COAR releases resource types vocabulary version 3.0 for repositories with new look and feel – COAR

“We are pleased to announce the release of version 3.0 of the resource types vocabulary. Since 2015, three COAR Controlled Vocabularies have been developed and are maintained by the Controlled Vocabulary Editorial Board: Resource types, access rights and version types.  These vocabularies have a new look and are now being managed using the iQvoc platform, hosted by the University of Vienna Library.

Using controlled vocabularies enables repositories to be consistent in describing their resources, helps with search and discovery of content, and allows machine readability for interoperability. The COAR vocabularies are available in several languages, supporting multilingualism across repositories. They also play a key role in making semantic artifacts and repositories compliant with the FAIR Principles, in particular when it comes to findability and interoperability….”

STM’s Peer Review Taxonomy To Be Formalized As An ANSI/NISO Standard | NISO website

“The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and STM, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers today announced the formation of a new NISO Working Group to formalize the Peer Review Taxonomy as an ANSI/NISO standard, following approval of the project by NISO Voting Members late last month. NISO invites volunteers to join the soon-to-be-formed Working Group, which will be merged with the existing STM Working Group. 

In 2019, STM recognized the need to support the industry in ensuring greater transparency and openness in peer review, which is an essential element of Open Science. This support includes harmonizing and better communicating definitions of discrete elements of these processes, so that members of the community—whether they be authors, reviewers, editors or readers—can quickly and easily recognize how to more productively participate in the creation and qualification of scholarly content. An STM Working Group was formed, which developed standard definitions and best practice recommendations for the communication of peer review processes, now available in its version 2.0 form. NISO will now take on this output and further develop it into a version 3.0, which will be made available for public comment and then published as a formal ANSI/NISO standard once it has been reviewed and approved by NISO Voting Members. …”

ROR and GRID: The Way Forward

“Earlier today, GRID announced that it will discontinue its schedule of public releases in Q4 2021. This decision marks an important and exciting milestone in the evolution of both organization registries.

ROR’s core mission is to be a community-led registry of open organization identifiers. While GRID has maintained an open registry of organization identifiers available CC0 to the community since 2015, it did not intend to serve as a community-driven initiative. Therefore, it was a natural arrangement to jump-start ROR with seed data from GRID, and accept ongoing updates from GRID while developing ROR to ultimately function independently as the community registry of record. The plan has always been that ROR would inevitably need to be able to diverge from GRID in order to more fully address the requirements and use cases that come with maintaining a community-based initiative. GRID’s recent decision aligns perfectly with the progress ROR has already made towards this goal….”

GRID passes the torch to ROR – Digital Science

“In 2015 Digital Science first released the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID), an open database of unique research-related organisation identifiers they had developed in-house over several years, for public use by the research community. In 2019 ROR, the Research Organization Registry, was founded as a community-driven initiative, mirroring the GRID database. With ROR coming of age and becoming independent from GRID, Digital Science has decided to pass on the torch to ROR and retire GRID from the public space, with a last public release in Q4 of 2021.

This might come as a surprise, as GRID and ROR have been co-existing and collaborating for quite some time now. GRID was initially created to fill a void, as no open organisation identifier was available for the open research space. As a community-driven initiative has now built upon GRID’s first initiative, two open organisation identifiers could be perceived as competing against each other. Digital Science has therefore decided to formally hand the torch over to ROR as the leading open organisation identifier. Digital Science will continue to use GRID internally- but focused on the Digital Science products and their users and clients….”

ARK Alliance – Home of the Archival Resource Key (ARK)

“Archival Resource Keys (ARKs) serve as persistent identifiers, or stable, trusted references for information objects. Among other things, they aim to be web addresses (URLs) that don’t return 404 Page Not Found errors. The ARK Alliance is an open global community supporting the ARK infrastructure on behalf of research and scholarship.

End users, especially researchers, rely on ARKs for long term access to the global scientific and cultural record. Since 2001 some 8.2 billion ARKs have been created by over 780 organizations — libraries, data centers, archives, museums, publishers, government agencies, and vendors.

ARKs are open, mainstream, non-paywalled, decentralized persistent identifiers that you can start creating in under 48 hours. They identify anything digital, physical, or abstract….”

Open Scholarship Support Guide.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

“Steps to Support Open Scholarship

Open scholarship entails a culture shift in how research is conducted in universities. It requires action on the part of university administration, working in concert with faculty, sponsors and disciplinary communities.  Universities should consider steps in three areas:

•  Policies:  Language and guidance should be reviewed for alignment with open scholarship, in particular: (1) academic hiring, review, tenure and promotion (valuing diverse types of research products; metrics that  incentivize the open dissemination of articles, data, and other research outputs; and valuing collaborative research); (2) intellectual property (ownership, licensing and distribution of data, software, materials and publications); (3) research data protection (for data to be stored and shared through repositories); (4) attribution (recognizing full range of contributions);  and (5) privacy (insuring that privacy obligations are met). 

