Rathenau Instituut (2021). Moving forward together with open science – Towards
meaningful public engagement with research (authors: Scholvinck, A.M., W.
Scholten, P. Diederen)
Rathenau Instituut (2021). Moving forward together with open science – Towards
meaningful public engagement with research (authors: Scholvinck, A.M., W.
Scholten, P. Diederen)
Wallace, Andrea. (2022). A Culture of Copyright: A scoping study on open access to digital cultural heritage collections in the UK. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6242611
This report was commissioned by the Towards a National Collection programme (TaNC) to better understand the ways in which open access shapes how the UK’s digital cultural heritage collections can be accessed and reused. The study was undertaken by Dr Andrea Wallace in 2021. The recommendations presented are the authors own and their report form part of the evidence that Towards a National Collection continues to gather to determine the future policies it will recommend.
Andrea Wallace gives a focused discussion on how the UK Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museum (GLAM) sector fares in the global open GLAM landscape and what potential is possible with a digital national collection. Four types of information inform this report:
Existing empirical data on global open GLAM activity, policies and data volume;
New empirical data on UK GLAMs, public domain collections and rights management, including:
A dataset of 195 UK GLAMs containing information on online collections, rights statements and reuse policies, technical protection measures, publication platforms, open access engagement, commercial licensing practices, data volume and other data points;
An in-depth review of the rights statements and reuse policies of 63 GLAMs selected from that sample;
30 one-hour open ended interviews with TaNC project investigators, UK GLAM staff, external platform staff and open GLAM advocates;
A review of relevant case law and policy developments in the UK and elsewhere; and
A literature review of scholarly writing on copyright and open access to digital heritage collections.
The findings indicate there is no consensus in the UK GLAM sector on what open access means, or should mean. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of what the public domain is, includes and should include. Indeed, staff perspectives and GLAM policies can vary widely, even within a given institution. Accordingly, this study aimed to discern and outline what support is necessary to address systemic barriers to open access, starting with copyright itself.
Copyright generally protects creative expressions during the creator’s lifetime and an additional 70 years after death. During the copyright term, the public pays the rightsholder a fee to reuse the work. The idea is that these economic benefits will incentivise creators to make new creative works, over which they will enjoy a limited monopoly from which they may profit and exert control. Once copyright expires, the work enters the public domain and is available for anyone to reuse for any purpose. In this way, the public domain is a central part of the copyright bargain and its availability produces a wider benefit to society: public domain works can be reused to create new knowledge and cultural goods that enrich social welfare and invigorate the local economy. Considering these aspirations align with public missions, GLAMs around the world are in the process of updating digital remits and strategies to feature these goals for digitised public domain collections. Yet new questions can arise related to the presence or absence of copyright in digital surrogates of public domain works and collections data as a result. This study thus aimed to understand how the UK GLAM sector fared in the global open GLAM landscape and what new potentials are enabled by the digital national collection
 The focal point of this report is limited to copyright. Other intellectual property rights, like a trade mark or publication right, can impact digitisation, availability and use. These are secondary to the main question about whether the digital materials should be in the public domain and are not addressed here.
by John Willinsky & Juan Pablo Alperin, May 2021
The Public Knowledge Project (PKP), has been, by design and since its inception
over two decades ago, developing software that enables scholars from around
the world to professionally peer-review and publish their colleagues’ work without
charging them or the public to read this work. By creating open source (free)
software that distributes the power to participate in scholarly publishing by
organizing and supporting academic journal editing – including the management
of peer review and and production processes – thousands of scholars, many
operating in low-resource environments, have been able to produce professional-
quality academic journals that are free to both authors and readers. As such, PKP
has long been aware of its essential role in supporting OA diamond journals (Open
Access journals without an Article Processing Charges), but The OA Diamond
Journals Study1 published on March 9, 2021, with 971 OJS users among those
surveyed, offers us a rare level of insight into our community, and a clearer sense
of the extent to which PKP has made OA diamond possible for thousands of
journals around the world.
