Open Access Mandates in Universities: Challenges and Opportunities

“An Open Access mandate refers to a policy adopted by a funder, institution or the government which necessitates researchers to make their research articles public. This can be done via two routes: Green OA or Gold OA. The former refers to the researcher depositing her research article to an open access repository, generally institutional. The latter refers to submission of research to open access journals?—?some of which may levy Article Processing Charges (APCs) that can be paid by the researcher, his institution or from the research grant.

Universities that have adopted OA mandates include Harvard University (the first to do so), MIT, ETH Zurich, University of Liege and University College London. Harvard University has also developed a model policy language document for institutions looking to implement an open access policy for their faculty….”

Implementation & Integration: CDL for All Libraries

“For the second event in a series about the innovative library practice of Controlled Digital Lending, we’ll hear from libraries, consortia, and librarians who are exploring CDL implementations at their institutions and communities with hands on learning around potential and existing solutions. Learn about building institutional CDL policies, user experience for patrons and staff, technological platforms, and how you can get involved with the CDL community. Bring your questions, ideas, and be prepared to dig in!”

OA.Works receives $1.9 million to bolster OA policies

“We’re thrilled to announce that OA Works (formerly Open Access Button) has received a grant of $1.9M USD over the next three years from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The investment expands OA.Work’s efforts to streamline self-archiving through ShareYourPaper, and forges a new partnership with the foundation to develop tools that help put OA policies into practice. We’re building three new open-source services for the foundation and other institutions, including:

OAreport: to discover, analyze, and unlock papers covered by OA policies.
ShareYourPaper for Funders: to bring drag-and-drop self-archiving to funders and their grantees.
OAsupport: to provide a help desk that serves authors making their work open access….”

Bilan du Plan national pour la science ouverte : des engagements tenus, des avancées majeures réalisées en 3 ans – Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation

“On July 4, 2018, Frédérique Vidal, Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, launched the National Plan for Open Science on the occasion of the LIBER days, which bring together more than 400 European university libraries, in the University of Lille.

The report on the implementation of the plan published today traces the many actions carried out during these three years and is a powerful testimony to the respect of the commitments made .

The National Open Science Fund was created , it launched two calls for projects in favor of open scientific publication and it supported structuring international initiatives.  
Substantial resources have been deployed to strengthen and perpetuate the national open archive HAL, both technically and for its governance and economic model.  
The National Research Agency and other funding agencies now require open access to publications and the drafting of data management plans for the projects they fund.  
The function of ministerial research data administrator has been created and a network is being deployed in the establishments. It is about having a strategic vision on the management and openness of research data.  
Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice in everyday research have been published.  
About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy.  
France has taken its full place at European and international level to promote its vision of open science  : – the National Open Science Fund has supported structuring international initiatives, such as Software Heritage, the world archive of software, or Research Data Alliance, – it plays its full part in the structuring of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and participates in its governance….”

OA Policy Formulation, Adoption and Implementation Forum | EIFL

“EIFL Open Access Coordinator in Kenya, Dr George Gitau, Chief University Librarian at Kenyatta University, Iryna Kuchma, EIFL Open Access Programme Manager, and Rosemary Otando, Deputy University Librarian at the University of Nairobi, will facilitate the Open Access Policy Formulation, Adoption and Implementation Forum at Amref International University. 

The Forum will comprise two parts. First, there will be presentations and discussion of emerging trends in the open access movement, open access repositories, open access journal publishing and open access policy development. The facilitators will highlight how open access contributes to institutional and researcher visibility, and the importance of ORCID and Google Scholar indexing, copyright, licensing and plagiarism issues….”

Ouvrir la Science – The Committee for Open Science

“The mission of this committee is to propose the directions that Open Science should take and to teach the subjects on questions of Open Science, as well as to animate and accompany the actions associated with it, in a fluid structure that simplifies the expression of ideas, suggestions and contributions, and their transmission to the different working groups.

The Steering Committee for Open Science ensures the implementation of a policy supporting open publications and research data. The committee’s missions are:

To ensure the coordinated implementation with higher education and research of a national plan aimed at making all publications and research data openly available;
To enable the development of open science skills in the scientific community;
To coordinate national action in the field of open science on the European and international levels;
To define the principles and directions to be adopted concerning the assignment of financing from the national fund for open science and how it is used;
To define the principles and directions to be adopted for negotiations with the main scientific publishers;
To propose all actions likely to strengthen or promote the access to knowledge or research data to ministers of higher education and research and all public authorities….”

 

SPACE to evolve academic assessment: A rubric for analyzing institutional conditions and progress indicators | DORA

“This is part of DORA’s toolkit of resources to support academic institutions that are improving their policies and practices. Find the other resources in the toolkit here.

Improving research and scholarship assessment practices requires the ability to analyze the outcomes of efforts and interventions. However, when conducted only at the unit level of individual interventions, these evaluations and reflections miss opportunities to understand how institutional conditions themselves set the table for the success of new efforts, or how developing institutional capabilities might improve the effectiveness and impact of these new practices at greater scale. The SPACE rubric was developed to help institutions at any stage of academic assessment reform gauge their institutional ability to support interventions and set them up for success.

