CO-CREATING A HEALTHY AND DIVERSE OPEN ACCESS MARKET: WORKSHOP REPORT

“Recognising the importance of a healthy and diverse OA market, in early 2021, OASPA sought to develop a better understanding of ‘the open access market’. It was understood that this needed to include an assessment of the roles of different actors in shaping the market and an acknowledgement that open access publishing is not always delivered through market mechanisms. The work aimed to identify influential factors and drivers to bring about positive change in this area.

Research Consulting was commissioned to assist in this work, in collaboration with a small steering group of OASPA members. An Issue Brief was developed to review the current state of the open access market and in July 2021 a range of stakeholder representatives were engaged via two workshops.

This report acts as a companion document to the Issue Brief, and summarises the key points discussed during the stakeholder workshops. To better contextualise the issues discussed in this report it is recommended that the Issue Brief is read first. Whilst there were two separate workshops, this report presents a combined view from all participants. Anonymised quotes from participants are included throughout this report to illustrate the points discussed….”

Designing a Preparedness Model for the Future of Open Scholarship | Zenodo

“This is the final report for the Future of Open Scholarship research project, a participatory research effort conducted by Invest in Open Infrastructure….

The culmination of decades of resource deficiency and over-reliance on commercial solutions, scholarly infrastructure systems across the globe were unprepared to adequately respond to the pandemic when it hit. For many in this ecosystem, this experience has cemented the need for sustainable change. Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) believes any worthwhile change must consider improving the adaptive capacity of the academic community so it can not only deal with future crises but also evolve and improve with its changing circumstances. Central to this change is the development of a robust preparedness model that can inform mitigation and response strategies in events of socioeconomic stress or disaster.

For any preparedness model to be successful, it must consider the strengths and capabilities of the stakeholders committed to making it a success. In the face of sweeping budget and staffing cuts, increased demand and strain on core shared infrastructure, and heightened concern over the stability of the infrastructure scholarship relies on, IOI mounted a participatory research effort to support decision makers looking to employ, support, and sustain open technology and systems that advance research and scholarship.

Over the past year, we have interviewed and worked with institutional decision makers, infrastructure providers, and funding bodies to better understand key decision points, costs and funding models to maintain, sustain, and scale open infrastructure projects, and thresholds for change. We spoke with 128 institutional leaders, press directors, infrastructure providers, societies and scholars in an effort to better understand the challenges they’ve encountered in furthering open scholarship (including the use of open infrastructure) in their communities, and to subsequently map a path forward.

This work focuses on open infrastructure and its relationship to the future of open scholarship. We believe that for open scholarship to thrive, we need to ensure that the software, systems, and tooling that enable knowledge production and dissemination are also tended for and aligned with the values of the community, with adequate resourcing, support, and oversight.

The findings highlighted below are about choice and tensions, product and people, and costs and benefits. They also demonstrate the ways in which the structuring of the current system has impeded responsiveness to current events….”

Designing a Preparedness Model for the Future of Open Scholarship | Zenodo

“The culmination of decades of resource deficiency and over-reliance on commercial solutions, scholarly infrastructure systems across the globe were unprepared to adequately respond to the pandemic when it hit. For many in this ecosystem, this experience has cemented the need for sustainable change. Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) believes any worthwhile change must consider improving the adaptive capacity of the academic community so it can not only deal with future crises but also evolve and improve with its changing circumstances. Central to this change is the development of a robust preparedness model that can inform mitigation and response strategies in events of socioeconomic stress or disaster. For any preparedness model to be successful, it must consider the strengths and capabilities of the stakeholders committed to making it a success. In the face of sweeping budget and staffing cuts, increased demand and strain on core shared infrastructure, and heightened concern over the stability of the infrastructure scholarship relies on, IOI mounted a participatory research effort to support decision makers looking to employ, support, and sustain open technology and systems that advance research and scholarship. Over the past year, we have interviewed and worked with institutional decision makers, infrastructure providers, and funding bodies to better understand key decision points, costs and funding models to maintain, sustain, and scale open infrastructure projects, and thresholds for change. We spoke with 128 institutional leaders, press directors, infrastructure providers, societies and scholars in an effort to better understand the challenges they’ve encountered in furthering open scholarship (including the use of open infrastructure) in their communities, and to subsequently map a path forward. This work focuses on open infrastructure and its relationship to the future of open scholarship. We believe that for open scholarship to thrive, we need to ensure that the software, systems, and tooling that enable knowledge production and dissemination are also tended for and aligned with the values of the community, with adequate resourcing, support, and oversight. The findings highlighted below are about choice and tensions, product and people, and costs and benefits. They also demonstrate the ways in which the structuring of the current system has impeded responsiveness to current events….”

