“And Science has a different view of open access publishing compared to commercial journals. Consistent with its commitment to put the scientific community first, AAAS does not favor a publishing ecosystem driven by article processing charges—the fees that authors must pay so that their articles are freely available once published (“gold” open access). An environment dominated by this approach drains laboratory resources and favors well-funded investigators, institutions, and disciplines. These inequities are coming into ever starker contrast, including through a recent AAAS survey of over 400 researchers in the United States. Rather, AAAS favors an ecosystem that does not put the cost burden for access on scientists. It has become an open access publisher by adopting a “green” policy for its subscription journals, including Science, whereby accepted manuscripts are made immediately available in repositories of the author’s choice. This approach—one that AAAS is excited to pursue alongside the American Medical Association— is consistent with open access policies in the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States. But for now, AAAS still has one gold open access journal, Science Advances, as an option for scientists or funders that prefer this mechanism.”
Abstract: Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic’s impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM—especially in a post-COVID-19 era.
“Editorial assessment of relevancy, in particular at the pre-review stage, includes evaluations of journal-specific criteria: such as whether the work falls within the journal’s scope, adherence to technical guidelines, quality of the language and so on. But it also includes evaluation of whether the science is of interest to the journal. Indeed, a quick survey of various top biomedical journals’ guidelines—the “Aims and Scope” section to inform authors of the journal’s selection criteria—disclose that these aim to publish reports that are impactful, insightful, timely, elegant or “of surprising conclusions”, to name a few (www.nature.com/nature/journal-information). These vague terms are all subjective and thereby open to different interpretations by different individuals….
Pre-review editorial consideration is responsible for the vast majority of rejections, up to 90% in some journals (Laursen, 2021), which cannot simply be explained by lack of suitability, lack of adherence to journal guidelines or other objective criteria. Furthermore, pre-review editorial assessment usually does not consider inappropriate methodology, inaccurate conclusions or poor or incomplete analysis as these are typically handled by experts during the review stage.
Thus, it strongly implies that most initial rejections are based on subjective criteria that come on top of and overrule objective measures….
Pre-prints offer multiple benefits over journal-based publications by immediately exposing the science to a larger, more diverse audience, offer scooping protection, are citable and can still be submitted to traditional journals. Importantly, pre-prints are curated to a certain degree for completeness, quality, language and so forth, minimizing posting of subpar reports. The one major setback with this system is the poor engagement of the research community—so far only 5% of pre-prints have received comments although gradual increases are noted (Brainard, 2022). However, this scenario will necessarily change when the ball starts rolling….
Scientists already dedicate a substantial amount of their time towards reading manuscripts including pre-prints for their personal education and research, thus abandoning reviewing for journals would mean that they will have more time for commenting and reviewing the pre-prints they read anyway….
Removing editorial consideration from the publication process is not a panacea for all problems that plague science and publishing. But it would at least greatly reduce the subjectivity in the publication process and emancipate scientists from perpetual submissions–rejections rounds and from tiresome and lengthy review duties to assess if a paper is sufficiently “novel” and “relevant”. It would free scientists’ time to read and comment on pre-prints instead and make scientific research and findings accessible by anyone. This could engender a new culture of online commenting and reviewing and pave the way for new means of communication and interaction between scientists. For instance, posted manuscripts could be progressively modified or corrected in response to online comments, or other scientists could even post their own results alongside another pre-print in support or opposition to the results presented and their interpretation. This creates a scenario where smaller pieces of data—not enough to justify a full paper—can supplement other manuscripts, which actually reflects the “scientific endeavour” by allowing individual scientists to directly contribute to the greater task of understanding the world.”
“An extraordinary collection of priceless manuscripts of naturalist Charles Darwin goes online today, including two rare pages from the original draft of On the Origin of Species….
Darwin’s handwriting is notoriously difficult to read. As such, the documents have been transcribed, and can be viewed side-by-side with the original manuscript. The newly released documents can be viewed at Darwin Online.
