Micah Vandegrift Appointed ARL Visiting Program Officer for Accelerating Social Impact of Research – Association of Research Libraries

“The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has named Micah Vandegrift as a visiting program officer in the Scholars & Scholarship program for July 2021–July 2022. Vandegrift is the open knowledge librarian at NC State University Libraries.

As visiting program officer, Vandegrift will design and deliver a pilot experience for a cohort of eight ARL member libraries that are advancing open research practices at their institutions. The pilot Accelerating the Social Impact of Research (ASIR) program will help participants develop a strategic approach for advancing the social impact of science, aimed at building and reinforcing institutional points of influence for open research practices. This initiative is in coordination with the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science and with the NASEM Board on Research Data and Information (BRDI)….”

Collister | From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access | Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Abstract:  This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in “patchy endorsements” of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.


Catalyzing the Creation of a Repository Network in the US – COAR

“COAR and SPARC have a shared vision of creating a global, open knowledge sharing system that centers diversity, equity, and inclusion, and we believe repositories play a central role in achieving this vision.

This is an important moment in time, in which open scholarship is more visible and widely-embraced than ever before. The urgency of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic has led many researchers to eagerly embrace new, faster ways of sharing their research papers, data, and more via repositories and other open platforms. There is a renewed interest in community ownership of both infrastructure and content, and a spotlight on empowering author’s rights retention due to new funder requirements, such as Plan S. There is also a growing recognition of the pressing need to intentionally build channels for greater inclusiveness and diversity of voices in the research communication system, as underscored in the UNESCO draft recommendations which were developed through consensus by over 100 member countries.

Yet, against this backdrop of encouraging developments, the trend toward commercial concentration in the publishing industry continues unabated. This consolidation exacerbates a number of serious problems in the system, including unacceptably high and ever-increasing costs for subscriptions and APCs (article processing charges). It also contributes to a steady decline in the diversity of publishing outlets and options – decreasing bibliodiversity, which is fundamental for a healthy ecosystem.

Individual repositories and a global repository network are critical infrastructure that provide the community with means for resisting this consolidation. Repositories are localized and can respond to different users’ needs, advancing equity and diversity in the scholarly communications ecosystem. When they are resourced properly, they are sustainable and long-lived, and because they are mostly managed by research institutions and their libraries, they are operated in a manner consistent with the academic community’s values. Moreover, repositories exemplify the key role institutions must play in preserving, curating, and making accessible content that would otherwise be unavailable to the world….”

Open Future

“Numerous organisations and initiatives have been launched with a belief in openness and free knowledge. Their proponents placed their bets on the combined power of networked information services and new governance models for the production and sharing of content and data. We – as members of this broad movement – were among those who believed it possible to leverage this combination of power and opportunity to build a more democratic society, unleashing the power of the internet to create universal access to knowledge and culture. For us, such openness meant not only freedom, but also presented a path to justice and equality….

The open revolution that we imagined did not, however, happen. At least not on the scale that we and many other proponents of free culture expected.

Nevertheless, the growing Open movement demonstrated the viability of our ideas. As proof we have Wikipedia, Open Government data initiatives, the ascent of Open Access publishing, the role of free software in powering the infrastructure of the internet and the gradual opening of the collections of many cultural heritage institutions….

Over time, we have observed the significant evolution of our movement’s normative basis – away from a justification based on the voluntary exercise of rights by individual creators and towards a justification based on the production of social goods….

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a wholesale transformation of the networked information ecosystem. The web moved away from the ideals and the open design of the early internet and turned into an environment that is dominated by a small number of platforms….

The concentration of power in the hands of a small number of information intermediaries negates one of the core assumptions of the Open movement….”

ORFG Civic Science Fellow

“The ORFG is seeking a fellow to help develop, launch, and oversee an Open & Equitable Model Funding Program to address inequities in the research community.  The ORFG has come to the belated realization that we need to be much more actively engaged in building a just, inclusive world.  Given our remit, we aspire to leverage open research practices to create a more transparent, welcoming, and collaborative research ecosystem. This has the potential to close knowledge gaps and level the playing field for researchers around the world. Paywalls and siloed systems serve as barriers between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in the research community. This wall often presents itself at the first point of exploration, limiting the potential audience to well-funded researchers with strong professional networks and robust institution-sponsored subscriptions, excluding many who might bring new and differing perspectives to the research process.  Open activities can be a necessary, though by no means sufficient, tool to lower these barriers.

