SPACE to evolve academic assessment: A rubric for analyzing institutional conditions and progress indicators | DORA

“This is part of DORA’s toolkit of resources to support academic institutions that are improving their policies and practices. Find the other resources in the toolkit here.

Improving research and scholarship assessment practices requires the ability to analyze the outcomes of efforts and interventions. However, when conducted only at the unit level of individual interventions, these evaluations and reflections miss opportunities to understand how institutional conditions themselves set the table for the success of new efforts, or how developing institutional capabilities might improve the effectiveness and impact of these new practices at greater scale. The SPACE rubric was developed to help institutions at any stage of academic assessment reform gauge their institutional ability to support interventions and set them up for success.

Organizations can use the SPACE rubric to support the implementation of fair and responsible academic career assessment practices in two ways: First, it can help establish a baseline for the current state of infrastructural conditions, to gauge an institution’s ability to support the development and implementation of new academic assessment practices and activities. Second, the rubric can be used to retroactively analyze how strengths or gaps in these institutional conditions may have impacted the outcomes of concrete interventions targeted to specific types of academic assessment activities—such as hiring, promotion, tenure, or even graduate student evaluation—either helping or hindering progress toward those goals.

The SPACE rubric is a result of DORA’s partnership with Ruth Schmidt, Associate Professor at the Institute of Design of the Illinois Institute of Technology, who led the iterative participatory design process. The creation of the rubric was informed by nearly 75 individuals in 26 countries and 6 continents, and benefited from multiple rounds of feedback….”

Open Science in Kenya: Where Are We? | Research Metrics and Analytics

“According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20–50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign toward open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya….”

 

A renewed impetus for open research in Australia | Open Access Australasia

“There is now potential for a national approach to open science in Australia. However, Australian research and funding has some specific characteristics that mean that approaches in Europe or North America are not always easy to adapt. Furthermore, respecting Indigenous knowledge practices are essential. Protocols and practices for culturally appropriate publishing and data sharing are not yet widely adopted by publishers and infrastructure, although there is work in this area such as the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance and a thirst for engagement as shown at a 2020 OA week panel hosted by Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG). There is also more work to do to ensure that research on emerging, or regionally specific issues such as certain tropical diseases, Australian legal research, or work aimed at medical practitioners in regional and remote parts of the country is available and discoverable.

So how do we take open science forward at national and international levels? We recognise and welcome that change comes from many directions – from national governments, institutions, funders, intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO but also individual researchers and participants in research themselves. Ultimately, though, universities must take the role as key drivers as well as final beneficiaries of more open science – since practices that drive open science will also support better reproducibility, robust translation and public trust in their research.”

A renewed impetus for open research in Australia | Open Access Australasia

“There is now potential for a national approach to open science in Australia. However, Australian research and funding has some specific characteristics that mean that approaches in Europe or North America are not always easy to adapt. Furthermore, respecting Indigenous knowledge practices are essential. Protocols and practices for culturally appropriate publishing and data sharing are not yet widely adopted by publishers and infrastructure, although there is work in this area such as the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance and a thirst for engagement as shown at a 2020 OA week panel hosted by Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG). There is also more work to do to ensure that research on emerging, or regionally specific issues such as certain tropical diseases, Australian legal research, or work aimed at medical practitioners in regional and remote parts of the country is available and discoverable.

So how do we take open science forward at national and international levels? We recognise and welcome that change comes from many directions – from national governments, institutions, funders, intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO but also individual researchers and participants in research themselves. Ultimately, though, universities must take the role as key drivers as well as final beneficiaries of more open science – since practices that drive open science will also support better reproducibility, robust translation and public trust in their research.”

Open Scholarship Support Guide.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

“Steps to Support Open Scholarship

Open scholarship entails a culture shift in how research is conducted in universities. It requires action on the part of university administration, working in concert with faculty, sponsors and disciplinary communities.  Universities should consider steps in three areas:

•  Policies:  Language and guidance should be reviewed for alignment with open scholarship, in particular: (1) academic hiring, review, tenure and promotion (valuing diverse types of research products; metrics that  incentivize the open dissemination of articles, data, and other research outputs; and valuing collaborative research); (2) intellectual property (ownership, licensing and distribution of data, software, materials and publications); (3) research data protection (for data to be stored and shared through repositories); (4) attribution (recognizing full range of contributions);  and (5) privacy (insuring that privacy obligations are met). 

