India’s Fumbled Chance For Sharing Knowledge – CodeBlue

“In terms of open access to knowledge, India could have been the Vishwa Guru — the world’s teacher.

As early as 2000, India was making moves to allow taxpayer-funded research to be freely available for anyone in the world to read, share and distribute. But India has squandered that advantage.

Fast forward to 2022, and much of India’s research is still locked up behind the paywalls of corporate academic publishers, while the global science community increasingly questions why taxpayer-funded research should not be available for everyone to read….”

Data sharing: what do we know and where can we go?

“OASPA is pleased to announce our next webinar which will focus on the what about and the why of data sharing.

The recent OSTP “Nelson memo” served as a re-focus on data as a first class research output. But maybe that’s a misrepresentation for those of us who think ‘hold on, we’ve been focused on data this whole time!?’ Well here’s a chance to learn from and with a group of experts who are thinking carefully about data sharing: what that means from different perspectives, tangible steps to take and policies to make around data, and what we can do next in our communities of practice. Attendees are more than welcome to bring their own perspectives! The webinar will be chaired by Rachael Lammey. We welcome our panelists: Sarah Lippincott will give a repository perspective with insights into where data is going post Nelson Memo and NIH Policy. Aravind Venkatesan will share the thinking, data science and workflows employed at EuropePMC to support data linking. Shelley Stall will talk about how AGU are leading the line with their data policies, and Kathleen Gregory will conclude by considering researchers’ perspectives regarding sharing and reusing data.”

Reminder: NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing effective on January 25, 2023.

“The purpose of this notice is to remind the community of the effective date of the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (DMS Policy) and summarize available key resources.

As noted in the Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (NOT-OD-21-013), the effective date of the DMS Policy is January 25, 2023 for competing grant applications submitted to NIH for the January 25, 2023 and subsequent receipt dates; proposals for contracts  submitted to NIH on or after January 25, 2023; NIH Intramural Research Projects conducted on or after January 25, 2023; and other funding agreements (e.g., Other Transactions)  executed on or after January 25, 2023, unless otherwise stipulated by NIH.

The DMS Policy applies to all NIH research, funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH, that results in the generation of scientific data. Note that the DMS Policy does not apply to research and other activities that do not generate scientific data, for example: research training, fellowships, infrastructure development, and non-research activities. See Research Covered Under the Data Management & Sharing Policy for more details.

The DMS Policy has two basic requirements:

Submission of a Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan outlining how scientific data and any accompanying metadata will be managed and shared, considering any potential restrictions or limitations. 
Compliance with the Plan approved by the funding NIH Institute, Center, or Office.

DMS Plans should describe how data will be managed and appropriately shared. See Writing a Data Management & Sharing Plan for details, sample Plans, and an optional format page which includes six elements recommended to be included in a Data Management and Sharing Plan. Guidance on planning and budgeting and selecting a data repository are available on the NIH Scientific Data Sharing website. Application Guide instructions have been updated to provide instructions for DMS policy implementation.

Ultimately, the new DMS Policy promotes transparency and accountability in research by setting a minimum set of expectations for data management and sharing. This means that other NIH policies or NIH Institutes, Centers, Offices, or programs may build upon these expectations, for instance, by specifying scientific data to share, relevant standards, repository timelines, and/or shorter data sharing timelines for meeting programmatic needs, the DMS Policy sets a consistent baseline across NIH.

In preparing for DMS Policy implementation, NIH has developed a number of helpful resources that we encourage investigators and institutions to review:

DMS Policy Overview
DMS Policy FAQs
Learning Resources including 2-part webinar series on DMS Policy
Statements and Guide Notices …”

Canadian policy: Data management requirement takes effect in March

“Canadian institutions are preparing for a research data management policy developed by three major federal granting agencies to go into effect this March. The policy of the Tri-Agency Council, comprising the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), asserts that “research data collected through the use of public funds should be responsibly and securely managed and be, where ethical, legal and commercial obligations allow, available for reuse by others.” Dryad would be pleased to assist any Canadian institution seeking a solution to help support their affiliated researchers with this policy….”

Time to Reform Academic Publishing | Forum

“In particular, as graduate, professional, and medical students, we have been shaped by the relics of an inequitable publishing model that was created before the age of the internet. Our everyday work—from designing and running experiments to diagnosing and treating patients—relies on the results of taxpayer-funded research. Having these resources freely available will help to accelerate innovation and level the playing field for smaller and less well-funded research groups and institutions. With this goal of creating an equitable research ecosystem in mind, we want to highlight the importance of creating one that is equitable in whole….

