Why did clinical trial registries fail to prevent Covid research chaos?

“There is a long-standing global ethical obligation to register all trials before they start, shored up by regulatory requirements in some jurisdictions. Data from 18 registries worldwide feed into the WHO-managed International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), providing a continuously updated overview of who is researching what, when, where and how – at least in theory.

 

 

If the registry infrastructure had worked and been used as intended, much of the COVID-19 research chaos would have been avoided.

 

 

For example, researchers considering launching a hydroxychloroquine trial could have searched ICTRP and discovered that the drug was already being investigated by numerous other trials. Those researchers could accordingly have focused on investigating other treatment options instead, or aligned their outcome measures with existing trials. …

The global registry infrastructure has long been inadequately supported by legislators and regulators, and is woefully underfunded.

 

 

 

This persistent neglect of the world’s only comprehensive directory of medical research led to costly research waste on an incredible scale during the pandemic.

 

 

The WHO recommends that member states should by law require every interventional trial to be registered and reported. In addition, WHO recommends that all trial results should be made public specifically on a registry within 12 months, and that registry data should be kept up to date.

 

 

 

By enforcing these three simple rules, regulators would ensure that there is a comprehensive, up-to-date global database of all trials and their results.

 

In reality, existing laws in the EU and the US only cover a small minority of trials and are not being effectively enforced, while many other jurisdictions have no relevant laws at all. …”

 

 

Evaluating research assessment | Jisc

“A large-scale review, commissioned by Research England on behalf of the four higher education funding bodies and published by RAND Europe, collected attitudes to the REF in real time as UK institutions prepared their submissions. It gathered views via a survey (with 3,000+ researcher responses), as well as focus groups and one-to-one interviews with researchers, research managers, and institutional leads.

The review also considered the impact of changes made to the REF since the previous exercise in 2014….”

Arcadia Fund supports Plazi in its endeavor to rediscover known biodiversity | 16/05/2022

“The Swiss-based Plazi NGO has received a grant of EUR 1.5 million from Arcadia Fund– a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin – to further develop its Biodiversity Literature Repository(BLR) established in collaboration with Zenodo, the open science repository hosted and managed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and the open-access scholarly publisher and technology provider Pensoft. The Arcadia-supported project helps rediscover known biodiversity by liberating taxonomic treatments, material citations and images trapped in scholarly biodiversity publications, and making them FAIR and open. The project engages the community in the huge and decisive challenge to understand and preserve the biodiversity of our planet. Our knowledge about biodiversity is largely imprisoned in a corpus of more than 500 million pages of scientific research publications that is growing daily. Many of these publications are only available in print, and others are PDFs behind a paywall. These data are not FAIR; they are not findable, accessible, interoperable, or reusable. They cannot be linked to new digital resources such as gene sequences, citizen science observations, taxonomic names, or specimens of digitized natural history collections. Extracting and using text and data from such PDFs comes at very high cost, if possible at all. Through itsTreatmentBank production service, Plazi is a leader in providing access to biodiversity data liberated from publications. Thanks to the Arcadia Fund support and in collaboration with Pensoft, Zenodo and the Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics Literature Services (SIBiLS), Plazi provides access to over 750,000 taxonomic treatments, 450,000 figures and over 1.1 million material citations from over 53,000 publications in the BLR….”

How the Open Book Collective works | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

by Livy Onalee Snyder and Joe Deville

The Open Book Collective (OBC) is a non-profit membership organization that brings together Open Access (OA) publishers, service providers, librarians, and other supporters to collectively bring about a fairer, more sustainable model of open book publishing. 

Through the OBC’s online platform, publishers and service providers offer individual and collective membership packages which libraries and other potential supporters can pay to join.

[…]

 

Recommendations for repositories and scientific gateways from a neuroscience perspective | Scientific Data

“Digital services such as repositories and science gateways have become key resources for the neuroscience community, but users often have a hard time orienting themselves in the service landscape to find the best fit for their particular needs. INCF has developed a set of recommendations and associated criteria for choosing or setting up and running a repository or scientific gateway, intended for the neuroscience community, with a FAIR neuroscience perspective….”

Diversity, sustainability and quality must be the hallmarks of academic publishing in Europe – The Guild

“Ahead of the June Competitiveness Council, where the ministers will be invited to adopt conclusions on research assessment and implementation of Open Science policies, The Guild urges the member states to ensure that Open Access serves science, not publishers.

While research excellence requires free flow of knowledge, some Open Access strategies and models increase the financial burden on research institutions. Article Processing Charges (APCs), used by some of the Open Access journals, exacerbate the unsustainable situation of journal spending in university libraries and create unequal access to knowledge. Greater transparency on the publication costs for Open Access journals, and fair and transparent contractual arrangements with publishers are crucial for monitoring the proper use of public research funding.

