NOT-OD-22-189: Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

“The purpose of this notice is to inform the extramural research community of implementation details for the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (DMS Policy) affecting grant and cooperative agreement applications submitted for receipt dates on or after January 25, 2023. The specific changes to competing grant and cooperative agreement application instructions clarified below will be implemented with application form packages identified with a Competition ID of “FORMS-H” and incorporated into the forthcoming FORMS-H application guides.

Although the DMS Policy will apply also to Research and Development (R&D) contracts, NIH intramural research projects, and other funding agreements (e.g., Other Transactions), the forms changes and other implementation details provided in this Notice apply only to NIH extramural grant and cooperative agreement activities. Details applicable to R&D contracts will be incorporated into the appropriate Requests for Proposals, and details applicable to Other Transactions will be incorporated into the appropriate Research Opportunity Announcement….”

Opening the Future: How to Implement an Equitable Revenue Model for Open Access Monographs | Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Eve, Martin Paul, Pinter, Frances, Poznanski, Emily, & Grady, Tom. (2022). Opening the Future: How to Implement an Equitable Revenue Model for Open Access Monographs (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6907707

Abstract:

COVID-19 has thrown many aspects of university research culture into acute relief. As the reality of the virus dawned and campuses worldwide went into lockdown, publishers scrambled to unpaywall their research. Publishers made topical works and more general material openly available, through their own sites and platforms such as Project Muse and JSTOR. Physical collections became inaccessible and demand for openly accessible research skyrocketed. It is unclear that it is desirable to return to the previous systems of scholarly communication in the book publishing world, in which physical copies may remain affordable, even while e-licensing agreements for libraries are not.

This has been recognised in several recent global policy announcements including the cOAlition S/Plan S guidelines, and the recent UKRI consultation on OA. The latter’s proposed measures include the possibility of zero-embargo green OA, more liberal open licensing, and the long- vaunted requirement for funded monographs to be in scope. This last element built on a longstanding policy history in the UK foreshadowing a mandate for OA monographs.

That said, the path to OA monographs is not free of obstacles. Among the many issues, the most frequently raised is the business model of Book Processing Charges (BPCs) and their apparent unaffordability, mostly due to distributional allocation of library resources. Happily, several recent reports have detailed non-BPC OA revenue and business models that presses could use to transition to OA – one of the most recent being COPIM’s Revenue models for Open Access monographs 2020.

That report describes a variation on the journal ‘Subscribe to Open’ model whereby members ‘subscribe to a backlist, with the revenue then used to make the frontlist openly accessible’. This constitutes a new business model for OA monographs that had not previously been implemented. We implemented this model, dubbed ‘Opening the Future,’ in a partnership between the COPIM project, the Central European University Press (CEUP), and Liverpool University Press (LUP). This model presents a potential route for the mass and sustainable transition to OA of many small-to-mid sized university presses.

This document sets out how we implemented this model, including the documentation of challenges, resources, timetables, and activities. It is intended as a roadmap for other presses that wish to implement an ‘Opening the Future’-esque model. Of course, this document is unlikely to cover everything, but the authors are happy to respond to individual queries where this will prove helpful.

Monagle & Taylor (2022) Assessing and managing transitional read and publish deals: a University of Salford case study

Monagle, Helen, and Wendy Taylor. 2022. “Assessing and Managing Transitional Read and Publish Deals: A University of Salford Case Study”. Insights 35: 12. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.581

Abstract

This case study explores the processes and challenges of assessing and managing transitional agreements (TAs) at the University of Salford. TAs are contracts with publishers that shift spending from subscriptions to open access and therefore enable the transition to full and immediate open access for research articles. As a teaching-intensive and research-informed university with a small team, Salford needs to ensure that transitional deals are managed effectively and efficiently to maximize our resources and provide the content and publishing opportunities needed to support our teaching and research strategies. Here we describe our processes and the challenges we have faced working remotely and across teams. Finally, we reflect on future developments and how we can continue to adapt and develop our processes as the scholarly landscape evolves.

 

Gardner et al. (2022) Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: a publisher case study

Gardner, Victoria, Mark Robinson, and Elisabetta O’Connell. 2022. “Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: A Publisher Case Study”. Insights 35: 7. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.573

Abstract

There has been much debate around the role of metrics in scholarly communication, with particular focus on the misapplication of journal metrics, such as the impact factor in the assessment of research and researchers. Various initiatives have advocated for a change in this culture, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which invites stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication ecosystem to sign up and show their support for practices designed to address the misuse of metrics. This case study provides an overview of the process undertaken by a large academic publisher (Taylor & Francis Group) in signing up to DORA and implementing some of its key practices in the hope that it will provide some guidance to others considering becoming a signatory. Our experience suggests that research, consultation and flexibility are crucial components of the process. Additionally, approaching signing with a project mindset versus a ‘sign and forget’ mentality can help organizations to understand the practical implications of signing, to anticipate and mitigate potential obstacles and to support cultural change.