•  Services and Training:  Researchers need support to assure that data and other research objects are managed according to FAIR Principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.  While the specific solution must be tailored to the discipline and research, common standards, including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), must be followed.

•  Infrastructure:  Archival storage is required for data, materials, specimens and publications to permit reuse.  Searchable portals are needed to register research products where they can be located and accessed. Universities can recognize efficiencies by utilizing external resources (including existing disciplinary repositories) and by developing shared resources that span the institution when external resources do not exist.

Presidents and provosts are encouraged to work with their academic senates to create an open scholarship initiative that promotes institution-wide actions supporting open scholarship practices, while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate disciplinary differences and norms….”

Day One Project: Re-envisioning Reporting of Scientific Methods

“The information contained in the methods section of the overwhelming majority of research publications is insufficient to definitively evaluate research practices, let alone reproduce the work. Publication—and subsequent reuse—of detailed scientific methodologies can save researchers time and money, and can accelerate the pace of research overall. However, there is no existing mechanism for collective action to improve reporting of scientific methods. The Biden-Harris Administration should direct research-funding agencies to support development of new standards for reporting scientific methods. These standards would (1) address ongoing challenges in scientific reproducibility, and (2) benefit our nation’s scientific enterprise by improving research quality, reliability, and efficiency. …

Common standards are already proving invaluable for the recognition and reuse of open data. The same principles could be applied to open methods….

Compliance could be achieved through a combination of “push” incentives from publishers and “pull” incentives from funders. As is already happening for open-data standards, federal agencies can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to receive federal funding, and scientific journals can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to be eligible for publication….”  

Data in Motion: New Approaches to Advancing Scientific, Engineering and Medical Progress: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief | The National Academies Press

Abstract:  The movement toward open science, data sharing, and increased transparency is being propelled by the need to rapidly address critical scientific challenges, such as the global COVID-19 public health crisis. This movement has supported growth in fields, such as artificial intelligence (AI), which has demonstrated potential to accelerate science, engineering, and medicine in new and exciting ways. To further advance innovation around these new approaches, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board on Research Data and Information convened a public virtual workshop on October 14-15, 2020, to address how researchers in different domains are utilizing data that undergo repeated processing, often in real-time, to accelerate scientific discovery. Although these topics were not originally part of the workshop, the impact of COVID-19 prompted the planning committee to add sessions on early career researchers’ perspectives, as well as rapid review and publishing activities as a result of the pandemic. Participants also explored the advances needed to enable future progress in areas such as AI, cyberinfrastructure, standards, and policies. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the workshop.

 

Accelerating Standards for 3D Data to Improve Long-Term Usability – Association of Research Libraries

“3D data means different things to different people. Most are probably familiar with highly processed outputs, like the previous examples, which often lack documentation describing how the data has been created and processed. In fact, depending on the creation method, the creator may not even have access to the processing information due to the use of proprietary tools. However, even when 3D data is well documented through the best efforts of a creator, data steward, or repository, the data’s description is generally bespoke, and the terms used are ambiguous. This gives 3D data a steep slope to climb to achieve findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR-ness).

The use of 3D technologies has grown exponentially in the last 10 years. As a result, research libraries have invested significant infrastructure, services, and people into supporting research, teaching principles, and modeling applications of 3D technologies and data. Research libraries have begun creating and capturing 3D data using a variety of methods and formats, establishing 3D immersion labs, opening 3D printing shops within their library spaces, and adding 3D data to their repositories. As use of these tools and services has become more widespread, appropriate stewardship of the digital data is critical for ongoing accessibility, but not yet widely established or agreed upon. Enter the Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation (CS3DP) initiative.

Organized by colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Michigan, and Iowa State University, CS3DP aims to be an open, radically inclusive, and collaborative community invested in creating standards. Composed of working groups from national and international participants, the CS3DP community has increased awareness and accelerated the creation and adoption of best practices, metadata standards, and policies for the stewardship of 3D data….”

OA Switchboard Reporting Made Easy

“We took a step back to speak with some of our partners about the rationale behind the need for a standardised, structured and validated data format, delivering real-time, situational authoritative data from the source. We’re grateful they agreed to share their views and experiences. These partners are Stacey Burke (American Physiological Society), Colleen Campbell (Max Planck Digital Library, ESAC, OA2020), Todd Carpenter (NISO), Helen Dobson (Jisc), Matthew Goddard (Iowa State University), Marten Stavenga (John Benjamins Publishing Company) and Ivo Verbeek (Elitex).

 

We asked our interviewees to answer five questions:

What is the underlying need for ‘reporting’?

What is the minimum set of metadata required to achieve that goal?

What sources (systems) capture and manage these (meta)data? Is it possible to extract the data?

What makes a ‘standard’? What’s the benefit of a ‘standard’? How to get there?

How does the OA Switchboard make reporting ‘easy’? How does it work, end-to-end and real-time? …”