The OA Diamond Journal Study, sponsored by Science Europe and cOAlition S, was
able to survey 1,619 journals in 2020, finding that 60% (971) of these journals use
OJS. OA diamond journals are said to represent “a wide archipelago of relatively
small journals serving diverse communities” (p. 7) that are collectively estimated
to make up “at least 17,000, but likely up to 29,000, OA diamond journals” (p. 47)
from four regions of world (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, 5%
in the US/Canada) and from across the disciplines (60% HSS, 22% science, 17%
medicine). If the respondents of the survey are seen to be representative of the
estimated minimum 17,000 diamond journals, then the 60 percent use level for OJS
roughly corresponds to PKP’s own count of more than 10,000 active OJS journals.
The study points, as well, to the type and location of the publishers: “Most OA
diamond journals are the sole journal of their publisher or are with a publisher
having just a few journals. Most of these publishers are university-based” (p. 48).
These are the characteristics of PKP’s principal community of users and further
highlight the close relationship between OA diamond journals and journals using
While those who know PKP and the OJS community may have been aware of this
connection, the close to one thousand survey responses from OJS users along
with the report’s unbiased analysis of the context in which they operate has made
three things abundantly clear:
With 60% of the journals using OJS, PKP has been instrumental in making OA
diamond journals a reality.
No other platform or tool, with the exception of email in some contexts, is as widely used as OJS by OA diamond journals for their operations, especially as they grow in size.
No other system has contributed as much to supporting the linguistic or geographic diversity of scholarly publishing as OJS.
As OA diamond journals are APC-free, they can be trusted not to include the so-called predatory journals.
That is, given this role as a key enabler of OA diamond journals, and given other
study findings about the characteristics of this group of journals, the report makes
it clear, in our reading, how PKP, with its multilingual OJS, is contributing to the
healthy intellectual enterprise of OA diamond journals and, as direct consequence,
to greater global participation in research.
In analyzing some of the characteristics of OA diamond journals, the report
indirectly highlights some of the strengths of PKP and OJS that have led to its
popularity among this community, as well as some of the areas where there are
opportunities for PKP to improve its offerings, or to otherwise better communicate
their value to the community. The remainder of this response will therefore focus
on summarizing and responding to various indicators of PKP’s success found in
the study, and subsequently to engaging with the misconceptions and missed
opportunities that we will seek t
“The Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) Executive Roundtable that took place as part of the CNI Fall 2020 Virtual Membership Meeting examined the collision between developing international tensions and science nationalism on one side, and trends towards global, network-based collaboration and scholarly communication, particularly as driven by the adoption of open science practices, on the other….
There is a very broad-based effort to restructure the terms of open access (OA) publishing across the globe through so-called “transformative agreements” and efforts such as the European Union-based Plan S, which stipulates (among other things) that scientific publications resulting from publicly funded research be published in OA journals or platforms. Currently there’s a rough and still tentative alignment between the US and Europe on this effort; in particular, there is some ambiguity about the extent of support by US federal funders, as distinct from research universities (who have a wide range of views), for the Plan S style approach. Given the scale of publishing by Chinese researchers, it seems likely that unless China supports this restructuring effort, the economics globally will be at best problematic. While a few years ago some Chinese scholarly organizations seem to have expressed conceptual support for both this kind of OA and related initiatives about open research data, it’s unclear where this commitment now stands, or how it may relate to other emerging Chinese scholarly publishing strategies….
Some recent policy announcements seem to suggest that China is de-emphasizing the importance of publishing in very high prestige Western journals; interestingly, this is being cast as consistent with the efforts of Western and global open science advocates to focus assessments of scholarly impact on quality rather than quantity, and to de-emphasize measures such as the impact factor of the journals that results are published in. Note that to the extent that China is, or may be, investing in a national publishing infrastructure, this implies shifting investment away from contributions that might support a global restructuring of the Western scholarly publishing system (discussed above) towards new OA models. …”
“This report presents an overview of the activities we have undertaken in 2021, the levels of OA compliance amongst cOAlition S funders, and the latest news on the tools and services we are developing, such as the Journal Checker Tool and the Journal Comparison Service. Next, we outline our support for new publishing models, highlighting the progress on the Transformative Journals framework, the publishers’ reaction to the Rights Retention Strategy, and our role in encouraging small society publishers to move to Open Access. cOAlition S has also supported the publication of a report on Diamond journals and has issued a statement on Open Access for academic books. Looking forward, cOAlition S has identified three strategic priorities for 2022, which we present in the last part of this review….”
