English – Knowledge Equity Network

“For Higher Education Institutions

Publish a Knowledge Equity Statement for your institution by 2025, incorporating tangible commitments aligned with the principles and objectives below.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of published educational material being open and freely accessible for all to use and reuse for teaching, learning, and research.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of new research outputs being transparent, open and freely accessible for all, and which meet the expectations of funders.
Use openness as an explicit criteria in reaching hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. Reward and recognise open practices across both research and research-led education. This should include the importance of interdisciplinary and/or collaborative activities, and the contribution of all individuals to activities.
Define Equity, Diversity and Inclusion targets that will contribute towards open and inclusive Higher Education practices, and report annually on progress against these targets.
To create new mechanisms in and between Higher Education Institutions that allow for further widening participation and increased diversity of staff and student populations.
Review the support infrastructure for open Higher Education, and invest in the human, technical, and digital infrastructure that is needed to make open Higher Education a success.
Promote the use of open interoperability principles for any research or education software/system that you procure or develop, explicitly highlighting the option of making all or parts of content open for public consumption.
Ensure that all research data conforms to the FAIR Data Principles: ‘findable’, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable.

For Funding Agencies

Publish a statement that open dissemination of research findings is a critical component in evaluating the productivity and integrity of research.
Incorporate open research practices into assessment of funding proposals.
Incentivise the adoption of Open Research through policies, frameworks and mandates that require open access for publications, data, and other outputs, with as liberal a licence as possible for maximum reuse.
Actively manage funding schemes to support open infrastructures and open dissemination of research findings, educational resources, and underpinning data.
Explicitly define reward and recognition mechanisms for globally co-produced and co-delivered open educational resources that benefit society….”

 

Knowledge Equity Network – Knowledge Equity Network

Imagine a world in which human knowledge is shared more equitably. Imagine what we can achieve if we work together.

We are a collaborative community of engaged institutions, organisations and individuals across the world. We need to act intentionally to change the way we share knowledge to make the most meaningful impact, for the benefit of all.

Our goal is to tackle global challenges through opening access to ground-breaking research and research-led, challenge-focused education.

We live in a time of climate crisis, economic instability, inequity, poverty and forced population displacements. These are challenges that threaten the health and wellbeing of people all over the world.

The global Higher Education sector can tackle these challenges, but only when knowledge is shared, unhindered by barriers of cost, time or national borders.

The Knowledge Equity Network encourages collaboration over competition in a culture of equity, diversity, inclusion and openness. We believe transformational change is possible.

Working in a global partnership and by sharing the power of knowledge, we will create a fairer and better world.”

A Manifesto for Rewarding and Recognising Team Infrastructure Roles | Zenodo

Abstract:  Abstract: Large research teams benefit from people with diverse skills.This has necessitated the growth of professional team infrastructure roles (TIRs) who support research through specialised skills. TIRs play an important role in ensuring the success of a research project, but are neglected under current reward and recognition procedures that focus on research articles as the primary way for scholarly communication. We propose system level changes to recognise TIR contributions that will affect scholarly communication in the long term. We particularly welcome feedback from regions other than the EU and US, since our suggestions are based on our personal experiences of the systems in these regions.

 

A Manifesto for Rewarding and Recognising Team Infrastructure Roles | Zenodo

Abstract:  Abstract: Large research teams benefit from people with diverse skills.This has necessitated the growth of professional team infrastructure roles (TIRs) who support research through specialised skills. TIRs play an important role in ensuring the success of a research project, but are neglected under current reward and recognition procedures that focus on research articles as the primary way for scholarly communication. We propose system level changes to recognise TIR contributions that will affect scholarly communication in the long term. We particularly welcome feedback from regions other than the EU and US, since our suggestions are based on our personal experiences of the systems in these regions.

 

ODC’s contribution to the Global Digital Compact – Report_Web.pdf – Google Drive

“Following the political declaration adopted at the occasion of the United Nations’ 75th anniversary in September 2020, the Secretary-General in September 2021 released his report Our Common Agenda. The Common Agenda proposes a Global Digital Compact to be agreed at the Summit of the Future in September 2024 through a technology track involving all stakeholders: governments, the United Nations system, the private sector (including tech companies), civil society, grass-roots organizations, academia, and individuals, including youth.”

The Cape Town Statement on fairness, equity and diversity in research

“Even the push towards openness and transparency in science publishing — which many have argued is a way to foster greater integrity in research — has created more barriers for investigators in low-resource environments.

Sharing data, for example, requires having enough institutional infrastructure and resources to first curate, manage, store and (in the case of data relating to people) encrypt the data — and to deal with requests to access them. Also, the pressure placed on researchers of LMICs by high-income-country funders to share their data as quickly as possible frequently relegates them to the role of data collectors for better-resourced teams. With enough time, all sorts of locally relevant questions that were not part of the original project could be investigated by local researchers. But, well-resourced investigators in high-income countries — who were not part of the original project — are often better placed to conduct secondary analyses.