But today, the incentives for institutions do not align with goals of equity, and change will be necessary to help support a more equitable system. Nor do incentives within institutions always align with these goals. This is especially true for early-career researchers, who might struggle to comply with new open-access guidelines if they need to pay a high article publishing fee to make their research open in a journal that is valued by their institutions’ promotion and tenure guidelines.

To these ends, it is imperative that the process for communicating research results to the public and other researchers does not shift from a “pay-to-read” model to a “pay-to-publish” model. That is, we should not use taxpayer dollars to pay publishers to make research available, nor should we simply pass these costs on to researchers. This approach would be unsustainable long-term and would go against the equity goals of the new OSTP policy. Instead, we hope that funders, professional societies, and institutions will come along with us in imagining and supporting innovative ways for communicating science that are more equitable and better for research….”

N8 Research Partnership: Rights Retention means researchers have a strong hand in terms of control over their own work | Plan S

“In 2008 Harvard’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences voted unanimously to adopt a ground-breaking open access policy. Since then, over 70 other institutions, including other Harvard faculties, Stanford and MIT, have adopted similar policies based on the Harvard model. In Europe, such institutional policies have, so far, been slow to get off the ground.

But we are beginning to see that situation change. Over the last months, an increasing number of European institutions have started implementing their own rights retention policies, thereby ensuring that research outputs are disseminated as widely as possible, whilst their researchers retain the freedom to publish in the journal of choice.

The N8 Research Partnership is a collaboration of the eight most research-intensive Universities in the North of England: Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and York. Working together, all eight institutions issued a statement on Rights Retention, demonstrating their determination to support their researchers in taking control over their own work. In the following post, Professor Christopher Pressler, John Rylands University Librarian of the University of Manchester, and representative of the N8 Research Partnership, gives us a view from the ground and explains N8’s approach to Rights Retention….”

N8 Research Partnership – Statement on Rights Retention

“The N8 Research Partnership represents the research-intensive universities of the North of England. 12% of all UK academics work at N8 universities as well as almost 200,000 students. The N8 is one of the strongest regional academic consortia in the UK and believes the time is now right to make a coordinated statement on the rights held by our academics over their research….

. In order to achieve this third route to open access researchers need to be able to apply a CC BY licence and place their accepted manuscript in an institutional or other preferred repository. This must now be done without embargo granted to any publisher….”

Confused by open-access policies? These tools can help

“Funding-agency policies mandating that scientific papers and data are made publicly available have helped to drive the adoption of preprints, open-access publishing and data repositories. But agencies often struggle to measure how closely grant recipients comply with the funding policies. Awardees, and the institutes that employ them, can struggle to ensure they are following the rules. Now, digital tools are cropping up to help both sides of the funding equation stick to the regulations.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, has invested US$1.8 million to support the development of OA.Report, a tool that helps funders to track awardee compliance with foundation open-access policies. Developed by OA.Works in London, OA.Report uses text-mining techniques to match articles with the funder that supported the work, by sifting through academic papers and open-access metadata. The software also tracks article-processing charges, as well as the subsequent reports that summarize the outcomes of grants….”

Guest Post – “We are ready to move forward”: A Professional Society’s Route to Open Access – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Some publishers have been quoted as saying it is too soon to tell if this mandate will impact their journals. My colleagues and I at the ANS have known for some time that our journals would be impacted by the wider movement toward open research publishing. In many ways, the OSTP’s latest public access guidance is a big win for federally funded researchers and the entire nuclear community. ANS has recently published numerous OA supplements alongside some national US labs and the benefit to authors and researchers is far-reaching. The Nelson Memo only reaffirms that we as publishers must continue to be proactive in finding sustainable solutions that work for authors, the publishers of those journals and for society. We are ready to move forward.

But it is not an all-or-nothing approach. The ANS has long taken a progressive stance to ensure that we stay at the fore of the evolution of scholarly publishing, whilst ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of our members and our wider research community….”

 

N8 Research Partnership stands up for researchers with new Rights Retention statement – N8 Research Partnership

“The N8 – which represents 12% of all UK academics and 200,000 students – has released a statement outlining its new stance on the importance of researchers being able to obtain their original rights when their work is published in a journal. The statement was launched at an event held at the University of Manchester’s John Rylands Library, with speakers including the N8’s new chair Professor Charlie Jeffrey and Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, president and vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester. 

