“Welcome to this survey on practices that support scaling of research reproducibility. This research is being conducted by Dr Michelle Barker and Prof. Neil Chue Hong on behalf of the Knowledge Exchange, to expand Knowledge Exchange work on Open Science on how the practice of conducting research in a reproducible way can be scaled up from pioneers to the majority of researchers and research support staff. This research aims to understand what types of practices assist individual researchers, research support staff, and managers to scale up practices that improve research reproducibility.
This survey should take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. It closes on 31 May, 2023. A public report will be disseminated upon completion of this work in early 2024, to provide recommendations on the minimum conditions to support research reproducibility….”
Open access articles are more frequently read and cited, and hence promote access to knowledge and new advances in healthcare. Unaffordability of open access article processing charges (APCs) may create a barrier to sharing research. We set out to assess the affordability of APCs and impact on publishing for otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among otolaryngology trainees and otolaryngologists in LMICs globally. Seventy-nine participants from 21 LMICs participated in the study, with the majority from lower middle-income status (66%). Fifty-four percent were otolaryngology lecturers while 30% were trainees. Eighty-seven percent of participants received a gross monthly salary of less than USD 1500. Fifty-two percent of trainees did not receive a salary. Ninety-one percent and 96% of all study participants believed APCs limit publication in open access journals and influence choice of journal for publication, respectively. Eighty percent and 95% believed APCs hinder career progression and impede sharing of research that influences patient care, respectively.
APCs are unaffordable for LMIC otolaryngology researchers, hinder career progression and inhibit the dissemination of LMIC-specific research that can improve patient care. Novel models should be developed to support open access publishing in LMICs.
“Community survey – Diamond Open Access Journal in Geochemistry
Personal information collected will only be used to help guide the formation the initial workgroup. It will then be deleted once the initial workgroup is formed. All other data will be anonymised and used to create the initial design of the journal. …”
Abstract: In current research evaluation models, monitoring and impact evaluation are extended beyond peer-reviewed articles to include Public Communication of Science and Technology activities. Through an online survey, we analyzed the perceptions of relevance and degree of application of the altmetric indicators for the PCST of 51 sampled Brazilian federal universities. Perceptions of relevance and application of altmetrics proved to be an outlier in 26 indicators. 66.7% of respondents said they did not know the relevance of altmetrics for the PCST or considered it not applicable to the field. Regarding the perception of relevance, the indicator “Mentions tracked by altmetrics” received high relevance scores (7 and 9) from 21.5% of respondents. The indicator was also the least applied, with only one university (1.9%) using it. In addition, 45% of respondents reported having no intention of applying it, 41.1% intend to apply it in the long term, and 11.7% in the short term.
More and more academics and governements consider that the open access model based on Article Processing Charges (APC) is problematic, not only due to the inequalities it generates and reinforces, but also because it has become unsustainable and even opposed to open access values. They consider that scientific publishing based on a model where both authors and readers do not pay, the so-called Diamond, or non-APC model, should be developed and supported. However, beyond the display of such a support on an international scale, the landscape of Diamond journals is rather in the form of loosely connected archipelagos, and not systematically funded. This article explores the practical conditions to implement a direct funding mechanism to such journals, that is reccurent money provided by a funder to support the publication process. Following several recommendations from institutional actors in the open access world, we consider the hypothesis that such a funding would be fostered by research funding organizations (RFOs), which have been essential to the expansion of the APC model, and now show interest in supporting other models. Based on a questionnaire survey sent to more thant 1000 Diamond Open Access journals, this article analyzes their financial needs, as well as their capacity to interact with funders. It is structured around four issues regarding the implementation of a direct funding model: do Diamond journals really make use of money, and to what end? Do they need additional money? Are they able to engage monetary transactions? Are they able to meet RFOs visibility requirements? We show that a majority of OA Diamond journals could make use of a direct funding mechanism with certain adjustments. We conclude on the challenges that such a financial stream would spur.
