Open Science – Page 4

"Guest Post — Speak Finance: Gain University Support for Open Scholarship "

Over the past ten years, Carnegie Doctoral Institutions with Very High Research Activity (R1) have received a significant portion of federal grant dollars. Although the unusual infusion of COVID research dollars will skew trends for years, on average, university revenues from all funding sources, have increased over the past ten years.. . .

During the same period of growth in university revenues, much attributed to R&D dollars, university investments in their libraries has remained around 1% of revenue. In good news, through unpredictable fluctuations in university revenues, an ARL library budget remains consistent. Unfortunately, with continuing cost increases, a flat library budget is an erosion in purchasing power. Without new investments, or substantial resource redistribution, we cannot make progress on new mandates for open data and scholarship.

https://tinyurl.com/25y6xh4d

"Impact and Development of an Open Web Index for Open Web Search"

Web search is a crucial technology for the digital economy. Dominated by a few gatekeepers focused on commercial success, however, web publishers have to optimize their content for these gatekeepers, resulting in a closed ecosystem of search engines as well as the risk of publishers sacrificing quality. To encourage an open search ecosystem and offer users genuine choice among alternative search engines, we propose the development of an Open Web Index (OWI). We outline six core principles for developing and maintaining an open index, based on open data principles, legal compliance, and collaborative technology development. The combination of an open index with what we call declarative search engines will facilitate the development of vertical search engines and innovative web data products (including, e.g., large language models), enabling a fair and open information space. This framework underpins the EU-funded project OpenWebSearch.EU, marking the first step towards realizing an Open Web Index.

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24818

"Life Scientists’ Experience with Posting Preprints during the COVID-19 Pandemic"

In the COVID-19 pandemic, it was much more critical for many life science researchers to rapidly disseminate research results—so they used preprints as upstream publication opportunities. This was rather new to the life sciences where preprint servers had only appeared as early as 2013. With a mixed-methods-study we examined this development and investigated whether preprint posting is a temporary phenomenon or the beginning of a cultural shift in publishing behavior in the life sciences. First, we conducted a survey of researchers who have posted COVID-19 related preprints. We investigated experiences with posting preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic, motivations for and concerns about posting preprints, the role of research institutions or funders, and the future of preprint publishing. Answers were grouped to compare differences between respondents’ gender, career stage, region of origin (global south or global north) and experience with posting preprints before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We further analyzed eight popular preprint repositories regarding the number of posted preprints and preprint characteristics, such as the number of authors and citations. Interestingly, survey and preprint server analysis have presented different, if not contradicting results: While the majority of surveyed researchers was willing to continue posting preprints, the numbers of preprints published, especially on servers for the life sciences, have stagnated or declined. Also, while certain preprints garnered substantial citations during the COVID-19 pandemic, this has not resulted in a significant shift in researchers’ publishing behavior, and the posting of preprints has not become a routine. We concluded that the sustainability of preprint publishing practices is more strongly influenced by disciplinary norms and practices than by external shocks as the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04982-9

Paywall: "Global Status of Dataset Repositories at a Glance: Study Based on OpenDOAR"

Developed countries like the United Kingdom and the USA are primarily involved in the development of institutional open-access repositories comprising significant components of OpenDOAR. The most extensively used software is DSpace. Most data set archives are OAI-PMH compliant but do not follow open-access rules. . . . Furthermore, the study concludes that the number of data sets kept in repositories is insufficient, although the expansion of such repositories has been consistent over the years.

https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-11-2023-0094

"The Future of Data in Research Publishing: From Nice to Have to Need to Have?"

Science policy promotes open access to research data for purposes of transparency and reuse of data in the public interest. We expect demands for open data in scholarly publishing to accelerate, at least partly in response to the opacity of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Open data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), and also trustworthy and verifiable. The current state of open data in scholarly publishing is in transition from ‘nice to have’ to ‘need to have.’ Research data are valuable, interpretable, and verifiable only in context of their origin, and with sufficient infrastructure to facilitate reuse. Making research data useful is expensive; benefits and costs are distributed unevenly. Open data also poses risks for provenance, intellectual property, misuse, and misappropriation in an era of trolls and hallucinating AI algorithms. Scholars and scholarly publishers must make evidentiary data more widely available to promote public trust in research. To make research processes more trustworthy, transparent, and verifiable, stakeholders need to make greater investments in data stewardship and knowledge infrastructures.

https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.b73aae77

"Common Metadata Framework for Research Data Repository: Necessity to Support Open Science"

