An Open Knowledge Base for the Netherlands: Report of a Community Workshop | Zenodo

Cameron Neylon, Magchiel Bijsterbosch, Alastair Dunning, Bianca Kramer, Sarah de Rijcke, Clifford Tatum, & Ludo Waltman. (2021, June 2). An Open Knowledge Base for the Netherlands: Report of a Community Workshop. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4893803

The concept of developing a national Open Knowledge Base for the Netherlands (NL-OKB) has been proposed in response to the strategic needs of the research community in the Netherlands. In parallel with the work of the Dutch Taskforce on Responsible Management of Research Information and Data addressing these opportunities and the preparation of a feasibility study by Dialogic, interested stakeholders were convened with the goal of identifying expert and user-community interests in and need for an NL-OKB.

The goal in convening a workshop was: 1.    To gather evidence on the feasibility of an NL-OKB 2.    To test the community interest and appetite for developing an NL-OKB 3.    To identify a practical pathway forward towards startup and implementation of an NL-OKB

Over two days, 19-20 November 2020, 35 participants representing national and international organisations met in a virtual workshop. This included representatives of VSNU, NWO, NFU, SURF, DANS, CWTS and a range of Netherlands institutions alongside international stakeholders such as Crossref, ORCID, OpenAIRE, DataCite, SPARC North America, Jisc, UKRI and others.

There was strong support for an NL-OKB amongst the assembled group. The group as a whole was strongly in favour of the development of an NL-OKB run on behalf of and controlled by the academic community. Of those present, virtually all indicated they had a direct stake and interest in supporting the development of an NL-OKB. International participants were also keen to see efforts in the Netherlands succeed as an exemplar to be drawn upon. The assembled group reached a series of consensus conclusions, that taken together provide the beginnings of a roadmap for further development.

This report was prepared by the workshop conveners: Cameron Neylon (Curtin University), Magchiel Bijsterbosch (SURF), Alastair Dunning (TU Delft), Bianca Kramer (Utrecht University), Sarah de Rijcke (Leiden University), Clifford Tatum (SURF; Leiden University) and Ludo Waltman (Leiden University). The report may be re-used under a Creative Common Attribution v4 License.

Recognition and rewards – Open Science – Universiteit Utrecht

“Open science means action. And the way we offer recognition and reward to academics and university staff is key in bringing about the transition that Utrecht University aims for. Over the course of the past year the working group on Recognition and Rewards, part of the Open Science Programme, has reflected and thoroughly debated a novel approach to ensuring that we offer room for everyone’s talent, resulting in a new vision (pdf)….

In the current system, researchers and their research are judged by journal impact factors, publisher brands and H-indices, and not by actual quality, real use, real impact and openness characteristics….

Under those circumstances, at best open science practices are seen as posing an additional burden without rewards. At worst, they are seen as actively damaging chances of future funding and promotion & tenure. Early career researchers are perhaps the most dependent on traditional evaluation culture for career progression, a culture held in place by established researchers, as well as by institutional, national and international policies, including funder mandates….”

 

 

Utrecht University Recognition and Rewards Vision

“By embracing Open Science as one of its five core principles1, Utrecht University aims to accelerate and improve science and scholarship and its societal impact. Open science calls for a full commitment to openness, based on a comprehensive vision regarding the relationship with society. This ongoing transition to Open Science requires us to reconsider the way in which we recognize and reward members of the academic community. It should value teamwork over individualism and calls for an open academic culture that promotes accountability, reproducibility, integrity and transparency, and where sharing (open access, FAIR data and software) and public engagement are normal daily practice. In this transition we closely align ourselves with the national VSNU program as well as developments on the international level….”

Open Science – Universiteit Utrecht

“Utrecht University wants to promote open science as part of its promise to make science more open and even more reliable, efficient and relevant to society. In order to follow up on the ambition formulated in the strategic plan (pdf), the Rector Magnificus commissioned a task force, supported by a university library work group, to draft an Open Science Programme for the period 2018-2021.

