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….”

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….”

Accelerating Open Access 2021 Annual Review [cOAlition S]

“This report presents an overview of the activities we have undertaken in 2021, the levels of OA compliance amongst cOAlition S funders, and the latest news on the tools and services we are developing, such as the Journal Checker Tool and the Journal Comparison Service. Next, we outline our support for new publishing models, highlighting the progress on the Transformative Journals framework, the publishers’ reaction to the Rights Retention Strategy, and our role in encouraging small society publishers to move to Open Access. cOAlition S has also supported the publication of a report on Diamond journals and has issued a statement on Open Access for academic books. Looking forward, cOAlition S has identified three strategic priorities for 2022, which we present in the last part of this review….”

OSF Preprints | FAST principles for preprint feedback

Abstract:  There has been strong interest in preprint commenting and review activities in recent years. Public preprint feedback can bring benefits to authors, readers and others in scholarly communication, however, the level of public commenting on preprints is still low. This is likely due to cultural barriers, such as fear by authors that criticisms on their paper will bias readers, editors and evaluators, and concerns by commenters that posting a public critique on a preprint by a more senior colleague may lead to retribution. In order to help address these cultural barriers and foster positive and constructive participation in public preprint feedback, we have developed a set of 14 principles for creating, responding to, and interpreting preprint feedback. The principles are clustered around four broad themes: Focused, Appropriate, Specific, Transparent (FAST). We describe each of the FAST principles and designate which actors (authors, reviewers and the community) each of the principles applies to. We discuss the possible implementation of the FAST principles by different stakeholders in science communication, and explore what opportunities and challenges lie ahead in the path towards a thriving preprint feedback ecosystem.

FAST principles for a thriving preprint feedback culture – ASAPbio

“There are many benefits to public feedback on preprints: comments that can help authors improve their work, broader opportunities for early career researchers to participate in review, and additional context for readers. However, we have not yet seen wide engagement in the public review of preprints. This is likely due to cultural barriers: there is a lack of incentives for researchers to participate in preprint review, but there can be risks associated with posting pointed critiques, however constructive, on the paper by another researcher whose favour you may require for a future job or grant.

If we are to foster a positive and thriving environment for public preprint feedback, we need to collectively agree on the norms and behaviors we expect when creating, responding to, and interpreting preprint feedback. This was the remit of the ASAPbio preprint review cultural norms Working Group, which has been developing a set of principles for preprint feedback over the last six months. Following the initial draft shared last July, the Working Group has iterated on the principles based on feedback and has discussed their potential use by different stakeholders in science communication.

We are pleased to now share the FAST principles for preprint feedback. This is a set of 14 principles clustered around four broad themes: Focused, Appropriate, Specific, and Transparent (FAST). Each principle includes a designation for the actors it applies to: authors, reviewers and the community….”