ORFG Invites Feedback on Open and Equitable Grantmaking Draft Primers — Open Research Funders Group

“The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG), in conjunction with the Health Research Alliance and PREreview, is pleased to release the initial drafts of a set of primers designed to render the grantmaking lifecycle more open and equitable. For the past nine months, the ORFG and our partners have been exploring tangible ways to make both the processes of grantmaking and the resulting research outputs more transparent, inclusive, and trustworthy.  With significant co-creation from our working group and the broader community, we have identified interventions across the grantmaking lifecycle – program development, dissemination and publicity, application mechanics, proposal review, funding decisions, grantee and alumni support, and impact assessment. For each stage, the primers detail specific actions funders can take to ensure a broader range of voices and perspectives are engaged and supported.  These interventions will be actively tested over the next year by a cohort of 11 philanthropies, with results and lessons learned reported transparently at the conclusion.

The primers are works in progress and we welcome ongoing input and questions from all parties. Please explore the drafts and leave feedback, either anonymously or with attribution. If you prefer, you can also (1) email us your thoughts and/or request to arrange a call to share it verbally, and/or (2) join our recurring Open Community Calls. We will continue to update these primers to reflect the insights of the community.”

Alternative Publishing Platforms – Knowledge Exchange

“Are you confused by all the ‘alternative’ scholarly publishing platforms that have emerged over recent years? Today there seem to be so many ways to communicate or disseminate research. There are not only peer-reviewed academic articles, monographs, conference proceedings, or theses. Now there are also preprint repositories, data journals, specialist data and code repositories, trials registries, scholarly blogs and websites, many forms of peer review and micropublications. These different forms of publication all have different aims, such as seeking to remove the barriers, constraints and costs imposed by legacy academic publishing companies, to reduce questionable practices, or make research work more deeply accessible and reusable.

In order to help guide conversations about the merits and downsides of these different ‘alternative’ publishing platforms, a new Task and Finish Group worked on a recently published Knowledge Exchange  (KE) scoping paper. As a next step, we hope that we can develop a taxonomy of these various platforms – platforms that follow different paths (e.g. in equitable publishing models, quality control, technical features, open source, iterative publishing workflows, etc.) compared to the legacy publishers. Such platforms represent a move away from the traditional journal as an organising principle and might differ from traditional scholarly journals in a number of ways, including publication process, governance, and underlying infrastructure. They can be regarded as examples of real innovative, open access scholarly communication or as effective “threat infrastructures” to traditional journal publishers. Knowing the directions in which these platforms are driving innovation, and their different aims, might allow us insight into what can be a confusing landscape.

Throughout the process we would welcome feedback on our scoping paper (https://doi.org/10.21428/996e2e37.3ebdc864) and the developing taxonomy. We therefore invite all stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, funders and (non profit) publishers to comment and provide feedback….”

News – Knowledge Exchange welcomes comments on Alternative Publishing Platforms scoping paper – News – Knowledge Exchange

“These days there are so many ways to communicate or disseminate research. Each platform has different aims and features. To help the research community understand these alternative publishing platforms, a new KE Task and Finish Group was set up. The Group have worked on a scoping paper and KE are pleased to announce that this has been published and is available for review and comment.

As a next step, we aim to develop a taxonomy of these different platforms. Throughout the process we would welcome feedback on our scoping paper and the developing taxonomy. We are inviting all stakeholders, including researchers, institutions, funders and (non profit) publishers to comment and provide feedback. An updated report will be available once all comments have been received….”

Federal Register :: Request for Information to Make Access to the Innovation Ecosystem More Inclusive and Equitable

“The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Lab-to-Market (L2M) Subcommittee, seeks information to improve inclusive and equitable access to Federal programs and resources by broadly engaging stakeholders in the U.S. innovation ecosystem. The public input provided in response to this RFI will inform OSTP and NSTC on work with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to improve existing programs and/or develop new programs to improve inclusive and equitable access in the Federally-funded research and development-driven sector.”


The experiment begins: Arcadia publishing 1.0 · Reimagining scientific publishing

“In thinking about how to share Arcadia’s research, we wanted to keep features of traditional publishing that have been honed over centuries, but improve upon what hasn’t quite adapted to the nature of modern science and technology. We have a unique opportunity to use our own research to develop mechanisms of sharing and quality control that can be more agile and adaptable. Our initial attempt is outlined here and we will continue to iterate upon it, always keeping the advancement of knowledge as our guiding principle when making decisions on what to try next….

We are reimagining scientific publishing — sharing our work early and often, maximizing utility and reusability, and improving our science on the basis of public feedback.

