Category Archives: oa.ostp

COAPI Virtual Coffee Klatsch: OSTP Memo

Posted on by
Reply

“Join fellow COAPI members for our first Virtual Coffee Klatsch at 1:00 EST on Tuesday, August 15. Grab your favorite beverage and join us for informal community building and conversation about how libraries are responding to the 2022 OSTP Public Access Memo (Nelson Memo).

While there is no formal structure to the call, we do encourage participants to think about and be ready to share: – Library outreach and education programs – Collaboration with other campus offices or within library – Resources to share/repurpose – If/how your institution has responded to the draft bill to block implementation of the OSTP memo.”

Biden open access order under threat | Times Higher Education (THE)

Posted on by
Reply

“A coalition of leading open-access research publishers is warning against a move in the US Congress to reverse a Biden administration order to make federally funded research findings immediately and freely available.

Joe Biden announced the shift a year ago, aiming to end decades of open-access debates by setting a 2025 deadline for ending any paywalls on the published results of federally funded research.

Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives, however, have advanced a fiscal year 2024 budget bill with language that – without any explanation for their position – would block the Biden order.

The heads of eight leading open-access-format science publishers wrote to Republican lawmakers warning that their plan “will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the societal benefits of the more than $90 billion [£70 billion] in scientific research that the US government funds each year”….”

The Fully OA group respond to the House Appropriations Committee – Fully OA Publishers

Posted on by
Reply

“In our capacity as representatives of leading fully Open Access research publishers and Open Science platforms, we submit our objection to the draft language2 in the Subcommittee’s FY24 spending bill3 that  blocks implementation  of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) August 2022 guidance to make federally funded research freely available without delay.

As a group of global publishers, we share a single aim – the transition to fully open scientific communication for the benefit of all parts of society. We believe the restriction of funds as outlined in Sec 552 of the bill is detrimental to this goal. We strongly support the OSTP guidelines which we believe represent a significant policy advancement for global scientific and academic research.

If enacted, the current Appropriations Bill will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the societal benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research that the U.S. government funds each year, as most of the research remains locked behind publishing paywalls. And it will remove the current requirement for commercial publishers to adapt their business models to make public access to science fair. Science for the few who can access it – as opposed to the many who pay for it – is inefficient as scientific or governmental policy….”

HELIOS Members Co-Author Research Software Policy Recommendations to Federal Agencies — Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship

Posted on by
Reply

“A cohort of HELIOS member representatives have joined with other open source experts to author a PLOS Biology perspective, “Policy recommendations to ensure that research software is openly accessible and reusable”. The piece provides policymaking guidance to federal agencies on leveraging research software to maximize research equity, transparency, and reproducibility. It makes the affirmative case that to accurately be able to replicate and reproduce results and build on shared data, we must not only have access to the data themselves, but also understand exactly how they were used and analyzed. To this end, federal agencies in the midst of developing their responses to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum on “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research” can and should ensure that research software is elevated as a core component of the scientific endeavor….”

Rapid Reaction Discussion on Sec. 552

Posted on by
Reply

“SPARC will host a rapid reaction discussion on Section 552 of the draft House CJS Appropriations bill, which would block all funding for implementation of the Nelson Memo and undermine 15 years of federal precedent in expanding public access to research.

On the call, we will share the latest updates, provide further guidance on engaging legislators, and answer questions from SPARC members about this language and the actions that you can take to help stop it.”

Policy recommendations to ensure that research software is openly accessible and reusable | PLOS Biology

Posted on by
Reply

“To do this, we recommend:

As part of their updated policy plans submitted in response to the 2022 OSTP memo, US federal agencies should, at a minimum, articulate a pathway for developing guidance on research software sharing, and, at a maximum, incorporate research software sharing requirements as a necessary extension of any data sharing policy and a critical strategy to make data truly FAIR (as these principles have been adapted to apply to research software [12]).
As part of sharing requirements, federal agencies should specify that research software should be deposited in trusted, public repositories that maximize discovery, collaborative development, version control, long-term preservation, and other key elements of the National Science and Technology Council’s “Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories for Federally Funded Research” [13], as adapted to fit the unique considerations of research software.
US federal agencies should encourage grantees to use non-proprietary software and file formats, whenever possible, to collect and store data. We realize that for some research areas and specialized techniques, viable non-proprietary software may not exist for data collection. However, in many cases, files can be exported and shared using non-proprietary formats or scripts can be provided to allow others to open files.
Consistent with the US Administration’s approach to cybersecurity [14], federal agencies should provide clear guidance on measures grantees are expected to undertake to ensure the security and integrity of research software. This guidance should encompass the design, development, dissemination, and documentation of research software. Examples include the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s secure software development framework and Linux Foundation’s open source security foundation.
As part of the allowable costs that grantees can request to help them meet research sharing requirements, US federal agencies should include reasonable costs associated with developing and maintaining research software needed to maximize data accessibility and reusability for as long as it is practical. Federal agencies should ensure that such costs are additive to proposal budgets, rather than consuming funds that would otherwise go to the research itself.
US federal agencies should encourage grantees to apply licenses to their research software that facilitate replication, reuse, and extensibility, while balancing individual and institutional intellectual property considerations. Agencies can point grantees to guidance on desirable criteria for distribution terms and approved licenses from the Open Source Initiative.
In parallel with the actions listed above that can be immediately incorporated into new public access plans, US federal agencies should also explore long-term strategies to elevate research software to co-equal research outputs and further incentivize its maintenance and sharing to improve research reproducibility, replicability, and integrity….”

