Open Research Infrastructure Programs at LYRASIS

“Academic libraries, and institutional repositories in particular, play a key role in the ongoing quest for ways to gather metrics and connect the dots between researchers and research contributions in order to measure “institutional impact,” while also streamlining workflows to reduce administrative burden. Identifying accurate metrics and measurements for illustrating “impact” is a goal that many academic research institutions share, but these goals can only be met to the extent that all organizations across the research and scholarly communication landscape are using best practices and shared standards in research infrastructure. For example, persistent identifiers (PIDs) such as ORCID iDs (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) and DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) have emerged as crucial best practices for establishing connections between researchers and their contributions while also serving as a mechanism for interoperability in sharing data across systems. The more institutions using persistent identifiers (PIDs) in their workflows, the more connections can be made between entities, making research objects more FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). Also, when measuring institutional repository usage, clean, comparable, standards-based statistics are needed for accurate internal assessment, as well as for benchmarking with peer institutions….”

Open Research Infrastructure Programs at LYRASIS

“Academic libraries, and institutional repositories in particular, play a key role in the ongoing quest for ways to gather metrics and connect the dots between researchers and research contributions in order to measure “institutional impact,” while also streamlining workflows to reduce administrative burden. Identifying accurate metrics and measurements for illustrating “impact” is a goal that many academic research institutions share, but these goals can only be met to the extent that all organizations across the research and scholarly communication landscape are using best practices and shared standards in research infrastructure. For example, persistent identifiers (PIDs) such as ORCID iDs (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) and DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) have emerged as crucial best practices for establishing connections between researchers and their contributions while also serving as a mechanism for interoperability in sharing data across systems. The more institutions using persistent identifiers (PIDs) in their workflows, the more connections can be made between entities, making research objects more FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). Also, when measuring institutional repository usage, clean, comparable, standards-based statistics are needed for accurate internal assessment, as well as for benchmarking with peer institutions….”

Making Strides in Research Reporting – The Official PLOS Blog

“PLOS keeps a watchful and enthusiastic eye on emerging research, and we update our policies as needed to address new challenges and opportunities that surface. In doing so, we work to advance our core mission and values aimed at transforming research communication and promoting Open Science. 

Here, I summarize a few key updates we made between 2016-2021….”

New OSF enhancements for community-developed, open source infrastructure

“Not only do researchers use OSF as a tool to accelerate science by collaborating, managing and sharing their research; they’re also stakeholders in its sustainable development through the ability to access, review, interact with, and contribute to OSF’s open source code. 

By its nature, open source infrastructure is community oriented. The transparent OSF code invites the community of researchers and science stakeholders working to increase rigor and reproducibility to contribute code and ideas to enhance functionality, and benefit from the enhanced security and reliability by their involvement and review throughout the development process. These communities of researchers trust the OSF, and support it by maintaining its alignment to their needs by providing feedback and extending its use through third-party integrations. This continuum is propelled as OSF’s community of developers, users, and partners work together toward a shared vision: to accelerate scientific progress.

Together, an inclusive and open technology enables communities to embrace transparent and rigorous research practices with assurance that the infrastructure embodies the same principles of openness, transparency, and inclusion. As such, we prioritize the transparent development of an OSF experience that facilitates sustainability and mitigates technical barriers to the adoption of open and rigorous practices. 

A recent example of these priorities in action is the new Central Authentication Service (CAS) update for OSF, a state-of-the-art authentication framework that enhances the OSF login interface and brings a smoother, faster integration experience with external identity providers like ORCID and research institutions….”

New OSF enhancements for community-developed, open source infrastructure

“Not only do researchers use OSF as a tool to accelerate science by collaborating, managing and sharing their research; they’re also stakeholders in its sustainable development through the ability to access, review, interact with, and contribute to OSF’s open source code. 