It is important to develop alternative and sustainable non-APC Open Access models. The Guild calls for the member states to support the development and uptake of Diamond Open Access journals and platforms which consist often of community-driven, and academic-led and owned publishing initiatives. Unlike other Open Access models, Diamond Open Access journals and platforms do not charge any fees from the authors or readers. Thus, they can further empower researchers to disseminate their research results, ensuring bibliodiversity and vital academic publishing….”

Enabling open access: author engagement and article submission processes under transformative agreements

“Making it easy for researchers to publish their articles open access is not just a question of eliminating—or significantly lowering—the financial obstacles of APCs. Library and publisher processes, workflows, and communication streams are still deeply rooted in the old logic of accessing and producing content behind subscription paywalls.

In order for “open” to become the default in scholarly communication, these subscription-based systems will have to be reengineered so that open access is the norm and not the exception. Transformative agreements provide a framework for both libraries and publishers to initiate this process of transformation and effectively bring open access to researchers wherever they choose to publish.

To illustrate how, the next session of the ESAC Community of Practice will explore how libraries, library consortia and publishers are using transformative agreements to adapt their systems and prepare their organizations for open access in research communication on a large scale.

Focusing on the first point of contact with authors at the start of the scholarly publishing cycle, our guest speakers will share how they are reorienting their communication and engagement strategies with authors, adjusting mechanisms behind article submission process, and more….”

A mapping review of literature on Blockchain usage by libraries: Challenges and opportunities – Muhammad Safdar, Saima Qutab, Farasat Shafi Ullah, Nadeem Siddique, Muhammad Ajmal Khan, 2022

Abstract:  The Library and Information Science (LIS) community has started discussing some possible uses of Blockchain (BC) technologies in solving library-related problems and increasing the overall efficiency of libraries. This study aimed to systematically collect and review the relevant literature to comprehend the scope of BC for libraries, its benefits, as well as the challenges, and implications related to its use. The authors explored six reputed databases (Web of Science, Scopus, LISTA (Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts), LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), and Google Scholar) to conduct this review. This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. After the final data extraction, 21 documents were considered eligible for the systematic review. A systematic review of the selected works indicated that the usage of BC in libraries ranged from record-keeping to processing payments and ensuring security and transparency. Some of the opportunities that can be hunted from BC were the elimination of corruption, enhanced security, improved efficiency of services, and better time management. Literature also indicated that a lack of awareness of technology, unskilled staff, and financial constraints could impede the adoption of BC by libraries. It is hoped that this study would provide a holistic overview of BC technologies for libraries, thus improving the effectiveness of the decision-makers. This study is first that collected (systematically) and reviewed the literature on BC usage in libraries. The review will help educational institutions and library professionals understand the usage, challenges, and benefits of BC for libraries.

 

Controlled Digital Lending for resource sharing: Law and policy since 2018. – YouTube

“For more than a decade, libraries have engaged in a variety of digital lending practices that are now described as controlled digital lending (CDL). But only more recently, in 2018, were the foundational law and policy arguments for the practice of CDL articulated in what has become the widely cited White Paper on Controlled Digital Lending of Library books.” Since that time, the law, policy, and practice of CDL have evolved considerably.

In this session, the presenters—Dave Hansen and Kyle K. Courtney, both lawyers, librarians, and authors of the original CDL white paper—explain the basic framework for CDL. They will review recent developments in CDL law and policy, including integration in library norms such as reserves and interlibrary loan. They also will review international developments and the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the ‘Big Five’ publishers against Internet Archive for CDL. Speakers: Kyle K. Courtney, Copyright Advisor, Harvard University Dave Hansen, Associate University Librarian for Research, Collections & Scholarly Communications, and Lead Copyright & Information Policy Officer, Duke University…”

Webcast: Open systems and library analytics – 1501970

“Open source software and interoperable services for library management and analytics provide libraries with more choice in how to deploy, support and develop mission-critical applications. Join this webinar to learn more about EBSCO’s support for FOLIO, the open source library services platform, and Panorama, an interoperable application for library analytics.”

New OSC resource to support book authors interested in open access publishing – Office of Scholarly Communication

The UC Office of Scholarly Communication has created a new resource for faculty who have questions about open access book publishing. Created by a working group that included faculty, librarians, and a representative from UC Press, the newly created OA books FAQ is intended to address some questions that faculty may have about their OA publishing options and provide links to additional resources that will help faculty navigate this landscape.