“The Open Science team is seeking a contract Program Associate to help drive the execution of open science initiatives. You will manage and assist the development and operations of grant programs to support programmatic work, and help coordinate with the broader CZ Scienor team and the external community to help the team meet strategic goals. The ideal candidate will have an understanding of open science practices, how open source software, open data, and collaborative platforms are used in science, and how open communities function.”
“The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) is an association of federal agencies, research policy organizations and academic research institutions with the mission of streamlining the administration of federally sponsored research and create resources that are available to the research enterprise. We have work closely with them over the years on various activities, including efforts to implement our Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy that went into effect in January. Since March, we have engaged with FDP to pilot test two DMS plan templates. These templates were developed in close collaboration with staff and leadership from offices across NIH, and we seek your input on them.
The feedback obtained in this phase will inform possible revisions to the current NIH DMS Plan format page. Our aim is to encourage greater consistency in DMS Plan requirements across NIH Institutes and Centers and mitigate the administrative burden associated with DMS Plan development and implementation for researchers. While the pilot was initially planned to last at least two years, we anticipate that it may continue beyond that, as we continue to learn more as the community and NIH gain more experience with the DMS policy. The policy requires a DMS Plan for all NIH-funded research.
The templates being piloted, available on the FDP website, include:
Option 1 (Alpha version): a prescriptive template designed to limit the need for free text entry.
Option 2 (Bravo version): a template that aims to provide detailed prompts as well as more options to include free text responses as necessary.
Please note that applicants can also use the NIH DMS Plan format page.”
A dedicated OA Books prototype is in advanced stages of development and will be available for testing with pilot users in January 2024. Research institutions, funders, and academic book publishers can still join for testing.
Overview of 24 new BMBF-funded projects published under funding guideline for a vivid open access culture
Under the guideline for the promotion of a lived open access culture in research and science practice, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) supports 24 projects. These establish science-supported financing models, contribute to increasing the recognition of open access in science and addressing the diverse needs of an open access culture. The currently funded projects are dedicated to the professionalisation, dissemination and increasing institutionalisation of sustainable open access structures. According to the BMBF, they are thereby contributing to the cultural change of scientific publishing towards more open access. A large part of the projects are suitable for the 1st September 2023.
Further information on the content of the individual projects can be found on the BMBF website: https://www.bildung-forschung.digital/digitalezukunft/de/wissen/open-access/projektstart-24-project-open-access-kultur/projektstart-open-access-kultur/projektstart-open-access-kultur.html
Übersicht zu 24 neuen BMBF-geförderten Projekten unter Förderrichtlinie für eine gelebte Open-Access-Kultur veröffentlicht
Unter der Richtlinie zur Förderung einer gelebten Open-Access-Kultur in der Forschungs- und Wissenschaftspraxis unterstützt das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) 24 Projekte. Diese etablieren wissenschaftsgetragene Finanzierungsmodelle, tragen zur Erhöhung der Anerkennung von Open Access in der Wissenschaft bei und gehen auf die vielfältigen Bedarfe einer Open-Access-Kultur ein. Die aktuell geförderten Projekte widmen sich der Professionalisierung, Verbreitung und zunehmenden Institutionalisierung nachhaltiger Open-Access-Strukturen. Dadurch tragen sie laut BMBF zum Kulturwandel des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens hin zu mehr Open Access bei. Ein Großteil der Vorhaben ist zum 1. September 2023 gestartet.
Weiterführende Informationen zu den Inhalten der einzelnen Projekte finden Sie auf der Webpräsenz des BMBF: https://www.bildung-forschung.digital/digitalezukunft/de/wissen/open-access/projektstart_24_vorhaben_open_access_kultur/projektstart_24_vorhaben_open_access_kultur.html
Eine weitere Übersicht zu Open-Access-Projekten, auf der sich bereits auch ein Teil der 24 BMBF-geförderten Projekte findet, haben wir auf unserer Website bereitgestellt. Sie wird fortlaufend aktualisiert: https://open-access.network/vernetzen/open-access-projekte
“On September 27, 2023, and October 10, 2023, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) held stakeholder listening sessions around their 2023 Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access to USDA-Funded Research Results, which included scheduled oral comments from stakeholders. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) presented oral comments at the October 10, 2023, session. ARL is pleased to now offer the following written comments in response to this request….”