“This report summarises the results of a survey of European libraries on Open Education (OE) and Open Education Resources (OER) prepared by SPARC Europe. It was done in consultation with the European Network of Open Education Librarians (ENOEL).
Launched in May 2021, the survey, which targeted academic librarians across Europe, garnered over 230 responses from 28 countries. This report is the 2021 version of the 2020 report under the same title, which was the first of its kind. The 2021 report is framed by the UNESCO Recommendation on OER.
The survey questionnaire can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/4892450
The survey dataset can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/5734988 …”
Reforming research assessment is increasingly considered a priority to ensure the quality, performance and impact of research. Reform, however, requires cultural and systemic changes which are proving to be very complex and slow to implement. During the period March-November 2021, the European Commission consulted European stakeholders on how to facilitate and speed up changes. This scoping report presents the findings from the consultation, identifies the goals that should be pursued with a reform of research assessment, and proposes a coordinated approach based on principles and actions that could be agreed upon by a coalition of research funding and research performing organisations committed to implement changes.
Loek Brinkman, Judith de Haan, Daniël van Hemert, Joost de Laat, Dominique Rijshouwer, Sander Thomaes, & Ruth van Veelen. (2021). Open Science Monitor 2020. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5725178
This is the first version of the Open Science monitor on awareness, attitudes and behaviours in relation to 10 open science practices. The monitor was conducted among academics at Utrecht University and UMC Utrecht (the Netherlands) in the summer of 2020 with the aim to gain insight in academics’ attitude and behaviours towards various open science practices, the opportunities these practices may provide for the scientific community and the barriers in implementing open science practices the researchers may experience.
With this monitor the university hopes to gain insight into what can be done to facilitate and support open science among academics at Utrecht University.
This study analyses the economic impact of Open Source Software (OSS) and Hardware (OSH) on the European economy. It was commissioned by the European Commission’s DG CONNECT. It is estimated that companies located in the EU invested around €1 billion in OSS in 2018, which resulted in an impact on the European economy of between €65 and €95 billion. The analysis estimates a cost-benefit ratio of above 1:4 and predicts that an increase of 10% of OSS contributions would annually generate an additional 0.4% to 0.6% GDP as well as more than 600 additional ICT start-ups in the EU. Case studies reveal that by procuring OSS instead of proprietary software, the public sector could reduce the total cost of ownership, avoid vendor lock-in and thus increase its digital autonomy. The study also contains an analysis of existing public policy actions in Europe and around the world. The scale of Europe’s institutional capacity related to OSS, however, is disproportionately smaller than the scale of the value created by OSS. The study therefore gives a number of specific public policy recommendations aimed at achieving a digitally autonomous public sector, open R&D enabling European growth and a digitised and internally competitive industry.
This study aims to investigate the economic impact of Open Source Software and Hardware on the EU economy.
Open Source is increasingly used in digital technologies. This required an in-depth analysis of its current role, position and potential for the European economy. Open Source Software (OSS) has become mainstream across all sectors of the software industry over the past decade. Conversely, the level of maturity of Open Source Hardware (OSH) currently appears far lower. However, the business ecosystem for OSH is developing fast. If OSH is to follow the same development as OSS, it could constitute a cornerstone of the future Internet of Things (IoT), the future of computing and the digital transformation of the European industry at the end of the digital decade.
The objective of the study was to investigate and quantify the economic impact of OSS and OSH on the European economy. The study also identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of open source in relevant ICT policies, such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), digitising European industry, the connected car, high performance computing, big data, distributed ledger technologies, and more.
Economic evidence of the footprint of open source in the EU has been collected. A list of policy options to maximize the benefit of open source supporting a competitive EU software and hardware industry, which in turn supports the twin environmental and digital transformation of the EU economy is also proposed.
There are clear signals from investors on the huge value and potential of open source. Policies to maximize the return in Europe of this value may be required. In the short-term, the findings of the study will be used as a basis for policy options in many digital areas. In the long-term, the findings can be used for a new open source policy focused on the EU economy as a whole.
The main breakthrough of the study is the identification of open source as a public good. This shows a change of paradigm from the previous irreconcilable difference between closed and open source, and points to a new era in which digital businesses are built using open source assets. This information is essential to develop policy actions in the field. The study also values the economic impact of open source commitments on the EU economy.
“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….”
“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….”
“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….”
“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 …”
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).