Guest Post – Transforming the Transformative Agreement – The Scholarly Kitchen

“At Cambridge University Press, we’ve been engaged in a major expansion of our TAs with US institutions. Agreements with 130 institutions came into effect this year with a diverse mix of organizations, including state university systems, liberal arts colleges, and major research universities. These agreements follow the “Read and Publish” model (R&P) we kicked off in the US with the University of California system; repurposing institutions’ existing subscription spend to open up access to important scholarly content and to extend the reach of their researchers’ work. The success this year in the US now gives us real scale — we have over 100 TAs covering 1000 institutes in 30 countries — and a critical mass of customer, author, and stakeholder feedback has given us a much better sense of what we will need to prioritize moving forward.

Yet even as we’ve actively sought to build momentum for change through R&P arrangements, we know that the evolution of TAs is essential to a long-term transition. While there are still many challenges we must solve for collectively, we are focusing our external engagement on four main areas.

Funder mandates should not be the only drivers of change….

Increased scale must come with better use of resources….

Equity and diversity must be supported in new ways….

Open is a means, not an end….”

Prospective Clinical Trial Registration: A Prerequisite for Publishing Your Results | Radiology

“The ICMJE requires that clinical trial results be published in the same clinical trial depository where the trial is registered. These results are in the form of a short (?500 words) abstract or table (6,7). Full disclosure of the existing results publication in a clinical trial registry should be explicitly stated when the manuscript is submitted for publication. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has indicated it will enforce trial results reporting related to ClinicalTrials.gov (8). The FDA is authorized to seek civil monetary penalties from responsible parties, including additional civil monetary penalties. In the United States, the sponsor of an applicable clinical trial is considered the responsible party, unless or until the sponsor designates a qualified principal investigator as the responsible party. The FDA issued its first Notice of Noncompliance in April 2021 for failure to report results in ClinicalTrials.gov based on a lack of reporting the safety and effectiveness results for the drug dalantercept in combination with axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (8).

Finally, as of July 1, 2018, manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019, must include a data sharing plan in the trial registration. (for further information, see www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html). Since most clinical trials take 2 or more years for results to be reported, the Radiology editorial board had expected such mandatory data sharing plans to be reported in the current year. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinical trials were halted. Thus, journal publication requirements to include data sharing statements are more likely to impact authors beginning in 2023. Data sharing statements required for Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) journals may be found at https://pubs.rsna.org/page/policies#clinical.

In conclusion, prospective clinical trial registration is a mechanism allowing us to ensure transparency in clinical research conduct, honest and complete reporting of the clinical trial results, and minimization of selective result publications. Since its inception in 2004, this requirement has evolved into a policy that is practiced by major medical journals worldwide, is mandatory for publication of trial results, and, in some circumstances, is enforced by the FDA. Further, ICMJE journals, including RSNA journals, are expecting manuscripts that report trial results to include statements on data sharing. As each clinical trial design is unique, we encourage authors to refer to the full description of the current ICMJE policy at icmje.org for additional information pertaining to their specific circumstances.”

81% of Horizon 2020 papers were published in open access journals | Science|Business

“European Commission boasts of high level of open access publishing in Horizon 2020. But researchers complain getting processing fees approved is long winded and could result in them losing out on intellectual property rights….

A large majority of Horizon 2020 researchers complied with the requirement to deposit open access publications in repositories. However, only 39% of Horizon 2020 deposited datasets are findable, with the remainder not including reliable metadata needed to track them down. Only 32% of deposited datasets can be quickly accessed via a link in the metadata….

Since then, the EU has also mandated that all papers coming from projects funded through Horizon Europe, its €95.5 billion research programme, should be published in open access journals.

 

The study estimates the average cost in Horizon 2020 of publishing an open access article was around €2,200. Processing charges for articles in subscription journals in which some of the articles are open access and some behind a paywall, had a higher average cost of €2,600. Trouble is looming, with charges for such hybrid journals no longer being eligible for funding under Horizon Europe….”

