Open Science – Page 7

Report on Standards for Best Publishing Practices and Technical Requirements in Light of the FAIR Principles

This report has provided an overview of the current state of scholarly publishing practices and technical requirements in the context of FAIR principles. The report highlights the importance of interoperability to enable discoverability, reuse, and reproducibility of research outputs. In addition to creating an initial connection between scholarly publishing practices and the technical requirements of the FAIR principles, this is (as far as we know) the first attempt to systematically collect and compare the different requirements set by the selected policies and services with each other. From the perspective of a publisher, it would be desirable for the requirements set by different actors to be aligned (so as not to be incompatible with each other), and offer some degree of progression in compliance and implementation so that it is not a matter of all or nothing. This is particularly relevant for the requirements set by DOAJ and cOAlition S, which are essential for most OA journals to fulfil. The requirements criteria set by both of these organisations include both basic and recommended levels. Based on our review, we found that they are well-aligned. If a journal fulfils the requirements of one, it will fulfil a number of requirements of the other.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8112661

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

Opening Knowledge: Retaining Rights and Open Licensing in Europe

This report investigates the current landscape of non-legislative policy practices affecting researchers and authors in the authors’ rights and licensing domain. It is an outcome of research conducted by Project Retain led by SPARC Europe, as part of the Knowledge Rights 21 programme. The report concludes with a set of recommendations for institutional policymakers, funders and legislators, and publishers. It is accompanied by the study dataset.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8084050

"Perceived Benefits of Open Data Are Improving but Scientists Still Lack Resources, Skills, and Rewards"

Addressing global scientific challenges requires the widespread sharing of consistent and trustworthy research data. Identifying the factors that influence widespread data sharing will help us understand the limitations and potential leverage points. We used two well-known theoretical frameworks, the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Technology Acceptance Model, to analyze three DataONE surveys published in 2011, 2015, and 2020. These surveys aimed to identify individual, social, and organizational influences on data-sharing behavior. In this paper, we report on the application of multiple factor analysis (MFA) on this combined, longitudinal, survey data to determine how these attitudes may have changed over time. The first two dimensions of the MFA were named willingness to share and satisfaction with resources based on the contributing questions and answers. Our results indicated that both dimensions are strongly influenced by individual factors such as perceived benefit, risk, and effort. Satisfaction with resources was significantly influenced by social and organizational factors such as the availability of training and data repositories. Researchers that improved in willingness to share are shown to be operating in domains with a high reliance on shared resources, are reliant on funding from national or federal sources, work in sectors where internal practices are mandated, and live in regions with highly effective communication networks. Significantly, satisfaction with resources was inversely correlated with willingness to share across all regions. We posit that this relationship results from researchers learning what resources they actually need only after engaging with the tools and procedures extensively.

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01831-7

Open Science Services by Research Libraries: Organisational Perspectives — A LIBER and ADBU Report

Many research libraries in Europe deliver Open Science services in the field of RDM and OA. However, it is estimated that up to half of European research libraries deliver only limited services in these domains. LIBER and ADBU conducted a study to understand the organisational structures and competences needed to create, and sustain, these services.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8060242

Defining Open Scholarly Infrastructure: A Review of Relevant Literature

This report outlines IOI’s initial attempt towards a framework for understanding open infrastructure for research and scholarship. For this report, we examined a body of literature that includes works across the fields of anthropology, scholarly communications, international development studies, science and technology studies, and infrastructure studies.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7064538

"Open(ing) Access: Top Health Publication Availability to Researchers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries"

Introduction: Improving access to information for health professionals and researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is under-prioritized. This study examines publication policies that affect authors and readers from LMICs.

Methods: We used the SHERPA RoMEO database and publicly available publishing protocols to evaluate open access (OA) policies, article processing charges (APCs), subscription costs, and availability of health literature relevant to authors and readers in LMICs. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies with percentages. Continuous variables were reported with median and interquartile range (IQR). Hypothesis testing procedures were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Wilcoxon rank sum exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results: A total of 55 journals were included; 6 (11%) were Gold OA (access to readers and large charge for authors), 2 (3.6%) were subscription (charge for readers and small/no charge for authors), 4 (7.3%) were delayed OA (reader access with no charge after embargo), and 43 (78%) were hybrid (author’s choice). There was no significant difference between median APC for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($4,850 [$3,500–$8,900] vs. $4,592 [$3,500–$5,000] vs. $3,550 [$3,200–$3,860]; p = 0.054). The median US individual subscription costs (USD/Year) were significantly different for life sciences, medical, and surgical journals ($259 [$209–$282] vs. $365 [$212–$744] vs. $455 [$365–$573]; p = 0.038), and similar for international readers. A total of seventeen journals (42%) had a subscription price that was higher for international readers than for US readers.