In April 2022, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) made it mandatory for all research published in journals to be made immediately available via Open Access or transformative Gold journals’ APC charges or through journals released on a transitional Read & Publish deal without APC charges. Open access can also be achieved via depositing the author accepted manuscript and making it available without embargo. 

However, in order to achieve this third route to open access researchers need to be able to apply a CC BY license – which allows anyone to make commercial use of the work under the condition of attributing the research in the manner specified by the author or licensor – and place their accepted manuscript in an institutional or other preferred repository. This must now be done without embargo granted to any publisher. 

However, some publishers are no longer compliant with several not accepting that a researcher’s original rights should be retained by them, meaning that publishers may not accept manuscripts where an application has been made for a CC BY license and the researcher has clearly stated that they own their research.  

The N8’s statement – which has been coordinated through the eight universities’ PVCs for Research, Research Offices, Legal Departments and Libraries – reflects the shared conviction of the importance of researchers retaining their rights.  

Each N8 university will have its own position which may supersede the publisher’s requirements, but ultimately if a researcher is able to publish via an APC to a Gold journal or in a journal covered by a Read & Publish deal then researchers do not need to assert their rights.  

However, the N8 statement strongly recommends that researchers do not by default transfer intellectual property rights to publishers and do use a Rights Retention statement as standard practice….”

Open access deal ‘weakens publishers’ position’ | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Several leading UK universities will ask their academics to deposit their accepted manuscripts in free-to-read domains as part of a new pledge to support open access publication.

Under a new commitment agreed by members of the N8 Research Partnership, whose institutions include the universities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, researchers will be urged to retain their intellectual property (IP) rights, rather than sign them over to publishers.

By doing so, scholars would be free to post final versions of research articles on institutional repositories, after obtaining a CC BY licence – a move that some publishers will not permit, or only allow after an embargo period, a route to publication known as green open access.

That has led to a stand-off between academics and publishers – with some journals refusing to publish manuscripts where an application for a CC BY licence has been made, whereby the researcher states they own the research….”

The Gaping Problem At The Heart Of Scientific Research – CodeBlue

“But the very need for these groups to call for research to be made available in the middle of a global emergency demonstrates the failure of the current publishing system.

Making research immediately free to read, which, when combined with the use of an open publishing licence, is known as ‘open access’ — is a hot topic in science. Global health bodies know how important open research is, especially in times of emergency, which is why they have repeatedly called for research to be made open. 

The latest plaintive request came in August 2022 from the US White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for mpox research to be made open. Previous global calls were in 2016 for Zika and in 2018 for Ebola. 

The consequences of lack of access to research can be dire. In 2015 a group of African researchers claimed that an earlier Ebola outbreak could have been prevented if research on it had been published openly.

The past 12 months have seen a flurry of changes in open access globally and from January 2023, the high profile journal Science will allow published research to be immediately placed in publicly-accessible repositories at no cost to scientists.

In August 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memorandum to all US research funding agencies that by January 1, 2026, they must make all the research they fund immediately publicly available, along with the data behind that research….

As 2023 unfolds, it seems that the benefits of open access have been proved beyond doubt. The next emergency in front of us, climate change, is much more complex, and there too are calls for open access.

Serious investment in a variety of approaches is essential to ensure a diverse, equitable, open access future.”

Supporting open access publishing for books: myth-busting webinars event summary – Research

“As part of our work with UKRI to support the implementation of the UKRI open access policy for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024, we re-visited some of the key areas of concern for researchers that surfaced during the consultation period for the policy (see UUK Open access and monographs. Evidence review and Open access and monographs: Where are we now? A position paper by the British Academy).

There was a clear need for a focused period of engagement with key stakeholder groups such as researchers/academics across all career levels, librarians/scholarly communication managers, research offices, and rights holders, with the aim being to split the real issues from the perceived problems. As a result, we collaborated with a number of UK university presses and the Open Access Books Network to hold a series of webinars on the subject of the myths around open access for books, as well as to address legitimate concerns and suggest ways to remove barriers to open access publishing.

We held three 90-minute webinars, each consisting of three short presentations from a panel including authors, publishers, open access publishing support services and policy makers. These were then followed by a Q&A session where audience questions were invited. All sessions were chaired by an expert in the field of open access.

The opening session set the context and covered the key themes, and this was then followed by more focused sessions covering specific areas in more detail. You can find all the event recordings, transcripts, presentations, and our panels’ responses to the questions we didn’t have time to cover on our Events webpage and also via the links below….”