Publishers, funders and institutions: who is supporting UKRI-funded researchers to share data? – Insights

Abstract:  Researchers are increasingly being asked by funders, publishers and their institutions to share research data alongside written publications, and to include data availability statements to support their readers in finding this data. In the UK, UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) is one of the largest funding bodies and has had data-sharing policies for several years. This article investigates the reasons why a researcher may or may not share their data and assesses whether funders, publishers and institutions are supporting data-sharing behaviour through their policies and actions. A survey with 166 responses gave an indicative assessment of researcher opinions around data sharing, and a corpus of 3,277 journal articles retrieved from four UK institutions was analysed using multivariate logistic regression models to provide empirical evidence as to researcher behaviour around data sharing. The regression models provide insight into how this is affected by the funder, institution and publisher of the research. This study identifies that those publishers and funders who give clear guidance in their policies as to which data should be shared, and where this data should be shared, are most likely to encourage good practice in researchers.


How the Public Access Submission System is Ideally Suited to Address the New Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum | December 2022

“In August of this year, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced new guidance that requires all federal agencies to define, by 2025, policies that ensure immediate public access to federally funded research publications in agency-designated repositories. These policy changes have the potential to dramatically increase access to public research, but they also come with implementation challenges. These agency-designated repositories can have highly variable submission requirements and capabilities, and research institutions often have their own open access policies and guidelines, which introduce additional expectations. Taken together, all of these requirements place a considerable burden on researchers who wish to comply with all applicable public access policies with minimal effort. The Public Access Submission System (PASS) was designed specifically to address these challenges. PASS was created to take into account the requirements of multiple federal agency and institutional repository systems and to guide researchers through the deposit process, ensuring that all of the necessary information is collected at one time and then submitted to all of the required deposit endpoints….”


Bill Branan, Senior Manager, Open Source Programs Office and Digital Research & Curation Center, Johns Hopkins University
John Kellerman, Eclipse Public Access Submission System (PASS) Program Manager, Eclipse Foundation
Sayeed Choudhury, Director of Open Source Programs Office, Carnegie Mellon University

Researchers Forget to Report How to Share Data From Studies Published in Spanish Medical Journals – ScienceDirect

“Some time ago, Archivos de Bronconeumología reported on a radical turnabout by the ICMJE: after announcing in 2016 that they would require clinical trial researchers to share individual-level anonymized participant data with third parties, in 2017 they decided that such transfer would be voluntary.4 The news had a precedent in the Recommendations published a few years earlier, to the effect that some journal editors “ask authors to say whether the study data are available to third parties to view and/or use/reanalyze, while still others encourage or require authors to share their data with others for review or reanalysis”.1 It would be interesting to know which Spanish journals have included this requirement in their ‘instructions for authors’ and whether they comply with it.

To answer this question, we reviewed the portals of 24 Spanish journals with an impact factor greater than 1, on the understanding that they have greater influence than those with an impact factor ?1 and those with no impact factor. Of these 24, 14 are included in the list of ICMJE Recommendations (Supplementary material A). Of these, only 5 (Archivos of Bronconeumología, Atención Primaria, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, Gaceta Sanitaria, and Medicina Intensiva) include a specific section, that we shall call “link to data repository”, that recommends, supports and encourages authors to share raw data from their studies with other researchers, and gives instructions on how to go about it. A sixth journal, the Revista de Neurología, recommends this procedure only for clinical trials (Supplementary material B). To determine the frequency with which authors report how data can be accessed compared to other requirements requested by the same journals, 2 control requirements were selected: reporting on conflicts of interest and study funding, that were included in the Recommendations much earlier. It is also of interest to determine whether supplementary material may be included online, as this is sometimes a way of including raw study data….

Sharing data from quantitative studies is much easier than from qualitative studies. Researchers performing qualitative studies frequently cite the lack of authorization of the participants, the sensitive nature of the data, and loss of confidentiality as reasons for not sharing data.6 However, qualitative studies are the exception among Spanish medical publications. By 2011, most researchers were already sharing their data, although this was challenging for more than a third of them; in the case of clinical trials, it has recently been reported that access7 to data is difficult despite authors’ commitment to share.8 Ideally, Spanish medical journals should require authors to share them in all the articles they publish, and if data sharing is impossible, to explain why.”

