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. …”
“Do you deliver Open Science and Research Data Management (RDM) training? Are you interested in integrating tools and creating engaging training sessions? Are you looking to prepare in-depth sessions and avoid any disasters? The SSHOC Open Science and Research Data Management Train-the-Trainer Bootcamp held on Monday 10th of May and Wednesday 12th of May 2021 was set to aid trainers in finding resources and tools they can re-use in their training planning and activities. This blogpost reviews the highlights of the bootcamp….”
At the beginning of June 2021, The National Strategy for Open Science 2021 – 2028, with its first Action Plan 2021 – 2022, was adopted by the Slovak government (both in the Slovak language are uploaded below, English version of the National Strategy will be available in September 2021). The creation of the National Strategy is an integral part of the Action Plan of the Open Government Partnership Initiative 2020-2021.
Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible, and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science’s agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of “cumulative advantage”. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: “What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?” Aiming to synthesise findings, identify gaps in the literature, and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as “reproducibility” becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.
“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….”
“Many academic societies are currently undergoing this transition [to OA], and in the process, some major international publishers are double dipping, charging high subscription fees as well as expensive APCs. We strongly support open science initiatives and have long sought to move JPR to be a fully open journal. However, if we had continued to publish under Elsevier, moving to a fully open journal would have resulted in significant costs for both the authors and Japan Prosthodontic Society (JPS). After much discussion, we have finally made a decision regarding this crucial issue.
In 2021, JPS changed publishers, moving from Elsevier to J-STAGE, which now publishes JPR as a full-OA journal….”
“UNESCO is developing a Recommendation on Open Science which will be submitted to member states for approval in November 2021….
This calls for new types of funding arrangement between universities and publishers or funding agencies and publishers that are in a position to offer sustainable alternatives to either the ‘author-pays’ or ‘reader-pays’ models….
There is a growing number of viable alternatives to the author-pays system. These range from national or regional funding agreements to membership-based systems or co-operatives grouping multiple institutions. Among the latter is SciELO. This network now encompasses 16 countries in Latin America and Europe, along with South Africa. Similarly, AmeliCA and Latindex have been designed as regional networks composed of public institutions and research agencies from different countries….
With UNESCO being the sole United Nations agency with a mandate for science, it was logical that it should take up the question of open science. In 2019, UNESCO’s 193 member states tasked the Secretariat with developing an international standard-setting instrument in the form of a Recommendation on Open Science, to be adopted in November 2021. These instructions emanated from the Organization’s supreme governing body, the General Conference, which meets every two years….
As we move towards a global consensus on the issue, the first draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science has defined open science as an umbrella concept combining various movements and practices aiming to:l make scientific knowledge, methods, data and evidence freely available and accessible to everyone;l increase scientific collaboration and the sharing of information for the benefit of both science and society; andl open the process of scientific knowledge creation and circulation to societal actors situated beyond the institutionalized scientific community….”
As we move towards a global consensus on the issue, the first draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science has defined open science as an umbrella concept combining various movements and practices aiming to:l make scientific knowledge, methods, data and evidence freely available and accessible to everyone;l increase scientific collaboration and the sharing of information for the benefit of both science and society; andl open the process of scientific knowledge creation and circulation to societal actors situated beyond the institutionalized scientific community.
From Google’s English: “The National Open Science Plan announced in 2018 by the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, Frédérique Vidal, has enabled France to adopt a coherent and dynamic policy in the field of open science, coordinated by the Committee for Open Science, which brings together the ministry, research and higher education institutions and the scientific community. After three years of implementation, the progress made is notable. The rate of French scientific publications in open access rose from 41% to 56%. The National Open Science Fund was created, it launched two calls for projects in favor of open scientific publication and it supported structuring international initiatives. The National Research Agency and other funding agencies now require open access to publications and the drafting of data management plans for the projects they fund. The function of ministerial research data administrator has been created and a network is being deployed in the establishments. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published. About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy. Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice have been published.
The steps already taken and the evolution of the international context invite us to extend, renew and strengthen our commitments by adopting a second National Plan for Open Science, the effects of which will be deployed until 2024. With this new plan, France is continuing the ambitious trajectory initiated by the law for a digital republic of 2016 and confirmed by the research programming law of 2020, which includes open science in the missions of researchers and teacher-researchers.
This second National Plan extends its scope to source codes resulting from research, it structures actions in favor of the opening or sharing of data through the creation of the Research Data Gouv platform, it multiplies the levers of transformation in order to generalize open science practices and it presents disciplinary and thematic variations. It is firmly in line with a European ambition and proposes, within the framework of the French Presidency of the European Union, to act to take effective account of open science practices in individual and collective research evaluations. It is about initiating a process of sustainable transformation in order to make open science a common and shared practice…”
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recently presented the UNESCO Science Report 2021 titled The Race against Time for Smarter Development ahead of the G7 meeting. In the series, the organisation observes worldwide developments in science policy. The current report describes in essays and studies how different countries are using science to realise a digitally and environmentally smart future. In the essay The Time for Open Science is Now, the authors argue, among other things, for the expansion of open science and open access. That way, they point out, science and research can contribute their full potential to sustainable development in the face of climate change and pandemics.
The European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) “triangle task force” has recently published the guideline paper “Research evaluation in a context of Open Science and gender equality”. The ERAC “triangle task force” combines combines forces of the ERAC group on open science, gender and human resources. This report provides stakeholders involved in research evaluation reforms with a set of guidelines that aim at fostering both Open Science and gender equality. Both topics are key dimensions in the implementation of a new European Research Area and provide policy and decision makers, funders as well as researchers with a unique opportunity to substantially renegotiate, through evaluation, the social roles and responsibilities of publicly funded research, as well as to rethink the science system as a whole.
ROSiE (“Responsible Open science in Europe”) is a just-starting, 3-year H2020-funded coordination support action to develop and openly share practical tools that ensure research ethics (RE), research integrity (RI) and legal compliance (LC) in open science (incl. citizen science).
I worry that, by adopting the trappings of reproducibility, poor-quality work can look as if it has engaged in best practices. The problem is that sloppy work is driven by a scientific culture that overemphasizes exciting findings. When funders and journals reward showy claims at the expense of rigorous methods and reproducible results, reforms to change practice could become self-defeating. Helpful new practices, rules and policies are transformed into meaningless formalities on the way to continuing to grab headlines at any cost.
“The crucial importance of science and technology and its accurate peer reviewed dissemination, has once again been demonstrated during the current pandemic. Thus the COVID-19 pandemic together with the inevitable energy transition required by climate change, lead us to consider the issue of scientific and technical communication, both for the written papers and proceedings that have largely moved online (but not always in open access), and the various types of seminars, workshops, and symposia that frequently involve air travel with substantial CO2 impact. Online meetings that have become recently very popular, as well as online repositories for publications, themselves have a significant CO2—as well as environmental—impact, due to the massive use of electricity by information and communication technologies (ICT) and of the environmentally unfriendly manufacturing processes and decommissioning of ICT equipment. Presented is a broad overview of these aspects, and some recommendations regarding the future organization of scientific and technical communication, including: (1) peer-reviewed journals and proceedings with online open access; (2) the importance of face to face seminars and symposia, together with online meetings, to maintain the serendipity and importance of direct human contact while reducing the need for air travel; (3) the peer evaluation of research and of academic and research staff and its dependence on publications and their qualitative—rather than excessively quantitative—evaluation, where the concept of impact should include the usefulness of research to education, industry and society; (4) and the crucial role of ICT in all these aspects and the questions raised by the sustainability of ICT itself….”