Do authors of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comply with its open access mandate?: A meta-epidemiologic study

Overall, we found that there was a significant decrease in the proportion of CIHR funded studies published as OA from 2014 compared to 2017, though this difference did not persist when comparing both 2014–2015 to 2016–2017. The primary limitation was the reliance of self-reported data from authors on CIHR funding status. We posit that this decrease may be attributable to CIHR’s OA policy change in 2015. Further exploration is warranted to both validate these studies using a larger dataset and, if valid, investigate the effects of potential interventions to improve the OA compliance, such as use of a CIHR publication database, and reinstatement of a policy for authors to immediately submit their findings to OA repositories upon publication.

On a Mission to Make Federal Data Sets More Useful and Accessible | SPARC

Although government agencies manage massive amounts of information, there is little known about exactly how it is used and by whom: Turns out, there is little data on federal data.

A new effort is underway to leverage artificial intelligence to better track what research is being done with what data. Ultimately, it could result in a data usage scorecard that could make it easier for researchers to find who else has used datasets in similar research, enabling them to reproduce results, advance science, and support government in the push to evidence-based decision making.

“Currently, the only way to find which databases have been used is to try and figure it out from reading  publications – and there are millions,” said Julia Lane, co-founder of the Coleridge Initiative, a nonprofit started in 2018 as a spin off from New York University, where Lane is on faculty. 

By building a modern machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP) approach to find what datasets are used in what publications, agencies can break down barriers to the access and use of public data. “The approach could demonstrate the value of data as a strategic asset,” she says.

New presidential executive orders push the use of evidence to address health, jobs and economic mobility, social justice and climate change issues. But you can’t make evidence bricks without data straw, Lane says: “What we really want to do is figure out to find how the data are used and then how to make it more useful.”

[…]

ERA Portal Austria – ERC announces its plans for 2022

On the occasion of the adoption of the ERC’s 2022 work programme, the ERC has also announced its formal endorsement of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), in line with its long-standing adherence to the highest standards of research assessment. The ERC is convinced that the broad implementation of research assessment procedures that integrate the DORA principles is the key to an equitable transition to Open Science.

UKRI announces new Open Access Policy | UKRI

UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) new policy will increase opportunity for the findings of publicly funded research to be accessed, shared and reused.

Following extensive consultation with the sector, UKRI has published a single Open Access Policy for research publications that acknowledge funding from its councils.

UKRI’s updated policy requires immediate open access for peer-reviewed research articles submitted for publication from 1 April 2022.

Monograph requirement

It also includes a new requirement for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024 to be made open access within 12 months of publication.

UKRI will provide increased funding of up to £46.7 million per annum to support the implementation of the policy.

UKRI Chief Executive, Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, said:

The new UKRI Open Access Policy is an important step towards realising our vision of a more open and transparent research culture, which is widely shared across the research and innovation community.

I am grateful to the many people and organisations who contributed their views during the development of the policy and we look forward to continuing to work together to implement open access.

Access, share and reuse research outputs

Professor Sir Duncan Wingham, UKRI Executive Champion for Open Research, who has overseen the policy development, said:

The UKRI Open Access Policy will ensure increased opportunities to access, share and reuse the outputs of research across all of the disciplines UKRI funds, benefiting the research community and generating greater social and economic impact.

Through the increased funding we are providing in support of the new policy we aim to ensure researchers and research organisations are sustainably supported to implement open access and achieve value for money.

Amanda Solloway, Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, said:

Opening up the UK’s research system so that it is accessible to all will be crucial in underpinning collaborative, world class research and accelerating new discoveries, as highlighted in our new R&D People and Culture Strategy.

I’m delighted that UKRI’s new Open Access Policy will enable UK researchers to share their expertise and findings more easily, ensuring that the benefits of their research are felt across industry and all parts of our society.

Supporting actions

UKRI aims for the new policy to be as easy as possible to implement for all stakeholders and will put in place supporting actions including:

policy guidance
stakeholder engagement
support to help up-take of open access journal agreements.

Monitoring and reporting will be more automated and light-touch. UKRI has worked with the higher education funding bodies to ensure that any open access policy within a future research assessment exercise will seek commonality with the UKRI policy.

UKRI recognises the importance of international coordination to increase open access to research and our new policy aligns closely with those of other international funders, including other members of cOAlition S.

