Many scientists are transitioning to a new way of working, known as open science, which will require new ways of evaluating researchers’ work. At Utrecht University we are adapting the reward system so it will incentivise this shift. The change that has received the most public attention, ditching the publishing metric known as the journal impact factor, is important, but it’s just one step in a much larger transformation. Through open science, researchers and research administrators seek to improve the quality, reproducibility and social impact of research. Open science includes open access publishing, so citizens and peers can access the fruits of publicly-funded research without paying for the privilege, and moving to a system of FAIR data, making information easy for researchers to find, access, and reuse. Open science also includes software sharing.
“Clear, complete, and open methods increase credibility and support lasting impact. Documenting and sharing methodologies has interrelated scientific and reputational benefits for individuals and the community.
Making methods public creates a positive impression. Having the option to review detailed methods increases readers’ trust, whether or not they consult the documentation.
Researchers can more easily reproduce results with detailed open methods. Authors who want to apply the method in their own research can do so more efficiently if the approach is described in detail and easy to find online.
Strong, easy-to-follow methods are more likely to be used in future research, and by extension more likely to be cited, bringing fresh eyes to the original and helping it to remain relevant over time….”
From Google’s English: “On July 19, ScienceGuide published an open letter from 171 academics who are concerned about the new Recognition and Valuation of scientists. In fact, the signatories warn that the new ‘Recognize and Appreciate’ leads to more arbitrariness and loss of quality. This will jeopardize the international top position of Dutch science, argue the writers, which will adversely affect young academics in particular. …
It is noticeable that these young scientists, whom the letter speaks of, do not seem to be involved in drafting the message. It is also striking that signatories to the open letter themselves are mainly at the top of the academic career ladder; 142 of the 171 signatories are even professors. As Young Science in Transition, PhD candidates Network Netherlands, PostDocNL, a large number of members of De Jonge Akademies and many other young researchers, we do not agree with the message they are proclaiming. In fact, we worry about these kinds of noises when it comes to our current and future careers. Young academics are eagerly waiting for a new system of Recognition and Appreciation. …”
From Google’s English: “A group of 171 scientists, including 142 professors, warns in this open letter that the new Recognition and Valuation will harm Dutch science. The medical, exact and life sciences in particular are in danger of losing their international top position as a result of the new Recognition and Appreciation, because it is no longer clear how scientists are judged.
An article was recently published in Nature about the new policy of Utrecht University whereby the impact factors of scientific journals are no longer included in the evaluation of scientists. Measurable performance figures have been abandoned in favor of an ‘open science’ system and elevating the team above the individual.
Here 171 academics warn that this new ‘Recognition and appreciation’ will lead to more arbitrariness and less quality and that this policy will have major consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of Dutch scientists. This will have negative consequences in particular for young researchers, who will no longer be able to compete internationally. …”
“During the last few weeks, several opinion pieces have appeared questioning the new Recognition and Rewards (R&R) and Open Science in Dutch academia. On July 13, the TU/e Cursor published interviews with professors who question the usefulness of a new vision on R&R (1). A day later, on July 14, the chairman of the board of NWO compared science to top sport, with an emphasis on sacrifice and top performance (2), a line of thinking that fits the traditional way of R&R in academia. On July 19, an opinion piece was published by 171 university (head) teachers and professors (3), this time in ScienceGuide questioning again the new vision of R&R. These articles, all published within a week, show that as the new R&R gains traction within universities, established scholars are questioning its usefulness and effectiveness. Like others before us (4), we would like to respond. …”
In the 2nd Open Science Conference, From Tackling the Pandemic to Addressing Climate Change, policymakers, main IGO actors, librarians, publishers and research practitioners will engage in a public dialogue focusing on what Open Science has learned from COVID-19 and how this can be applied into actions addressing the global climate crisis, at the interface of science, technology, policy and research.
The Theological Faculty of Triveneto has designed the Open science project “Knowledge as a common good”, which will be realized in the between 2021 and 2023 thanks to the contribution of 150,000 EUR allocated by the Cassa di Risparmio di Padova and Rovigo Foundation.
The project is divided into three sections:
1. Open Data: the Theological Faculty of the Triveneto and its Archives;
2. Open Access: dissemination and exchange of the journal published by the faculty, Studia patavina;
3. Open Education Resources: the Faculty’s library: new services
The Eighth International Conference on Scientific Communication in the Context of Open Science PUBMET2021 continues a series of very successful conferences on scientific communication organized by the University of Zadar, the Croatian Association for Scientific Communication – ZNAK, the University of Zagreb and the Ru?er Boškovi? Institute. The conference will be held from 15 to 17 September 2021 under the auspices of the Ministry of Science and Education, OpenAIRE, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and SPARC Europe.
