cOAlition S confirms the end of its financial support for Open Access publishing under transformative arrangements after 2024 | Plan S

Transformative arrangements – including Transformative Agreements and Transformative Journals – were developed to encourage subscription journals to transition to full and immediate open access within a defined timeframe (31st December 2024, as specified in the Plan S Implementation Guidance). After careful consideration of the outcomes of transformative arrangements, the leadership of cOAlition S reaffirms that, as a principle, its members will no longer financially support these arrangements after 2024.

Exceptionally, individual cOAlition S funders may still choose to financially participate in Transformative Agreements beyond 2024 as part of their respective national strategies. Such exceptions will be communicated on the cOAlition S website.

Support for Transformative Journals will also cease at the end of 2024. In anticipation of this, no new applications to this programme will be considered after the 30th of June 2023.

 

Canadian policy: Data management requirement takes effect in March

“Canadian institutions are preparing for a research data management policy developed by three major federal granting agencies to go into effect this March. The policy of the Tri-Agency Council, comprising the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), asserts that “research data collected through the use of public funds should be responsibly and securely managed and be, where ethical, legal and commercial obligations allow, available for reuse by others.” Dryad would be pleased to assist any Canadian institution seeking a solution to help support their affiliated researchers with this policy….”

Time to Reform Academic Publishing | Forum

“In particular, as graduate, professional, and medical students, we have been shaped by the relics of an inequitable publishing model that was created before the age of the internet. Our everyday work—from designing and running experiments to diagnosing and treating patients—relies on the results of taxpayer-funded research. Having these resources freely available will help to accelerate innovation and level the playing field for smaller and less well-funded research groups and institutions. With this goal of creating an equitable research ecosystem in mind, we want to highlight the importance of creating one that is equitable in whole….

But today, the incentives for institutions do not align with goals of equity, and change will be necessary to help support a more equitable system. Nor do incentives within institutions always align with these goals. This is especially true for early-career researchers, who might struggle to comply with new open-access guidelines if they need to pay a high article publishing fee to make their research open in a journal that is valued by their institutions’ promotion and tenure guidelines.

To these ends, it is imperative that the process for communicating research results to the public and other researchers does not shift from a “pay-to-read” model to a “pay-to-publish” model. That is, we should not use taxpayer dollars to pay publishers to make research available, nor should we simply pass these costs on to researchers. This approach would be unsustainable long-term and would go against the equity goals of the new OSTP policy. Instead, we hope that funders, professional societies, and institutions will come along with us in imagining and supporting innovative ways for communicating science that are more equitable and better for research….”

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Joins Open Knowledge Maps as a Supporting Member

We are delighted to announce that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has joined Open Knowledge Maps as a supporting member. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second funding agency to join Open Knowledge Maps and the first to do so with a Visionary Membership.

 

Confused by open-access policies? These tools can help

“Funding-agency policies mandating that scientific papers and data are made publicly available have helped to drive the adoption of preprints, open-access publishing and data repositories. But agencies often struggle to measure how closely grant recipients comply with the funding policies. Awardees, and the institutes that employ them, can struggle to ensure they are following the rules. Now, digital tools are cropping up to help both sides of the funding equation stick to the regulations.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, has invested US$1.8 million to support the development of OA.Report, a tool that helps funders to track awardee compliance with foundation open-access policies. Developed by OA.Works in London, OA.Report uses text-mining techniques to match articles with the funder that supported the work, by sifting through academic papers and open-access metadata. The software also tracks article-processing charges, as well as the subsequent reports that summarize the outcomes of grants….”

Guest Post – “We are ready to move forward”: A Professional Society’s Route to Open Access – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Some publishers have been quoted as saying it is too soon to tell if this mandate will impact their journals. My colleagues and I at the ANS have known for some time that our journals would be impacted by the wider movement toward open research publishing. In many ways, the OSTP’s latest public access guidance is a big win for federally funded researchers and the entire nuclear community. ANS has recently published numerous OA supplements alongside some national US labs and the benefit to authors and researchers is far-reaching. The Nelson Memo only reaffirms that we as publishers must continue to be proactive in finding sustainable solutions that work for authors, the publishers of those journals and for society. We are ready to move forward.

But it is not an all-or-nothing approach. The ANS has long taken a progressive stance to ensure that we stay at the fore of the evolution of scholarly publishing, whilst ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of our members and our wider research community….”

 

The future of global health research, publishing, and practice – The Lancet Global Health

“As we move into our tenth year of operation, we would like to build on our commitment to making global health research, publishing, and practice a more equitable and effective space. We are therefore effecting a number of initiatives. Before outlining them, however, a word on article processing charges. It is often brought to our attention that the fee that we charge to cover the cost of reviewing, technical editing, typesetting and graphics, online hosting, archiving, and promotion of accepted manuscripts is way beyond the reach of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We want to emphasise that we never, ever, expect researchers from any country to pay this charge from their own pockets. Our business model is based on the premise that more and more research funders are mandating gold open-access publication and are prepared to pay for it. If there is no such funding available and no, or only partial, funding available from institutional sources, then we waive or discount the fee. Whether the fee is paid or not does not affect the open-access nature of the article….”

