Integrity and security in the global research ecosystem

“Open and transparent communication and dissemination of scientific information and data and sharing of research materials are essential for the global science ecosystem to operate effectively….

However, new challenges and threats are emerging as some governments and non-state actors exhibit increasingly forceful efforts to unfairly exploit and distort the open research environment for their own interests. Many countries now consider unauthorised information transfer and foreign interference in public research as a serious national and economic security risk and a threat to freedom of scientific research….

Hence, the aim of the project was to identify good practices to safeguard national and economic security whilst protecting freedom of enquiry, promoting international research cooperation, and ensuring openness and non-discrimination….”


Language Diversity in Scholarly Publishing – COKI

“we have mapped the 122 million objects in Crossref up to the end of May 2022 to languages (based on titles and abstracts, where available) and done an initial analysis. The results are a mix of the expected and surprising….

Not surprisingly, English dominates the literature (although with a slowly dropping proportion) with other European languages following including German, French, Spanish and then Portuguese, with Bahasa Indonesian as the next largest language. Spanish and Portuguese grew strongly over the period with Portuguese growing from around 7,000 outputs captured in 2000 to over 150,000 in 2021, reflecting the rise of Brazil as a research powerhouse, and the effectiveness of SciELO as a dissemination platform over that period. Indonesian shows massive growth, probably in part reflecting improved coverage of Crossref metadata over this period along with the massive growth of Indonesian publishing efforts….

Open access shows substantial differences across languages. Perhaps even more importantly, our ability to classify open access types is leading to issues across different languages. Indonesian is a great example. Currently we use DOAJ as the marker of a “completely OA journal” (and we differ from Unpaywall in this at the moment). Many Indonesian journals are not in DOAJ and therefore show as “hybrid”. Unpaywall is also not always able to pick up license information so full OA journals that are not in DOAJ may also get characterized as “bronze”. In Portuguese it is likely that a large proportion of “hybrid” is actually fully OA journals published through SciElO. Categories of open access publishing in Hungarian, Polish, Turkish and many other languages are also likely to need closer examination. We used DOAJ to identify non-APC journals as well and this is likely undercounting this category for Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese and Spanish outputs. 

Nonetheless, we observe high proportions of articles in non-APC journals in Spanish and Portuguese (attesting to the success of the diamond OA model in Latin America), as well as in a number of other languages, including Nordic languages, many Eastern European languages, and others. Overall, when looking at 2020-2022, for English articles in DOAJ journals, 21% are in non-APC journals, but for articles in languages other than English, this percentage is a massive 86%. Non-APC models appear to dominate the landscape for non-English full OA journals. And amongst English language articles in OA journals (as defined by registration in DOAJ) the APC model definitely dominates. As is often the case, innovation rooted in community needs is more common away from traditional centres of prestige.

Some countries with high levels of open access in English have comparatively low levels in the local language. This is the case for the Netherlands and to some extent France and Germany. This is most likely related to disciplinary differences in what is published in English (with a bias towards STEM and higher levels of OA) vs local language (with a bias towards HSS subjects). By contrast Nordic languages and Norwegian in particular show high levels of open access with an emphasis on APC-free OA journals, likely as a result of local initiatives to fund the conversion of national language journals (which tend to focus on HSS) to open access. The Hr?ak central portal providing support for Croatian journals is another example with Croatian also showing a similar pattern….”

Many researchers say they’ll share data — but don’t

“Most biomedical and health researchers who declare their willingness to share the data behind journal articles do not respond to access requests or hand over the data when asked, a study reports1. …

But of the 1,792 manuscripts for which the authors stated they were willing to share their data, more than 90% of corresponding authors either declined or did not respond to requests for raw data (see ‘Data-sharing behaviour’). Only 14%, or 254, of the contacted authors responded to e-mail requests for data, and a mere 6.7%, or 120 authors, actually handed over the data in a usable format. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology on 29 May….

Puljak’s results square with those of a study that Danchev led, which found low rates of data sharing by authors of papers in leading medical journals that stipulate all clinical trials must share data2. …

Past research suggests that some fields, such as ecology, embrace data sharing more than others. But multiple analyses of COVID-19 clinical trials — including some from Li4,5 and Tan6 — have reported that anywhere from around half to 80% of investigators are unwilling or not planning to share data freely….

To encourage researchers to prepare their data, Li says, journals could make data-sharing statements more prescriptive. They could require authors to detail where they will share raw data, who will be able to access it, when and how.


Funders could also raise the bar for data sharing. The US National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb wasteful, irreproducible research, will soon mandate that grant applicants include a data-management and sharing plan in their applications. Eventually, they will be required to share data publicly….”

The Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Annual Conference 2022

“Register to join the discussion at the 2022 conference of the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE).

