Wiley Signs Declaration on Research Assessment, Deepens Commitment to Responsible Research Assessment | John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

“Global research and education leader Wiley today announced it has signed the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which is a world-wide initiative designed to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated. 

As the publisher of nearly 2,000 academic journals, Wiley will deliver more ways to assess and recognize research outputs, which in turn supports healthy scholarship and allows more researchers to thrive in their careers. To this end, Wiley will roll out a broad range of journal and article metrics across its journal portfolio with the aim of providing a holistic, well-rounded view of the value and impact of any author’s research. This includes metrics that measure levels of impact beyond citation value, including usage, re-use, reproducibility, peer review assessment, geographic reach, and public recognition via references in media outlets….”

PCI Manifesto – Peer Community In

“I agree to submit at least one of my best articles to a PCI for peer review before the end of 2023 and, if recommended, to publish it in Peer Community Journal.”

“I support PCI and adhere to the idea of making Peer Community Journal a widely-used venue for the publication of high-quality articles.”

“I will be bound by this promise only if at least 500 other researchers make the same commitment.” …

“PCI has now been running for five years, and has evaluated and recommended hundreds of high-quality preprints. At the end of 2021, we launched Peer Community Journal, to enable authors of PCI-recommended preprints to publish their articles in an open access journal for free. More than 200 authors have already opted to publish their recommended preprints in Peer Community Journal. This is a first step, but we need to aim even higher for the scientific and academic community to reclaim control over the publication process.

Our goal is for Peer Community Journal to provide an efficient route for open access publication at no cost to authors or readers. The Peer Community In model allows high-quality research to be reviewed and published, while saving the scientific community millions of dollars in subscription and publication fees….”

Statement on APC.pdf – Google Drive

“In the midst of this complex scenario, we believe that the international community should assume the challenge of exercising multilateral governance and academic cooperation in the face of the inequities that arise from this new OA publication model. To that end, the signing global organizations promote the creation of an ad hoc worldwide committee (Global Initiative for Equitable OA Models), working under the umbrella of multilateral global academic institutions or similar bodies. The Committee aspires to:

1. Establish a fluid dialogue between the various members of the scientific community, policy makers and representatives from governments, to further discuss options and implement joint actions for an equitable model of OA for the global scientific community.

2. Draft a global agreement aimed at enforcing equitable access to publishing in OA Journals moving away from Author Pays OA and toward models that either a) repurpose existing subscription funds to fund e.g. sponsored OA or b) subscribe-to-open OA; or obtain funding for academic publishing from institutions or other public sources (diamond/platinum OA). Regulation should include guidelines aimed at setting copyrights.

3. Create a global economic containment network to financially support the least developing countries and scientifically lagging countries in order to strengthen national scientific R&D systems in line with objectives previously established by the countries at the multilateral level, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).

4. Set up a network of existing or new diamond journals from developing countries, aimed at promoting non commercial open publishing practices with clear and transparent regulations and strong standardized peer review processes. This can lead to new prestigious and recognized options where scientific communication will prevail over the interests from the publishing industry.”

A CALL TO ACTION TO REFORM GLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS – Consortium of Universities for Global Health

“The global health enterprise has improved the well-being of people. However, structural inequities persist within the sector. This contributes to inequality and wholly insufficient impacts to address the Sustainable Development Goals.   

Power imbalances are embedded across funding, political power, management capacity and technical capabilities The current pandemic which has highlighted, not created these inequities, is an opportunity to truly acknowledge these gaps and build forward better to rectify them. This must include ensuring that partnerships between institutions in high income countries (HICs) and those in low and low middle-income countries (LLMICs) are equitable, effective, and that most of the benefits from those arrangements accrue to the LLMIC institution. Collaborations rooted in respect, honesty, equity, and commitment to outcomes that are aligned with the needs of the LLMIC partners are essential to reforming global health. Such partnerships, across sectors, will be much more effective in addressing the development challenges before us.

We the undersigned support the following actions the global health community should collaborate on to improve the health of people and the planet in an equitable and sustainable manner:

HIC institutions should provide free access to their academic libraries to their LLMIC partners

HICs should share their curricula with LLMIC partners, free of charge

Where possible, HICs should provide to their LLMIC partners free compatible computers, software and affordable, and reliable 3G broadband as requested

When students from HICs are participating in experiential learning opportunities in an LLMIC institution, agreements should be in place that provide tangible benefits sought the host institution. Host institutions should be compensated for any human resources and other assets utilized by hosting the HIC students. HIC institutions could provide their own trainers to build capacity in the host institution as directed by the host. This includes strengthening LLMIC management capacity.

Staff in LLMIC should be fully compensated for training students from HICs or supporting HIC led research projects

HIC institutions should provide training and mentorship in grant writing and grant applications

Research questions must be co-created in collaboration with the host institution/community/country.

HIC institutions should provide training in article writing and ensure fair and equitable authorship of research papers between the scientists from LLMICs and HICs who participated in the project

Research findings must be shared with equity, fairness and respect of the work provided between all collaborators from LLMICs and HICs who participate in the research

A plan to disseminate the research findings should be part of the design of the study proposal….”