Requirements of the new policy

For peer-reviewed research articles, key requirements of the new policy include:

immediate open access for research articles submitted for publication on or after 1 April 2022
either via the version of record in a journal or publishing platform, or by depositing the authors accepted manuscript (or if permitted by the publisher the version of record) in an institutional or subject repository
CC BY licence and CC BY ND by exception, including a requirement to notify publisher of licensing at the point of submission.

Key requirements of the new policy for monographs published on or after 1 January 2024 include:

the final version of a publications or accepted manuscript being made open access via a publisher’s website, platform or repository, within a maximum of 12 months of publication
CC BY licence preferred, but NC and ND licences are permitted.

The UKRI Open Access Policy will replace the existing research councils Policy on Open Access, which applies to peer-reviewed research articles acknowledging research council funding and was published in 2013.

The policy is the outcome of the UKRI open access review, which commenced in autumn 2018. UKRI consulted on a draft position during spring 2020, receiving 350 responses.

NIH-Wide Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2021-2025

“NIH is committed to making findings from the research that it funds accessible and available in a timely manner, while also providing safeguards for privacy, intellectual property, security, and data management. For instance, NIH-funded investigators are expected to make the results and accomplishments of their activities freely available within 12 months of publication. NIH also encourages investigators to share results prior to peer review, such as through preprints, to speed the dissemination of their findings and enhance the rigor of their work through informal peer review. A robust culture of data sharing is critical to continued progress in science, maximizing NIH’s investment in research, and assurance of the highest levels of transparency and rigor. To this end, NIH will continue to promote opportunities for data management and sharing while allowing flexibility for various data types, sharing platforms, and strategies. Additionally, NIH is implementing a policy requiring that all applications include data sharing and management plans that consider input from stakeholders….”

Open science, the replication crisis, and environmental public health: Accountability in Research: Vol 0, No ja

Abstract:  Concerns about a crisis of mass irreplicability across scientific fields (“the replication crisis”) have stimulated a movement for open science, encouraging or even requiring researchers to publish their raw data and analysis code. Recently, a rule at the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) would have imposed a strong open data requirement. The rule prompted significant public discussion about whether open science practices are appropriate for fields of environmental public health. The aims of this paper are to assess (1) whether the replication crisis extends to fields of environmental public health; and (2) in general whether open science requirements can address the replication crisis. There is little empirical evidence for or against mass irreplicability in environmental public health specifically. Without such evidence, strong claims about whether the replication crisis extends to environmental public health — or not — seem premature. By distinguishing three concepts — reproducibility, replicability, and robustness — it is clear that open data initiatives can promote reproducibility and robustness but do little to promote replicability. I conclude by reviewing some of the other benefits of open science, and offer some suggestions for funding streams to mitigate the costs of adoption of open science practices in environmental public health.

 

Plan d’action 2022 de l’Agence nationale de la recherche : Évolutions et nouvelle feuille de route pour l’année à venir (National Research Agency 2022 action plan: Developments and new roadmap for the coming year)

From Google’s English: 

“The 2022 Action Plan of the National Research Agency (ANR) is part of the 2021-2030 Research Programming Law (LPR), which consolidates ANR’s missions and strengthens its resources. , and the Plan France relaunch for 2021-2022. ANR’s annual roadmap, the Action Plan describes the actions and calls for projects proposed by the Agency for the coming year, thus giving all scientific communities and all public or private companies involved in French research, general visibility of its funding offer.”

Informationsplattform Open Access: Law

 

The field of legal science was comparatively late in recognising the relevance of open access for its own scientific practice. Admittedly, since the turn of the century, legal scholars have addressed the legal parameters of open access (Spindler, 2006) and have examined in dissertations the significance of copyright’s exclusionary power for the supply of scientific information (Krujatz, 2012). With RuZ, which was established in 2020, there is even a scholarly journal specifically dedicated to the legal issues surrounding access to cultural heritage. However, when it comes to their own publishing practices, many legal scholars react to the topic of open access with a questioning look or a shrug of the shoulders. Others even reject it outright, which can lead to years of legal disputes. There are a variety of reasons for this; at least eight theses against open access in law (which have since been called into question) are frequently advanced (Hamann & Hürlimann, 2019).