Guest Post – The Nelson Memo and Public Access are Under Attack – Will Powerful Incumbents Come to its Rescue? – The Scholarly Kitchen

Posted on by
Reply

“On July 14, the Appropriations Committee of the US House of Representatives released the Fiscal Year 2024 bill for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. Section 552 of the bill, if passed into law, would effectively freeze the Nelson Memo for a year (specifically, through the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2024)….

To restate the question: will influential incumbents now fight for the Nelson Memo and its funding? Or will they see a chance to put it on ice or water it down, as they may have when the principles of Plan S in the UK and Europe were successfully (if controversially) implemented? …”

Oppose Section 552 That Will Block Taxpayer Access to Research – SPARC

Posted on by
Reply

“The U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) has released an appropriations bill containing language that would block implementation of the 2022 updated OSTP policy guidance (the Nelson Memo) that would ensure immediate, free access to taxpayer-funded research. If enacted, this will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research that the U.S. government funds each year.

Congress is currently working through its annual appropriations process and considering this troubling provision to block taxpayer access to research. Now is the time to tell Congress to remove Section 552 of the House Commerce, Justice, and Science bill! …”

Readout of OSTP Open Science Listening Sessions with Early Career Researchers | OSTP | The White House

Posted on by
Reply

“Throughout the sessions, participants made clear that early career researchers have long been at the forefront of the open science movement, so the future of open science must center their voices and recognize their leadership. Additional key messages included:

Equity must be embedded in open science policies and programs to promote a more inclusive and collaborative scientific ecosystem. Doing so requires recognizing and addressing uneven access to open science infrastructures, expertise, training, and funding to meet the diverse needs of researchers, institutions, and communities to enjoy the benefits of open science.
Dedicated funding and resources are needed to support both formal and informal training opportunities for early career researchers, who tend to be self-taught and are often not afforded dedicated time to learn open science practices. These include openly available training modules on topics like effective data management practices, ethical frameworks for data sharing, and tools to enhance reproducibility, as well as communities of practice, such as workshops and journal clubs.
Rewarding sharing of research outputs beyond publications, such as scientific data and software, in research and performance assessments can elevate their importance in scholarly communication and incentivize the time needed for effective curation and sharing practices. Speakers noted this can help ease the pressure to “publish or perish” within current incentive structures, which emphasize the volume of peer-reviewed publications that researchers must author, as well as enhancing research quality, reproducibility, and rigor.
Investing in centralized open science infrastructure and resources, as well as networks for knowledge sharing, can enable more equitable access to opportunities for technical assistance and skill development given these resources are not evenly distributed across research institutions, particularly lower-resourced or less research-intensive institutions.
Open science enables new pathways for how scientific information is communicated to various audiences. Some speakers advocated for increased sharing of preliminary research findings through preprints and resulting opportunities for open peer review. Others spoke to science communication and public engagement efforts to share research findings and connect with community advocates, science enthusiasts, and other members of the broader public.
Expanding equitable access to the products and processes of research can provide pathways to co-create research questions and solutions with communities and to develop hands-on educational opportunities by reusing openly available data and software.”

DOE Public Access Plan | Department of Energy

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Energy Public Access Plan (June 2023) describes how DOE-funded research and digital data will become more open and available to the public and how DOE will use persistent identifiers to help ensure scientific and research integrity. Building on the previous DOE Public Access Plan (July 2014), the new Plan charts a path to:

Provide free, immediate access to peer-reviewed, scholarly publications;
Provide immediate access to scientific data displayed in or underlying publications and increased access to other data;
Use persistent identifiers (PIDs) for research outputs, researchers, organizations, and awards.

Policy and implementation guidance related to the publications and data components of the Plan will be issued by December 31, 2024, followed by policy and guidance for PID requirements….”

U.S. Department of Energy Releases Plan to Ensure Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research | Department of Energy

Posted on by
Reply

“The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a plan to ensure the Department’s Federally funded research is more open and accessible to the public, researchers, and journalists as part of a broader effort by the Biden-Harris Administration to make government data more transparent. With 17 National Laboratories and scores of programs that fund university and private research, DOE directly supports thousands of research papers per year, and, when this plan goes into effect, those findings will be available immediately and at no cost….

