“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….”
“However, when that open data is misorganized, appears sloppy, or is poorly documented, this doesn’t inspire the confidence that we want; this isn’t really open science. It’s not just about openly sharing data, it’s about sharing data that is well-organized, well-documented, interpretable, and re-usable. We saw both sides of this so clearly during the pandemic: sharing data, especially genetic data about the virus, accelerated our response to the pandemic — but we also saw high-profile cases that centered on the challenges of data that can’t or won’t be shared.
Federal and private funders are increasingly requiring data sharing. Merely “open” data isn’t enough to combat misinformation or the rising mistrust of research, however. So how do we move from a compliance mindset, which promotes a minimalist approach in which researchers might only put in the minimum amount of effort and thus potentially share poorly documented or disorganized data, to an ecosystem that actually enables and rewards open, equitable, and accessible scholarship? It’s important to note that a key part of this conversation requires nuance. It is not enough to share or not share data — we have to think of what data can be shared, in what forms, and with what documentation. We have to consider all of the potential outputs of a research project, including how best to organize distinct yet interrelated components and how to document these decisions clearly….”
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.
“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)…”
Abstract: Presented October 19, 2023: “Developing New Approaches to Promote Equitable and Inclusive Implementation of Open Scholarship Policies.” Hosted by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship.
Abstract: This guide is available to researchers submitting an ANR project, or those considering it. It aims to help project coordinators plan ahead to comply with open science requirements and guidelines, as it can sometimes be too late to start reflecting on this once a project has been awarded funding. It can also be used to support project coordinators throughout their projects’ lifecycles, providing answers to questions that may crop up along the way. Used at a project’s planning stage, it aims to improve feasibility in projects that are submitted and awarded funding, to facilitate collaboration between partners in the field of open science, to help hone a water-tight, ambitious open science strategy, to plan ahead for risk management, and to budget (data storage and any potential APCs for example). Finally, it is a time-saving tool, in that it raises a certain number of questions as early as possible in the project’s lifecycle, rather than as the project progresses.
“Thus, following discussion and vote of the editorial board, the [The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England] will become a fully gold open access journal from January 2024….
Why should the Annals change to gold OA?
• Over half of academic journal publishers currently report decreasing institutional subscriptions and the Annals reflects this trend.1
• There has been an exponential increase in OA with 60% of journal publishers reporting increased demand from authors, and 36% reporting OA downloads outperforming subscription content.1
• Research funders (including Wellcome Trust and UKRI) and many universities now stipulate OA deposit of accepted manuscripts in their institutional repositories.
• OA publishing is compliant with Plan S, supported by cOAlition S, which requires research funded by public grants to be published in OA journals or platforms….
The APC is fully waived for accepted manuscripts where the lead or senior author is a current fellow, member or affiliate of RCS England. Of note, annual membership fees are lower than the APC for one publication….”
“In August 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a memo stating that all federal funding agencies must develop or update policies for researchers and scholars to provide immediate open access to data and scholarship funded by their agencies. As a researcher what do you need to know about this memo? What does it mean for your research, scholarship, and data? How can administrators and librarians support your work?…”
“On March 31 2021, PLOS Computational Biology introduced a new journal requirement: mandated code sharing. If the research process included the creation of custom code, the authors were required to make it available during the peer review assessment, and to make it public upon the publication of their research article—similar to the longstanding data sharing requirement for all PLOS journals. The aim, of course, is to improve reproducibility and increase understanding of research.
At the end of the year-long trial period, code sharing had risen from 53% in 2019 to 87% for 2021 articles submitted after the policy went into effect. Evidence in hand, the journal Editors-in-Chief decided to make code sharing a permanent feature of the journal. Today, the sharing rate is 96%….”
“Public access to research data is critical to advancing science and solving real world problems. In recent years a number of funding agencies have required the management and broad sharing of research data and other related research outputs to accelerate the impacts of their investments. In response many academic institutions have developed and launched infrastructure to support faculty in these requirements. These services are often spread across the institution and housed in various administrative units, such as campus IT, the university libraries, and the research office, among others. Given this distributed nature, coordination of services is often informal and the true institutional cost of public access to research data is not well understood.
In 2021 the Association of Research Libraries and six academic institutions involved in the Data Curation Network (DCN) were awarded a US National Science Foundation (NSF) EAGER grant (#2135874) to conduct research, develop models, and collect costing information for public access to research data across five disciplinary areas: environmental science, materials science, psychology, biomedical sciences, and physics.
This project addresses the following research questions:
Where are funded researchers across these institutions making their data publicly accessible and what is the quality of the metadata?
