“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 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.
[…]
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.”
“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.”
“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….”
“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….”
“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….”
The BOAI updated its web site in preparation for its 20th anniversary recommendations.
“The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) will celebrate its 20th anniversary on 14 February 2022. In preparation, the BOAI steering committee is working on a new set of recommendations, based on BOAI principles, current circumstances, and input from colleagues in all academic fields and regions of the world.
We’re particularly interested in responses to the questions below. When a question asks about the long-term goals of the open access (OA) movement, please answer in light of your own long-term goals for it. Feel free to focus on just the questions you think are most important. Also feel free to add questions of your own that don’t appear on our list….”
“Profiteering and restricted access have led to a crisis in academic publishing. The Fair Open Access movement is best promoted by mobilizing individual disciplines. With this manifesto, we, an open group of scholars of classical and modern South Asian Studies, declare our support for Fair Open Access publishing….
The following publishers and journals meet many or all FOA criteria (see §7 of the FOASAS Manifesto). …”
“In this context, the Europeana Foundation, Network Association and Aggregators’ Forum, collectively representing the Europeana Initiative, strongly support a rights-based, people-centred approach to the concept of digital citizenship and the development of principles that promote a more equitable and democratic digital environment in which
basic liberties and rights are protected online,
sovereignty of data is protected,
public institutions are empowered to function in the public interest, and
people are able to participate more fully in the creation, functioning and potential of their digital environment. …
The Europeana Initiative recognises the relevance and importance of these principles through its work with the cultural heritage sector, and we believe that we have useful insights to share on them. However we believe that a fundamental principle is missing – that of universal access to cultural heritage online. …
Europeana’s focus is on supporting the cultural heritage sector in its digital transformation because access to cultural heritage is vital to humankind – to our knowledge and understanding of who we are, where we’ve come from and what we can become. Democratising access to cultural heritage online, in ways that support inclusivity, innovation, creativity, education and knowledge sharing, is at the heart of Europeana’s purpose….
We work with Europe’s cultural heritage institutions to ensure that digital cultural heritage is shared in formats and of a quality which allows use and reuse by researchers and educators, creatives and innovators, and all citizens. Our work promotes the use of digital technology that makes cultural heritage online accessible, traceable and trustworthy, which in turn means people can explore it, use it, be inspired by it and learn from it with confidence. It contributes to an open, knowledgeable and creative society….”
Fokusgruppe scholar-led.network. (2021). Das scholar-led.network-Manifest. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4925784
English abstract (via deepl.com): We are the scholar-led.network and are working collaboratively for a non-profit publishing culture beyond APCs and BPCs that is independent of major publishers. The scholar-led.network manifesto sums up our central critique of the current scholarly publishing system in the German-speaking world and identifies areas of action for fair, planned, and diverse publishing.
German abstract: Wir sind das scholar-led.network und setzen uns gemeinsam und kollaborativ für eine von Großverlagen unabhängige, nicht profitorientierte Publikationskultur jenseits von APCs und BPCs ein. Das scholar-led.network-Manifest bringt unsere zentrale Kritik am gegenwärtigen wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem im deutschsprachigen Raum auf den Punkt und benennt Handlungsfelder für faires, planvolles und vielfältiges Publizieren.
Live document: https://preview.graphite.page/scholar-led-manifest/
English version via Google Translate
In its scholar-led.network manifesto, the focus group scholar-led.network, which was established within the framework of the open-access.network project, criticises the current scholarly publishing system in the German-speaking world and, at the same time, provides fields of action for the development of a fair, planned and bibliodiverse publishing culture.
Scholar-led.network points out problematic issues in the current publishing system and wants to initiate a debate on the role of scholar-led Open Access
In its scholar-led.network manifesto, the focus group scholar-led.network, which was established within the framework of the open-access.network project, criticises the current scholarly publishing system in the German-speaking world and, at the same time, provides fields of action for the development of a fair, planned and bibliodiverse publishing culture.
The authors of the text identify a journal crisis in the course of the Open Access transformation. This is reflected, among other things, in the monopoly position of major publishers who demand high publication fees from authors – so-called APCs (Article Processing Charges) and BPCs (Book Processing Charges). According to the Manifesto, this leads to new inequalities and exclusions. In order to make the Open Access transformation fairer and more diverse, scholar-led publishing models that do not charge such fees can be strengthened (Diamond Open Access). However, the current situation of scholar-led projects is deficient, partly due to a lack of funding.
Based on its critique, the focus group formulates concrete fields of action in which scholars, research institutions, libraries, research funding institutions, professional societies and other parts of the scholarly community must jointly get involved in to strengthen a diverse, independent and fair publication ecosystem. The fields of action are:
Networking, collaboration and strategic frameworks.
Sustainable funding structures for Diamond Open Access
Promotion of bibliodiversity in academia
You can access the scholar-led.network manifesto via this link: https://graphite.page/scholar-led-manifest/
In this statement made by the ISC delegation to the UNESCO Special Committee meeting on Open Science, 6-12 May 2021, the delegation explores how the recommendation and potential cascading interventions by Member States could develop along two divergent pathways