“Who Is the FAIRest of Them All?” Authors, Entities, and Journals Regarding FAIR Data Principles

Abstract:  The perceived need to improve the infrastructure supporting the re-use of scholarly data since the second decade of the 21st century led to the design of a concise number of principles and metrics, named FAIR Data Principles. This paper, part of an extended study, intends to identify the main authors, entities, and scientific journals linked to research conducted within the FAIR Data Principles. The research was developed by means of a qualitative approach, using documentary research and a constant comparison method for codification and categorization of the sampled data. The sample studied showed that most authors were located in the Netherlands, with Europe accounting for more than 70% of the number of authors considered. Most of these are researchers and work in higher education institutions. These entities can be found in most of the territorial-administrative areas under consideration, with the USA being the country with more entities and Europe being the world region where they are more numerous. The journal with more texts in the used sample was Insights, with 2020 being the year when more texts were published. Two of the most prominent authors present in the sample texts were located in the Netherlands, while the other two were in France and Australia.


Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment

“As signatories of this Agreement, we agree on the need to reform research assessment practices. Our vision is that the assessment of research, researchers and research organisations recognises the diverse outputs, practices and activities that maximise the quality and impact of research. This requires basing assessment primarily on qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central, supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators. Among other purposes, this is fundamental for: deciding which researchers to recruit, promote or reward, selecting which research proposals to fund, and identifying which research units and organisations to support….”


2021-12-03_SustainableOpenScholarshipatUTAustin-Final.pdf | Powered by Box

“The strategic planning process that President Hartzell laid out included the announcement of the strategic aspirations and pillars12 that support the strategic direction of the university to become the world’s highest-impact public research university. These aspirations cover the range of impacts UT Austin will have on people, place, and the pursuit of transformative experiences, education, and research. The “people” pillar includes an expectation that UT Austin will “foster free and open discourse to enhance knowledge and understanding” (University of Texas at Austin, 2021a, emphasis original). Further, our pursuit is to “embody our public mission to serveTexas, the United States and the world” and to “advance ambitious research, scholarship and creative arts” by “operat(ing) best-in-class research infrastructure and resources” (University of Texas at Austin, 2021a, emphasis original). How do we achieve such laudably lofty goals? The University will need to take a multi-faceted approach to achieve these and the rest of the aims in our strategic direction, but we would argue that one of the fundamental blocks in the foundation for this plan is embracing open scholarshipin ways that can be sustained and encouraged to flourish at UT Austin….”

KU University Senate approves resolution supporting open access

“KU’s University Senate unanimously approved a resolution adopting principles of open access at the university. 

The resolution outlines two key components. First, it encourages KU scholars to publish in open access journals and/or archive their articles in KU’s open access digital repository, KU ScholarWorks.

Second, it encourages the libraries to include open access as a guiding principle in journal negotiations for the university and to “prioritize openness by crafting agreements that advance open access and other methods of open dissemination for research outputs.” 

The resolution was put forth in part as a continuation of KU Libraries’ open access initiatives, which include publisher negotiations. Negotiations working toward providing the best possible collections have been challenged by the costs of large journal packages, particularly those by large commercial publishers such as Elsevier, SAGE and Wiley, as journal packages and other collections costs continue to rise. …”

An Open Science Roadmap for Swedish Higher Education Institutions | Nordic Perspectives on Open Science

Abstract:  In the spring of 2021, a National Open Science Roadmap for Swedish Higher Education Institutions (HEI) was adopted by The Association of Swedish HEIs. The roadmap’s eight principles aim to guide the HEIs’ development of local structures and processes, speed up their concrete actions and encourage their collaboration in the shift to Open Science. The recommendations are concentrated on specific measures for open access to research data and research publications at HEIs. The primary target group for the roadmap is university management at Swedish HEIs. In the spring of 2022 the roadmap is to be supplemented by an action plan for Open Science.


OSU, PSU and UO Libraries initiate negotiations with Elsevier | Libraries | Oregon State University

Oregon State University Libraries, Portland State University Library, and the University of Oregon Libraries are entering into contract negotiations with Elsevier for journal access in 2023, and for up to three years beyond that. For the sake of transparency, we want to reach out to our respective campuses to provide you with the goals we hope to achieve with this renewal cycle.

EIFL principles for negotiating open access agreements with publishers

“In order to contribute to making open access the default where research articles are openly available for everyone to read and publishing in open access is affordable, EIFL has developed a set of principles for negotiating agreements with publishers, drawing on negotiation principles developed by other library organizations. EIFL represents library consortia in countries with a wide range of economic situations. Some of the library consortia receive free access whereas others are eligible for highly discounted access to paywalled content….”

Open Research Principles – CHORUS

“Open research is concerned with making scientific research more transparent, more collaborative and more efficient. Other aspects are more open forms of collaboration and engagement with a wider audience. The following principles were set forth by CHORUS in support of open research.

We believe in sustainable Open Access practices and workflows.
We believe that it should be easy for researchers to understand how publishing in our publications will support them in complying with funder OA mandates.
We believe users should be directed to the best version of an article available to them, ideally the Version of Record on the publisher site, where they may find essential context, tools, and information.
We believe all parties should be able to track funded research literature with minimal administrative overheads.
We believe data associated with research, as well as methods and code, should comply with relevant FAIR principles, taking into account differences between fields and categories of research objects.”

Recommended Principles and Terms for Electronic Resource Agreements

“The following set of eleven principles for library content licenses was developed by a group of representatives from ASERL member libraries with several goals in mind: 

To make life easier for our colleagues by setting out what we consider to be the ideals libraries should pursue in each of the license terms covered here, as well as an example of license language that achieves those ideals, where possible. 

To give guidance to vendors so that they can present libraries with terms that are acceptable at the outset, saving everyone time and effort in negotiations. 

To establish and strengthen norms around licensing terms in key areas that may be the subject of uncertainty or disagreement between libraries and vendors to best serve libraries’ missions. 

ASERL believes every provision in a content license presents both parties with an opportunity to affirm core values. We are hopeful that this document will help ensure library values shape and inform the licenses that govern the information our institutions acquire on behalf of our users….”

FAST principles for preprint feedback – ASAPbio

“While preprint feedback is beneficial for the authors, reviewers, readers and other stakeholders, public commenting on preprints has so far remained relatively low. Cultural barriers likely influence participation in public preprint feedback. Authors fear that competitors will leave unfair criticism, or that even fair criticism will bias journal editors and evaluators: while nearly every paper will be thoroughly criticized during journal peer review, the rarity of this feedback being out in the open might lead some to believe that the paper receiving it is especially problematic. Potential reviewers, especially those who rely on more senior colleagues for career advancement, are concerned about retribution for public criticism, or simply harming their reputation by leaving uninformed feedback.

In order to overcome these concerns, we convened a Working Group to discuss how to alleviate the social friction associated with public feedback by developing a set of behavioral norms to guide constructive participation in preprint review. The Working Group brought together relevant stakeholders (researchers, editors, preprint review platform representatives, funders) to discuss the challenges around participation in preprint review and explore what cultural norms could enable and foster further participation in public commentary and feedback. …”

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….”