Utrecht University aims to be at the forefront of open science. Therefore, the Executive Board has launched the Utrecht University Open Science Programme. A programme that aims to stimulate and facilitate researchers to put open science into practice. Read the most recent version (pdf)….”

Sander Dekker: Open Sesame, Open Science

Special issue of Informatics Studies on the work OA/OS advocacy of Sander Dekker. 

“The current crisis around the Corona virus revealed the importance of  Open Access and Open Science – unfettered access to scientific and scholarly information, for scientists, researchers, academicians, journalists and the public alike – for effectively dealing with such calamities. It is the efforts of Sander Dekker during the last decade to implement Open Access by legislation and involvement of European Union; that made it easy for the scientific community to place their research results on Covid-19 under Open Access to arrest the spread of the pandemic.  Considering the importance of the contributions of Dekker in the efforts of humanity to sustain life on this planet; the present issue of Informatics Studies is devoted for collecting together historical documents reflecting his work, with two reviews of his career and contributions.”

Recognition and rewards in the Open Era: Turning thoughts into actions | Open Working

“The TU Delft Open Science programme held its very first thematic session on the Recognition and Rewards cross-cutting theme on October 5, 2020. The Open Science Programme currently has 5 projects and 3 cross-cutting themes, from FAIR software to Open Education. This means that the programme core team is composed of members from many different departments (not only within the Library), bringing in their diverse perspectives and skills! But this also poses a challenge on teamwork- we need a way for us to all stay in touch, be able to see and learn from each other’s work, and contribute and provide feedback – hence the idea of the thematic sessions.Ingrid Vos, the leader of the Recognition and Rewards theme, has kindly volunteered to lead this first thematic session. Since this theme relates to everyone’s work within the Open Science Programme, Ingrid wanted to make sure everyone can be effectively engaged in the session and their voices can be heard – more on this below.Key takeaways: A re-examination of rewards and recognition is needed to further fuel the cultural and behavioural changes towards open science TU Delft’s work in this aspect builds upon VSNU’s “Room for everyone’s talent” position paper. Every university in the Netherlands has a committee on Recognition & Rewards. The TU Delft committee is led by Ena Voûte. The Open Science Programme team had fruitful discussions around open research and education behaviours and “products”, how to evaluate, appreciate and reward these, as well as emerging career paths We’d love to hear your ideas and thoughts, both on rewards and recognition and on how you’d like to contribute and participate in these discussions- please use the comment section of this post!  …”

Advancing Open Access in the Netherlands after 2020: from quantity to quality | Zenodo

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 qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The paper first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest to broaden the agenda by involving more types of actors and involve other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest to deepen the open access agenda by including several open access characteristics: immediacy, open licenses, open metadata, open peer review and diamond open access. 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/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.

A live version of this spreadsheet with the framework described in this article is available at https://tinyurl.com/dutchoapolicies

 

Large-scale ICU data sharing for global collaboration: the first 1633 critically ill COVID-19 patients in the Dutch Data Warehouse | SpringerLink

“Given these considerations, a large-scale ICU data sharing collaboration in The Netherlands was initiated for the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW, Fig. 1). While the database is growing, at this point, the DDW combines pseudonymized EHR data from 23 intensive care units covering the entire ICU admission of all adult COVID-19 patients treated in these ICUs. Collected data include data from monitoring and life support devices, demographics, medication, fluid balance, comorbidities, laboratory results, and outcomes. All parameters were manually reviewed by intensive care professionals and mapped to a common ontology. A software data pipeline converted units, filtered data entry errors, and calculated derived clinical parameters. Data validation was a continuous process including hospital data verification and visual inspection of distribution plots….”