Conclusions: Most journals offer hybrid access services. Authors may be forced to choose between high cost with greater reach through OA and low cost with less reach publishing under the subscription model under current policies. International readers face higher costs. Such hindrances may be mitigated by a greater awareness and liberal utilization of OA policies.

https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3904

"CORE: A Global Aggregation Service for Open Access Papers"

This paper introduces CORE, a widely used scholarly service, which provides access to the world’s largest collection of open access research publications, acquired from a global network of repositories and journals. CORE was created with the goal of enabling text and data mining of scientific literature and thus supporting scientific discovery, but it is now used in a wide range of use cases within higher education, industry, not-for-profit organisations, as well as by the general public. Through the provided services, CORE powers innovative use cases, such as plagiarism detection, in market-leading third-party organisations. CORE has played a pivotal role in the global move towards universal open access by making scientific knowledge more easily and freely discoverable. In this paper, we describe CORE’s continuously growing dataset and the motivation behind its creation, present the challenges associated with systematically gathering research papers from thousands of data providers worldwide at scale, and introduce the novel solutions that were developed to overcome these challenges. The paper then provides an in-depth discussion of the services and tools built on top of the aggregated data and finally examines several use cases that have leveraged the CORE dataset and services.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02208-w

Digital Scholarship Has Released the Academic Libraries and Research Data Management Bibliography

The Academic Libraries and Research Data Management Bibliography includes over 345 selected English-language articles and books that are useful in understanding how academic libraries plan for, implement, provide, evaluate, and conduct studies about research data management (RDM) services. Most sources have been published from 2012 through 2023. It includes full abstracts for works under certain Creative Commons Licenses. It is available as a website and a website PDF with live links.

Digital Scholarship’s other bibliographies about research data curation include the Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography (over 800 works), the Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography (over 225 works), and the Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography (over 200 works).

"FAIR in Action — A Flexible Framework to Guide FAIRification"

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data more than any other scientific challenge to date. We developed a flexible, multi-level, domain-agnostic FAIRification framework, providing practical guidance to improve the FAIRness for both existing and future clinical and molecular datasets. We validated the framework in collaboration with several major public-private partnership projects, demonstrating and delivering improvements across all aspects of FAIR and across a variety of datasets and their contexts. We therefore managed to establish the reproducibility and far-reaching applicability of our approach to FAIRification tasks.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02167-2

Paywall: "Interoperability of Open Science Metadata: What About the Reality?"

This paper leads to identify complementary ways to improve dataset interoperability: (1) to adapt mapping algorithms to the issues raised by metadata schema matching; (2) to adapt metadata schemata, for instance by sharing a core vocabulary and/or reusing existing standards; (3) to combine various trends in a more complex interoperability approach that would also make available and operational the (RDA) crosswalks between schemata and that would promote good practices in metadata labeling and documentation.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33080-3_28

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

Across disciplines, researchers increasingly recognize that open science and reproducible research practices may accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. While initiatives, training programs, and funder policies encourage researchers to adopt reproducible research and open science practices, these practices are uncommon in many fields. Researchers need training to integrate these practices into their daily work. We organized a virtual brainstorming event, in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, to discuss strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Here, we outline eleven strategies, concentrated in three areas: (1) offering training, (2) adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements, and (3) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation, and provide links to resources. Our goal is to encourage members of the research community to think creatively about the many ways they can contribute and collaborate to build communities, and make reproducible research and open science training the norm. Researchers may act in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees. Institutional leadership and research administration and support staff can accelerate progress by implementing change across their institutions.

https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/kcvra

Council of the European Union: "Council Calls for Transparent, Equitable, and Open Access to Scholarly Publications"

In its conclusions, the Council calls on the Commission and the member states to support policies towards a scholarly publishing model that is not-for-profit, open access and multi-format, with no costs for authors or readers. Some Member States have introduced secondary publication rights into their national copyright legislation, enabling open access to scholarly publications which involve public funds. The Council encourages national open access policies and guidelines to make scholarly publications immediately openly accessible under open licences. The conclusions acknowledge positive developments in terms of monitoring progress, like within the framework of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), and suggest including open science monitoring in the European Research Area monitoring mechanism. The Council conclusions also encourage Member States to support the pilot programme Open Research Europe (to create a large-scale open access research publishing service), the use of open-source software and standards, to recognise and reward peer review activities in the assessment of researchers as well as to support the training of researchers on peer-review skills and on intellectual property rights.

https://bit.ly/3MS2leY

"Research Libraries Advance Open Scholarship and Community Engagement"

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has published brief profiles of the eight institutions that participated in the 2021–2022 pilot program Accelerating the Social Impact of Research (ASIR). The pilot engaged small teams from eight ARL member libraries who wanted to share strategies to accelerate the adoption and implementation of open-science principles for social-impact and community-engaged research and scholarship.

https://bit.ly/3pZKqtU

"Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective"

To further complicate matters, many qualitative researchers would posit that while secondary data are a combination of the researcher’s perceptions and observations, even primary data, such as interview transcripts, are filtered to some extent through the researcher. This is because, in qualitative research, the researcher is an instrument of both data collection and analysis . . . .