By its nature, open source infrastructure is community oriented. The transparent OSF code invites the community of researchers and science stakeholders working to increase rigor and reproducibility to contribute code and ideas to enhance functionality, and benefit from the enhanced security and reliability by their involvement and review throughout the development process. These communities of researchers trust the OSF, and support it by maintaining its alignment to their needs by providing feedback and extending its use through third-party integrations. This continuum is propelled as OSF’s community of developers, users, and partners work together toward a shared vision: to accelerate scientific progress.

Together, an inclusive and open technology enables communities to embrace transparent and rigorous research practices with assurance that the infrastructure embodies the same principles of openness, transparency, and inclusion. As such, we prioritize the transparent development of an OSF experience that facilitates sustainability and mitigates technical barriers to the adoption of open and rigorous practices. 

A recent example of these priorities in action is the new Central Authentication Service (CAS) update for OSF, a state-of-the-art authentication framework that enhances the OSF login interface and brings a smoother, faster integration experience with external identity providers like ORCID and research institutions….”

Érudit joins ORCID-CA | Canadian Research Knowledge Network

“CRKN and the ORCID-CA Consortium are pleased to welcome Érudit to ORCID-CA. By becoming a member of ORCID-CA, Érudit aims to promote the use of ORCID identifiers among its community and integrate the ORCID unique and persistent identifier registry into its platform. The Érudit.org platform is now the main access point for research in the humanities and social sciences in Canada. Its collections, mostly open access, are consulted worldwide by both academic researchers and the general public….”

PID Strategy of Dutch Research Council (NWO) – PID Best Practices – The PID Forum

“The Dutch Research Council (NWO) has published its Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy to improve its capacity for analysing the impact of research. In the Persistent Identifier (PID) strategy NWO describes how it will gradually implement PIDs in the coming years. PIDs are an increasingly important component of scholarly communication because of the increased digitisation of research. They ensure that research is findable and contribute to save researchers time and effort.

The NWO PID strategy can be summarised by the following five recommendations:

Implement ORCID ID for researchers into grant application, peer review, and project reporting workflows.
Implement Crossref Grant ID in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Implement research organisation IDs in grant application and project reporting workflows.
Contribute to shaping the national PID landscape by participating in the ORCID-NL consortium and in a future PID Advisory Board.
Collaborate with other funders in the international PID landscape, for instance within the context of Science Europe….”

Open Research Quarterly Update – Issue 2: June 2021

“Hello, and welcome to the June issue of the Open Research Quarterly Update (Digest). Here in the Open Research Services team at Jisc our mission is to help members embrace the benefits of open research by removing barriers, embedding open practices and developing open infrastructure. Much of our focus across Jisc involves working with the sector to negotiate agreements and develop services which underpin open research. This quarter’s update includes numerous examples of this in action.

Publications Router continues to expand its publishers’ contributions, while the Sherpa team have developed a new dataset which will provide details of Transitional Agreements to our users. In addition, Jisc Collections have been working with SCONUL to provide the Unsub dashboard. This month sees the first meeting of the Research Identifier National Coordinating Council (RINCC) on 21st June, which will coincide with the publication of a Cost Benefit Analysis Report, funded by the UK Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) for Open Access project….”

Abuse of ORCID’s weaknesses by authors who use paper mills | SpringerLink

Abstract:  In many countries around the world that use authorship and academic papers for career advancement and recognition, the accurate identity of participating authors is vital. ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), an author disambiguation tool that was created in 2012, is being vociferously implemented across a wide swathe of journals, including by many leading publishers. In some countries, authors who publish in indexed journals, particularly in journals that carry a Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Impact Factor, are rewarded, sometimes even monetarily. A strong incentive to cheat and abuse the publication ethos thus exists. There has been a recent spike in the detection of papers apparently derived from paper mills that have multiple issues with figures. The use of such figures across many papers compromises the integrity of the content in all those papers, with widespread ramifications for the integrity of the biomedical literature and of journals that may be gamed by academics. The use of ORCID does not guarantee the authenticity of authors associated with a paper mill-derived paper, nor does it fortify the paper’s integrity. These weaknesses of ORCID may dampen trust in this tool, especially if the ORCID platform is being populated by “ghost” (empty) ORCID accounts of academics whose identities cannot be clearly verified, or disposable accounts (perhaps created by paper mill operators) that are used only once, exclusively to pass the paper submission step. Open-source forensic tools to assist academics, editors and publishers to detect problematic figures, and more stringent measures by ORCID to ensure robust author identity verification, are urgently required to protect themselves, and the wider biomedical literature.

