“Signatories of this statement recommend the following as best practice in research data sharing:
When publishing their results, researchers deposit related research data and outputs in a trustworthy data repository that assigns persistent identifiers (DOIs where available). Researchers link to research data using persistent identifiers.
When using research data created by others, researchers provide attribution by citing the datasets in the reference section using persistent identifiers.
Data repositories enable sharing of research outputs in a FAIR way, including support for metadata quality and completeness.
Publishers set appropriate journal data policies, describing the way in which data is to be shared alongside the published article.
Publishers set instructions for authors to include Data Citations with persistent identifiers in the references section of articles.
Publishers include Data Citations and links to data in Data Availability Statements with persistent identifiers (DOIs where available) in the article metadata registered with Crossref.
In addition to Data Citations, Data Availability Statements (human- and machine-readable) are included in published articles where appropriate.
Repositories and publishers connect articles and datasets through persistent identifier connections in the metadata and reference lists.
Funders and research organizations provide researchers with guidance on open science practices, track compliance with open science policies where possible, and promote and incentivize researchers to openly share, cite and link research data.
Funders, policymaking institutions, publishers and research organizations collaborate towards aligning FAIR research data policies and guidelines.
All stakeholders collaborate in the development of tools, processes, and incentives throughout the research cycle to enable sharing of high-quality research data, making all steps in the process clear, easy and efficient for researchers by providing support and guidance.
Stakeholders responsible for research assessment take into account data sharing and data citation in their reward and recognition system structures….”
“The Frontiers Research Foundation has launched an Open Science Charter, calling upon governments, research institutions and funders, the scientific community, and citizens everywhere to support mandatory open access to all publicly funded scientific knowledge by 2030.?
The foundation stated: “The climate emergency poses an existential threat, demanding immediate and far-reaching actions. Our planet is edging closer to several irreversible tipping points, with dire consequences for all life. We need a wide spectrum of science solutions urgently and the greatest accelerator is simply to mandate open access to publicly funded articles and data.” …
The Charter will be presented at COP28 to participants looking for solutions during the panel ‘Open Science for Inclusive and Transformative Climate and Sustainability Innovation’ on 2 December in Dubai. Read and sign The Charter here.?”
“We call on all academic publishers to prioritize the public good, reinforcing trust in science by committing to the following fundamental principles and actions:
Universal Access by 2030: Commit to transitioning all academic journals to fully open-access models by 2030.
Uphold Peer-Review Quality: Preserve and champion the core values of scientific publishing, including registration, validation, certification, and conservation of scientific findings. Publishers bear the responsibility of protecting the integrity of peer review, ensuring it adheres to universally recognized standards of research ethics.
Transparent Pricing Linked to Quality: Adopt transparent financial models that directly correlate the price of publication with the quality of services offered. This foundational principle, prevalent in other industries, is glaringly absent in academic publishing.
Strengthen Trust in Science: Make all scientific findings openly accessible and promote transparent publishing practices. The opacity and economic flaws of traditional subscription models enable and embolden malpractice in academic publishing. A competitive environment, paired with transparent pricing tied to service quality, can effectively root out these side effects….”
“We are pleased to announce that Version 1.0 of the Amsterdam Declaration on Funding Research Software Sustainability (ADORE.software) is now released. ADORE.software is the first step towards formalising, on a global level, the basic principles and recommendations related to funding the sustainability of research software, including the people needed to achieve this goal. Now that Version 1.0 has been released, this means that funding organisations that support research software, and/or the people who develop and maintain it, are now invited to formally sign ADORE.software.
The declaration was initiated in November 2022 by the Research Software Alliance and Netherlands eScience Center who organised the International Funders Workshop: The Future of Research Software which focused on creating the first draft of the declaration. Since the workshop, the research software community around the world, including members of the combined Research Data Alliance and Research Software Funders Forum provided input towards this release of the declaration….”
“The UK’s next Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise promises changes that could make research more effective and the research environment more equitable. It is up to higher education institutions whether this rare opportunity to recognise the teams they rely on is seized or squandered….
Of course publications are vital, but they are far from the only important output, and they frequently owe their existence to other, overlooked research outputs. For instance, about 70 per cent of researchers from across disciplines report that software is fundamental to their work. But of the 186,000 outputs submitted to the last REF, only 31 were for data work and 11 for software….”
eBooks are a vitally important part of the 21st century knowledge landscape. They provide users of public, school, academic and research libraries with benefits not possible with paper books – from faster and more diverse methods of access to a more inclusive learning experience.