Google translate: Abstract: “Scholarly communication is a complicated industry, with numerous players and multiple mechanisms for communicating and reviewing materials created in an increasing variety of formats by researchers from around the world. In turn, the researcher who intends to use the products of this system wants to discover, access, and use relevant and reliable materials with as little effort as possible. The task of making this complex sector efficient and, at the same time, bringing its many aspects together seamlessly for the reader (or, increasingly, for a computer user) is supported by an infrastructure, much of it shared by multiple publishers. . In this landscape review, we aim to provide a high-level overview of the shared infrastructure that underpins scholarly communication. The purpose of this landscape review is to provide an overview of the shared infrastructure that we intend to examine in a larger project on the strategic context that has driven and will continue to drive the development of this infrastructure. This project will include a needs analysis of which parts of the shared scholarly communication infrastructure are working well and which can be improved, culminating in recommendations on where additional or revised collective action and community investment is indicated.”
Rieger, Oya Y., and Roger C. Schonfeld. « Common Scholarly Communication Infrastructure Landscape Review. » Ithaka S+R. Ithaka S+R. 24 April 2023. Web. 26 April 2023. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.318775
“The purpose of this survey is to gain overview of the state-of-the-art research assessment practices at the research performing and funding organisations who already are, or could become, signatories of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. The survey is conducted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) for the Landscape analysis of EU project GraspOS.”
“The purpose of this survey is to gain overview of the state-of-the-art research assessment practices at the research performing and funding organisations, and other organisations involved with research assessment, who already are, or could become, signatories of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment.
The survey is conducted by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) for the Landscape analysis of EU project GraspOS. The landscape report supports the development of Open Science Assessment Framework (OSAF).
The questionnaire is structured based on CoARA core-commitments and principles. The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment sets a shared direction for changes in assessment practices for research, researchers and research performing organisations, with the overarching goal to maximise the quality and impact of research. The Agreement includes the principles, commitments and timeframe for reforms and lays out the principles for a Coalition of organisations willing to work together in implementing the changes.
Signatories commit to a common vision, which is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer-review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators….”
Abstract: The pandemic has underlined the significance of open science and spurred further growth of preprinting. Nevertheless, preprinting has been adopted at varying rates across different countries/regions. To investigate researchers’ experience with and attitudes toward preprinting, we conducted a survey of authors of research papers published in 2021 or 2022. We find that respondents in the US and Europe had a higher level of familiarity with and adoption of preprinting than those in China and the rest of the world. Respondents in China were most worried about the lack of recognition for preprinting and the risk of getting scooped. US respondents were very concerned about premature media coverage of preprints, the reliability and credibility of preprints, and public sharing of information before peer review. Respondents identified integration of preprinting in journal submission processes as the most important way to promote preprinting.
English translation: “At our Funders Summit last year, we started our collective funding pilot with the goal to experiment with and learn from building a more collective, open and transparent funding process, in which we serve real community needs through centring the voices of those who are most impacted by/under-represented in funding decision-making.
We are now launching a design survey for this next phase of the pilot. We would like to invite everyone, particularly those voices mentioned above, to fill in the survey to help inform how this funding will be distributed. The survey is also an opportunity for anyone to express interest in joining the advisory panels for the funding calls that we aim to launch in mid-May….”
“At our Funders Summit last year, we started our collective funding pilot with the goal to experiment with and learn from building a more collective, open and transparent funding process, in which we serve real community needs through centring the voices of those who are most impacted by/under-represented in funding decision-making. We are now launching a design survey for this next phase of the pilot. We would like to invite everyone, particularly those voices mentioned above, to fill in the survey to help inform how this funding will be distributed. The survey is also an opportunity for anyone to express interest in joining the advisory panels for the funding calls that we aim to launch in mid-May….”