 

New Open Access Business Models – What’s Needed to Make Them Work? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The third CHORUS Forum meeting, held last week, is a relatively new entrant into the scholarly communication meeting calendar. The meeting has proven to be a rare opportunity to bring together publishers, researchers, librarians, and research funders. I helped organize and moderated a session during the Forum, on the theme of “Making the Future of Open Research Work.” You can watch my session, which looked at new models for sustainable and robust open access (OA) publishing, along with the rest of the meeting in the video below.

The session focuses on the operationalization of the move to open access and the details of what it takes to experiment with a new business model. The model the community has the most experience with, the individual author paying an article-processing-charge (APC), works really well for some authors, in some subject areas, in some geographies. But it is not a universal solution to making open access work and it creates new inequities as it resolves others….

Some of the key takeaways for me were found in the commonalities across all of the models. The biggest hurdle that each organization faced in executing its plans was gathering and analyzing author data. As Sara put it, “Data hygiene makes or breaks all of these models.” For PLOS and the ACM, what they’re asking libraries to support is authorship – the model essentially says “this many papers had authors from your institution and what you pay will largely be based on the volume of your output.” But disambiguating author identity, and especially identifying which institutions each represents, remains an enormous problem. While we do have persistent identifiers (PIDs) like ORCID, and the still-under-development ROR, their use is not universal, and we still lack a unifying mechanism to connect the various PIDs into a simple, functional tool to support this type of analysis.

One solution would be requiring authors to accurately identify their host institutions from a controlled vocabulary, but this runs up against most publishers’ desire to streamline the article submission process. There’s a balance to be struck, but probably one that’s going to ask authors to provide more accurate and detailed information….

[M]oving beyond the APC is essential to the long-term viability of open access, and there remains much experimentation to be done….”

Persistent Identifiers Connect a Scholarly Record with Many Versions – Association of Research Libraries

“When publishers speak about linked research and scholarship only in terms of the market transition to open access, it is an inherently limiting view of scholarly research. In this context, concern for the version of record reflects a business interest, not a scholarly value. As a stewardship strategy, insisting on only publisher-hosted versions of record does not align with a modern research workflow inclusive of multiple tools and potential repositories. Recently, a number of publishers have expressed the “version of record” concern with regards to the PlanS “Rights Retention Strategy.” Yet, as was pointed out in the response by cOAlition S, establishing and maintaining relationships to other versions of articles or research assets has already been shown to be successful in disciplinary and scholarly communities.

Whereas the published, printed version of the research article was once the authoritative source of research, new modes of publishing and the publishing of other research outputs (postprints, protocols, data, code, etc.) have made the term “version of record” all but irrelevant. The scholarly communications landscape has already moved into what Herbert Van de Sompel, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Bosman call a “record of versions,” where persistent identifiers (PIDs) enhance the discoverability and linking of research outputs regardless of where those outputs are housed….

The continued insistence on “version of record”—including using the VOR date instead of the issue date to calculate journal impact factors—is also a subtle attempt by some commercial publishers to continue to exert control over the entire scholarly communications ecosystem and to be seen as sole authorities or stewards of research publishing. Thus, there is a pressing need to shift the dialogue from a single “version of record” to a “record of versions” that encompasses multiple versions and outputs, and makes room for a more diverse and inclusive publishing environment….”