English – Knowledge Equity Network

“For Higher Education Institutions

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….”


Knowledge Equity Network – Knowledge Equity Network

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.”

Restricting Reddit Data Access Threatens Online Safety & Public-Interest Research

“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….”

Science Europe signs DORA – Science Europe

“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).”

Statement of Non-Cooperation with the Journal of Political Philosophy (updated with list of signatories) | Daily Nous

“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….”

Battle for Libraries, March 20, 2023 | Fight for the Future

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.


Supporting the OSTP memorandum “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research”

“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.

The Agreement full text – COARA

“Launched in January 2022 as a co-creation exercise, the process of drafting an agreement for reforming research assessment has reached an important milestone. On 8 July, the final version of the agreement was presented at a Stakeholder Assembly bringing together the 350+ organisations from 40+ countries having expressed interest in being involved in the process. Today, the final Agreement is made public with this news.

Organisations involved include public and private research funders, universities, research centres, institutes and infrastructures, associations (and alliances thereof), national and regional authorities, accreditation and evaluation agencies, learned societies and associations of researchers, and other relevant organisations. They represent a broad diversity of views and perspectives….”

PETITION: Mega-corps are trying to ban libraries from owning digital books!

“Currently, major publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books. They’re even suing to ban libraries from making their own digital books. With so many diverse voices published only in digital format, and digital books often more accessible for the most marginalized library patrons, this is unacceptable. Sign on now to demand that the largest publishing lobby in the US reverse course and stand up for libraries in 2023! …”

The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is now final – Science Europe

“Launched in January 2022 as a co-creation exercise, the process of drafting an agreement for reforming research assessment has reached an important milestone. On 8 July, the final version of the agreement was presented at a Stakeholder Assembly bringing together the 350+ organisations from 40+ countries having expressed interest in being involved in the process. Today, the final Agreement is made public with this news….

Signatories will commit to a common vision, which is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer-review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators….”



Commitment to Openness in Research and Research Communication – PLOS

“Open Science encompasses the entire research process and the entire research community. It empowers researchers everywhere to share valuable artifacts from each stage of their investigation and increase visibility and collaboration around their work. Every research community and individual has an opportunity to shape the activities and norms that inspire trust in their work. A commitment to Open Science, therefore, is not a pledge to adopt a few specific behaviors, but to advance openness, transparency and reproducibility in daily life as a researcher.

Together, we can cultivate a more inclusive and trustworthy future for science….”

Neuromatch and the Open Letter to the WHOSTP and Subcommittee on Open Science – Open Scholar C.I.C.

“Neuromatch is a grassroots organization founded at the start of the pandemic to bring conferences and summer schools online. Our experience showed us that making these activities freely available to all, supported by technology designed to empower them, leads to incredible, mutually supportive and self-sustaining communities and the democratization of research.

We believe this model can be applied to academic publishing, one of the least innovative and democratic aspects of research. For the last year, we have been designing a new approach to publishing based on community ownership, free access and open data that we have recently made public at //nmop.io.

We naturally became very interested in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum on public access, which we feel is a step in the right direction but fraught with dangers around article processing charges and transformative agreements. We organized a group of open access advocates and wrote an open letter to the White House, calling on them to take these issues seriously, along with concrete implementation recommendations.

We also wrote an article directed to researchers themselves explaining why we think this is a critical issue and encouraging them to sign the letter.”

5 Anti-Climate Practices Elsevier Must Cease: Scientists Call out Publisher’s Ties to Fossil Fuel Industry  – Union of Concerned Scientists

“Publicly, Elsevier claims to be committed to a clean energy future. But its ongoing practices tell a very different story. At UCS, we think Elsevier can do better.

Together with Scientists for Global Responsibility, we’ve launched a petition demanding that Elsevier and its parent company, RELX, detail their plans to align their business practices with their public commitments to address climate change. If you’re a member of the scientific community, we encourage you to sign on. If you are not a scientist, I hope this piece inspires you to look under the hood when companies make claims about their commitment to climate change that seem too good to be true….”

Neil Gaiman, Alok Menon, Naomi Klein, Saul Williams, and 300+ authors pen open letter supporting libraries’ rights in the digital age | Fight for the Future

Over 300 authors including Neil Gaiman, Alok Menon, Naomi Klein, Saul Williams, Hanif Abdurraqib, Lawrence Lessig, Chuck Wendig, and Cory Doctorow have released an open letter in support of the continued role of libraries in the digital age. 

It reads in part:

“Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians.“

The full text of the letter, full list of signatories, as well as a form for more authors to sign on is available at http://FightForTheFuture.org/Authors-For-Libraries.

The letter demands that publishers, distributors, and trade associations:

Enshrine the right of libraries to own, preserve, and loan books on reasonable terms regardless of format
End lawsuits aimed to intimidate libraries or diminish their role in society
Halt industry-led smear campaigns against librarians

Notable among the signatories are Chuck Wendig and Neil Gaiman. Wendig initially criticized the Internet Archive’s temporary suspension of 1-owned-to-1-loaned restrictions during the first pandemic lockdown, but has since spoken out against major publishers’ lawsuit against the library, joining Gaiman. The suit seeks to end the Internet Archive’s Open Library Project, which partners with 80+ libraries including Boston Public Library, Milton Public Library, University of Arizona, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art to loan out digital scans of physical books the Internet Archive Library owns.

The suit’s scope reaches to the core of the right to own digital books. Briefs in the case are due October 7th. If publishers prevail, they will effectively terminate the rights of all libraries across the US to own, preserve, and loan digital books by “blocking” a practice called controlled digital lending—locking in licensing models with grave implications for readers’ safety.


COARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment

“Our vision is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators.”