FAIRsharing | CommunityCuration

“The FAIRsharing the Community Curation Programme is a thriving community of domain and discipline experts who:

1 . act as advocates to promote the value of standards, databases and policies for digital objects (incl. data, software).

2 . create educational material escribing these resources helping researchers and other stakeholders to find, use and adopt them.

3 . enrich the content of FAIRsharing, adding and enhancing the description and discoverability of these resources.

The FAIRsharing Community Curators put their expertise into action in one of more disciplines or area of activities, according to their interest, and are credited for their contribution via visible attribution in their ORCID and FAIRsharing profiles. Their contribution to and engagement with the FAIRsharing team gives them more knowledge about the wealth of standards (terminologies, models/formats, guidelines, identifier schema), databases (repositories and knowledge bases) and policies (by institutions, funders, journals and other stakeholders) relevant to them.

Launched in the summer of 2022, and supported by the RDA FAIRsharing WG and the RDA/EOSC-Future Ambassadorship Programme, the FAIRsharing the Community Curation Programme shows the importance of cultivating and sharing the collective knowledge on standards, databases and policies to map this complex landscape that enables the FAIR Principles….”

Knowledge Bites #13 : Basics of Open Science and why you should become an advocate. – EELISA

“This knowledge bites session aims to answer why we should be open science advocates and how to do it. During this event Prof. Dr. Louisa Kulke will talk about providing the basics on open science practices, including preregistration, Open Data, Open Access and Open Materials along with her experience sharing….”

Aaron Swartz and His Legacy of Internet Activism

“To build this future for our society, we need to adopt the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto to inverse the information asymmetry between citizens and Big Tech-Big Government. This can only happen if we build alternative networks of information infrastructures that support these ideas. These information networks can’t be built overnight, but we need to strive towards them. Sci-Hub and LibGen are some examples of these information infrastructures and not only do we need to support them, we need to build more of them.”

How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books? (Part Two) · Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

“As Sharla Lair at LYRASIS says “The transformation of scholarly publishing happens one investment at a time. You can’t do everything, but you can do something.” In the UK, several libraries (including the Universities of St Andrews, Manchester, Sussex, and Salford, among others) are all implementing innovative strategies to enable ethically-aligned support for OA that mesh with budget constraints. The university KU Leuven has an approach worth studying (more on this below), as does that of Utrecht, Iowa State University, the University of Kansas, Guelph, Temple University, University of California and MIT Library. But even libraries that are not in a position to make strategic overhauls can still agree criteria by which they can start to assess deals. 

Practical approaches – a case study from the library at KU Leuven…

It’s time for Canada to adopt open access for taxpayer-funded research too — University Affairs

“Earlier this year, U.S. President Joe Biden’s government announced that all academic articles that are the result of taxpayer-funded research shall be made immediately available to the public at no cost, starting at the end of 2025. This spotlights a pivotal moment in academic affairs, and sets the stage for further action from us: Canadian academics and policymakers. While this is good news to those in the academic communities, it should be good news to the public taxpayer as well. From academics, to policymakers, and even those who are not directly involved in research, why should we care about the current state of affairs when it comes to how openly we share our work? …

Canada’s three major research agencies, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council have encouraged open access, but have not taken action on mandating immediate open access for publication of routine research. Even with the establishment of the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications, there is little enforcement of this policy, with Canadian researchers often declining to delegate scarce funding resources to cover the additional cost associated with open-access publishing, or certain publishers unwilling to allow final versions of their articles to be uploaded to open-access repositories….”

Antibiotic discovery in the artificial intelligence era – Lluka – Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  As the global burden of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, creative approaches to antibiotic discovery are needed to accelerate the development of novel medicines. A rapidly progressing computational revolution—artificial intelligence—offers an optimistic path forward due to its ability to alleviate bottlenecks in the antibiotic discovery pipeline. In this review, we discuss how advancements in artificial intelligence are reinvigorating the adoption of past antibiotic discovery models—namely natural product exploration and small molecule screening. We then explore the application of contemporary machine learning approaches to emerging areas of antibiotic discovery, including antibacterial systems biology, drug combination development, antimicrobial peptide discovery, and mechanism of action prediction. Lastly, we propose a call to action for open access of high-quality screening datasets and interdisciplinary collaboration to accelerate the rate at which machine learning models can be trained and new antibiotic drugs can be developed.

 

Two decades of Open Access Campaigns | Septentrio Conference Series

Abstract:  At the start of this century, the Open Access movement gained momentum, largely fuelled by the Budapest (2002), Berlin (2003), and Bethesda (2003) declarations. The past two decades further witnessed several advocacy campaigns that challenged excessive profiteering through scientific publication, and advocated for revolutionising the scholarly publication system. Several attempts have been made to raise a voice for researchers’ rights that have been swallowed by the commercial publishing model. This study aims to give an overview of some major campaigns and organisations advocating for open access and analyses their efforts through the lens of their objectives, outcomes, opportunities, challenges and achievements. The assessment reveals some missing pieces that require careful consideration especially for current and future advocacy campaigns, as they are key building blocks of the Open Science movement. Such a mapping and understanding is crucial for sketching effective strategies needed to accelerate the progress towards achieving genuine and universal open access.

 

Open Knowledge Institutions

“The future of the university as an open knowledge institution that institutionalizes diversity and contributes to a common resource of knowledge: a manifesto.

In this book, a diverse group of authors—including open access pioneers, science communicators, scholars, researchers, and university administrators—offer a bold proposition: universities should become open knowledge institutions, acting with principles of openness at their center and working across boundaries and with broad communities to generate shared knowledge resources for the benefit of humanity. Calling on universities to adopt transparent protocols for the creation, use, and governance of these resources, the authors draw on cutting-edge theoretical work, offer real-world case studies, and outline ways to assess universities’ attempts to achieve openness.