“Research is a profession, subject to the same types of incentives and pressures as any other profession. It should therefore come as no surprise that what researchers want most from research communication reforms are solutions that prioritize their individual career needs. These needs include paying less for publishing, having the freedom to publish where they choose (because choosing the best available journal is important for recognition and advancement), ensuring that the work they conduct and publish is of high quality, collaborating more effectively with their peers, being able to read other research work more easily, and having their institutions better support them. Our current global research communication reform efforts, such as open access (OA) and open science, have yet to effectively address these concerns, focusing instead on implementing policies like replacing the subscription model and requiring CC-BY licensing.
The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) conducted two global surveys of researchers in the spring and summer of 2022 to determine how this audience felt about open access policies. While the number of researchers who participated in these surveys was too small to reach any statistically significant conclusions, the responses we received were consistent with previous researcher surveys and suggest that most researchers are not being adequately served by OA policies and that these policies should focus instead on higher research communication priorities. More research is recommended….”
Abstract: Introduction: Information and communication technologies has brought innovation to scholarly publishing. Now, open access is a subject of much concern among academics and are important sources for scientific research and development. Despite the benefits of open access, faculty are still unaware of the usage of open access. Methods and materials: A descriptive correlational study among 100 nursing faculty was conducted using a rating scale on awareness of open access in scholarly publishing and perceived benefits and constraint factors to effective use of open access through the self-administration method. Data was analyzed using SPSS-24. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean awareness scores on open access scholarly publications between undergraduate(29+5.93) and postgraduate faculty(37+6.26) at (p<0.001). 72% of facultywere moderately aware, 20% of faculty not at all aware whereas only 8% of the faculty were highly aware of open access scholarly publications. Conclusion: While it is critical to raise awareness of open access scholarly, publishing among faculty, there is ample evidence that it has numerous benefits in the academic setting and academic performance. Efforts should be focused on coordinating national and institutional campaigns in capacity-building and competency development by integrating research initiatives such as holding research conferences, seminars, and short courses.
Abstract: Purpose: Biospecimen repositories and big data generated from clinical research are critically important in advancing patient-centered healthcare. However, ethical considerations arising from reusing clinical samples and health records for subsequent research pose a hurdle for big-data health research. This study aims to assess the public’s opinions in Jordan toward providing blanket consent for using biospecimens and health records in research.
Participants and Methods: A cross-sectional study utilizing a self-reported questionnaire was carried out in different cities in Jordan, targeting adult participants. Outcome variables included awareness of clinical research, participation in clinical research, and opinions toward providing open access to clinical samples and records for research purposes. Descriptive analysis was utilized for reporting the outcome as frequency (percentages) out of the total responses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the association between independent variables and the outcome of interest.
Results: A total of 1033 eligible participants completed the questionnaire. Although the majority (90%) were aware of clinical research, only 24% have ever participated in this type of research. About half (51%) agreed on providing blanket consent for the use of clinical samples, while a lower percentage (43%) agreed on providing open access to their health records. Privacy concerns and lack of trust in the researcher were cited as major barriers to providing blanket consent. Participation in clinical research and having health insurance were predictors for providing open access to clinical samples and records.
Conclusion: The lack of public trust in Jordan toward data privacy is evident from this study. Therefore, a governance framework is needed to raise and maintain the public’s trust in big-data research that warrants the future reuse of clinical samples and records. As such, the current study provides valuable insights that will inform the design of effective consent protocols required in data-intensive health research.
“Much of the statistical information currently produced by federal statistical agencies – information about economic, social, and physical well-being that is essential for the functioning of modern society – comes from sample surveys. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of data from other sources, including data collected by government agencies while administering programs, satellite and sensor data, private-sector data such as electronic health records and credit card transaction data, and massive amounts of data available on the internet. How can these data sources be used to enhance the information currently collected on surveys, and to provide new frontiers for producing information and statistics to benefit American society?
Toward a 21st Century National Data Infrastructure: Enhancing Survey Programs by Using Multiple Data Sources, the second report in a series funded by the National Science Foundation, discusses how use of multiple data sources can improve the quality of national and subnational statistics while promoting data equity. This report explores implications of combining survey data with other data sources through examples relating to the areas of income, health, crime, and agriculture….”