Supporting open access publishing for books: myth-busting webinars event summary – Research

“As part of our work with UKRI to support the implementation of the UKRI open access policy for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024, we re-visited some of the key areas of concern for researchers that surfaced during the consultation period for the policy (see UUK Open access and monographs. Evidence review and Open access and monographs: Where are we now? A position paper by the British Academy).

There was a clear need for a focused period of engagement with key stakeholder groups such as researchers/academics across all career levels, librarians/scholarly communication managers, research offices, and rights holders, with the aim being to split the real issues from the perceived problems. As a result, we collaborated with a number of UK university presses and the Open Access Books Network to hold a series of webinars on the subject of the myths around open access for books, as well as to address legitimate concerns and suggest ways to remove barriers to open access publishing.

We held three 90-minute webinars, each consisting of three short presentations from a panel including authors, publishers, open access publishing support services and policy makers. These were then followed by a Q&A session where audience questions were invited. All sessions were chaired by an expert in the field of open access.

The opening session set the context and covered the key themes, and this was then followed by more focused sessions covering specific areas in more detail. You can find all the event recordings, transcripts, presentations, and our panels’ responses to the questions we didn’t have time to cover on our Events webpage and also via the links below….”

Webinar: Data sharing: what do we know and where can we go? – OASPA

“OASPA is pleased to announce our next webinar which will focus on the what about and the why of data sharing.

The recent OSTP “Nelson memo” served as a re-focus on data as a first class research output. But maybe that’s a misrepresentation for those of us who think ‘hold on, we’ve been focused on data this whole time!?’ Well here’s a chance to learn from and with a group of experts who are thinking carefully about data sharing: what that means from different perspectives, tangible steps to take and policies to make around data, and what we can do next in our communities of practice. Attendees are more than welcome to bring their own perspectives!…”

NIH’s new data sharing policy is coming, and it’s a ‘big cultural shift’ | News | Chemistry World

“Biochemists and other researchers who apply for funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will have to include comprehensive data management and sharing plans in grants from 25 January. These will be formal strategies for managing, preserving and sharing scientific data, as well as the accompanying metadata.

The new rule, which is generating some concern within the research community, replaces the NIH’s existing data sharing policy that has been around since 2003, and applies to only those seeking at least $500,000 (£419,200) in direct costs from the agency in any given year. The original regulation required researchers to submit a plan that describes how they will share the underlying data, or if they cannot share it then why not.

By contrast, the latest policy affects all NIH grants, regardless of specific budget. It will apply to competing grant applications, proposals for contracts and other funding agreements submitted to the NIH on or after 25 January.

The agency will now mandate that researchers describe their strategy to share scientific data needed to ‘validate and replicate’ their research findings, whether or not the data is used to support scholarly publications….”

open.science.gov – Your Gateway to U.S. Federal Science

“Open Science is the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility, and equity. Federal agencies are celebrating 2023 as a Year of Open Science, a multi-agency initiative across the federal government to spark change and inspire open science engagement through events and activities that will advance adoption of open, equitable, and secure science….”

“…Science.gov is the U.S. contribution to WorldWideScience.org, which provides access to science information from more than 70 nations…”

Open access for book chapters: event summary – Research

“Long form scholarly works, such as monographs, book chapters and edited collections, will become in scope of the new UKRI open access policy if published after 1 January 2024. UKRI is developing a dedicated fund to support these new requirements.

A variety of publishing models already exist to help cover the cost of publishing open access. However, many publishers have already introduced the Chapter Processing Charge (CPC) as their preferred publishing model, and similarly to the Book Processing Charge (BPC) model, there are concerns that the CPC model will not scale with this limited fund….

The inclusion of book chapters in the UKRI open access policy raises a number of issues that must be resolved prior to policy launch:

Where book chapters contain a UKRI funder acknowledgement, but the edited works that they are contained within do not, the individual book chapters must be made open access (OA) within 12 months of publication. This applies to each chapter, if more than one chapter acknowledges funding
If the whole edited work acknowledges funding, then the policy applies to the whole book, even if book chapters acknowledge different UKRI funding
Chapters in edited works from born OA publishers and those made OA via a subscribe to open or community driven (diamond) models would be compliant…”

Policy Assistant

“The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established to advise the President and others in the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets….

As a Policy Assistant, GS, 0301, 9/11 your responsibilities will include:

 

Supporting CTO Leadership Team in daily tasks, including calendar management and travel coordination
Arranging meetings with stakeholders and preparing meeting materials
Managing frequent and routine correspondence
Assisting CTO team members with tracking priorities, tasks, and requests
Performing technical policy research
Drafting policy memoranda on science and technology policy topics
Other tasks as assigned…”