How publishers can support authors with requirements for Open Access books – Jisc

“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….”

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study – Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Kelly Cobey, David Moher, Mariska M.G. Leeflang, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Eric Lam, Paul Rooprai, Ahmed Al Khalil, Nabil Islam, Hamza Algodi, Haben Dawit, Robert Adamo, Mahdi Zeghal, Matthew D.F. McInnes, 2023

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.


Beyond compliance: Curation as essential open science infrastructure

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.


Incorporating open science into ANR projects: a practical guide

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.


Open access: evolution not revolution | The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

“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….”

What Does the OSTP Memo Mean for Your Research? – Yale Library Study Spaces Scheduling – Yale University Library

“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?…”

How does mandated code-sharing change peer review? – The Official PLOS Blog

“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%….”

Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of UKRI’s open access policy: Principles, opportunities and challenges | Policy Commons

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.

Complying with the UKRI open access policy for publishers – Jisc

“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….”

Publishing in compliance with the OSTP Nelson Memo: what we know so far

“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…”

RE: NASA Public Access Plan for Increasing Access to the Results of NASA-Supported Research

“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….”

Data sharing implementation in top 10 ophthalmology journals in 2021 | BMJ Open Ophthalmology

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.