This is our first draft. We have ambitious goals and we’re committed to replicable long-term solutions, but we also know that “perfection is the enemy of good.” We’re using this platform to release findings now rather than hiding them until we’ve gotten everything exactly how we want it. Readers can think of the pubs on this platform as drafts that will evolve over time, shaped by public feedback. The same goes for the platform itself! We’re treating our publishing project like an experiment — we’re not sure where we will land, but we can only learn if we try. In this pub, we’re sharing our strategy and the reasoning behind some of our key decisions, highlighting features we’re excited about and areas for improvement. …

New Guidance to Ensure Federally Funded Research Data Equitably Benefits All of America | The White House

“To help ensure that access is shared equitably by all Americans, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has been working for nearly a decade to ensure that Federal agencies with research and development budgets of at least $100 million develop plans to deposit Federally funded data into online digital repositories.

To continue this effort, today OSTP is releasing the report Guidance on Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories for Federally Funded Research. This guidance contains clearly defined desirable characteristics for two classes of online research data repositories: a general class appropriate for all types of Federally funded data—including free and easy access—and a specific class that has special considerations for the sharing of human data, including additional data security and privacy considerations. Federal agencies can use this guidance to provide more consistent information to their research communities about sharing Federally funded data with the public. 

Agencies can also use this guidance to ensure uniformity as they invest in their own digital repository infrastructure and to make their research data resources more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. It is expected that this guidance will not be static, but rather, will be updated as needed, as new modes of data storage and management emerge and agency needs evolve.  Ultimately, this guidance—along with the agency efforts detailed in OSTP’s recent report to Congress—will help make Federally funded research data more accessible to the American public. The release of this guidance is one of many steps that OSTP is taking to advance equitable delivery of research and strengthen Federal public access policies….”

Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories for Federally Funded Research

“A key element of the required data management plans is specification of the digital, online, public access data repository or repositories researchers will use for preserving, maintaining, and providing access to Federally supported research data. While some agencies designate specific repositories to be used for particular types of data (e.g., genomic data, topographical data) or a particular type of research (e.g., Arctic research, social sciences research), for much Federally funded research, the selection of a suitable repository is delegated to the researcher or their institutions. Some agencies provide information to assist researchers in the selection of data repositories. However, this information is inconsistent across agencies, including among those that support research in similar or related disciplines. Until now, agencies had not identified the desirable characteristics of data repositories on which to base their assistance to researchers and their institutions. To improve the management and sharing of data from Federally funded research, agencies agreed to leverage the SOS to identify a consistent set of desirable characteristics for data repositories that all agencies could incorporate into the instructions they provide to the research community for selecting data repositories. By establishing common expectations, agencies intend to reduce the complexity for the research community–including investigators, program officers, data managers, librarians, and others–in complying with Federal data sharing policies. Federal agencies can also use this set of characteristics to develop or identify suitable repositories for particular types of data. To carry out this work, agencies within the SOS drew upon existing expertise and experience with data management and sharing. They also reviewed existing criteria promulgated by non-governmental organizations involved in the certification of data repositories (e.g., International Standards Organization, International Science Council). Agencies also took into account input received on a draft set of characteristics issued for public comment in January 2020 (Box 1)….

This guidance document presents the set of desirable characteristics for repositories agreed to by Federal agencies, reflecting the input that OSTP and SOS received and evaluated. It addresses a nearterm need to provide greater consistency across agencies, recognizing that future steps will be needed to better coordinate data storage and management to make data from Federally funded research more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), 4 as well as more equitable, inclusive, secure, and trustworthy. The endeavor to improve public access to Federally-supported research makes for a more open government, facilitates evidence-based decision making, and yields greater returns on Americans’ investments in R&D. This guidance document constitutes one set of tools that agencies can use to advance those goals….”


WHA clinical trial resolution: draft text now public

“The World Health Organization today published the draft text of the clinical trial resolution being debated at the ongoing World Health Assembly.



The resolution’s overall aim is to improve the coordination, design, conduct and reporting of clinical trials worldwide. It was partly spurred by the realisation that hundreds – maybe thousands – of Covid clinical trials have ended up as costly research waste….


Promoting, as appropriate, measures to facilitate the timely reporting of both positive and negative interpretable clinical trial results in alignment with the WHO joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials and the WHO joint statement on transparency and data integrity, including through registering the results on a publicly available clinical trial registry within the [global trial registry network] ICTRP, and encouraging timely publication of the trial results preferably in an open-access publication.

Exploring measures during public health emergencies of international concern to encourage researchers to rapidly and responsibly share interpretable results of clinical trials, including negative results, with national regulatory bodies or other appropriate authorities, including WHO for clinical guideline development and emergency use listing (EUL), to support rapid regulatory decision-making and emergency adaptation of clinical and public health guidelines as appropriate, including through pre-print publication. …”


Community workshop to respond to UNESCO’s global call for best practices in open science

“Further to the adoption of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science in November 2021, UNESCO is launching a Global Call for Best Practices in Open Science. This call aims to collect best practices in open science at individual, institutional, national, regional, and international levels with a particular focus on the seven priority areas of action highlighted in the Recommendation.

Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) has been working to conduct research to provide strategic support and investment guidance to funders, budget holders, policymakers, and other stakeholders on investing in open infrastructure for scholarship and research. To this end, we wish to work with our community to contribute to this Global Call, to gather our experiences to identify best practices in supporting, adopting, using, and contributing to open infrastructure.

To this end, we are collaborating with the Turing Way, the Tools, Practices & Systems (TPS) Programme at the Alan Turing Institute, and Open Life Science to create a series of three 90-min community workshops. Each workshop is hosted by a hosting organization/initiative and will focus on one or two priority areas of action that is/are most central to that community’s work. We invite everyone interested in learning more about others’ practices in supporting open science and open infrastructure to participate in our workshops to contribute to a community response to the UNESCO call.

Wednesday 8 June 2022, 10-11:30 am EDT (see this in your time zone): On “investing in open science infrastructures and services“ hosted by IOI; register here

Wednesday 15 June 2022, 10-11:30 am EDT (see this in your time zone): On “promoting innovative approaches for open science at different stages of the scientific process“ and “promoting international and multi-stakeholder cooperation in the context of open science and with a view to reducing digital, technological and knowledge gaps” hosted by the Turing Way and the TPS Programme; register here

Wednesday 22 June 2022, 10-11:30 am EDT (see this in your time zone): On “investing in human resources, training, education, digital literacy and capacity building for open science“ and, “fostering a culture of open science and aligning incentives for open science” hosted by Open Life Science; register here

We will draft a community response to the UNESCO call based on the input from the session and will share our response publicly upon submission….”

Gearing Up for 2023 Part II: Implementing the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy – NIH Extramural Nexus

“NIH has a long history of developing consent language and, as such, our team worked across the agency – and with you! – to develop a new resource that shares best practices for developing informed consents to facilitate data/biospecimen storage and sharing for future use.  It also provides modifiable sample language that investigators and IRBs can use to assist in the clear communication of potential risks and benefits associated with data/biospecimen storage and sharing.  In developing this resource, we engaged with key federal partners, as well as scientific societies and associations.  Importantly, we also considered the 102 comments from stakeholders in response to a RFI that we issued in 2021.

As for our second resource, we are requesting public comment on protecting the privacy of research participants when data is shared. I think I need to be upfront and acknowledge that we have issued many of these types of requests over the last several months and NIH understands the effort that folks take to thoughtfully respond.  With that said, we think the research community will greatly benefit from this resource and we want to hear your thoughts on whether it hits the mark or needs adjustment….”

Next steps for the Catalog of Open Infrastructure Services (COIs) | 2022-05-09 | Invest in Open Infrastructure

“We invite open infrastructure service providers to express interest in being added to the next release of the COIs….

We are releasing the COIs documentation. This documentation is the primary resource for understanding the background, content, and key frameworks for COIs. We define key terms, describe key inputs, and articulate our internal decision-making on what content we included and how we chose to display it in order to inform and engage users of COIs, as well as support those interested in submitting information on services not already included in COIs.

We are launching an interest survey for open infrastructure service providers who are interested in being added to the next release of COIs. In this short survey, we ask service providers to assess their information on the key areas covered in COIs, and how they would like to submit that information to and maintain it on COIs. We would like to invite a broad range of open infrastructure service providers, e.g. of different sizes, governance models, and geographical areas, to take part in this survey. This would help build a more comprehensive understanding of the diversity of data types and practices, and increase the resilience of COIs, its infrastructure and processes.

Contribute to developing COIs — We can only move COIs and this work forward with the support of open infrastructure services providers. You can help by expressing your interest in being added to the next release of COIs by filling in the Interest survey, by June 20.

We also invite everyone interested to read and comment on the COIs documentation to help improve the value, usability, scalability and overall user experience of COIs.

We are organizing two Q&A sessions on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 to further discuss these plans with the community and answer any questions you may have: Session 1: 10 am EDT (see this in your time zone) – register here. / Session 2: 7 pm EDT (see this in your time zone) – register here. The sessions will be recorded, and the recordings and a short recap will be shared here on our blog. We look forward to meeting you at one of the sessions!…”

Draft Strategic Vision for U.S. Repositories Open for Community Consultation | comments by May 13, 2022

“COAR and SPARC are seeking comment from the repository community on a draft strategic vision for U.S. repositories. The strategic vision is intended to be aspirational yet achievable over time through active community collaboration within the U.S. Repository Network. This Network is envisioned as inclusive of all U.S. repositories rather than as a membership-based organization. The process for reaching this draft vision is outlined in the U.S Repository Network Initiative Progress Report. This public comment phase is the final step before finalizing the strategic vision. Please contribute your comments by May 13, 2022….

In addition to welcoming written comments, two live consultation sessions will also be offered via Zoom. Join these sessions to discuss the draft Strategic Vision live with other community members. Click the links below to register:

Wednesday, May 4, 2022, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

Friday, May 6, 2022, 10:00-11:00am Eastern…”