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.
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. …”
[Undated] “The Dutch government is of the opinion that publicly funded research should be freely accessible. This was the position outlined by State Secretary Sander Dekker in a letter (in Dutch) to the Dutch House of Representatives already in November 2013. He was deliberately opting for the golden route. He aimed to have 60 percent of Dutch academic publication available through open access within five years (2019) and 100 percent within ten years (2024). If not enough progress is made, proposals will follow in 2016 to make open access publication mandatory.
In 2016, the Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science was drawn up at an Open Science meeting organized by the Dutch Presidency of the Council of the European Union on 4 and 5 April 2016 in Amsterdam. The ambition of 100% open access was further strengthened and the date was also adjusted to 100% open access at the end of 2020. The results and actions are formulated in the Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science. See the summary and comments on the Call for Action.
The government sets the priotity for the golden route because this is most sustainable in the long term. In addition, the publishers’ business model will change and this route provides the best guarantee that publications are immediately available. The green route often means lengthy embargo periods. …”
Abstract: Despite the increasing availability of Open Science (OS) infrastructure and the rise in policies to change behaviour, OS practices are not yet the norm. While pioneering researchers are developing OS practices, the majority sticks to status quo. To transition to common practice, we must engage a critical proportion of the academic community. In this transition, OS Communities (OSCs) play a key role. OSCs are bottom-up learning groups of scholars that discuss OS within and across disciplines. They make OS knowledge more accessible and facilitate communication among scholars and policymakers. Over the past two years, eleven OSCs were founded at several Dutch university cities. In other countries, similar OSCs are starting up. In this article, we discuss the pivotal role OSCs play in the large-scale transition to OS. We emphasize that, despite the grassroot character of OSCs, support from universities is critical for OSCs to be viable, effective, and sustainable.
From Google’s English: “In addition to a printed version, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin now also appears as a free digital magazine in Open Access. The peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Rijksmuseum, in which historical and art-historical research about the collection is presented, will thus be freely available online to everyone. All editions of the magazine from 2012 are currently online. Later this year, the archive will be expanded to include the first issue in 1953….”
“According to the agreement between Springer Nature and the VSNU (Association of Universities in the Netherlands), Dutch corresponding authors are allowed to publish up to 2,080 open access articles per year without additional article processing charges (APC).
We expect to reach the national annual quota of 2,080 publications in September/October 2021. This means that the deal will be suspended and UG/UMCG articles will no longer be eligible for the usual 100% discount on the open access fee. Depending on the outcome of the new round of negotiations with Springer Nature, Dutch corresponding authors may be able to use the new allocation of OA fee waivers as of 1 January 2022….
As per UG and UMCG regulations, closed access articles will be made open access via Pure, but only six months after publication and without an open license.
This is possible thanks to Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act (also known as the Taverne amendment), which grants Dutch-affiliated researchers the right to make their short academic works open to the public for free after a short embargo period. Researchers don’t have to do anything themselves. The University of Groningen Library (UB) and the Central Medical Library (CMB) will take care of opening up all qualifying publications via Pure.”
“A Dutch university says it is formally abandoning the impact factor — a standard measure of scientific success — in all hiring and promotion decisions. By early 2022, every department at Utrecht University in the Netherlands will judge its scholars by other standards, including their commitment to teamwork and their efforts to promote open science, says Paul Boselie, a governance researcher and the project leader for the university’s new Recognition and Rewards scheme. “Impact factors don’t really reflect the quality of an individual researcher or academic,” he says. “We have a strong belief that something has to change, and abandoning the impact factor is one of those changes.” …”
“HERMES aims at providing educational institutions high quality, fast and free access to knowledge by building capacity to implement and share, within and beyond the European educational community, a comprehensive vision and wide spread competencies on resource sharing accompanied by an open source system to support effective access to knowledge for all….”
The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at the qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The article first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest broadening the agenda by involving more types of actors and other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest deepening the open access agenda by including several open access dimensions: immediacy, diamond open access, open metadata, open peer review and open licences. To facilitate discussion, a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how, when and where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders) and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.
Bosman, Jeroen, Hans de Jonge, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Sondervan. 2021. “Advancing Open Access in the Netherlands After 2020: From Quantity to Quality”. Insights 34 (1): 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.545
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at the qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The article first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest broadening the agenda by involving more types of actors and other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest deepening the open access agenda by including several open access dimensions: immediacy, diamond open access, open metadata, open peer review and open licences. To facilitate discussion, a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how, when and where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders) and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.
We are looking for an Acquisition and Project Manager.
What you’ll be doing
You will acquire new projects, draw up project requests and plans with colleagues and third parties, and be responsible for all or part of their implementation. You will be responsible for several projects. You will consult with partners and manage project staff. You will report on project progress and outcomes. You will closely collaborate with colleagues from the Research Data Expert Team and other DANS teams. You will maintain many international contacts in relevant fields.
“The Dutch Research Council (NWO) has published its Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy to improve its capacity for analysing the impact of research. In the Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy NWO describes how it will gradually implement PIDs in the coming years. PIDs are an increasingly important component of scholarly communication because of the increased digitisation of research. They ensure that research is findable and contribute to save researchers time and effort.
The NWO PID strategy can be summarised by the following five recommendations:
Implement ORCID ID for researchers into grant application, peer review, and project reporting workflows.
Implement Crossref Grant ID in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Implement research organisation IDs in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Contribute to shaping the national PID landscape by participating in the ORCID-NL consortium and in a future PID Advisory Board.
Collaborate with other funders in the international PID landscape, for instance within the context of Science Europe….”
“The whole topic of open access, open data, open science comes out of a big change in the publishing industry. It was about how to deal with this freedom of the World Wide Web, which was thought to be very idealistic. Everybody could talk to everybody and exchange ideas and share knowledge. Then there was this coup by the big publishers who grabbed and shut everything down. That made the costs rise and the international library world was fed up with it.
The open movement is really growing and I was one of the people who started it at TU Delft. At the time we got help from Karel Luyben (former Rector Magnificus) who asked us to make people aware of it in faculty meetings, so I became a regular guest at those. Then we did a kind of roadshow in 2015 going around to every department at TU Delft, 44 of them. It took a year visiting one a week and talking about open access publishing, but also research data management. We met all of these people and they were interested but wanted to know what was in it for them because it takes a lot of work to put your publications and data sets out in the open.
It’s very important to know your author’s rights and give your work the right licences so people know what they are allowed to do with your work. How to make it reusable but also how to get cited for your work. We don’t want people to put it there and not get credit for it. It’s a lot of work with data managing and making data FAIR, because we said it should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. We asked for more hands and the Executive Board allowed us to hire data stewards for each faculty. That was a big step….”