SORTEE is a service organisation which brings together researchers working to improve reliability and transparency through cultural and institutional changes in ecology, evolutionary biology, and related fields broadly defined….”

An open letter on open access: call for greater clarity and transparency of open access terms and conditions – The Publication Plan for everyone interested in medical writing, the development of medical publications, and publication planning

“On 1 March 2022, cOAlition S wrote to publishers as part of the Plan S initiative to drive open access publishing. Acknowledging recent progress made by publishers to increase open access to scientific publications, cOAlition S urged publishers to take further steps by making details of their open access policies and contracts more obvious for authors. The letter signed by Professor Johan Rooryck, Executive Director of cOAlition S, calls on journals to make the following information plainly available for authors at the point of submission:

the copyright licence that authors would need to sign before their manuscript’s publication
all costs associated with publishing the manuscript
whether the journal will re-direct the manuscript to another journal based on reasons other than editorial rejection.

While details on these policies can often be found on a journal’s own web site or via the publisher’s web site, cOAlition S states that it would be helpful for authors if this information were displayed:

prominently on the journal’s web site
as a part of the ‘Information for Authors’ section
at the start of the journal’s submission process….”

FORCE11 Board Completes Strategic Planning Exercise – FORCE11

“In 2021, the FORCE11 board conducted a strategic planning exercise to review our work, our goals, and how our organization is being run. We followed the ITAV (It Takes a Village) framework developed by Lyrasis with the support from an Institute of Museum and Library Services (ILMS) grant. We conducted six strategy sessions. The sessions were prepared by then co-chair of the Board, Violeta Ilik, with the help of Board members Dr. Mantra Roy and Dr. Miho Funamori. The first strategy session was held on May 10, 2021 and the last one on August 9, 2021. 

Here are some highlights from each strategy session: 

First strategy session: reviewed different stakeholder groups and prioritized them to identify those that  need the most attention from the FORCE11 BOD. 
Second strategy session: re-evaluated our mission and vision. 
Third strategy session: examined our governance.  The need to document clear and succinct descriptions for all board officers and charters/charges for all task forces/groups/committees emerged as an important objective and next step. 
Fourth strategy session: focused on discussing the community infrastructure and BOD members identified many initiatives, some already underway, that will enhance the infrastructure. Some of them are: 

Establishing an annual Force11 Community award program 
Launching a new blog focused on original content regarding open scholarship and the future of open access 
Revamping the way membership is administered to include easy process for including all registrants to annual conference and FSCI 
Revamping the working group program to ensure all working groups are represented at FSCI and annual conferences 
Using the new website to organize our community lists and membership rolls so that we have a consolidated understanding of how we communicate with our community

Fifth strategy session: focused on resources, both human and fiscal, that need to grow in order to launch open community programs and help them thrive. Programs need to evaluate their resource plans in response to the broader landscape and trends in the domain FORCE11 serves. 
Sixth strategy session: focused on community engagement and what we need to focus on in the future. Some immediate action items include: 

Bringing more people into the fold – turning community members into stakeholders
Setting up processes and infrastructure to facilitate engagement 
Communicating clearly our practices and policies  
Increasing non-directed community activities …”

What do researchers think about paying to publish open access – Findings from a global survey | Impact of Social Sciences

“According to the results of our international survey on attitudes towards the pay-to-publish model, this would be a fairly common conversation amongst academic researchers on the subject of article processing charges (APCs), the pay to publish mode of academic publishing. Authors have warned about the potentially detrimental consequences of this new business model. And, as we have explored, most scholars worldwide share such concern. At least, in relation to the global, general consequences of this system, rather than the particular ones.

Globally speaking, participants stated that they at least partially agree with the idea that paying to publish ‘damages or slows scientific advancement’. Yet, when we asked them if they felt that this model ‘has slowed or damaged my scientific career’, their opinion was less emphatic, and most of them did not feel particularly affected by the APC model: they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Thus, it would seem most scholars seem to think that other people are suffering the worst consequences of this publication system, while they are among the lucky ones….

The perception of the pay to publish model is also conditioned by the income level of the country where the researchers work. Those from nations from the lower ranks in the World Bank Income Yearly Report state hold lower opinions towards pay to publish. Once again, we interpret that lacking access to external funding leads to expressing a worse opinion of the pay-to-publish model, as 60% of researchers from low-income countries have to pay these publication fees with their own money as they lack external funding.

Younger scholars also tended to be more critical. Early career researchers tend to have less access to financial aid, they therefore distrust this system, as they are less inclined to buy into and accept this model. Beyond the economic frame, we also found that the reluctance between younger scholars is deeper among those aged 26-35. We hypothesize that this demographic has acquired some experience in the scientific environment, enough that they are aware of the structural consequences of the pay-to publish model, while most of them are not tenured nor have regular access to external funding, thereby sharpening their initial criticism….”