Unforeseen difficulties are arising around publishing, too. Currently, the costs to publish an article in gold open-access journals (which typically range from US$500–$3,000) are prohibitive for most researchers and institutions in LMICs. The University of Cape Town, for example, which produces around 3,300 articles each year, has an annual budget of $180,000 for article-processing costs. This covers only about 120 articles per year.

Because of this, researchers in these countries frequently publish their papers in subscription-based journals. But scientists working in similar contexts can’t access such journals because the libraries in their institutions are unable to finance subscriptions to a wide range of journals. All this makes it even harder for researchers to build on locally relevant science….”

 

The Cape Town Statement on Fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity advocates for fair practice from conception to implementation of research and provides 20 recommendations aimed at all involved stakeholders.

“The 7th World Conference on Research Integrity (7thWCRI) was held in Cape Town in May 2022 with the conference theme “Fostering Research Integrity in an unequal world”. Participants at this conference recognised that unfair and inequitable research practices remain prevalent at all stages of research from proposal development to funding application, data collection, analysis, sharing and access, reporting and translation. These practices can impact the integrity of research in many ways, including skewing research priorities and agendas with research questions that are irrelevant for local needs, power imbalances that undermine fair recognition of knowledge contributions within collaborations, including unfair acknowledgement of contributions to published work, lack of diversity and inclusivity in collaborations, and unfair data management practices that disadvantage researchers in low resource environments. Furthermore, a drive towards open science as a pillar of research integrity fails to recognise the financial burden placed on under-resourced researchers and institutions, and the reality that highly trained and well-resourced researchers in HIC may disproportionately benefit from reanalysing openly shared data by LMIC researchers. In response to these challenges the following statement of goals, values and recommendations aims to contribute to the growing global recognition that fairness and equity are essential requirements of integrity in all research contexts.

This statement advocates for fair practice from conception to implementation of research and provides 20 recommendations aimed at all involved stakeholders. These recommendations are grouped under values that were identified as important underpinning considerations in discussion groups at the 7th WCRI. These values include diversity, inclusivity, mutual respect, shared accountability, indigenous knowledge recognition and epistemic justice (ensuring that the value of knowledge is not based on biases related to gender, race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status etcetera)….”

Knowledge Equity Network

“Imagine a world in which human knowledge is shared more equitably, unhindered by barriers of cost, time or national borders. 

Just think what could be achieved by marshalling the latest ground-breaking research and offering research-led, challenge-focused education at scale, as part of a global effort to meet – and solve – the biggest challenges facing our planet.

This change is desperately needed and long overdue. Now is the time for action, not just words. …”

DORA’s new policy on engagement and outreach for organizational signatories | DORA

DORA is pleased to announce today the publication of our Engagement and outreach policy for organizational signatories to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.

This policy aims to give a more specific answer to the question ‘How should DORA be enforced?’, which has arisen on a number of occasions when reports have been received of signatory organizations apparently not acting in compliance with the provisions of the Declaration. On such occasions, DORA has re-iterated that it is not an accrediting organization but seeks through constructive dialogue to resolve any misunderstandings.

[…]

 

Declaración de CLACSO “Una nueva evaluación académica y científica para una ciencia con relevancia social en América Latina y el Caribe» | Universo Abierto

From Google’s English:  “This declaration was approved by the XXVII General Assembly of CLACSO, within the framework of the  9th Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Social Sciences , in Mexico City in June 2022. In turn, it was enriched with the contributions of various regional and international specialists and representatives of CLACSO member centers, who participated in the plenary “Balance, perspectives and challenges for a new agenda for academic evaluation in Latin America and the Caribbean” at the International Seminar of the  Forum Latin American Scientific Evaluation (FOLEC)- CLACSO  during the 9th. Conference.

In this way, CLACSO-FOLEC, together with a multiplicity of actors and actors committed to the issue, has managed to consolidate a common Declaration of Principles and high consensus on responsible academic evaluation from and for Latin America and the Caribbean. Following these guidelines, CLACSO-FOLEC seeks to promote the implementation of these principles – converted into proposals and tools for action – by the National Science and Technology Organizations, scientific institutions and higher education in the region. Likewise, it mobilizes the study and survey of good practices and different innovations in the evaluation processes,     

We would very much like your individual and/or institutional support for the Declaration. For that, you can offer your adhesion in the link.”

Data tools for achieving disaster risk reduction: An analysis of open-access georeferenced disaster risk datasets – World | ReliefWeb

“The priorities of the Sendai Framework are to (1) understand disaster risk; (2) strengthen disaster risk governance to manage risk; (3) invest in disaster risk reduction and resilience; and (4) enhance the capacity to recover from disasters (UNDRR, 2015). This study advances our knowledge of implementing the Sendai Framework from publications that have utilized open-access spatial data and issues common to Framework implementation. The findings from a literature review reveal that many of the problems cited by recent work are data-related.

This study engages with these issues and discusses how they could be addressed by those who have a vested interest in disaster risk reduction, from policymakers to community members.”

