Abstract: The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.
“Say hello to Jot: a free, open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript’s title, abstract, and (optionally) citations.
Developed by the Townsend Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, Jot gathers a wealth of data on journal quality, impact, fit, and open access options that can be explored through a dashboard of linked, interactive visualizations….”
“The FAIR principles and “making data FAIR” have become common buzzwords in the biomedical field in recent years. Many organizations are striving to create fully FAIR data or to FAIRify existing data. In that process they often find themselves hindered by a range of challenges. To address those challenges, the FAIRplus consortium and other organizations have developed FAIR products and services in recent years. Now the question is: what is the need for new FAIR services or for improvement of the existing ones, in order to better serve life science organizations in their quest to accelerate biomedical research? To answer this, The Hyve run a survey to collect experience with the FAIR principles, main challenges and the products or services that help (or might have helped) to overcome those challenges….”
“Say hello to Jot: a free, open-source web application that matches manuscripts in the fields of biomedicine and life sciences with suitable journals, based on a manuscript’s title, abstract, and (optionally) citations….”
“Beginning in 2023, JAMA and all of the journals in the JAMA Network will adopt a new policy that permits authors of original research investigations to deposit their accepted manuscript in a public repository of their choosing immediately on the day that the manuscript is published by the JAMA Network….
With these and future policies, JAMA and the JAMA Network look forward to working collaboratively with scientists, research institutions, policy makers, funders, and other journals to lean in on first principles that support a thriving, robust scientific enterprise. Stakeholders have a shared responsibility to craft solutions that balance equity, accessibility, and sustainability. Together, we will continue to collegially debate and advance the steps to safeguard and evolve the growth and health of our ecosystem, which manifestly includes timely public access to biomedical research.”
“BioOne, founded in 1999 and launched in 2001, provides libraries with a low-cost collection of curated titles and publishers with a community-based platform to distribute their journals. It works with more than 150 nonprofit publishers and 3,500 libraries, serving researchers, educators and students in the U.S. and internationally.
SPARC was a founding organization of BioOne, raising start-up funds from the library community to provide the capital to fund its launch. From the start, the work of the organizations closely aligned: both are dedicated to a sustainable, equitable publishing ecosystem within the reach of all.
BioOne’s structure allows its non-profit publishing partners to retain independence and editorial control, including the crucial decision of access and business model. Yet as the landscape changes, Kane said she is exploring ways to facilitate a sustainable transition to open access that works for smaller, less funded titles. Subscribe to Open (S2O) is among the approaches, Kane said, she’s following with interest. It’s appealing as a community-support model and one that the library community is encouraging further investigation. (For details see Equity is at Heart of Subscribe to Open Model – SPARC) …”
“Open Research, or Open Science is the movement to make the scientific process and research outputs more transparent, inclusive and accessible.
It supports validation, reproducibility and reduces cases of academic misconduct.
It helps to maximise the impact of one’s research and provides the foundations for others to build upon.
Held in conjunction with the International Open Access Week, the inaugural Singapore Open Research Conference, “Accelerating Research with Responsible Open Science”, will provide a great opportunity to interact with drivers and practitioners about their experiences and suggestions on Open Science/Open Research.
Though the discussions will be based on the bioscience field, researchers from various institutions are most welcome….”
Abstract: The Harvard Medical School Countway Library’s Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Best Practices for Biomedical Research Data Management launched on Canvas in January 2018. This report analyzes learner reported data and course generated analytics from March 2020 through June 2021 for the course. This analysis focuses on three subsets of participant data during the pandemic to understand global learner demographics and interest in biomedical research data management.
Abstract: With the rise in data-sharing policies, development of supportive infrastructure, and the amount of data published over the last decades, evaluation and assessment are increasingly necessary to understand the reach, impact, and return on investment of data-sharing practices. As biomedical research stakeholders prepare for the implementation of the updated National Institutes of Health (NIH) Data Management and Sharing Policy in 2023, it is essential that the development of responsible, evidence-based open data metrics are prioritized. If the community is not mindful of our responsibility in building for assessment upfront, there are prominent risks to the advancement of open data-sharing practices: failing to live up to the policy’s goals, losing community ownership of the open data landscape, and creating disparate incentive systems that do not allow for researcher reward. These risks can be mitigated if the community recognizes data as its own scholarly output, resources and leverages open infrastructure, and builds broad community agreement around approaches for open data metrics, including using existing standards and resources. In preparation for the NIH policy, the community has an opportune moment to build for researchers’ best interests and support the advancement of biomedical sciences, including assessment, reward, and mechanisms for improving policy resources and supportive infrastructure as the space evolves.