Petition · Stop offering paid fast-track academic publishing · Change.org

“This is an open letter to Taylor & Francis, publishers of academic journals. We are writing to ask T&F to discontinue the policy of fast-tracking submissions for a fee. We refer to the policy here. A recent clarification of this policy was published by T&F but it does not adequately address our concerns.

We have two objections to the policy. First is that we are against any form of preferential treatment for those who can pay. Fast-tracking for a fee creates a two-tier system, wherein the well-funded have an unfair advantage over the less well-to-do; in particular, it exacerbates the differences between scientists in different economic circumstances and at different points in their career. The fast-track policy at the least allows faster publication by those with funds, improving the chance for the funded to win subsequent grants and to publish before other labs working on the same topic.

Our second objection to the policy stems from our concern that fast-tracked manuscripts may receive an advantage above and beyond just faster publication. …”

Should we accept Elsevier’s 7th proposal?

“Here we outline reasons for and against accepting Elsevier’s 7th proposal.  It is based on information provided by the University of Cambridge library.  …

We recommend the deal be rejected after considering the following pro/cons.  If you agree, please consider signing at the bottom of the document, and share with colleagues.  (Anyone from UK can sign.) …”

Bedreigingen voor fundamenteel wetenschappelijk onderzoek in Nederland brengen onze toekomstige welvaart in gevaar – ScienceGuide

From Google’s English:  “The approach by which Dutch science has risen to the top 5 in the world since the 1980s is under threat, write Raymond Poot and more than a hundred other scientists. Not through Open Access or Recognition and Valuation, but through the link between this and the signing of DORA and the roll-out of Open Science. In this contribution, Poot shares the conclusions and recommendations from a study into the consequences of Open Science and DORA. “A scenario of an internationally competitive Dutch science, where different talents can come into their own, is entirely possible. However, the current policy has to be drastically adjusted for that.” …

Dutch scientists are no longer assessed on the basis of international, scientific and measurable criteria, as was done very successfully at NWO for thirty years. These criteria have been partly removed by Open Science and DORA and replaced by criteria that are politically motivated and difficult to measure. As we described in our previous contribution in ScienceGuide, the negative effects of Open Science and DORA at NWO are amplified because measurable criteria are replaced by narratives. Sometimes the CV is even omitted entirely.  …

To show that ‘policy’ based on Open Science and DORA contains major risks that we should not get used to, I wrote a report with Bas de Bruin and Frank Grosveld that goes deeper into the matter. The report is supported by 105 scientists (further support for the report can be emailed to Raymond Poot). In the report we discuss the effects of DORA on evaluations, and we examine the underlying reasoning behind DORA. We also discuss the focus of Open Science on the (direct) benefit of research for society, the focus on public involvement in research and the focus on team science and leadership.’. We discuss the current Open Access policy of Open Science, Plan S, to enforce Open Access for all Dutch scientific publications. 

The conclusions of our report are alarming.  

1) The combination of different Open Science  policies  with DORA puts the fundamental sciences at a disadvantage compared to the more applied sciences. Through the ERC and Marie Curie competitions, Europe spends twenty-five percent of its innovation budget on scientist-initiated fundamental research, which is selected for excellence. The Netherlands spends only five percent of its budget on such research. Europe has a reason to spend so much on scientist-initiated research, according to conclusion two of our report. 

2) Scientist-initiated fundamental research that is selected on the basis of scientific quality provides considerably more social benefit per euro spent in the medium term than research that is selected on the basis of direct social or industrial relevance. This apparent paradox is related to the observation that the usefulness of scientific discoveries is very difficult to predict, while it is clear that without real discoveries there is little progress. While this message is difficult to sell to politicians, it is a very important one. 

3) Various Open Science measures reduce the quality of Dutch science by not selecting for scientific quality and at the same time creating a lot of bureaucracy. …”

International Statement of Solidarity | Library Futures

“The future of knowledge is digital, open, accessible, and culturally responsive. As information workers, we seek to steward this future through shared goals: Balancing copyright and an information ecosystem that meets the needs of communities globally….

We believe:

Copyright must be updated for the digital age and exceptions and limitations must be made for libraries to best serve the public
Controlled Digital Lending and other innovative lending practices should be legally protected
Digital first sale, the principle of exhaustion in intellectual property law, and ownership of digital objects is the only way to ensure full access to information by libraries and cultural institutions
Libraries should be able to purchase and lend all eresources at reasonable prices
Licensing has created a pervasive market failure that must be investigated by regulators and governments to ensure that the public has access to relevant, timely, published information to support education, research and economic growth
Libraries have a responsibility to advocate for policies that will affect their communities
We must achieve ideal, universal access to knowledge for all patrons regardless of socioeconomic status, identity, or ability….”