FIM4L Working Group in Talks with Elsevier — Towards Federated Access Best Practices – LIBER Europe

“At the beginning of 2022, the LIBER FIM4L Working Group and Elsevier held a series of talks on the topic of federated access. 

Federated access, also called Shibboleth or SSO, can be used by libraries to provide access to electronic resources. During the login process information about the user is (often) exchanged with the publisher. The library, publisher, and user can decide which information to share…

Points of consideration for anonymous login:

Not all Elsevier products support anonymity.
If an anonymous, logged-in user decides to set up alerts at e.g. Sciencedirect, they will be informed that they should log in first. Then they probably create a new user account, perhaps apart from an existing one, and their current session gets terminated.
When an identified user logs out, they cannot log in anonymously anymore in that session.


If anonymous login would be officially supported by a publisher, then it is important to inform a user using very clear communication. This is difficult for two reasons: Users do not understand these login differences and there could always be cases during the user’s journey where they might not at all be informed….”

Borealis: A New Name for Scholars Portal Dataverse | Library

“On June 23, the Scholars Portal Dataverse is becoming Borealis, the Canadian Dataverse Repository / le dépôt Dataverse canadien. The new name reflects Borealis’s identity as a national service connecting Canadian researchers and comes after consultation with research data management librarians and specialists across the country. 

This is the service that hosts the library managed University of Guelph Research Data Repositories. Although the name and the appearance of the repository are changing, the core service remains the same. The U of G repositories will continue to be managed and supported by the library and will continue to be known as the University of Guelph Research Data Repositories.  

Borealis is a bilingual, multidisciplinary, secure, Canadian research data repository, supported by academic libraries and research institutions across Canada. Borealis supports open discovery, management, sharing, and preservation of Canadian research data. ”

The Private Side of Public Universities: Third-party providers and platform capitalism | UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education

Hamilton, L., Daniels, H., Smith, C., & Eaton, C. (2022). The Private Side of Public Universities: Third-party providers and platform capitalism. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from Abstract: The rapid rise of online enrollments in public universities has been fueled by a reliance on for-profit, third-party providers—especially online program managers. However, scholars know very little about the potential problems with this arrangement. We conduct a mixed methods analysis of 229 contracts between third-party providers and 117 two-year and four-year public universities in the US, data on the financing structure of third-party providers, and university online education webpages. We ask: What are the mechanisms through which third-party relationships with universities may be exploitative of students or the public universities that serve them? To what extent are potentially predatory processes linked to the private equity and venture capital financing structure of third-party providers? We highlight specific mechanisms that lead to five predatory processes: the targeting of marginalized students, extraction of revenue, privatization by obfuscation, for-profit creep, and university captivity. We demonstrate that contracts with private equity and venture capital financed third-party providers are more likely to include potentially problematic contract stipulations. We ground our findings in a growing body of work on “platform capitalism” and include recommendations for state universities, accreditors, and federal policy.  

U.S. Library Outreach Workshop, Open Book Collective | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

by Livy Onalee Snyder and Eileen A. Fradenburg Joy

As a community-led organization, the Open Book Collective regularly solicits advice and counsel for its development from the communities it seeks to serve. As university librarians are critical to the financial and other forms of support for open access and open source initiatives (such as publishers and infrastructure providers), they have been involved from the beginning of the OBC, from initial brainstorming to the processes of forming the collective — its values and principles, membership, governance, business model, web platform, and so on. Now that we are nearing the launch of the OBC, we are conducting a new series of workshops with librarians in order to get some further assessments from them regarding what we have built. It should be noted, first, that not only will the OBC always be seeking guidance from libraries as it launches and moves forward, but that librarians will have a major role to play in the governance of the collective as well-meaning, librarians are not just our consultants; they are building the collective with us.

In our most recent workshops, we have been asking librarians for their thoughts and advice on the criteria for membership within the OBC, its governance model, its offerings and business model, its community standards, its technical aspects, its web platform, or any other aspect of the OBC they want to discuss that we haven’t thought of in advance.



Principal R&D Developer (Closing date: July 05, 2022) | Crossref

Help us research, prototype, and build new services for our members and the community.

Location: Remote. But we are looking for somebody in +/- 2 UTC Time zones (e.g. Brazil, Ireland, UK, Scandinavia, Central Europe, West/Central Africa)
Salary: Between 80K-124K EUR (or equivalent) depending on experience and location. Benchmarked every two years.
Benefits: Competitive.
Reports to: Director of Technology and Research.
Closing date: July 5, 2022