How are researchers making decisions about why and how to share research data?
What is the cost to the institution to implement the federally mandated public access to research data policy?…”
Abstract: This report sets out principles, opportunities and challenges for the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework for UK Research and Innovation’s open access (OA) policy. The recommended evaluation questions were identified through interviews and workshops with a range of external stakeholders and in-depth desk research investigating existing monitoring and evaluation activities. The report also provides an overview of stakeholder views about key considerations for monitoring and evaluating the policy including principles of best practice. The report annex sets out recommended approaches to answering the questions, including data sources, aggregation and analysis methodologies. UKRI will consider the outcomes and recommendations of this project in developing its final monitoring and evaluation framework.
“Most major research funders now have policies that require research outputs acknowledging their funding to be made open access (OA). Jisc is working with publishers to offer authors compliant routes that meet a range of different funders’ requirements. We are contacting publishers that have published one or more UKRI funded research article per year on average over the past five years to ensure that all UKRI funded authors have the option to publish in their journal of choice….”
“The OSTP Nelson Memo was released in August 2022 delivering guidance for all federal grant-making agencies to revise or develop public access policies to ensure free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. Where are we now over a year later and how can researchers get ready for when the public access policies are implemented?
In this webinar, Boyana Konforti (Director of Strategic Initiatives, F1000), Rebecca Grant (Head of Data & Software Publishing, F1000), and Andrew Bostjancic (US Open Research Policy Manager, Taylor & Francis Group) discuss how getting to grips with open science practices can help researchers prepare to share their federally funded research outputs. Register now to join the session, where you’ll uncover: ? The key points of the Nelson Memo ? How open access publishing works ? The benefits of diversifying your research output now ? Open science and open data best practices ? Case studies on how openness drives real-world impact…”
“We appreciate the benefits that collaborations with external partners, such as CHORUS, may provide. Because third-party vendors operate under terms that are subject to change, they should serve as a supplement to support compliance, rather than a proxy to indicate compliance. This approach ensures that NASA remains in a strong position to leverage external partners where it benefits the agency and its grantees while retaining flexibility to adapt its approach should the terms change under which services such as CHORUS are offered—without the burden of revising policy.
We further recommend that NASA explicitly emphasize the availability of compliance options that do not present financial barriers. NASA’s plan and associated policies and guidance should clearly describe how authors can fully comply with its public access policy at no cost by depositing the author’s accepted manuscript into NASA’s PubSpace or any other agency-approved repository.
Because authors may be encouraged to pay added Open Access fees in circumstances when they are unnecessary for compliance, NASA should clarify that any charges from publishers are publication charges—not compliance charges. It is critical that authors do not conflate compliance with article processing charges (APCs), which create significant barriers for less-well-resourced authors and institutions to make their research available. It is important for researchers to understand that the option to post their final peer-reviewed manuscript into an agency-designated repository is an affordable and equitable full compliance mechanism that is available to them.
Institutional repositories run by libraries and other research institutions generally do not charge authors to deposit articles or manuscripts. These can play an important role in easing compliance burdens on authors, improving discoverability of research outputs, and providing long-term preservation support. Therefore, we strongly recommend that NASA allow for the deposit of publications into other repositories beyond PubSpace, and suggest that NASA utilize the guidance set out in the U.S. Repository Network’s Desirable Characteristics of Digital Publications Repositories….”
Abstract: Background/Aims Deidentified individual participant data (IPD) sharing has been implemented in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors journals since 2017. However, there were some published clinical trials that did not follow the new implemented policy. This study examines the number of clinical trials that endorsed IPD sharing policy among top ophthalmology journals.
Method All published original articles in 2021 in 10 highest-ranking ophthalmology journals according to the 2020 journal impact factor were included. Clinical trials were determined by the WHO definition of clinical trials. Each article was then thoroughly searched for the IPD sharing statement either in the manuscript or in the clinical trial registry. We collected the number of published clinical trials that implemented IPD sharing policy as our primary outcome.
Results 1852 published articles in top 10 ophthalmology journals were identified, and 9.45% were clinical trials. Of these clinical trials, 44% had clinical trial registrations and 49.14% declared IPD sharing statements. Only 42 (48.83%) clinical trials were willing to share IPD, and 5 (10.21%) of these share IPD via an online repository platform. In terms of sharing period, 37 clinical trials were willing to share right after the publication and only 2 showed the ending of sharing period.
Conclusion This report shows that the number of clinical trials in top ophthalmology journals that endorsed the IPD sharing policy and the number of registrations is lower than half even though the policy has been implemented for several years. Future updates are necessary as policy evolves.