The researcher-as-instrument tradition also complicates discussions around reproducibility (i.e., the ability for another researcher to look at someone’s data and reproduce the analyses), one of the key components of rigor as it is currently discussed in the open science movement (NIH, n.d.). Quantitative researchers’ focus on reproducibility is often contrary to the tenets of qualitative research, particularly in methodologies aiming to uncover new ways of knowing, such as constructivist and grounded theory approaches. If one understands the researcher as a data collection instrument and a filter through which data is processed, strict quantitative-focused reproducibility becomes less likely—not through misconduct or error, but because ultimately, people conduct research, and people are not likely to have exactly the same perspectives. Guidelines that reinforce reproducibility without addressing this tension are not going to be useful for all researchers.

https://bit.ly/3MEbtnk

"’We Share All Data with Each Other’: Data-Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Relationships"

The analysis identifies three social forms of data-sharing in peer-to-peer relationships: (a) closed communal sharing, which is based on a feeling of belonging together; (b) closed associative sharing, in which the participants act on the basis of an agreement; and (c) open associative sharing, which is oriented to “institutional imperatives” (Merton) and to formal regulations. The study shows that far more data-sharing is occurring in scientific practice than seems to be apparent from a concept of open data alone.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09487-y

Open Science: A Practical Guide for Early-Career Researchers

Beginning researchers are an important link in the transition to Open Science, so this guide is aimed at PhD candidates, Research Master Students, and early-career researchers from all disciplines at Dutch universities and research institutes. [This guide will be very useful to non-Dutch researchers.] It is designed to accompany researchers in every step of their research, from the phase of preparing your research project and discovering relevant resources (chapter 2) to the phase of data collection and analysis (chapter 3), writing and publishing articles, data, and other research output (chapter 4), and outreach and assessment (chapter 5). Every chapter provides you with the best tools and practices to implement immediately.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7716152

"Spain Adopts National Open Access Strategy"

Spain has approved a four-year national strategy for open science, under which all outputs of publicly financed research will made available free upon publication.

Under the strategy open access will become the default mode for all research funded directly or indirectly, with public funds. . . .

A budget of €23.8 million in 2023 will be maintained annually until 2027.

https://bit.ly/414w2gY

"How and Why Do Researchers Reference Data? A Study of Rhetorical Features and Functions of Data References in Academic Articles"

Data reuse is a common practice in the social sciences. While published data play an essential role in the production of social science research, they are not consistently cited, which makes it difficult to assess their full scholarly impact and give credit to the original data producers. Furthermore, it can be challenging to understand researchers’ motivations for referencing data. Like references to academic literature, data references perform various rhetorical functions, such as paying homage, signaling disagreement, or drawing comparisons. This paper studies how and why researchers reference social science data in their academic writing. We develop a typology to model relationships between the entities that anchor data references, along with their features (access, actions, locations, styles, types) and functions (critique, describe, illustrate, interact, legitimize). We illustrate the use of the typology by coding multidisciplinary research articles (n = 30) referencing social science data archived at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). We show how our typology captures researchers’ interactions with data and purposes for referencing data. Our typology provides a systematic way to document and analyze researchers’ narratives about data use, extending our ability to give credit to data that support research.

https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2023-010

"Plan E for Education: Open Access to Educational Materials Created in Publicly Funded Universities"

Plan E for Education is my proposal that a proportion of the educational resources generated in publicly funded universities be made freely available for sharing and use by others. Thus, high quality education, produced through public funding, could be made available to other universities and individual autodidacts and for the development of innovative educational delivery methods. This would be the educational equivalent of initiatives that require publicly funded research to be published in open access journals or platforms. Available educational resources would involve whole or sections of courses including assessments, not just isolated resources.

Plan E would require the establishment and curation of open repositories and might consider a peer review system for educational materials to mirror that already used for research publications. Academic credit could then flow to those who publish and review educational resources and extend to other academic input such as updating the work and creating instructional materials.