Plan S and funding

This presentation was given by Johan Rooryck during the Open Access Talk on 29 October 2020. Johan Rooryck, Professor at Leiden University and Executive Director of cOAlition S, briefly outlines the rationale for the principles of Plan S. Beyond that, he discusses its implementation for all grants awarded by cOAlition S funders from 1 January 2021, including the Horizon Europe framework. In his talk, Johan Rooryck covers the following questions: Which conditions do you need to fulfil to publish in a journal of your choice under Plan S? What can the newly developed Journal Checker Tool do for you? How does the recent Rights Retention Strategy help you to keep the rights to your Author Accepted Manuscript? In addition, Johan Rooryck mentions a number of other projects initiated by cOAlition S, such as the Price Transparency Framework to ensure that prices for publishing services become more transparent and fair or the commission of a study to identify concrete funding mechanisms to support and strengthen diamond journals and their platforms. The lecture “Plan S and funding – What is going to change?” was held as part of the Open Access Talk online series of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network.

Poland’s ‘legislation’ of Holocaust history vs. Netherlands’ open-access archive | The Times of Israel

“When historians seek to research what Dutch citizens did during Nazi Germany’s occupation of the Netherlands, they have access to a stack of files that’s taller than the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Twenty years ago, those files of the “Central Archive of Special Jurisdiction” were deposited at the Dutch National Archives in The Hague. Suddenly, 300,000 case files on Dutch citizens suspected of having collaborated with Nazis were made available to everyone….

The climate in the Netherlands differs sharply from an allegedly “research-muzzling” atmosphere in Poland. On February 9, a district court ordered prominent Holocaust historians Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking to apologize to a woman who claimed the scholars slandered her deceased uncle….

In Poland, research into the Holocaust has become a lightning rod since the Law and Justice party was elected in 2015. Simultaneously, the digitization of the Netherlands’ “special jurisdiction” archive has helped researchers piece together a diverse mosaic of Dutch citizens’ wartime behavior….

Poland has its own version of the “Central Archive of Special Jurisdiction.” In 1989, files from the communist-era security services became available to the public, including those related to Nazi collaborators….

According to Grabowski, Poland’s “History Laws” are intended to “defend the good name of the Polish nation.” Any claims that Poland bore responsibility for the Holocaust are now criminalized, despite the historian’s documentation that 200,000 Jews were murdered by their Polish neighbors….”

United Academics Foundation | Connecting Science & Society

“Join us to give global society free & reliable access to scientific articles they need to expand their knowledge horizon, develop their institutional capacities and grow their business….

The United Academics Foundation (UAF) is a not-for-profit organization. It was founded in January 2013 by Louis Lapidaire, Robert Paul Kuiper and Anouk Vleugels. The Foundation is based in Amsterdam, but our team is international, with a group of dedicated people working remotely on several continents….

The mission of the United Academics Foundation (UAF) is to connect science and society: creating a world where scientific research results are accessible for all, so that knowledge can be easily spread and built upon….”

 

Multidimensional framework for furthering open access | Zenodo

Abstract:  The spreadsheet provide a multidimensional framework for furthering open access to research output. Combining three dimensions (i.e. aspects of open access, actors involved and the levels at which actions can be taken) results in a multidimensional framework that can inform future developments. Vertically, the different aspects of open access are projected. Horizontally, the five “levels of engagement” are presented for each of the different actors relevant for open access in the Dutch context. The framework can be used in various ways. For instance one could fill it with current actions/policies. But one could also use it to prioritize or plan future actions. This file set contains both the template and the versions filled with current actions relevant for researchers in the Nederlands in PDF format, in spreadsheet format and as presentation slides.

 

What About Reuse? A Study on the Use of Open Educational Resources in Dutch Higher Education | Baas | Open Praxis

Abstract:  Extensive research has taken place over the years to examine the barriers of OER adoption, but little empirical studies has been undertaken to map the amount of OER reuse. The discussion around the actual use of OER, outside the context in which they were developed, remains ongoing. Previous studies have already shown that searching and evaluating resources are barriers for actual reuse. Hence, in this quantitative survey study we explored teachers’ practices with resources in Higher Education Institutes in the Netherlands. The survey had three runs, each in a different context, with a total of 439 respondents. The results show that resources that are hard or time-consuming to develop are most often reused from third parties without adaptations. Resources that need to be more context specific are often created by teachers themselves. To improve our understanding of reuse, follow-up studies must explore reuse with a more qualitative research design in order to explore how these hidden practices of dark reuse look like and how teachers and students benefit of it.