Digital technologies have already brought about dramatic changes in knowledge format and accessibility. The book describes further shifts that open knowledge institutions must make as they move away from closed processes for verifying expert knowledge and toward careful, mediated approaches to sharing it with wider publics. It examines these changes in terms of diversity, coordination, and communication; discusses policy principles that lay out paths for universities to become fully fledged open knowledge institutions; and suggests ways that openness can be introduced into existing rankings and metrics. Case studies—including Wikipedia, the Library Publishing Coalition, Creative Commons, and Open and Library Access—illustrate key processes.

The open access edition of this book was made possible by generous funding from the MIT Libraries.”

Open access licence choices: don’t be afraid of open | Open Access Australasia

“I am often asked to advise on licensing, sometimes by editors who are moving a journal to open access or by authors faced with a licence choice in the process of submitting an article. For many, the more traditional “all rights reserved” approach is simpler, a warm blanket of familiarity. So, while these days people recognise that allowing others to access and reuse their work is beneficial, amid all the legalese and myths about OA, they feel unsure about throwing off the blanket just yet.

Here are a few pointers about open licences. There are other open licences around but I will stick to Creative Commons (CC), as these are by far the most prevalent in academic publishing.

CC licences preserve your right to object to misuse of your work.
A typical concern about open licences is “improper” use of a work, such as misattribution, false claims of authorship or what we call “derogatory treatment” of a work, that is, where the reputation or integrity of the work or author is harmed. However, here there is no difference between all rights reserved and open licences. Moral rights are always retained with any CC licence, which means misattribution or derogatory use of your work can be handled the same way with open or closed rights. Correct attribution is a legal requirement under any variety of CC licence just as it is with all rights reserved. Nor can someone reusing your work imply any sort of endorsement from you….”

OA = Funders and Lobbyists | Oct 10, 2022

“Do OA and open science represent a set of aligned interests being pushed by the rich and powerful — politicians, funders, lobbyists, and larger commercial operators — to allow for techno-utopian political posturing while they double-dip on their already-plentiful societal advantages and increase the odds that their current advantages grow?

However you answer this very leading question, it’s increasingly clear that policies are not being implemented transparently and openly, but rather via a hidden web of relationships, deals, and coordination — from Plan S to OSTP.

More and more information is pointing to a gradual, purposeful, and internecine takeover of publishing, not to make it more author-centric, but to make it more funder-centric. The relationships among funders, governments, and oligarchs are often blurry, with lobbyists an indicator that some kind of alignment is in the works.

A recent paper in Science and Public Policy about inadequate transparency in the EU’s approach to creating its influential open science policy discusses the role of lobbyists in the paradigm shift from “science 2.0” to “open science” as policies were formulated in Brussels and elsewhere. This was a meaningful shift. Both phrases are vague, but the first is more commonly understood as connoting a digital future based on existing norms. The latter injects a new set of untested norms, with the authors worrying that: ‘. . . successful projects of openness tend to be exploited on the one hand by powerful commercial actors and, on the other hand, by non-serious or even criminal actors, sometimes working in a grey area.’

Given the trail of influence SPARC and ORFG have left in the US through the NLM and the OSTP — in addition to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) — and their efforts to obscure relationships, roles, and ties to the registered lobbying firm (New Venture Fund [NVF]) that is their fiscal sponsor, some statements in the paper hit familiar notes when it comes to lobbyists on this side of the Atlantic:…

Given the power dynamics — with subscription-based journals creating strong filters at the headwaters of various scientific communities, often leading to funded projects being unpublished or published in lesser journals than their funders imagined — it’s little wonder funders changed lanes, entering publishing in order to gain further influence, lower barriers, and put their interests at the headwaters. “Publishers being co-opted by funders” now seems to be the unspoken intent of OA and open science.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20221010111724/https://www.the-geyser.com/oa-and-its-lobbyists/

Open Chat series “How-to-Advocacy”, first webinar Oct 21, 11am (CEST) | OPERAS

An Open Chat Series by the OPERAS SIG “Advocacy”

Do the humanities and social sciences need (more) advocacy? 

Why is advocacy crucial for forging open scholarly communication?

What can you do for more openness in the humanities and social sciences (SSH)?

OPERAS Advocacy Special Interest Group opens up Open Chat Series. With experts in advocacy and communications, researchers, publishers and other members of the SSH community we will:

discuss current trends in open scholarly communication, 
look for innovative solutions and tools for publishers, researchers and scholarly institutions,
share best practices in open digital scholarly publications. 

On 21.10.2022 at 11 CEST we will launch the Open Chat Series with the first webinar “Why advocate for open scholarly communication in the humanities and social sciences?”. Members of the OPERAS Special Interest Group “Advocacy” will present the most pressing needs of open communication in the SSH, its benefits and challenges. Together with our guest speakers and the audience we will discuss the advocacy goals and challenges for the SSH community.

The discussion with our guest speaker Per Pippin Aspaas, Head of Library Research and Publishing Support at the UiT in Tromsø, will be moderated by one of our members Alíz Horváth – researcher, expert in East Asian studies and creator of “Humanista” podcast. 

To join the Open Chat Series you need to leave your email in the registration form: https://forms.gle/qQ56j9iaqjX8mvED9. We will send you the link to the webinar. 

The event will be conducted via Zoom.

 

Making a reality of access to knowledge: new website supports advocacy and WIPO engagement – IFLA

“As part of a global group of organisations committed to promoting access to knowledge at the World Intellectual Property Organization and beyond, IFLA encourages the library field to engage with a new website which shares key resources and data for advocacy and awareness-raising….”

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….”