“PIDapa-party-pooper: PIDs are a dead end; long live open infrastructure” was presented by Ed Pentz. As a community, we have started so many initiatives centered around the need for PIDs, or how PIDs should be connected or governed, that PIDs are presented as ends in themselves. As a co-founder of PIDapalooza, these were important discussions back in 2016. But the message simply has to move on. PIDs are pointless without accompanying metadata, assertions, relationships, and associated services – at a minimum, robust APIs for getting the metadata. By talking exclusively about PIDs, and “minting” PIDs, we have inadvertently imbued the identifier strings themselves with talismanic, magical properties – an elixir that cures all. We need to re-focus our attention and talk about how open scholarly infrastructure enables open research and human knowledge….”
“Publishers have also been less involved in the development of other PIDs and (likely related!) appear to be using them less than organizations in other sectors of the research community. For example, just six of the 60+ ROR community advisors are publishers.
However, the use of PIDs in open access publishing does appear to be of interest to publishers, and open access (OA) publishers are also more likely to have a clear PID strategy (F1000 and Hindawi are good examples). This may be because functionally, attaching accurate grant information to open access articles is critical for accurate billing and (where applicable) for demonstrating compliance with transformative publishing agreements. We’d like to see all publishers embrace the use of PIDs — above and beyond simply collecting ORCID IDs and registering DOIs for publications — to help improve the user experience for their authors and reviewers, and enable accurate recognition for their contributions; to increase discoverability and, therefore, use of their publications; to ensure compliance with an increasing number of policies, including Plan S; and to facilitate better analysis and reporting. …
With governments, funders, and institutions all working towards PID-optimized open infrastructure to reduce burden on researchers and increase transparency, publishers must be prepared to follow….”
“This month we look at Transformative Journals (TJs). We examine what their measures of compliance mean and how the criteria for growing OA in TJs compares with the typical growth of OA in hybrid journals.
We have previously analyzed the proportions of papers that might be affected by Plan S, the European-led initiative “to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality.” Researchers funded under the initiative must publish via one of four routes, which lay down rules for allowed access types. One allowed route is a Transformative Journal.
Join us to learn more about Plan S definitions and scenario modeling of Transformative Journals….”
“When we talk about Open what do we mean? How can we navigate the different definitions of what it means to be a community and to be Open? How do we engage with communities and train members around Open? What evidence are we using of how we are addressing Open? How can we be more inclusive and align our Open principles to foster norms, incentives, and recognition? Have our understandings around Open shifted during the pandemic?
This online webinar, part of The Reimagining Educational Practices for Open (REPO) Community Event Series, will address these questions via the experiences of invited open science communities, how they have designed and applied their open (science) principles before and during the pandemic, particularly with regard to outreach and training, while also looking out at the horizon, at a future beyond the pandemic. The webinar aims to include open science perspectives from a diverse group of communities, learn from their approaches, how they have evolved, and identify possible next steps that all, in our global community can consider.”
“The value of this document is that it can make future public open science policies enhance the opening of the research cycle as a whole, promote participatory science, and open spaces to talk about innovation and newer aspects of open science, such as the need for exceptions to copyright for data mining or the development of funding mechanisms and approaches for citizen labs or spaces to experiment with open infrastructure (Unlock devices). Again, the recommendations can be a roadmap for talking about the science and its results common goods (Those that have universal access, are democratically managed, continue to be used over time and are collectively owned)….”
“The Berkman Klein Center’s latest Research Sprint, co-hosted with Digital Asia Hub, explored digital self-determination, a multi-faceted concept that includes ownership and agency over one’s data, and what it means cross-culturally and through various lenses, including for example how digital self-determination can and should play out in areas such as health, the gig economy, and the information economy. The program is part of an ongoing collaboration with the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC) to advance dialogue and action at the intersection of science, politics, digital economy, and civil society….”
Abstract: Processes of research evaluation are coming under increasing scrutiny, with detractors arguing that they have adverse effects on research quality, and that they support a research culture of competition to the detriment of collaboration. Based on three personal perspectives, we consider how current systems of research evaluation lock early career researchers and their supervisors into practices that are deemed necessary to progress academic careers within the current evaluation frameworks. We reflect on the main areas in which changes would enable better research practices to evolve; many align with open science. In particular, we suggest a systemic approach to research evaluation, taking into account its connections to the mechanisms of financial support for the institutions of research and higher education in the broader landscape. We call for more dialogue in the academic world around these issues and believe that empowering early career researchers is key to improving research quality.
Abstract: In the late 1990s chemists were among the early adopters of open access (OA) publishing. As also happened with preprints, the early successful adoption of OA publishing by chemists subsequently slowed down. In 2016 chemistry was found to be the discipline with the lowest proportion of OA articles in articles published between 2009 and 2015. To benefit from open science in terms of enhanced citations, collaboration, job and funding opportunities, chemistry scholars need updated information (and education) of practical relevance about open science. Suggesting avenues for quick uptake of OA publishing from chemists in both developed and developing countries, this article offers a critical perspective on academic publishing in the chemical sciences that will be useful to inform that education.
“The OPERAS Certification Service is offered to publishers who have registered with Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), and is provided by DOAB Foundation on behalf of the OPERAS community. The Certification Service is currently operating in beta phase and will move into production in 2022.
The Certification Service aims to certify open access (OA) book publishers, based on their publishing practices, in particular their peer review procedure and their licensing policy. The service is intended to certify publishers at both publisher level and individual publication level. The goal of the service is to support trust in OA book publishing, by improving transparency around quality assurance of OA book publishers and their publications.
When partner platforms conform to certain specified requirements, they will be able to provide the service to the publishers that use their platforms. Each of the publishing platforms has to be reviewed to become a certified partner….”
“DOAB, a central discovery service for open access books, is pleased to introduce a new partnership with SciELO. Through this new initiative, SciELO Books becomes part of a group of several trusted platforms to enhance the discoverability of open access books and create a more seamless process for publishers to list their open access books in DOAB….”