Although lending is enshrined in copyright law, the move to licensed eBooks has undermined many things we once took for granted, including stable pricing, preservation and inter-library loan, through to even the possibility for a library to acquire a book. This is not sustainable.
Without affecting the right of a publisher to offer different eBook licensing models to libraries, we pledge:
To make all eBooks available to libraries to preserve and to lend to the public directly or via inter-library loan, as soon as they are available to the public.
To make all eBooks individually purchasable by libraries outside of bundles.
To make available to libraries pricing terms which are transparent and clearly differentiate between the cost of the eBook itself (Digital File), and any hosting and platform costs (Platform Costs). Where percentage-based models are the norm, this should comprise the percentage paid to the publisher and the percentage paid to the author, and the platform provider.
To offer pricing for the Digital File on a “one copy one user” basis that is the same or similar to the price of the paper copy of the book, where available.
To allow all registered users of the library to access eBooks onsite and off.
To grant libraries the right to receive and host the Digital File on their own platform in perpetuity if requested, and lend to their own patrons on a “one copy one user” model without incurring any Platform Costs. For the avoidance of doubt, unless agreed otherwise, a publisher shall no longer be responsible for or have any obligations to provide libraries with replacement digital files when they become corrupted and degraded, in the case of files being held on library servers.
To also offer a licence on fair and equitable terms that extends access beyond a “one copy one user” model.
To not withdraw titles during the subscription period, and with at least 12 months prior notice to both libraries and authors, unless required due to an unforeseen legal reason.
To offer contracts to libraries that respect limitations and exceptions for libraries and their users provided in national copyright law.
To allow libraries to develop and freely share catalogue records acquired as part of ebook purchases with other libraries.
To align any collection of data with library privacy policies, and share non-personal and/or anonymised usage data with libraries to support their own decision-making.
To provide authors with appropriate remuneration for the lending of their works by libraries.
“Recent discussion on DORA mostly concerns the 2,800 organisations (universities, funders or publishers) which have signed, not the 20,000 individuals. See positions like, ‘Why have Elsevier committed to Leiden but not DORA?’, ‘We as a funder expect you to assess research following the DORA principles’, and ‘how should universities that sign be held to account?’
It’s understandable – organisations have much more agency to bring change and carry greater responsibility than individuals. But this means the community voice is lost, and DORA was started and grew from its individual signatories….”
Publish a Knowledge Equity Statement for your institution by 2025, incorporating tangible commitments aligned with the principles and objectives below.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of published educational material being open and freely accessible for all to use and reuse for teaching, learning, and research.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of new research outputs being transparent, open and freely accessible for all, and which meet the expectations of funders.
Use openness as an explicit criteria in reaching hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. Reward and recognise open practices across both research and research-led education. This should include the importance of interdisciplinary and/or collaborative activities, and the contribution of all individuals to activities.
Define Equity, Diversity and Inclusion targets that will contribute towards open and inclusive Higher Education practices, and report annually on progress against these targets.
To create new mechanisms in and between Higher Education Institutions that allow for further widening participation and increased diversity of staff and student populations.
Review the support infrastructure for open Higher Education, and invest in the human, technical, and digital infrastructure that is needed to make open Higher Education a success.
Promote the use of open interoperability principles for any research or education software/system that you procure or develop, explicitly highlighting the option of making all or parts of content open for public consumption.
Ensure that all research data conforms to the FAIR Data Principles: ‘findable’, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable.
For Funding Agencies
Publish a statement that open dissemination of research findings is a critical component in evaluating the productivity and integrity of research.
Incorporate open research practices into assessment of funding proposals.
Incentivise the adoption of Open Research through policies, frameworks and mandates that require open access for publications, data, and other outputs, with as liberal a licence as possible for maximum reuse.
Actively manage funding schemes to support open infrastructures and open dissemination of research findings, educational resources, and underpinning data.
Explicitly define reward and recognition mechanisms for globally co-produced and co-delivered open educational resources that benefit society….”
Imagine a world in which human knowledge is shared more equitably. Imagine what we can achieve if we work together.