Concerns about new ARC “no preprint rule”

“The Australian Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Mathematics and Statistics communities express grave concern about a recent change to Australian Research Council (ARC) rules to forbid reference to preprints anywhere in a grant application. We are particularly concerned about the impact on early career researchers whose ARC fellowship applications have recently been ruled ineligible because of a violation of this new rule. We are not aware of any consultation with our scientific communities about this change. We urge the ARC to rescind this rule, as it is unworkable and inconsistent with standard practice in our disciplines. Preprints are vital for the rapid dissemination of knowledge in physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics and statistics. This is particularly important in fields where there is a long lead-time between journal submission and publication. Citing preprints in publications, reports, or grant applications is an entrenched disciplinary norm in these fields. Experts and referees who encounter such citations know that preprints are not peer reviewed and are experienced in assigning them appropriate weight….”

Should we publish researchers’ pledges? – Ask Open Science

“During a breakout room at the recent SORTEE conference, Daniel Mietchen suggested an intriguing idea: what if we were to develop a common (machine-readable) format for the various pledges that researchers take and **publish these pledges in an indexed journal**. This could help to increase visibility of the pledges, provide citeable DOIs, celebrate researchers who commit to positive action, and facilitate searches/meta-research on the pledge space (because everything would now be machine-readable). Daniel also pointed out that Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) already publishes a variety of ‘alternative’ research outputs beyond articles and could thus incorporate this new pledge format relatively easily. …”

FOASAS: Fair Open Access in South Asian Studies

“Profiteering and restricted access have led to a crisis in academic publishing. The Fair Open Access movement is best promoted by mobilizing individual disciplines. With this manifesto, we, an open group of scholars of classical and modern South Asian Studies, declare our support for Fair Open Access publishing….

The following publishers and journals meet many or all FOA criteria (see §7 of the FOASAS Manifesto). …”


ASAPbio open letter to ARC – Google Docs

“The Australian Research Council (ARC) does not allow researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications and recently disqualified a number of applications for this reason.  

Preprints advance scientific discovery and are encouraged by many funders, including Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council. Citation of any source, regardless of its peer review status, is essential for proper attribution of ideas, and prohibiting the citation of preprints prevents applicants from discussing and building on the latest science. Further, listing preprints as evidence of productivity allows reviewers to develop an accurate picture of an applicant’s research outputs.

On August 31, we will send the list of signatories below to the ARC along with an offer to provide more information about preprints in the life sciences that can inform their review of their policy. We are also happy to support Australian researchers, librarians, editors, and other stakeholders in having conversations about preprints. Please get in touch with Jessica Polka (jessica.polka@asapbio.org) if you would like assistance in hosting an event for your community. You can also sign other open letters: one drafted by Australian researchers to encourage the ARC to reconsider its preprint policies, and a second encouraging the same as well as eligibility extension and policy simplification. …”

Allow preprint citations in ARC grant applications to maximise the value from publicly funded research

“Open Letter to Professor Sue Thomas (CEO of the Australian Research Council) and The Hon Alan Tudge (Minister for Education and Youth)

The signatories of this letter argue that it is in Australian taxpayers’ best interests to allow preprint citations in ARC grant applications. The ARC currently prohibits citations to preprints (see appendix https://tinyurl.com/vjewcp83 for definition) in grant applications (e.g. DP22 funding rules 2.1 “Pre-print publications should not be included in any part of the application form.”). But preprints are an essential and growing part of many fields of research.

Allowing the citation of preprints in ARC grant applications has many benefits:

* It improves our ability to judge and compare grant applications
* It allows for the inclusion and discussion of the latest science
* It speeds up research progress and discovery (such as the COVID-19 pandemic)
* It improves the accuracy with which we can evaluate researchers’ track records
* It establishes priority of discoveries and ideas
* It brings us in line with other major national and international granting bodies (see appendix https://tinyurl.com/vjewcp83)

Referencing preprints is essential for assessing the quality, novelty, benefits, feasibility, and value of any research proposal. It also contributes to assessing the track records of researchers themselves. The ARC is tasked with apportioning $775.3M in public funding every year. Citing preprints will improve the value that Australian taxpayers get for this significant investment. This is common practice by many national and international funding agencies already….”

TU Berlin unterzeichnet San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (TU Berlin signs DORA)

Influence of the journal impact factor in research assessment is criticized

By signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) on July 14, 2021, Technische Universität (TU) Berlin joins an international movement of researchers* and institutions advocating for more equality and transparency in the evaluation of scientific research results. As of mid-July 2021, 2,251 organizations and 17,721 individuals worldwide have signed the declaration, including the German Research Foundation (DFG).


Einfluss des Journal Impact Factors bei der Forschungsbewertung wird kritisiert

Mit der Unterzeichnung der San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) am 14. Juli 2021 schließt sich die Technische Universität (TU) Berlin einer internationalen Bewegung von Forscher*innen und Institutionen an, die sich für mehr Gleichberechtigung und Transparenz bei der Evaluation wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse einsetzt. Stand Mitte Juli 2021 haben weltweit 2.251 Organisationen und 17.721 Personen die Erklärung unterzeichnet, darunter die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).