“Instead of being locked away out of public view, by adding these documents to Darwin Online they became freely available to anyone in the world”, shared Dr. van Wyhe.”
Abstract: Background: Research and researchers are heavily evaluated, and over the past decade it has become apparent that the consequences of evaluating the research enterprise and particularly individual researchers are considerable. This has resulted in the publishing of several guidelines and principles to support moving towards more responsible research assessment (RRA). To ensure that research evaluation is meaningful, responsible, and effective the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) Research Evaluation Group created the SCOPE framework enabling evaluators to deliver on existing principles of RRA. SCOPE bridges the gap between principles and their implementation by providing a structured five-stage framework by which evaluations can be designed and implemented, as well as evaluated.
Methods: SCOPE is a step-by-step process designed to help plan, design, and conduct research evaluations as well as check effectiveness of existing evaluations. In this article, four case studies are presented to show how SCOPE has been used in practice to provide value-based research evaluation.
Results: This article situates SCOPE within the international work towards more meaningful and robust research evaluation practices and shows through the four case studies how it can be used by different organisations to develop evaluations at different levels of granularity and in different settings.
Conclusions: The article demonstrates that the SCOPE framework is rooted firmly in the existing literature. In addition, it is argued that it does not simply translate existing principles of RRA into practice, but provides additional considerations not always addressed in existing RRA principles and practices thus playing a specific role in the delivery of RRA. Furthermore, the use cases show the value of SCOPE across a range of settings, including different institutional types, sizes, and missions.
“The intersection of scholarly communication librarianship and open education offers a unique opportunity to expand knowledge of scholarly communication topics in both education and practice. Open resources can address the gap in teaching timely and critical scholarly communication topics—copyright in teaching and research environments, academic publishing, emerging modes of scholarship, impact measurement—while increasing access to resources and equitable participation in education and scholarly communication.
Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Knowledge is an open textbook and practitioner’s guide that collects theory, practice, and case studies from nearly 80 experts in scholarly communication and open education. Divided into three parts:
What is Scholarly Communication?
Scholarly Communication and Open Culture
Voices from the Field: Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies
The book delves into the economic, social, policy, and legal aspects of scholarly communication as well as open access, open data, open education, and open science and infrastructure. Practitioners provide insight into the relationship between university presses and academic libraries, defining collection development as operational scholarly communication, and promotion and tenure and the challenge for open access.
Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Knowledge is a thorough guide meant to increase instruction on scholarly communication and open education issues and practices so library workers can continue to meet the changing needs of students and faculty. It is also a political statement about the future to which we aspire and a challenge to the industrial, commercial, capitalistic tendencies encroaching on higher education. Students, readers, educators, and adaptors of this resource can find and embrace these themes throughout the text and embody them in their work.
This book is also available as an open access edition at https://bit.ly/SCLAOK ”
“A number of federal agencies are celebrating 2023 as a Year of Open Science. This initiative is focused on sparking change and inspiring open-science engagement through events and activities that will advance adoption of open, equitable, and secure science. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) applauds the ongoing commitment of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to public access through the Year of Open Science.
In 2023, through their public-access program, the NSF has funded 10 awards totaling over $1.8 million. These awards support strategic investments in critical national infrastructure for public access, such as machine-actionable data management and sharing plans (DMSPs) and a national summit for US-based research data organizations; culture change, such as the transformative work happening at MIT Library to create a fellows program for open and equitable scholarship; and a number of open-publishing initiatives….”
“Researchers worldwide grapple with the “publish or perish” dilemma, leading some to fall into predatory journal traps. The issue is especially severe in the developing world. But we have some good news to share. Under the umbrella of the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) INYAS has joined hands with other three international science academies i.e. Bangladesh, Benin, and the Czech Republicto form a consortium. The consortium has received fund support of 50,000 USD from InterAcademy Partnership. Our mission is to create awareness and unite against predatory publishing practices and push for change at the highest levels to safeguard academic quality and integrity”
“Subscribe to Open (S2O) is an increasingly popular approach for transitioning journals from subscription to open access—without article processing charges (APCs). Under the model, a publisher commits to opening a journal’s current content contingent on the journal’s annual revenue target being met. To better scale S2O, it is possible to link S2O offers in ways that benefit both subscribing institutions (and their authors) as well as publishers. On October 10th at 12pm ET / 9am PT, the next OpenCon Library Community Call will feature Raym Crow, who developed S2O, to discuss how the model can scale to support the transition of more journals to open access.”