There is considerable expertise and enthusiasm for, as well as successful examples of, open access education globally, but this is unevenly spread, and its adoption is hindered by factors at institutional and individual educator levels. Most university-generated educational material is still kept behind institutional paywalls. If we accept the need for change so that, as for research outputs, educational resources become open to access, Plan E might provide the global impetus for such change and make a contribution to reducing inequality in access to higher education.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.607

"Data Sharing in the Context of Community-Engaged Research Partnerships"

Over the past 20 years, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) has implemented several policies designed to improve sharing of research data, such as the NIH public access policy for publications, NIH genomic data sharing policy, and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot public access and data sharing policy. . . . Important questions that we must consider as data sharing is expanded are to whom do benefits of data sharing accrue and to whom do benefits not accrue? In an era of growing efforts to engage diverse communities in research, we must consider the impact of data sharing for all research participants and the communities that they represent.

We examine the issue of data sharing through a community-engaged research lens, informed by a long-standing partnership between community-engaged researchers and a key community health organization (Kruse et al., 2022). We contend that without effective community engagement and rich contextual knowledge, biases resulting from data sharing can remain unchecked. We provide several recommendations that would allow better community engagement related to data sharing to ensure both community and researcher understanding of the issues involved and move toward shared benefits. By identifying good models for evaluating the impact of data sharing on communities that contribute data, and then using those models systematically, we will advance the consideration of the community perspective and increase the likelihood of benefits for all.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115895

"Science Journals Integrate Dryad to Simplify Data Deposition and Strengthen Scientific Reproducibility"

The Science family journals have announced a partnership with the nonprofit data repository Dryad that simplifies the process by which authors deposit data underlying new work — a critical step to facilitating data’s routine reuse. The partnership is yet another step taken by the Science journals to ensure data the scientific community requires to verify, replicate and reanalyze new research is openly available. . . .

Because the partnership with Dryad integrates Dryad’s platform with the Science family journal’s submission process, authors will have the option to deposit data at Dryad directly from the submission site of any Science family journal. As authors submit research to the journals, they will be prompted about data availability and welcome to deposit their data to any suitable disciplinary repository. But, if data do not yet have a home, authors will have the opportunity to upload their data to Dryad. . . .

To ensure that this service is widely available, the Science journals will cover costs of Dryad data publication for accepted papers.

http://bit.ly/43wtVoD

"The Engagement of Academic Libraries in Open Science: A Systematic Review"

Using a systematic review and meta-synthesis approach, this study analyses 65 literature related to the engagement of academic libraries in open science. The results show that the existing research mainly focuses on four aspects of open science: open access, research data management, open educational resources, and citizen science. Based on these themes, academic libraries have implemented a range of practical activities, playing the roles of open science service providers, advocates or educators, policy makers, publishers or knowledge producers, etc. At the same time, however, academic libraries are facing a number of challenges caused by inadequate security of internal resources and insufficient support from the external environment.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102711

"Guest Post — Why Interoperability Matters for Open Research — And More Than Ever"

The question remains, why have we not achieved more in delivering connectivity across the research system? While funding for this kind of underpinning infrastructure is notable in its absence (or where it is available it is often too temporary in nature), the other major challenge is in securing adoption among the service providers (funders, publishers, and institutions among the key players) that would maximize the use and potential of building those connections. It is notoriously hard for organisations to tweak or adapt existing workflows and legacy systems and to demonstrate the benefits (and hence prioritise the work) at an individual organisation level that may seem obvious at a system level.

https://cutt.ly/K7hxFQz

Digital Scholarship Releases New PDF Versions of Its Bibliographies

This spring, Digital Scholarship’s bibliographies in the HTML format were reformatted as single page files with internal navigation. This included all bibliographies that were in HTML format only as well as the HTML versions of paperback books. These new PDFs are in a 12 point font and are designed for printing; however, they also have live links for immediate access. There were no content changes. For a list of all Digital Scholarship publications, see the site map.

Academic Library as Scholarly Publisher Bibliography, v. 3

Altmetrics Bibliography

Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography, v. 2

Digital Curation Bibliography: Preservation and Stewardship of Scholarly Works

Digital Curation Bibliography: Preservation and Stewardship of Scholarly Works, 2012 Supplement

Digital Curation Resource Guide

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography, v.7

E-science and Academic Libraries Bibliography

Google Books Bibliography, v. 7

Institutional Repository Bibliography, v. 4

Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals

Open Access Journals Bibliography

Open Access Webliography

Research Data Curation Bibliography, v. 10

Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography

Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography

Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, v. 80

Transforming Peer Review Bibliography

Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography

Ithaka S+R US Library Survey 2022: Navigating the New Normal

Many library deans and directors are grappling with talent management and recruitment challenges. Nearly a fifth of respondents anticipate reducing staff in access services and technical services, metadata, and cataloging within the next five years. Furthermore, deans and directors are currently struggling to recruit personnel for roles in technology and programing, DEIA, cataloging and metadata, and indicate they are most likely to consider outsourcing cataloging and metadata and technology and programming skills.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.318642