“FASEB DataWorks! is our new initiative that brings the biological and biomedical research communities together to advance human health through data sharing and reuse.
DataWorks! features four components:
DataWorks! Salons are conversation spaces for the biological and biomedical research community to exchange ideas and design effective practices for data sharing and reuse;
DataWorks! Help Desk provides guidance for the biological and biomedical research community to navigate and adopt data sharing and reuse policies and practices;
DataWorks! Prize recognizes biological and biomedical research teams that integrate data sharing and reuse to advance human health; and
DataWorks! Community enables biological and biomedical researchers and teams to hone skills and mentor peers in data management and sharing….”
“Oxford University Press (OUP) and the Italian consortium of Biomedical Research Libraries (BIBLIOSAN) have announced a new Read & Publish agreement. As OUP’s first Read & Publish deal with an Italian consortium, the deal is significant in that it will provide online access for Bibliosan’s network, which includes 68 institutions and their researchers, to OUP’s full journal collection of peer-reviewed journals….”
“Share your story of how you reused or shared data to further your biological and/or biomedical research effort and get recognized!…
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are championing a bold vision of data sharing and reuse. The DataWorks! Prize fuels this vision with an annual challenge that showcases the benefits of research data management while recognizing and rewarding teams whose research demonstrates the power of data sharing or reuse practices to advance scientific discovery and human health. We are seeking new and innovative approaches to data sharing and reuse in the fields of biological and biomedical research.
To incentivize effective practices and increase community engagement around data sharing and reuse, the 2022 DataWorks! Prize will distribute up to 12 monetary team awards. Submissions will undergo a two-stage review process, with final awards selected by a judging panel of NIH officials. The NIH will recognize winning teams with a cash prize, and winners will share their stories in a DataWorks! Prize symposium.”
We aimed to examine how the rise of open access (OA) journals in biomedicine has impacted resident research in radiation oncology.
We built a comprehensive database of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We then classified each journal in which these manuscripts appeared as either OA or non-OA, and obtained the current article processing charge (APC) for every publication that appeared in an OA journal. Lastly, we performed a secondary analysis to identify the factors associated with publishing an article in an OA journal.
The US radiation oncology residents in this study published 2,637 first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts, 555 (21.0%) of which appeared in 138 OA journals. The number of publications in OA journals increased from 0.47 per resident for the class of 2015 to 0.79 per resident for the class of 2019. Likewise, the number of publications in OA journals with a 2019 impact factor of zero increased from 0.14 per resident for the class of 2015 to 0.43 per resident for the class of 2019. Publications in OA journals garnered fewer citations than those in non-OA journals (8.9 versus 14.9, P < 0.01). 90.6% of OA journals levy an APC for original research reports (median $1,896), which is positively correlated with their 2019 impact factor (r?=?0.63, P < 0.01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 for all US radiation oncology residency programs and appeared to increase over the study period.
The number of first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts published by graduating US radiation oncology residents in OA journals rose significantly over the study period. US radiation oncology residency programs appear to be investing increasing and significant sums of money to publish the work of their residents in these journals. A more substantive discussion about the proper role of OA journals in resident research is needed.
“As a long-standing service and infrastructure provider in the open science ecosystem, Europe PMC supports the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI). We welcome the momentum gathering behind this initiative to promote the need to support and sustain the open infrastructure.
Europe PMC has been a part of the public and open infrastructure for over 15 years and is run and managed by EMBL-EBI (which is part of the pan-European organisation of EMBL). It is funded by 34 international funders and is community-driven, open infrastructure, set in the context of key global open data resources such as the European Nucleotide Archive (INSDC), the wwPDB and the European Genome-Phenome Archive. All of these resources exist for the public good, led by scientific need and international collaborations, and have open governance structures and a commitment to long-term sustainability. Together with PMC USA, Europe PMC is a part of the PubMed Central International archive network, which plays an integral part in fulfilling shared goals to enable international open science. Europe PMC has been selected as an ELIXIR Core Data Resource, which means that it is of fundamental importance to the wider life-science community and the long-term preservation of biological data….”