“This National Academies public workshop, which is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will provide a venue for stakeholders to discuss steps that HHS agencies, including the NIH, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Community Living, and the Food and Drug Administration, could consider to help ensure changes to public access policies promote equity in publication opportunities for investigators. The workshop will focus on topics related to scholarly publications and convene interested individuals and communities, including authors, investigators, research institutions, libraries, scholarly publishers, scientific societies, healthcare providers, patients, students, educators, and research participants.”
“UKRI’s open access policy for monographs, book chapters and edited collections goes live on 1 January 2024.
In preparation for policy launch, this webinar will help those who support open access at their institutions understand how publishers enable authors with funder requirements to make long-form research outputs publicly available and how this can assist with engagement with authors about the policy and completing stage 1 and 2 of the funding application….”
“From 1 January 2024, monographs, book chapters or edited collections acknowledging funding from UKRI or any of its councils must be made open access (OA) within 12 months of publication. This is the first time that long-form research outputs have been included in UKRI’s open access policy. Not only does the new policy align with the approach of other funders such as the Wellcome Trust, it also implements the government’s firm commitment for open publication of publicly-funded research.
However, it is important to recognise that the OA landscape for long-form research outputs is less mature than for short-form outputs such as journal articles, and this will be a significant change for funded authors. Those affected by the changes may have queries or concerns, but UKRI’s OA policy has been written to allow a smooth transition and reduce disruption. For example, they have just announced a bedding-in period of 9 months from policy launch to allow institutions time to adjust and smooth out processes.
New UKRI policy requirements
The core requirements are:
The final Version of Record or Author’s Accepted Manuscript must be free to view and download via an online publication platform, publisher’s website, or institutional or subject repository within a maximum of 12 months of publication
The OA version of the publication must have a Creative Commons licence, with an Open Government Licence (OGL) also permitted.
Images, illustrations, tables and other supporting content should be included in the OA version where possible (third-party materials DO NOT require a CC licence)….”
“Given this long and consistent track-record, now complemented by two major official statements, one could be forgiven to think that applicants for funding at the DFG now feel assured that they will not be judged by their publication venues any longer. After all, journal prestige is correlated with experimental unreliability, so using it as an indicator clearly constitutes “inappropriate use of journal-based metrics”. With all this history, it came as a shock to many when earlier this year, one of the DFG panels deciding which grant proposals get funded, published an article in the German LaborJournal magazine that seemed to turn the long, hard work of the DFG in this area on its head….”
“NSF is seeking public input from the science and engineering research and education community on implementing NSF Public Access Plan 2.0: Ensuring Open, Immediate, and Equitable Access to National Science Foundation Funded Research. This plan, described in the SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION of this Federal Register notice, represents an update to NSF’s current public access requirements in response to recent White House Office of Science and Technology Policy guidance….”
“The National Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking public input from the science and engineering research and education community on implementing NSF Public Access Plan 2.0: Ensuring Open, Immediate, and Equitable Access to National Science Foundation Funded Research. This plan, described in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, represents an update to NSF current public access requirements in response to recent White House Office of Science and Technology Policy guidance. A primary consideration during the development of NSF’s plan has been potential equity impacts of public access requirements. NSF’s goal is to improve equity throughout the research life cycle, making data and opportunities available to all researchers, including those from marginalized communities and historically under-resourced institutions of higher education in the U.S. NSF is committed to considering the needs of the diverse US research community, including identifying possible unintended consequences that the plan and its implementation could produce.”