 

Future of Open Scholarship: Final report & key findings are now live

“Over the past year through the Future of Open Scholarship project, we have worked with institutional decision makers, infrastructure providers, and funding bodies to better understand key decision points, costs, and funding models to maintain, sustain, and scale open infrastructure projects. Today we are proud to share with you the outputs of that work.

The full report, “Designing a Preparedness Model for the Future of Open Scholarship”, can be found here on Zenodo. Additional resources and briefs created for this project include:

Costs & Benefits of Collective Investment

Interactive modelling tool

Open Monograph Ecosystem Impact Analysis
Future of Open Scholarship: Preliminary Findings
Project recommendations and theory of change
Shared project folder 
Future of Open Scholarship webinar recaps …”

Informationsplattform Open Access: Throwback – Overview – Outlook: Two new open-access.network Articles

In two online journals, our project staff members inform about the open-access.network project’s activities and services – they announce, among other things, the launch date of the open access portal which bears the project’s name: September, during the Open Access Days 2021 (online).

Bring your OA game | Commonplace

by Agata Morka and Rupert Gatti

The end of June 2021 marked the finishing line for the OPERAS-P project, a European Union funded giant, in which multiple institutions came together to carve a path forward for Open Science in Social Sciences and Humanities. As part of the Work Package focused on innovation we investigated innovative business models for Open Access (OA) books. Our goal was ambitious: we aimed to develop, collate, and share knowledge on alternative (non-BPC) approaches to funding and publishing OA books. To fulfill this general goal, we wanted to better understand the perspectives of two crucial stakeholders in the book publishing ecosystem: libraries and publishers. Over the past fifteen months we have been researching, writing, and most importantly listening to the academic librarians and publishers to decipher their needs, hopes, and challenges they encounter when working with OA books. Coming from a publishing background, we felt that we had a relatively good understanding of this stakeholders group, so we started with the one we knew the least about: that of academic libraries. We wanted to know more about how they think, work, and decide for or against innovative projects for OA books.

Software for Open Science: a leap forward – Software Heritage

On July 4 2018  the first  French national plan for Open Science identified Software Heritage as a key initiative to support software used and produced in research and led to the creation of the working group dedicated to free and open source software inside the french national committee for Open Science.

From principles to practices: Open Science at Europe’s universities 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey results – BioNanoNet

The European University Association (EUA) has recently published a report presenting the findings of the 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey and providing evidence-based recommendations for institutions, researchers, research funders and policy makers on the transition towards Open Science.

Open Access agreements with smaller publishers require active cross-stakeholder alignment, report says | ISSN

Open Access agreements between consortia/libraries and smaller independent publishers are used worldwide increasingly since 2020, signalling a potential for further growth, highlights an independent report released in June 2021 by Information Power. The report was commissioned by cOAlition S and the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) as a follow up on the outcomes of the Society Publishers Accelerating Open access and Plan S (SPA-OPS) project, published in autumn 2019.