The present study describes the features of a select number of RDRs and analyzes their metadata practices: Harvard Dataverse, Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, and the Open Science Framework (OSF). It further examines the total number of metadata elements, common metadata elements, required metadata elements, and item-level metadata. Results indicate that even though Harvard Dataverse has the most metadata elements, Dryad provides rich metadata concerning item level. This study suggests a common metadata framework, richer metadata elements, and more features to make the research data’s interoperability possible from one RDR to another.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2024.2329370

"Generative AI for Trustworthy, Open, and Equitable Scholarship"

We focus on the potential of GenAI to address known problems for the alignment of science practice and its underlying core values. As institutions culturally charged with the curation and preservation of the world’s knowledge and cultural heritage, libraries are deeply invested in promoting a durable, trustworthy, and sustainable scholarly knowledge commons. With public trust in academia and in research waning [reference] and in the face of recent high-profile instances of research misconduct [reference], the scholarly community must act swiftly to develop policies, frameworks, and tools for leveraging the power of GenAI in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the trustworthiness of scientific communications, the breadth of scientific impact, and the public’s trust in science, academia, and research.

https://doi.org/10.21428/e4baedd9.567bfd15

"The Fair for Research Software Principles after Two Years: An Adoption Update"

It should be noted that while the many activities listed here support increasing FAIRness of research software, most of them do not address aspects of all four of the FAIRness of research software foundational principles. . . . This reflects that the FAIR4RS Principles are aspirational and high-level, and do not contain detailed guidance on how to achieve them. This is because specific technologies and tools are always changing, while the principles are intended to be long-lasting. Consequently, additional work is needed to make it simpler for people wanting to follow the FAIR4RS Principles to know how to practically do so. The following initiatives are assisting in achieving this, with some of these initiatives specifically addressing the range of opportunities for future work identified in 2022 by the FAIR4RS Working Group, which developed the FAIR4RS Principles.

https://www.researchsoft.org/blog/2024-03/

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Ends APC Support and Requires Preprints

For over a decade, our foundation has championed transparency, access, and equity in scholarly publishing by working with publishers and journals to develop more open and accessible research publishing practices. But our quest for a truly equitable and inclusive scholarly publishing ecosystem remains incomplete. Today, we’re announcing a refreshed policy for our grantees that we hope will help foundation-supported breakthroughs reach the field in the fastest and fairest way possible.

At its core, the policy will:

End the foundation’s payment of individual article publishing fees such as APCs—paving the way for more equitable publishing models

Require grantees to share preprints of their articles—breaking free from journal constraints while prioritizing access to research and preserving grantee publishing choices

https://tinyurl.com/mtba833c

"Publicly Shared Data: A Gap Analysis of Researcher Actions and Institutional Support throughout the Data Life Cycle"

[This report] examines research data management and sharing practices at six research-intensive academic institutions: Cornell University, Duke University, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Virginia Tech, and Washington University in St. Louis. Sponsored by the US National Science Foundation (grant #2135874) and part of ARL’s Realities of Academic Data Sharing (RADS) Initiative, this report highlights where service gaps may exist between researchers’ needs and the services and support provided by institutions.

https://tinyurl.com/mtdjvecu

"Research Data Management Sustainability: Services, Infrastructure, Accountability, and Planning"

This study aims to update on the status of RDMS service offerings, staffing and funding, and presents them according to the number of years a library has offered the service. This work also investigates RDMS service fulfillment, accountability in providing support, and planning strategies within the same institution sample. Updating the RDMS status, broadening the facets addressed, and presenting the data by cohort provides detail into how services have been maintained or developed so that institutions at a similar stage can make clearer decisions about how to keep RDMS sustainable.

https://tinyurl.com/22cexhrt

"Collaboratively Seeking Better Solutions for Monitoring Open Science"

Research by PLOS and Research Consulting has found there is a growing need for Open Science Indicators (Open Science monitoring solutions) among some funders and institutions but implementation of monitoring solutions may be limited unless Open Science practices are a strategic priority for organisations. Research data sharing, and code and software sharing, are among the most important Open Science practices to monitor but organisations need information that is compatible with their own structure and nomenclature to be usable, which is not available currently. In the future Open Science Indicators need to monitor not just prevalence but also the effects or qualities of Open Science practices.

https://tinyurl.com/das6dbax

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:

Funding

Legal ownership, mission and governance

Open Science

Editorial management, editorial quality and research integrity

Technical service efficiency

Visibility, communication, marketing, and impact

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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

"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