Looking beyond the current Dutch contract with Elsevier
UNL, NFU and NWO are delighted to announce a one-day conference entitled “What do we want (or not want) from publishers? Looking beyond the current Dutch contract with Elsevier” that will take place on Thursday, April 18 2024 in the Domstad Conference Centre, in Utrecht.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) submits this report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House in fulfillment of the requirement in the Committee Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) for financing mechanisms for open access publishing of federally funded research.1 According to that Report, “The Committee recognizes the considerable progress made by OSTP” and “encourages OSTP to continue its efforts to coordinate the implementation of public access policies across Federal departments and agencies and to identify additional opportunities to enhance access to the results of Federally funded research.” At the same time, the Committee expressed concern about how mechanisms for financing open access publishing “may present growing barriers to knowledge generation and sharing,” noting that there are “limited data on the subject.”
As defined by UNESCO, the term “open access publishing” refers to “the provision of free access to peer reviewed, scholarly and research information to all. It requires that the rights holder grants worldwide irrevocable right of access to copy, use, distribute, transmit, and make derivative works in any format for any lawful activities with proper attribution to the original author.”2 Recent technological and policy changes around the world have enabled free and immediate access to publicly funded research. OSTP, in collaboration with its federal partners and in consultation with external stakeholders, has been tracking the trends in opening public access to federally funded research, including trends in open access publishing. These efforts illustrate a highly complex, rapidly evolving, and vitally important scholarly communication ecosystem. Within this system, academic publishers can be viewed as a platform that matches research readers with research writers. By providing distributional and certification services, these publishers help mediate research incentives, interactions, and impact.
For research readers, substantial progress has been made in making new articles available to everyone quickly and without charge through various models for open access publishing. These readers include students, researchers, policymakers, advocates, and members of the broader public, who may not have access to paywalled articles through institutional subscriptions or who may not be able to pay to read an article. In its 2022 public access guidance, OSTP holds that: “Financial means and privileged access must never be the pre-requisites to realizing the benefits of federally funded research that the American public deserves.”3 The goal of federal public access policies is therefore to ensure that federal investments go towards unlocking knowledge supported by American taxpayers so the benefits of federally supported research can benefit all of America.
“Take cOAlition S’s survey by the November 29th deadline to support a new model of publishing
cOAlition S, an initiative of more than 2 dozen national funders and charitable organizations, has recently released the “Towards Responsible Publishing” proposal.
The two key features of this proposal, as stated in an introductory blog post, are:
1. Authors, not third-party suppliers, decide when and what to publish.
In such a ‘scholar-led’ publishing system, third-party suppliers can still offer and charge for services that facilitate peer review, publication and preservation. However, they will not block scholars from sharing their work at any stage during the research and dissemination process.
2. The scholarly record includes the full range of outputs created during the research cycle, and not just the final journal-accepted version.
By making early article versions and peer review feedback critical elements of the scholarly record, a future scholarly communication system can capture research ‘in the act’. Shining a light on how research progresses towards increasingly trustworthy knowledge creation offers opportunities for reviewing and filtering scholarly outputs for the purposes of curation and research assessment.
Towards Responsible Publishing…”
“The UKCoRR Members’ Day took place on November 13th and, at very short notice, was held online due to the ongoing technical problems currently being experienced by The British Library, who were the original hosts for the day long event.
Our panel session, entitled “CORE, repositories and supporting UKRI OA Policy” saw substantial participation with more than 120 people from U.K. HEIs in attendance. The session opened with a presentation from Professor Petr Knoth, Head of CORE. This presentation detailed CORE’s recent advancements and developments planned for the coming months, with the focus on how the tools and services being built by CORE can best serve the repository communities’ needs, with particular regard to the UKRI’s Open Access policy.
To be considered compliant with UKRI’s open access requirements, research articles made available via repositories are required to meet the following technical requirements. The relevant CORE Dashboard tool for each requirement is shown in orange:
“PIDs for research outputs must be implemented according to international recognised standards. …” (OAI Resolver)
“article-level metadata must be implemented according to a defined application profile that supports the UKRI Open Access Policy …” (Rioxx metadata validator)
“… deposit the Author’s Accepted Manuscript (or Version of Record, where the publisher permits) in an institutional or subject repository at the time of final publication …” (OA Compliance module)
“… common unique PIDs for research management information (for example identifiers for funders or organisations) are strongly encouraged. ORCID, the researcher identifier, must be supported …” (Enrichments tab)…”