Language barriers and Open Access
“We are living through a time of accelerating change and transformation, where the landscape of scholarly publishing is undergoing tectonic shifts in how we operate, how we communicate, and where we add value to the research and learning lifecycles. Like all organizations dedicated to the business of information and data, content and service providers in our industry are experiencing challenges brought on by open access mandates, ongoing institutional budget crises, technological revolutions, and more.
The 2023 New Directions Seminar will focus on how those working in scholarly communications are managing commercial and cultural disruptions. Where are the sands shifting most dramatically? How are content and service providers responding to these disruptions? What are the priorities and what is being left behind? What tools and methods do we need to successfully weather these disruptive changes?…”
“FAIR-IMPACT launched our second open call for support on 30 August 2023. Applications are invited to join one of three support programmes which are targeted to our three key stakeholder groups:
Research Performing Organisations
Repositories & Data service Providers
National Level initiatives…”
“For those just getting started on their FAIR-enabling journeys, FAIR-IMPACT provides dedicated guidance and one-to-one support to successful applicants from our three key stakeholder groups to self-assess their current capabilities and to develop FAIR implementation action plans: National Levels Initiatives, Research Performing Organisations, Repositories and Data Service Providers.
Successful applicants from each of the three stakeholder groups will work over a period of nine months with FAIR-IMPACT mentors and external experts to learn how to support the uptake of FAIR-enabling practices. This will include participation in a series of virtual workshops based on the FAIR Implementation Framework, assessed homework and one-to-one support. This call is suitable for those who are just getting started with supporting the FAIR Principles or are less advances on their FAIR-enabling journey….”
Posted Sep 29, 2023 by Emmy Tsang & Kaitlin Thaney
Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) works to increase the investment in and adoption of open infrastructure to further equitable access to and participation in research. We do this by providing actionable, evidence-based tools to institutions and funders of open infrastructure, piloting funding mechanisms to catalyse investment and diversify funding sources for open infrastructure, and offering strategic support in partnership with open infrastructure service providers and funders.
We are thrilled to welcome five new members to our Steering Committee. The IOI Steering Committee represents community leaders, practitioners, and experts who have demonstrated success in influencing and bringing systemic change to communities. This group exists to bring new ideas, strategies, and learnings to the work of IOI from adjacent communities and areas of infrastructure.
Each of the following new members brings a wealth of experience in the open infrastructure and funding spaces, diverse perspectives, and a strong commitment to our mission to improve investment in and adoption of open infrastructure.
Joe Deville, Open Book Collective; Mattering Press; Lancaster University
Robert Karanja, Co-Develop
Louise Marston, Resolution Foundation
Eunice Mercado-Lara, Open & Equitable Program, Open Research Funders Group
Jeff Ubois, Lever for Change
Libraries are an important part of the open access publishing landscape. To achieve the open access future we’d like to see, we need to be acting now.
International Open Access Week is an opportunity for the global research community to learn about and share the benefits of Open Access, and to inspire wider participation in helping to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research.
This year’s theme is ‘Community over Commercialisation’ and with this in mind, Jisc and the Open Institutional Publishing Association have joined forces to discuss how libraries can come together as a community and support open access publishing initiatives.
Jisc set up the Open Access Community Framework (OACF) in response to community calls to make it simpler for libraries to support open access publishing – and other similar schemes are beginning to emerge too.
In this webinar, we will ask ‘what’s stopping us?’ and we will consider the levers that are at our disposal, as a strong and active community, including library and publisher perspectives.