Guest Post – New Winds from the Latin American Scientific Publishing Community – The Scholarly Kitchen

“To help evaluate interest in the idea of a regional association and to better understand editors’ perspectives on the use of journal metrics for science evaluations, a survey of journal editors was carried out, with 20 questions aimed at characterizing the journal they edit, such as subject area(s), audience, business model and adoption of open science, coverage by databases, strategies for increasing visibility, and use of metrics and indicators for journal management. The survey also included four questions about the use of citation impact indicators for national evaluations of science performed by governmental agencies in Latin America and their effects on the publication and research activities in the region….

A large majority of the editors who responded to the survey felt that the use of citation impact indicators for evaluating science in Latin America is inadequate or partially adequate (70%-88% depending on the specific area of evaluation)….

This feedback was used to support the development of the ALAEC Manifesto for the responsible use of metrics in research evaluation in Latin America and the Caribbean, which calls for a more inclusive and responsible use of journal-based metrics in research evaluation. It supports previous manifestos, such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – DORA (2012), the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics (2015), and the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication (2019). Acknowledging that the current criteria imposed by Latin American evaluating bodies have perverse consequences for the region’s journals and that authors will therefore have less incentive to submit articles to them, the manifesto has five main calls to action:

 

Re-establish quality criteria, valuing journals that:

Publish relevant research regardless of area or subject matter, language, target audience, or geographic scope
Bring a broad spectrum of scholarly and research contributions, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis, and meta-research
Practice open science, including open access
Adopt high ethical standards, prioritizing quality and integrity in scientific publication

Value and stimulate the work of scientific editors and their teams, promoting their training and development, and recognizing their fundamental role in the adoption and dissemination of good practices in scientific publication.
Ensure that national journals and publishers do not lose financial incentives and the flow of article submissions, allowing them to achieve and maintain high standards of quality and integrity in their editorial processes, especially for journals that practice open science and multilingualism.
Strengthen, disseminate, and protect national and regional infrastructures for scientific communication (SciELO, RedALyC, LatIndex, LA Referencia, and non-commercial CRIS systems), that favor open science and multilingualism, and that can generate the most appropriate metrics and indicators to evaluate local and regional science.
Encourage and value collaborative networks and exchanges between all actors in the ecosystem of knowledge production and dissemination: institutions, authors, reviewers and funding agencies, etc., in the region….”

Call for interest – Towards an agreement on reforming research assessment | European Commission

“The Commission is calling organisations to express their interest in being part of a coalition on reforming research assessment.

The coalition will bring together organisations funding research, research performing organisations, national/regional assessment authorities or agencies, as well as associations of the above organisations and learned societies, all willing and committed to implement reforms to the current research assessment system as described in this report, which summarises the outcomes of extensive consultations with stakeholders.

The deadline to express interest is 10 January 2022. The coalition will however remain open to new members at all times….”

Paris Call – OSEC 2022

“This text was prepared by the French Open Science Committee and presented to the Paris Open Science European Conference (OSEC) held in Paris on 4th and 5th February 2022, organised by the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, following the publication of the UNESCO recommendation on Open Science and the publication by the European Commission of Towards a reform of the research assessment system: scoping report.

In the conclusions of its meeting of December 1st 2020 on ‘the New European Research Area’, the Competitiveness Council of the European Union highlighted that Open Science has a crucial role in boosting impact, quality, efficiency, transparency and integrity of research and innovation, and brings science and society closer together. The Council emphasised that bibliodiversity and multilingualism and the acknowledgement of all scientific productions are relevant elements of an European Research Area policy on Open Science.

The current system for assessing research, researchers and research institutions, however, does not incentivise or reward enough the quality of all research outputs in their diversity. It often relies on the quantity of publications in journals with high Journal Impact Factor and citations as mere proxies for quality and impact, thereby underestimating the value of other contributions, lowering reproducibility and holding back researchers from open sharing and collaboration….

The Open Science European Conference (OSEC) 2022, organised by the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union:

Recognises that openness improves the quality, efficiency and impact of research, and fosters team science;
Reaffirms the need to align what we assess with what we value;
Calls for an assessment system where research proposals, researchers, research units and research institutions are evaluated on the basis of their intrinsic merits and impact, rather than on the number of publications and where they are published, promoting qualitative judgement provided by peers, supported by a responsible use of quantitative indicators;
Calls therefore for a research assessment system that:

rewards quality and the various impacts of research;
ensures that research meets the highest standards of ethics and integrity
values the diversity of research activities and outputs such as publications and preprints, data, methods, software, code and patents, as well as their societal impacts and activities related to training, innovation and public engagement;
uses assessment criteria and processes that respect the variety of research disciplines;
rewards not only research outputs, but also the appropriate conduct of research, and values good practices, in particular open practices for sharing research results and methodologies whenever possible ;
values collaborative work, as well as cross-disciplinarity and citizen science, when appropriate;
supports a diversity of researcher profiles and career paths….”