DOE’s public access plan supports the August 2022 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memo that called for Federal agencies to “make publications and their supporting data resulting from federally funded research publicly accessible without an embargo on their free and public release.” The new plan describes the steps DOE will take to enable equitable access to the unclassified and unrestricted results of its multi-billion dollar annual investments in climate, energy, environment, and basic and applied research and development….”

Libraries leader participates in open science discussion hosted by White House | Penn State University

Posted on by
Reply

“Mihoko Hosoi, Penn State University Libraries associate dean for collections, research and scholarly communications, was among a group of librarians, college and university administrators, trainers and others invited to participate during a recent virtual listening session hosted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The June 12 public listening session was part of a series called A Year of Open Science, which aims to explore perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for advancing open science in the United States and solutions that might be considered for implemention by the federal government.

During the listening session, titled “Open Science Possibilities for Training and Capacity Building: Perspectives from the Early Career Researcher-Supporting Community,” Hosoi expressed support for the Aug. 24, 2022, OSTP memo that aims to support free, immediate and equitable access to federally funded research….”

Promoting Equitable and Inclusive Implementation of Open Scholarship Policies A Workshop | National Academies

Posted on by
Reply

“The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship will convene a virtual public workshop, Promoting Equitable and Inclusive Implementation of Open Scholarship Policies on Monday, June 26, 2023, 11:00 am – 2:30 pm EDT in conjunction with its Spring 2023 meeting. Please register in advance to receive information on how to attend the workshop. 

The workshop will explore the implications of new policies and practices intended to advance open scholarship, particularly the August 2022 memorandum of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research. The discussion will feature perspectives from a diverse range of speakers directly impacted by these developments, including early career researchers, representatives from minority-serving institutions, center directors, and not-for-profit publishers. A Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief will be prepared and distributed broadly.”

NSF Public Access Plan 2.0

Posted on by
Reply

“NSF’s updated public access plan integrates new agency guidance issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in August of 2022. This guidance, which includes zero-embargo public access for research publications and their supporting data, was developed with leadership from the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Open Science, in which NSF has always been actively engaged. NSF developed its plan while considering issues of importance to our many partners across academia and industry, and in alignment with all other U.S. agencies which fund scientific research. This plan is a first step, and we look forward to its further evolution as we address changes in technology and in the needs of members across our communities. Promoting immediate public access to federally funded research results and data is a critically important aspect of achieving the NSF mission of promoting the progress of science, securing the national defense, and advancing the national health, prosperity, and welfare. Indeed, scientific openness, academic freedom, scientific integrity, equity in science, and fairness are American values that rest on the pillar of public access to federally funded research and data….

The sections of this plan describe how NSF will ensure: • That all peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from NSF-funded research will be made freely available and publicly accessible by default in the NSF Public Access Repository, or NSF-PAR, without embargo or delay. • That scientific data associated with peer-reviewed publications resulting from NSF awards will be made available in appropriate scientific disciplinary repositories. • That exceptions to the data-sharing requirements will be made based on legal, privacy, ethical, intellectual property and national security considerations. • That persistent identifiers, or PIDs, and other critical metadata associated with peer-reviewed publications and data resulting from NSF-funded research will be collected and made publicly available in NSF-PAR. • That the agency coordinates with other federal funders of scientific research in implementing new public access requirements….

Primary areas of interest that will shape NSF policy as implementation approaches are formulated include: • Minimizing the equity impact of over-reliance on article processing charges, or APCs, also known as the “Gold Open Access” publication model, including inequity for fields, organizations or researchers lacking access to funding; consequences of possible citation bias; the impact on ability to fund research and training activities; and potential negative impacts with respect to public trust. • Promoting use of author’s accepted manuscripts, or AAMs, as a no-cost option to comply with public access requirements. • Minimizing the consequences of changing publishing ecosystems, including impacts for organizations least able to weather dramatic changes to subscription policies, which can increase precarity for those affiliated with these organizations. • Ameliorating the possible impacts of large APCs on small awards. • Involving affected communities regarding issues associated with data collection, data governance, verifying permitted data access, and data destruction, particularly for groups that have previously suffered from the appropriation or misuse of data. 19 • Ensure accessibility of data and results, including access to data cyberinfrastructures for under-resourced and underserved institutions/researchers, as well as considerations for persons with visual disabilities. 20 • Maximizing the reach and impact of U.S. research while seeking to minimize both access barriers in underresourced and underserved communities and challenges related to the language or interpretability of data. • Identifying the full range of costs (tangible and intangible) associated with data provision and addressing any inequities introduced by these costs. • Developing processes for addressing inequities identified in sharing and accessing research findings….”