 

From principles to practices: Open Science at Europe’s universities: 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey results

“KEY RESULTS: • Open Science principles: over half (59%) of the surveyed institutions rated Open Science’s strategic importance as very high or high. Open Access to research publications was considered to be highly important for 90% of institutions, but only 60% considered its implementation level to be high. However, the gap between importance and implementation is much wider in data-related areas (RDM, FAIR and data sharing): high importance at between 55-70% of the institutions surveyed, with high levels of implementation at 15-25%. • Open Science policies: 54% of institutions have an Open Science policy and 37% are developing one. Only 9% of surveyed institutions lack an Open Science policy or are not planning to draft one. • Monitoring Open Access to research publications: 80% of institutions monitored the number of publications in their repository and 70% monitored articles published by their researchers in Open Access journals. In addition, almost 60% reported monitoring the cost of publications by their researchers in Open Access journals. • Infrastructure for Open Access to research publications: 90% of the institutions surveyed have their own repository, participate in a shared repository or both. For journal hosting or publishing platforms this figure reaches 66%, and levels out at 57% for monograph hosting/publishing. In addition, 66% of those surveyed reported that their institution has participated in or supported non-commercial Open Access publishing. Data-related skills: over 50% of the surveyed institutions reported that research data skills were only partially available. Moreover, all of the institutions that indicated the absence or partial availability of data skills, considered that more of these skills are needed at institutional level. • Emerging areas of Open Science: Approximately 50% of the respondents know of citizen science and open education activities at their institutions. • Open Science in academic assessment: In 34% of institutions, none of the Open Science elements examined by the survey were included in academic assessments. Amongst the institutions that included Open Science activities in their academic assessments, 77% took into consideration article deposition in a repository. …”

ERA Portal Austria – EUA presents report on Open Science survey at European universities

The European University Association (EUA) has recently published a report presenting the findings of the 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey and providing evidence-based recommendations for institutions, researchers, research funders and policy makers on the transition towards Open Science.

From principles to practices: Open Science at Europe’s universities: 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey results

“KEY RESULTS: • Open Science principles: over half (59%) of the surveyed institutions rated Open Science’s strategic importance as very high or high. Open Access to research publications was considered to be highly important for 90% of institutions, but only 60% considered its implementation level to be high. However, the gap between importance and implementation is much wider in data-related areas (RDM, FAIR and data sharing): high importance at between 55-70% of the institutions surveyed, with high levels of implementation at 15-25%. • Open Science policies: 54% of institutions have an Open Science policy and 37% are developing one. Only 9% of surveyed institutions lack an Open Science policy or are not planning to draft one. • Monitoring Open Access to research publications: 80% of institutions monitored the number of publications in their repository and 70% monitored articles published by their researchers in Open Access journals. In addition, almost 60% reported monitoring the cost of publications by their researchers in Open Access journals. • Infrastructure for Open Access to research publications: 90% of the institutions surveyed have their own repository, participate in a shared repository or both. For journal hosting or publishing platforms this figure reaches 66%, and levels out at 57% for monograph hosting/publishing. In addition, 66% of those surveyed reported that their institution has participated in or supported non-commercial Open Access publishing. • Data-related skills: over 50% of the surveyed institutions reported that research data skills were only partially available. Moreover, all of the institutions that indicated the absence or partial availability of data skills, considered that more of these skills are needed at institutional level. • Emerging areas of Open Science: Approximately 50% of the respondents know of citizen science and open education activities at their institutions. • Open Science in academic assessment: In 34% of institutions, none of the Open Science elements examined by the survey were included in academic assessments. Amongst the institutions that included Open Science activities in their academic assessments, 77% took into consideration article deposition in a repository….”

From principles to practices: Open Science at Europe’s universities 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey results

2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey results

by Rita Morais, Bregt Saenen, Federica Garbuglia, Stephane Berghmans and Vinciane Gaillard

This report presents the findings of the 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey and provides evidence-based recommendations for institutions, researchers, research funders and policy makers on the transition towards Open Science. With more than 270 responses from 36 European countries, the survey report focuses on the level of development of Open Science in European universities. It also addresses the role of Open Science in institutions’ strategic priorities and its implementation in institutional practices.

Academy of Europe: ON SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING OPEN SCIENCE

 Professor Erol GelenbeA committee chaired by Prof. Erol Gelenbe MAE at the Royal Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts of Belgium, which included Prof Veronique Halloin, President of the European Science Foundation, recently published a report “On sharing knowledge and fostering open science” which addresses key problems in scientific and technical communication, and peer review, as we enter the post-Covid-19 period and address the energy transition required by the challenges of Climate Change.