“The Metascience 2021 Conference is a global virtual gathering to connect the study of science across disciplines, methodologies, and regions. It follows the inaugural Metascience 2019 Symposium held at Stanford University. Metascience 2021 is an initiative of the Center for Open Science (COS), the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS), and the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) and is generously supported by the Templeton World Charity Foundation and the RoRI consortium.”
This briefing paper aims to support decision makers at research organisations and research funders to develop new monitoring exercises or assess and improve existing processes to measure the Open Access status of publications.
The availability of data and information on the current state of scholarly publishing is invaluable to help advance Open Access. Given the complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this involves a multitude of decisions.
This briefing paper provides recommendations on the three main questions an organisation should answer to develop a monitoring exercise: Why, What, and How?
Examples of different monitoring exercises have been selected to represent different use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and strategies of interpretation.
“The third CHORUS Forum meeting, held last week, is a relatively new entrant into the scholarly communication meeting calendar. The meeting has proven to be a rare opportunity to bring together publishers, researchers, librarians, and research funders. I helped organize and moderated a session during the Forum, on the theme of “Making the Future of Open Research Work.” You can watch my session, which looked at new models for sustainable and robust open access (OA) publishing, along with the rest of the meeting in the video below.
The session focuses on the operationalization of the move to open access and the details of what it takes to experiment with a new business model. The model the community has the most experience with, the individual author paying an article-processing-charge (APC), works really well for some authors, in some subject areas, in some geographies. But it is not a universal solution to making open access work and it creates new inequities as it resolves others….
Some of the key takeaways for me were found in the commonalities across all of the models. The biggest hurdle that each organization faced in executing its plans was gathering and analyzing author data. As Sara put it, “Data hygiene makes or breaks all of these models.” For PLOS and the ACM, what they’re asking libraries to support is authorship – the model essentially says “this many papers had authors from your institution and what you pay will largely be based on the volume of your output.” But disambiguating author identity, and especially identifying which institutions each represents, remains an enormous problem. While we do have persistent identifiers (PIDs) like ORCID, and the still-under-development ROR, their use is not universal, and we still lack a unifying mechanism to connect the various PIDs into a simple, functional tool to support this type of analysis.
One solution would be requiring authors to accurately identify their host institutions from a controlled vocabulary, but this runs up against most publishers’ desire to streamline the article submission process. There’s a balance to be struck, but probably one that’s going to ask authors to provide more accurate and detailed information….
[M]oving beyond the APC is essential to the long-term viability of open access, and there remains much experimentation to be done….”
“Most are familiar with registering Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), a type of Persistent Identifier (PID), to create lasting records for online research outputs. Registering DOIs for journal articles and other scholarly content and adding DOI links to references when possible is one of the best steps publishers can take to support research linking and discovery. But publishers shouldn’t stop at creating DOIs for articles. There are many other PIDs to consider adding to article-level metadata to support research discovery, assessment, and reuse. Additional PIDs can also expand the potential reach of content outputs when included in metadata registered with discovery services like Crossref.
During the NISO Plus session “Linked Data and the Future of Information Sharing,” Christian Herzog, CEO of Dimensions, and Shelley Stall, Senior Director of Data Leadership at the American Geophysical Union, spoke to emerging PIDs for linking research outputs by not only the content referenced in them but also the scholars, institutions, and funders associated with them. Among the PIDs they said all publishers should consider adding to their metadata are:
ORCID identifiers for authors and their history of research contributions
Institutional IDs such as those developed by GRID, which is the seed data set for the community-led ROR open research organization identifier registry
Grant IDs and funder IDs, such as those in The Open Funder Registry…”
“A stakeholder group was therefore formed earlier this year, with representatives from all disciplines and sectors — funders, HEIs, infrastructure providers, libraries, publishers, researchers, research managers, and more. At an initial meeting of this group in April, participants discussed the five persistent identifiers (PIDs) that have been deemed high priority for improving access to UK research. These are ORCID iDs for people, Crossref and DataCite DOIs for outputs, Crossref grant DOIs, ROR identifiers for organisations, and RAiDs for projects. This was followed by five focus group meetings during May and June, each focused on one of the priority PIDs….”
“Today DataCite is proud to announce the launch of DataCite Commons, available at https://commons.datacite.org. DataCite Commons is a discovery service that enables simple searches while giving users a comprehensive overview of connections between entities in the research landscape. This means that DataCite members registering DOIs with us will have easier access to information about the use of their DOIs and can discover and track connections between their DOIs and other entities. DataCite Commons was developed as part of the EC-funded project Freya and will form the basis of new DataCite services….
We integrate with both the ORCID and ROR (Research Organization Registry) APIs to enable a search for (10 million) people and (100,000) organizations and to show the associated content. For funding, we take advantage of the inclusion of Crossref Funder IDs in ROR metadata. We combine these connections, showing a funder, research organization, or researcher not only their content but also the citations and views and downloads if available, together with aggregate statistics such as numbers by year or content type….”
“We are pleased to announce the launch of the new persistent identifier (PID) services registry available at https://pidservices.org, a new service to find services built upon different PIDs from core technology providers and those who integrate from across a variety of disciplinary areas. This is a combined effort across multiple organizations as part of the EC-funded FREYA project grant (777523) with the aim of furthering discoverability of PIDs and the services that are built upon them….”
“This registry provides an overview of services related to Persistent Identifiers (PIDs). The PID Services Registry is maintained by DataCite and was developed within the FREYA project….”
Abstract: As the use of DOIs and their associated metadata has proliferated throughout the research ecosystem to identify research outputs, linking research outputs to the organizations where they are affiliated remains challenging. ROR (Research Organization Registry) is a community-led project to develop an open, sustainable, usable, and unique identifier for every research organization in the world. ROR’s specific focus is the affiliation use case—to unambiguously identify which organizations are affiliated with which research outputs. ROR launched in 2019, starting with seed data from GRID, and the registry now includes unique ROR IDs and associated metadata for approximately 97,000 research organizations. ROR IDs are already being implemented in systems and platforms across the scholarly communications ecosystem, and they are being supported in DataCite and Crossref metadata. Wide adoption of ROR in scholarly infrastructure and metadata will enable more efficient discovery and tracking of publications across institutions and funding bodies, and ROR’s open approach will ensure that this type of institutional data is available to all. This session will cover the basics of ROR, examples of early ROR implementations, and ways to get involved with the project.
“Will ROR IDs be supported in the ORCID Registry?
Yes. Adding RORs to the ORCID Registry is on our roadmap. Open identifiers for organizations are a critical component of trusted assertions. While we work out the complex interdependencies involved in implementing ROR, we continue to actively encourage their adoption and use in a wide variety of communication channels.
Will ORCID move to using only ROR organization IDs?
ORCID is all-in with persistent identifiers. We support a diverse global community with a variety of use cases and requirements. We are keenly aware that reaching consensus on “the one” is difficult, if not distracting, as we all work toward digital transformation and open research goals. We expect messiness during this transitional period and strive to provide and support tools – technical and communications – to help manage it, such as FAIR, CARE, and Metadata 2020. We currently support four organization ID types (GRID, LEI, Crossref funder ID, and Ringgold) in affiliation, funding, research resource, and peer review items. Similarly, we support multiple ID types for other items in the ORCID registry (e.g., DOI, PMID, ISBN and over 40 other identifier types for works; Scopus, ResearcherID, ISNI and others for people). …”