We are a collaborative community of engaged institutions, organisations and individuals across the world. We need to act intentionally to change the way we share knowledge to make the most meaningful impact, for the benefit of all.
Our goal is to tackle global challenges through opening access to ground-breaking research and research-led, challenge-focused education.
We live in a time of climate crisis, economic instability, inequity, poverty and forced population displacements. These are challenges that threaten the health and wellbeing of people all over the world.
The global Higher Education sector can tackle these challenges, but only when knowledge is shared, unhindered by barriers of cost, time or national borders.
The Knowledge Equity Network encourages collaboration over competition in a culture of equity, diversity, inclusion and openness. We believe transformational change is possible.
Working in a global partnership and by sharing the power of knowledge, we will create a fairer and better world.”
“Last week, soon after Reddit announced plans to restrict free access to the Reddit API, the company cut off access to Pushshift, a data resource widely used by communities, journalists, and thousands of academics worldwide (see Pushshift’s official response).
We are writing to express concern about this sudden disruption to critical resources, and the uncertainty about the future it has created. We are asking for clarification and a meeting about the best ways to restore essential functionality for the communities that power your platform and the researchers who rely on your platform for essential public-interest work. To support that dialogue, we are coordinating a survey of the impact.
By preventing communities from accessing the very data they generate, Reddit has severely disrupted the safety and functionality of your platform. As you know, Reddit relies on volunteers to create moderation technologies and to do moderation labor that costs your competitors hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Tens of thousands of volunteers protect children’s safety, manage sensitive mental health support, and mediate some of the world’s largest conversation spaces for constructive civic discourse.
To succeed at their role, these unpaid leaders and workers need to access historical and contemporary community data to moderate a conversation space with over 1.5 billion active users. For many years, Reddit has relied on volunteer labor and computing infrastructure from Pushshift to provide communities with essential data services. You have now cut that off without warning to communities and haven’t offered alternatives, which will degrade safety protections across Reddit….”
“Agreed at the last Science Europe Governing Board meeting and based on discussions and advice from the Science Europe Working Groups on Research Culture and Open Science, we are pleased to announce that Science Europe is signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).”
“I have created a petition on change.org concerning the current crisis at the Journal of Political Philosophy. I urge all scholars who work on topics in or adjacent to political philosophy and theory, social philosophy, moral philosophy, philosophy of law, and related areas to sign the statement.
As discussed in Thursday’s post, Wiley has removed Bob Goodin as the editor of JPP as of the end of 2023. Their explanation for this step is that there has been a “complete breakdown of professional communication” between Goodin and them. This is an entirely inadequate explanation. If a breakdown in communication were the problem, there is no reason why Wiley could not have brought the matter to the attention of the editorial board instead of acting in a unilateral and heavy-handed manner. In consequence, the vast majority of the editorial board have now submitted their resignations.
Wiley’s explanation is all the more dubious insofar as they have pressured journal editors to massively increase the number of papers they accept for publication. This pressure threatens to undermine the integrity of the peer-reviewed journal system and turn excellent venues for quality research into nothing more than crumbling paper mills. To be sure, there is an interesting question whether the top journals in political philosophy (and other areas) should accept more articles. Perhaps their current acceptance rates are overly restrictive. But this is an academic question that can only be answered by academic philosophers on academic grounds. It cannot be answered by publishing houses looking to maximise the profits they can extract from the labour we freely provide. Editorial independence over our journals is essential—without that independence, a journal publication will mean precious little.
The petition is in essence a call to strike action: a refusal to be associated with, submit to, or review for the Journal of Political Philosophy unless Wiley rescinds its decision, restores editorial control over the journal, and reaches an agreement with the editorial board, as recently constituted, as to the future relationship between Wiley and the journal….”
A major lawsuit against the nonprofit Internet Archive threatens the future of all libraries. Big publishers are suing to cut off libraries’ ownership and control of digital books, opening new paths for censorship. Oral arguments are on March 20.
Sign on to show your support for the Internet Archive, libraries’ digital rights, and an open internet with uncensored access to knowledge.
“The undersigned Open Access scholarly publishers express our full support for Dr. Alondra Nelson’s United States Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research” …
Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo….”
The signatory publishers are Copernicus Publications, eLife, Frontiers, JMIR Publications, MDPI, Open Library of Humanities, PeerJ, PLOS, and Ubiquity Press.