In 2020, the ORFG launched an Equity & Open Science Working Group, which includes representatives from five ORFG members, as well as seven scholars, scientists, and activists working at the intersection of open research and marginalized communities.  The working group has determined that to rapidly and visibly champion a more equitable and open research environment, philanthropies should leverage the best asset they bring to the research conversation – their grantmaking capabilities. The ORFG, in collaboration with the Health Research Alliance, has created the rough framework of an Open & Equitable Model Funding Program, co-created from the ground up with traditionally underrepresented communities and based on principles of equity, social justice, and open research….”

Ouvrir la Science – The Committee for Open Science

“The mission of this committee is to propose the directions that Open Science should take and to teach the subjects on questions of Open Science, as well as to animate and accompany the actions associated with it, in a fluid structure that simplifies the expression of ideas, suggestions and contributions, and their transmission to the different working groups.

The Steering Committee for Open Science ensures the implementation of a policy supporting open publications and research data. The committee’s missions are:

To ensure the coordinated implementation with higher education and research of a national plan aimed at making all publications and research data openly available;
To enable the development of open science skills in the scientific community;
To coordinate national action in the field of open science on the European and international levels;
To define the principles and directions to be adopted concerning the assignment of financing from the national fund for open science and how it is used;
To define the principles and directions to be adopted for negotiations with the main scientific publishers;
To propose all actions likely to strengthen or promote the access to knowledge or research data to ministers of higher education and research and all public authorities….”


“Le libre accès à la recherche scientifique, commun de l’humanité” par Pablo Rauzy (“Free access to scientific research, common to mankind” by Pablo Rauzy)

From Google’s English:

“Open and unlimited access to scientific publications must be defended and developed, against commodification and privatization: this is the point of Pablo Rauzy, researcher and activist.”

How to help – Free Journal Network

“The Free Journal Network advocates Fair Open Access. Here is how you can help us with our mission.


The Free Journal Network currently receives no public funds or government grants of any kind. We depend exclusively on the financial support of like-minded individuals as well as universities, libraries, and other organizations who support our mission. If you represent a university, library, or other organization that would like to support our mission financially, please e-mail info@freejournals.org.


If you are interested in supporting our mission by volunteering your time and expertise, and possibly becoming a board member in future, please email us at info@freejournals.org.

If you know of a good candidate journal, please let us know….”

Open access publishing in chemistry: a practical perspective informing new education

Abstract:  In the late 1990s chemists were among the early adopters of open access (OA) publishing. As also happened with preprints, the early successful adoption of OA publishing by chemists subsequently slowed down. In 2016 chemistry was found to be the discipline with the lowest proportion of OA articles in articles published between 2009 and 2015. To benefit from open science in terms of enhanced citations, collaboration, job and funding opportunities, chemistry scholars need updated information (and education) of practical relevance about open science. Suggesting avenues for quick uptake of OA publishing from chemists in both developed and developing countries, this article offers a critical perspective on academic publishing in the chemical sciences that will be useful to inform that education.


Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS)

“AIMOS (the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science) seeks to advance the interdisciplinary field of meta-research by bringing together and supporting researchers in that field.

Science aims to produce robust knowledge and the concept of reproducible experiments is central to this. However the past decade has seen a ‘reproducibility crisis’ in science.

Across a number of scientific fields, such as psychology and preclinical medicine, large-scale replication projects have failed to produce evidence supporting the findings of many original studies. Meta-research will address this challenge head on….”

