — to think creatively about the many ways they can promote reproducible research and open science practices in their institutions.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.89736

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

"Editorial: Pay to Criticise? Rebuttal Articles in Open-Access Journals Should Be Published for Free"


A review of the publication policies of some major open-access publishers (e.g. Elsevier, https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing, last access: 14 August 2023; Wiley, https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/for-authors/publication-charges.html, last access: 14 August 2023; Springer Nature https://support.springer.com/en/support/solutions/articles/6000211135-article-processing-charges-apc-, last access: 14 August 2023) shows no explicit waivers for any type of comments, replies, or rebuttals, and fee waiving is discretionary, except for some scientists based on a specific list of less affluent countries. Some other publishers have lower fees for all types of comments. For instance, "Frontiers" journals charge USD 490 (less than half of the regular APC) to publish General Commentary articles that “provide critical comments on a previous publication at Frontiers” (https://www.frontiersin.org/about/fee-policy, last access: 14 August 2023). Overall, we could not find any mention of automatic waivers for contributions that identify fundamental flaws in published research (i.e. rebuttals) or for any other type of critical comment.

https://doi.org/10.5194/we-23-131-2023

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

Paywall: "Value of Open Research Data: A Systematic Evaluation Framework Based on Multi-Stakeholder Survey"


Stakeholders such as funders, data centers and data curators need specific and detailed evidence to support and justify the value of their existing or proposed open data policies and practices. A questionnaire-based evaluation framework was designed through systematic review and expert interviews, focusing on the scientific, economic, and societal values of open research data. . . . On average, participants (strongly) agreed that open research data has scientific (83.97%), economic (76.94%), and societal (86.89%) value, all 37 statements of the framework were supported and confirmed. This framework is one of the most comprehensive and systematic tools for measuring data value, which can offer support to diverse stakeholders, especially funders, data centers, and data curators in managing and promoting open data systems.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101269

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