Abstract: Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses many recommendations for possible changes in research practices, management, and publishing with the objective to increase transparency and accessibility. This has become an important science policy issue that all disciplines should consider. Many Open Science recommendations may be valuable for the further development of research and publishing, but not all are relevant to all fields. This opinion paper considers the aspects of Open Science that are most relevant for scientometricians, discussing how they can be usefully applied.
As editors for academic journals, a select few individuals control the certification and dissemination of science. We examine editors’ influence on the content of their journals by unpacking the role of three major forces in publication. We term these “journal missions” (stable revealed preferences), “topic markets” (the aggregate supply of and demand for specific topics), and “scientific homophily” (via editorial gatekeeping). Focusing on a panel of leading biomedical journals, we find that missions and markets explain the vast majority of variation in published content. Conditional on these forces, the upper bound of the editor-homophily effect is statistically significant but practically unimportant. Our findings suggest that marginal changes in editorial board composition will not meaningfully impact a journal’s scientific content in the short run; however, our results do not rule out persistent or pervasive frictions in the publication process.
“KEY RESULTS: • Open Science principles: over half (59%) of the surveyed institutions rated Open Science’s strategic importance as very high or high. Open Access to research publications was considered to be highly important for 90% of institutions, but only 60% considered its implementation level to be high. However, the gap between importance and implementation is much wider in data-related areas (RDM, FAIR and data sharing): high importance at between 55-70% of the institutions surveyed, with high levels of implementation at 15-25%. • Open Science policies: 54% of institutions have an Open Science policy and 37% are developing one. Only 9% of surveyed institutions lack an Open Science policy or are not planning to draft one. • Monitoring Open Access to research publications: 80% of institutions monitored the number of publications in their repository and 70% monitored articles published by their researchers in Open Access journals. In addition, almost 60% reported monitoring the cost of publications by their researchers in Open Access journals. • Infrastructure for Open Access to research publications: 90% of the institutions surveyed have their own repository, participate in a shared repository or both. For journal hosting or publishing platforms this figure reaches 66%, and levels out at 57% for monograph hosting/publishing. In addition, 66% of those surveyed reported that their institution has participated in or supported non-commercial Open Access publishing. Data-related skills: over 50% of the surveyed institutions reported that research data skills were only partially available. Moreover, all of the institutions that indicated the absence or partial availability of data skills, considered that more of these skills are needed at institutional level. • Emerging areas of Open Science: Approximately 50% of the respondents know of citizen science and open education activities at their institutions. • Open Science in academic assessment: In 34% of institutions, none of the Open Science elements examined by the survey were included in academic assessments. Amongst the institutions that included Open Science activities in their academic assessments, 77% took into consideration article deposition in a repository. …”
The European University Association (EUA) has recently published a report presenting the findings of the 2020-2021 EUA Open Science Survey and providing evidence-based recommendations for institutions, researchers, research funders and policy makers on the transition towards Open Science.
Science and research are the building blocks connecting us with knowledge. As these are chiefly financed by the public sector, their results should be accessible to as many people as possible. Open Science describes the various efforts and activities which aim to reach this goal of bringing science to all.
To support the implementation of Open Science in the transport domain, the EU-project BE OPEN was launched in January 2019. Coordinated by Greek research institute CERTH, the project included 17 partners from across Europe. In BE OPEN UITP’s role was key in ensuring that the public transport and practitioners’ perspective was well integrated in the project and its deliverables.
“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and STM, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers today announced the formation of a new NISO Working Group to formalize the Peer Review Taxonomy as an ANSI/NISO standard, following approval of the project by NISO Voting Members late last month. NISO invites volunteers to join the soon-to-be-formed Working Group, which will be merged with the existing STM Working Group.
In 2019, STM recognized the need to support the industry in ensuring greater transparency and openness in peer review, which is an essential element of Open Science. This support includes harmonizing and better communicating definitions of discrete elements of these processes, so that members of the community—whether they be authors, reviewers, editors or readers—can quickly and easily recognize how to more productively participate in the creation and qualification of scholarly content. An STM Working Group was formed, which developed standard definitions and best practice recommendations for the communication of peer review processes, now available in its version 2.0 form. NISO will now take on this output and further develop it into a version 3.0, which will be made available for public comment and then published as a formal ANSI/NISO standard once it has been reviewed and approved by NISO Voting Members. …”