Open Scholarship Support Guide.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

“Steps to Support Open Scholarship

Open scholarship entails a culture shift in how research is conducted in universities. It requires action on the part of university administration, working in concert with faculty, sponsors and disciplinary communities.  Universities should consider steps in three areas:

•  Policies:  Language and guidance should be reviewed for alignment with open scholarship, in particular: (1) academic hiring, review, tenure and promotion (valuing diverse types of research products; metrics that  incentivize the open dissemination of articles, data, and other research outputs; and valuing collaborative research); (2) intellectual property (ownership, licensing and distribution of data, software, materials and publications); (3) research data protection (for data to be stored and shared through repositories); (4) attribution (recognizing full range of contributions);  and (5) privacy (insuring that privacy obligations are met). 

•  Services and Training:  Researchers need support to assure that data and other research objects are managed according to FAIR Principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.  While the specific solution must be tailored to the discipline and research, common standards, including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), must be followed.

•  Infrastructure:  Archival storage is required for data, materials, specimens and publications to permit reuse.  Searchable portals are needed to register research products where they can be located and accessed. Universities can recognize efficiencies by utilizing external resources (including existing disciplinary repositories) and by developing shared resources that span the institution when external resources do not exist.

Presidents and provosts are encouraged to work with their academic senates to create an open scholarship initiative that promotes institution-wide actions supporting open scholarship practices, while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate disciplinary differences and norms….”

PsyArXiv Preprints | Nudging Open Science

Abstract:  In this article, we provide a toolbox of resources and nudges for those who are interested in advancing open scientific practice. Open Science encompasses a range of behaviours that aim to include the transparency of scientific research and how widely it is communicated. The paper is divided into seven sections, each dealing with a different stakeholder in the world of research (researchers, students, departments and faculties, universities, academic libraries, journals, and funders). With two frameworks in mind — EAST and the Pyramid of Culture Change — we describe the influences and incentives that sway behaviour for each of these stakeholders, we outline changes that can foster Open Science, and suggest actions and resources for individuals to nudge these changes. In isolation, a small shift in one person’s behaviour may appear to make little difference, but when combined, these small shifts can lead to radical changes in culture. We offer this toolbox to assist individuals and institutions in cultivating a more open research culture.


Nudging Open Science: Useful Tips for Academic Libraries? | ZBW MediaTalk

“An international group of eleven behavioural scientists from eight countries (Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Poland, USA, Netherlands) recently addressed this question in the report „Nudging Open Science“ and developed recommendations for action for seven groups in the scientific system. Academic libraries are one of these groups. The other groups (they are called “nodes” in the report) are researchers, students, departments and faculties, universities, journals and funding organisations. The team of behavioural scientists classifies each of these groups and gives practical tips on who can nudge each group, and how, to practice more Open Science. However, the report does not contain any approaches on how libraries themselves can actively nudge other stakeholders. We present approaches and results of the report with a special focus on academic libraries….

Now the group of behavioural scientists has started thinking about how the potential of nudging could be used to further advance Open Science in the scientific ecosystem. Their thesis: Whether researchers and institutions choose to engage in Open Science practices is not necessarily a matter of rational choice. On the contrary: Most decisions are routinely made in the course of emotional, automatic or impulsive processes that are often influenced by psychosocial factors (example: peer pressure). When faced with a decision, a person usually chooses the path of least resistance or least effort. The status quo is maintained….”

All publishers must fully respect researchers’ rights by providing clarity and transparency on Open Access

“We are especially concerned by the unclear and opaque communication and practices of some publishers as reported by cOAlition S. Such an approach complicates and confuses matters for researchers, impeding progress towards a scholarly communication system based on Open Access to research outputs. We urge those publishers to reconsider their position and modernise, ensuring they play their part in providing fair and transparent conditions for authors. These should fully respect researchers’ rights, including the right to share their peer-reviewed research findings without restrictions or embargoes. If a publisher or platform chooses to take the stance of requiring authors to sign away their rights, they should clearly and publicly state this to ensure that researchers make informed choices. More broadly, the standard position of platforms and publishers should be to empower researchers to publish their findings (including data and digital assets) while retaining their rights. Researchers who wish to deposit their author-accepted manuscript in a repository with an open license (e.g. CC BY), and without any embargo, must be able to do so….”