•  Services and Training:  Researchers need support to assure that data and other research objects are managed according to FAIR Principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.  While the specific solution must be tailored to the discipline and research, common standards, including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), must be followed.

•  Infrastructure:  Archival storage is required for data, materials, specimens and publications to permit reuse.  Searchable portals are needed to register research products where they can be located and accessed. Universities can recognize efficiencies by utilizing external resources (including existing disciplinary repositories) and by developing shared resources that span the institution when external resources do not exist.

Presidents and provosts are encouraged to work with their academic senates to create an open scholarship initiative that promotes institution-wide actions supporting open scholarship practices, while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate disciplinary differences and norms….”

‘Open science is just science done right’

“The whole topic of open access, open data, open science comes out of a big change in the publishing industry. It was about how to deal with this freedom of the World Wide Web, which was thought to be very idealistic. Everybody could talk to everybody and exchange ideas and share knowledge. Then there was this coup by the big publishers who grabbed and shut everything down. That made the costs rise and the international library world was fed up with it.

The open movement is really growing and I was one of the people who started it at TU Delft. At the time we got help from Karel Luyben (former Rector Magnificus) who asked us to make people aware of it in faculty meetings, so I became a regular guest at those. Then we did a kind of roadshow in 2015 going around to every department at TU Delft, 44 of them. It took a year visiting one a week and talking about open access publishing, but also research data management. We met all of these people and they were interested but wanted to know what was in it for them because it takes a lot of work to put your publications and data sets out in the open.

It’s very important to know your author’s rights and give your work the right licences so people know what they are allowed to do with your work. How to make it reusable but also how to get cited for your work. We don’t want people to put it there and not get credit for it. It’s a lot of work with data managing and making data FAIR, because we said it should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. We asked for more hands and the Executive Board allowed us to hire data stewards for each faculty. That was a big step….”

PsyArXiv Preprints | Nudging Open Science

Abstract:  In this article, we provide a toolbox of resources and nudges for those who are interested in advancing open scientific practice. Open Science encompasses a range of behaviours that aim to include the transparency of scientific research and how widely it is communicated. The paper is divided into seven sections, each dealing with a different stakeholder in the world of research (researchers, students, departments and faculties, universities, academic libraries, journals, and funders). With two frameworks in mind — EAST and the Pyramid of Culture Change — we describe the influences and incentives that sway behaviour for each of these stakeholders, we outline changes that can foster Open Science, and suggest actions and resources for individuals to nudge these changes. In isolation, a small shift in one person’s behaviour may appear to make little difference, but when combined, these small shifts can lead to radical changes in culture. We offer this toolbox to assist individuals and institutions in cultivating a more open research culture.

 

CARL-CRKN-SPARC Webinar: Institutional Perspectives on Investments in Open Infrastructure – Canadian Association of Research Libraries

“The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN), and SPARC are pleased to bring you this panel on institutional approaches and perspectives regarding their investments in open infrastructure.

This session brings together librarians from institutions in Canada and the United States to discuss the values, rubrics, and supporting data used locally to strategize and guide investments in open infrastructure. How are priorities determined? How does the institution weigh local vs. global impacts? How important is collective/consortial investment in this context? Are there divergent perspectives between collections and scholarly communications specialists? Is it possible to transfer any savings from negotiated license agreements toward open infrastructure investment? What internal discussions are necessary to build support for shifting library funds from subscriptions to infrastructure support?…”

Open Science: read our statement – News – CIVIS – A European Civic University

“CIVIS universities promote the development of new research indicators to complement the conventional indicators for research quality and impact, so as to do justice to open science practices and, going beyond pure bibliometric indicators, to promote also non-bibliometric research products. In particular, the metrics should extend the conventional bibliometric indicators in order to cover new forms of research outputs, such as research data and research software….

Incentives and Rewards for researchers to engage in Open Science activities 

Research career evaluation systems should fully acknowledge open science activities. CIVIS members encourage the inclusion of Open Science practices in their assessment mechanisms for rewards, promotion, and/or tenure, along with the Open Science Career Assessment Matrix….”