Organizations can use the SPACE rubric to support the implementation of fair and responsible academic career assessment practices in two ways: First, it can help establish a baseline for the current state of infrastructural conditions, to gauge an institution’s ability to support the development and implementation of new academic assessment practices and activities. Second, the rubric can be used to retroactively analyze how strengths or gaps in these institutional conditions may have impacted the outcomes of concrete interventions targeted to specific types of academic assessment activities—such as hiring, promotion, tenure, or even graduate student evaluation—either helping or hindering progress toward those goals.

The SPACE rubric is a result of DORA’s partnership with Ruth Schmidt, Associate Professor at the Institute of Design of the Illinois Institute of Technology, who led the iterative participatory design process. The creation of the rubric was informed by nearly 75 individuals in 26 countries and 6 continents, and benefited from multiple rounds of feedback….”

Pampel (2021) Strategische und operative Handlungsoptionen fu?r wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation (Strategic And Operational Options For Research Institutions To Shape The Open Access Transformation) | eDoc server, HU Berlin

Pampel, Heinz. 2021. ‘Strategische Und Operative Handlungsoptionen Für Wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen Zur Gestaltung Der Open-Access-Transformation’. PhD Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät. https://doi.org/10.18452/22946.

This thesis investigates the role of research institutions in Germany in transforming scholarly publishing from subscription to Open Access in the field of scientific journals. Open Access transformation aims to overcome the traditional subscription model to further innovative methods of digital scholarly communication. The study examines the options open to higher education institutions and research performing organizations for shaping the Open Access transformation. The thesis presents a description of these options in the areas of strategy and communication, services and infrastructures, business relations with publishers and cooperation. Then, the implementation of these options in practice was analyzed. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among 701 academic institutions in Germany. The response rate of 403 responding institutions (57.49%) can be considered very positive. This survey, which is probably the most comprehensive on the subject to date, shows that higher education institutions and research performing organizations in Germany have so far implement-ed only a few options for promoting Open Access. While the distribution of Open Access repositories is positive, the handling of Open Access publication charges and the associated monitoring of publication costs are still at the beginning. The results of the survey indicate a high need for action. The presented quantitative survey closes the gap of missing data on Open Access in Germany. Based on this new dataset, the study formulates recommendations for further engagement with the Open Access transformation at research institutions in Germany. One focus is on activities that arise in the area of academic libraries.

 

Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.

Methods

We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal’s policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.

Discussion

The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation.

How the Centre for Journalology hopes to fix science

“Still, Moher acknowledges that the center has not fully engaged with policy makers—the research funders, journal editors, and institutional leaders who have the power to change norms. He cites the need to gather evidence before suggesting any changes to the status quo. “We have the evidence in lots of areas now, and I think what we need to do is actually try to work much closer with policy people now,” he says. Part of that effort involves putting together an open-science dashboard to help institutions keep track of their own accomplishments and shortcomings in how accessible their research is.

The center is also building collaborations with institutions to help them implement open-science practices. An example, Moher says, is the Montreal Neurological Institute, where the Centre for Journalology is auditing data-sharing practices and introducing an educational program to make data sharing the norm. If that effort is successful, “we’ll slowly start to introduce other open-science practices,” he says….”

 

Open access: it works best when enforced | Campus Morning Mail

“Last month the National Health and Medical Research Council sought submissions on going immediate OA on publication. If publishers refuse the council suggested authors’ accepted manuscripts could be made available by named institutional repositories (CMM April 16).

Which is good, but Drs Kingsley and Smith (both ex Cambridge University’s Office of Scholarly Communication) suggest tighter wording to make intent impossible to ignore.

And they call for checks, which institutions could use to make sure OA actually occurs. “There is evidence that even ‘light touch’ compliance checking results in significant behavioural change,” they write. Especially if “there is a significant consequence for non-compliance,” – which could be tying grants to OA rules….”

Forside – Dansk Open Access-Indikator

From Google’s English:  “The indicator is produced and launched annually by the Danish Agency for Education and Research, which is part of the Ministry of Education and Research. The indicator monitors the implementation of the Danish Open Access strategy 2018-2025 by collecting and analyzing publication data from the Danish universities.

Main menu:

OVERVIEW – National strategic goals and the realization of them at national and university level.
OA TYPES – Types of Open Access realization at national and local level.
DATA – Data for download as well as documentation at an overview and technical level.
GUIDANCE – Information to support the Danish universities’ implementation of Open Access, such as important dates and guidelines.
FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions….”

Advancing Scientific Integrity, Transparency, and Openness in Child Development Research: Challenges and Possible Solutions – Gilmore – 2020 – Child Development Perspectives – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  In 2019, the Governing Council of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) adopted a Policy on Scientific Integrity, Transparency, and Openness (SRCD, 2019a) and accompanying Author Guidelines on Scientific Integrity and Openness in Child Development (SRCD, 2019b). In this issue, a companion article (Gennetian, Tamis?LeMonda, & Frank) discusses the opportunities to realize SRCD’s vision for a science of child development that is open, transparent, robust, and impactful. In this article, we discuss some of the challenges associated with realizing SRCD’s vision. In identifying these challenges—protecting participants and researchers from harm, respecting diversity, and balancing the benefits of change with the costs—we also offer constructive solutions.