Introducing the National Open Access Transition Programme project | National Open Research Forum

“In this blog post, Lucy Hogan, Project Manager at the Royal Irish Academy for the NORF-funded Priority Action targeting Open Access (OA) Transition in publishing, introduces the work of the project and invites stakeholders to engage with the project through upcoming surveys, webinars and events so that the result is community-driven serving the need of authors, readers, publishers and funders in Ireland. Led by the Royal Irish Academy, with its executive partner, Trinity College Dublin, this consortium of 18 institutional and organisational partners addresses the call in Theme 2 of the NORF National Action Plan for Open Research 2022–2030 to achieve “100% open access to research publications”….”

Are the Humanities Ready for Data Sharing? – Ithaka S+R

“The Nelson memo is not the first federal policy to address data sharing and open access, but it is the first to apply to not only large funders such as the NSF and NIH, but to smaller ones such as the NEH. While the NEH funds only a tiny percentage of research and publications in the humanities, its inclusion in the Nelson memo and in the “year of open science” is clear evidence that humanists—who have largely existed on the margins of major trends towards mandatory data sharing that are transforming research practices and scholarly communication in other fields—must now consider their place in this policy landscape.[2]

Humanists—who have largely existed on the margins of major trends towards mandatory data sharing that are transforming research practices and scholarly communication in other fields—must now consider their place in this policy landscape.

It is not yet clear how the NEH will define data for the purposes of compliance with the Nelson memo, but the requirement that they do so should stimulate conversation about data sharing in the humanities. When should the evidence humanists collect be considered data? How might humanists adopt STEM-oriented norms around data sharing, and what might humanists bring to the table that would help other fields improve their data sharing practices?…”

Open Science & AI: A UK Policy Discussion – Knowledge Rights 21

“In association with CILIP, the library and information association and RLUK, Research Libraries UK, Knowledge Rights 21 invites you to attend a one day conference in London to discuss the latest policy developments around Open Science, AI, as well as broader issues of long term sustainable access to digital knowledge, and what is needed to take things further….”

March 2023 Librarian Community Call, OpenCon

“As both agencies and institutions prepare for the implementation of the 2022 OSTP Memo, there are a variety of ways libraries can support this work—both on campus and in advocacy to ensure agency plans lead to strong policies. Join the next OpenCon Library Community Call on Tuesday, March 14th, at 12pm ET / 9am PT to discuss how libraries are preparing for the 2022 memo to take effect, what additional types of support could help in this preparation, and the important role libraries can play in advocacy around implementation. Katie Steen-James, SPARC’s Manager of Public Policy & Advocacy, will join the discussion and walk through the first opportunity for libraries to help shape the implementation of the memo in the NIH’s recently announced Request for Information on their plan to implement the 2022 memo. 

Note: This call is open to those working in libraries and academic institutions rather than vendors, who are asked to respect the purpose of these calls for candid discussion….

You can find all the proposed agendas and notes from the Librarian community calls in one place, right here….”

NASA’s Thirst for Open Source Software — and for Open Science – The New Stack

“Software has been a crucial component to all of NASA’s major achievements, from space travel to the deepest images of our universe. Naturally, NASA’s need for high-quality scientific software has led it to open source developers, and now to an ambitious new program based on the larger principles of “open science.”

Bringing NASA’s open source message to the annual FOSDEM conference was Steve Crawford, a space-loving astronomer who is now also the data officer of NASA’s science directorate, the group engaging the scientific community to define questions and expand research….

But there’s also an outreach to the world beyond NASA — including a new $40 million, five-year program called Transform to Open Science. The idea of open science involves free availability of research information to encourage outside contributions, and NASA is actively trying to lead us there….

The official TOPS webpage calls it NASA’s “global community initiative to spark change and inspire open science engagement through events and activities that will shift the current paradigm.” Throughout 2023, NASA TOPS will be partnering with 12 scientific professional societies in the scientific community “to advance the adoption of open science, roll out an open science curriculum, and support minority-serving institutions engagement with NASA through prizes, challenges, and hackathons.”…”

Data Sharing Enters a New Era | Annals of Internal Medicine

“On 25 August 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed all federal agencies to develop or update their policies to ensure that peer-reviewed publications and the underlying data resulting from federal funds are freely available and publicly accessible on the day of publication (1). The OSTP action intends to stimulate innovation, restore faith in science, and renew commitment to open science. Although public availability of peer-reviewed publications may spur innovation, data sharing has greater potential but is complex and challenging. Yet, the OSTP announcement provided limited details regarding data sharing….

As the NIH develops new policies as mandated by OSTP, it should consider several issues. First, the 27 institutes and centers of the NIH should have a single approach to data sharing, which is more likely to result in consistent and effective data sharing. Second, NIH should fund centers of excellence for data sharing and training to assist investigators who desire to analyze shared data but need assistance in acquiring and analyzing data. Third, the NIH (and all federal agencies) should enforce its data sharing policy. It has been lax in enforcing its existing policies regarding sharing trial data and the posting of trial results on (7). Although entities that receive federal awards or the journals that publish the results of those awards could help ensure data are shared, they have less influence than the NIH….

The OSTP states that the data underlining the peer-reviewed report must be made available at the time of publication, but it does not indicate when or whether the entire data set must be deposited in a publicly available repository or what happens if there is no publication….

Data sharing is more challenging than the OSTP memorandum suggests. As the United States enters a new era of mandated data sharing, federal agencies need to be cognizant of and address the important questions that arise from this mandate. Data sharing has the potential to stimulate innovation but only if the administrative structure for data sharing is efficient; is financially supported; and is respectful of the time, effort, and intellectual investment of individuals who collected the data.”

Engage with PALOMERA via the OABN! Launch event March 28, 2023, 4pm (CEST) | Open Access Books Network

The Open Access Books Network (OABN) is working with the PALOMERA project, a two-year initiative funded by HORIZON Europe that seeks to investigate why so few Open Access (OA) funder policies include OA books, and to provide actionable recommendations to change this.

We will be hosting a PALOMERA Series of events that will provide a forum for anyone interested in open access book publishing to:

engage with PALOMERA via the OABN, 
contribute your knowledge and expertise as the project progresses, 
offer feedback to help shape PALOMERA’s outputs and recommendations. 

We want to gather a broad group of representatives from different stakeholders in open access book publishing, as we did for our Voices from the OA Book Community workshop series in 2021, and enable you to contribute to the PALOMERA project via the PALOMERA Series.

Launch event

We will host a launch event on Tuesday 28 March at 3pm BST / 4pm CEST where you will hear from some of the project’s leaders, including Niels Stern (OAPEN/DOAB) and Ursula Rabar (OPERAS/OAeBU). You will have the opportunity to ask questions about the project and to let us know the best ways for you to engage with PALOMERA. The event will also be recorded.

Sign up for the launch event: it’s free and everyone is welcome! 

Please also share the link with anyone who might be interested.


Ivy Plus Libraries Weigh in on OSTP Guidance On Access To Federally Funded Research

“On behalf of all 13 Ivy Plus libraries, we write to express our strong support for the updated policy guidance issued by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) that will make funded research immediately available to the public to freely access and fully use.

At higher education institutions across the world, libraries play a critical role in supporting our scholars in finding and using research, and in sharing the research they produce – all in support of institutional missions to leverage our research and teaching in service of creating a better and more equitable world for future generations. It is in that spirit that we want to highlight the dangers of allowing the interests of commercial publishers to dictate the paths available to implementing this bold new guidance on open scholarship. We refer here to the pay-to-publish model of open access to research publications, as exemplified by individual APC (article processing charge) fees charged directly to authors, and/or institutional Read and Publish agreements where libraries pay bulk APCs on behalf of their scholars and unlock institutional access to read pay-walled content.

Some might argue that well-resourced institutions like ours can afford to pay for both the right to access research and the right to publish and participate in research, but such investment detracts from our core mission of open access and more specifically our ability to comply with the proposed policy changes that we so overwhelmingly support. Implementing the Nelson memo via an APC model is antithetical to the equity goals so clearly articulated in the guidance memo and the values of our institutions….”

Funding of €1.9 million to support Ireland’s National Action Plan for Open Research announced by Minister Harris

“Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science Simon Harris has today announced funding of €1.9 million to advance Ireland’s National Action Plan for Open Research.

Open research offers the public free access to research findings and encourages collaboration and sharing of information for the benefit of science and society.

This funding will be used to do a number of things including increasing public engagement with research and citizen science, establishing a culture of open research and working towards 100% open access to research publications….”

Plan S Annual Review 2022

“At cOAlition S, we are committed to accelerating the transition to open access. As an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations, along with the European Commission, we have been rolling out policies and tools since 2018 to achieve the goal of Plan S. In this annual report, we are presenting an overview of our activities in 2022, as well as the latest news on our policies, tools, and services. We also outline our support for various publishing models and highlight specific initiatives of cOAlition S funders. In the last section, we give a preview of our plans for 2023 as we look towards the future of scholarly communication….”