 

Successful Implementation of Open Access Strategies at Universities of Science & Technology – Strathprints

Abstract:  While the CWTS Leiden ranking has been available since 2011/2012, it is only in 2019 that a first attempt was made at ranking institutions by Open Access-related indicators. This was due to the arrival of Unpaywall as a tool to measure openly available institutional research outputs – either via the Green or the Gold OA routes – for a specific institution. The CWTS Leiden ranking by percentage of the institutional research output published Open Access effectively meant the first opportunity for institutions worldwide to be ranked by the depth of their Open Access implementation strategies brushing aside aspects like their size. This provided an interesting way to map the progress of CESAER Member institutions that were part of the Task Force Open Science 2020-2021 Open Access Working Group (OAWG) towards the objective stated by Plan S of achieving 100% Open Access of research outputs. The OAWG then set out to map the situation of the Member institutions represented in it on this Open Access ranking and to track their evolution on subsequent editions of this ranking. The idea behind this analysis was not so much to introduce an element of competition across institutions but to explore whether progress was taking place in the percentage of openly available institutional research outputs year on year. The results of this analysis – shown in figures within this paper for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 editions – show strong differences across Member institutions that are part of the OAWG. From internal discussions within the group, it became evident that these differences could be explained through a number of factors that contributed to a successful Open Access implementation at an institutional level. This provided the basis for this work. The document identifies four key factors that contribute to a successful OA implementation at institutions, and hence to achieving a good position on the CWTS Leiden ranking for Open Access.

 

Monitoring the transition to open access through its mode of implementation: A principal component analysis of two surveys | PLOS ONE

Open access (OA) is transforming scholarly communication. Various modes of OA implementation have emerged, which reflect the complexity surrounding OA development. This study aimed to examine this development from the perspective of how OA is implemented. The sample comprised 2,368 randomly selected articles published in 2013 and 2,999 published in 2018 indexed in the Web of Science. We also conducted searches in Google and Google Scholar in 2015 for articles published in 2013 and in 2020 for articles published in 2018. Selected articles were categorized as either an “OA article,” “electronic subscription journal article,” or “not available online.” OA articles were classified into 10 implementation modes: Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, Bronze, Subject Repositories, Institutional Repositories, Personal/Institutional Websites, Academic Social Networks (ASNs), Others, and Web Aggregator. Overall, 56.5% of all sampled articles in 2013 were available for free on at least one website in 2015, while 61.7% of all sampled articles in 2018 were freely available on at least one website in 2020. Concerning implementation mode, ASNs had the highest frequency (44.4% in 2015 and 56.0% in 2020), followed by Subject Repositories (35.0% in 2015 and 39.6% in 2020) and Gold (24.1% in 2015 and 37.4% in 2020). To obtain an overview of OA implementation, we conducted principal component analysis with OA implementation mode as the variable for both 2015 and 2020. The first principal component was the axis indicating the number of overlapping OA implementations for each article in 2015 and 2020, while the second principal component was the axis orthogonal to the first, which was difficult to interpret. We identified three groups of OA implementation in each plot of the principal component scores for articles in 2015 and 2020; however, the OA implementation of each group differed in 2015 and 2020. This diversity reflects the respective positions of various stakeholders regarding OA.

 

 

Monitoring progress towards Open Science as the new norm: First results from the EOSC Observatory

“Monitoring National Contributions to the EOSC

• Understand to what extent open science policies and practices are progressively implemented

• Assess and deepen understanding of the positive impacts brought by these policies and practices.

• Mutual learning through more data, in-depth discussions and matchmaking of policies, strategies and best practices

• Next iteration: extended survey including all open science elements and content …”

Data tools for achieving disaster risk reduction: An analysis of open-access georeferenced disaster risk datasets – World | ReliefWeb

“The priorities of the Sendai Framework are to (1) understand disaster risk; (2) strengthen disaster risk governance to manage risk; (3) invest in disaster risk reduction and resilience; and (4) enhance the capacity to recover from disasters (UNDRR, 2015). This study advances our knowledge of implementing the Sendai Framework from publications that have utilized open-access spatial data and issues common to Framework implementation. The findings from a literature review reveal that many of the problems cited by recent work are data-related.

This study engages with these issues and discusses how they could be addressed by those who have a vested interest in disaster risk reduction, from policymakers to community members.”

Gearing Up for 2023 Part II: Implementing the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy – NIH Extramural Nexus

“NIH has a long history of developing consent language and, as such, our team worked across the agency – and with you! – to develop a new resource that shares best practices for developing informed consents to facilitate data/biospecimen storage and sharing for future use.  It also provides modifiable sample language that investigators and IRBs can use to assist in the clear communication of potential risks and benefits associated with data/biospecimen storage and sharing.  In developing this resource, we engaged with key federal partners, as well as scientific societies and associations.  Importantly, we also considered the 102 comments from stakeholders in response to a RFI that we issued in 2021.

As for our second resource, we are requesting public comment on protecting the privacy of research participants when data is shared. I think I need to be upfront and acknowledge that we have issued many of these types of requests over the last several months and NIH understands the effort that folks take to thoughtfully respond.  With that said, we think the research community will greatly benefit from this resource and we want to hear your thoughts on whether it hits the mark or needs adjustment….”

Guest Post – Open Access in Japan: Tapping the Stone Bridge – The Scholarly Kitchen

“April Fool’s Day is not really a thing in Japan, so whereas many companies in the West tend to avoid the first of the month when making important announcements, it is in no way unusual that the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), the nation’s second-largest public-sector research funder chose April 1st, 2022 to unveil its revised open access policy and implementation guidelines with a typical lack of fanfare outside of its home country….

Such a comparatively low-key approach is in line with past precedent as Japanese funding bodies such as JST, have typically opted for a light-touch and iterative approach to open access policies – which for the most part have been developed in consultation with publishers – in contrast to counterparts in other countries that have put forward more radical and headline-generating open access initiatives such as the US OSTP “Holdren Memo”, Plan S, and UKRI’s open access policy announced in mid-2021. Previous versions of the JST open access policy issued in 2013 and 2017 went little remarked upon in many open science circles and were notable for their conciliatory approach, in contrast to the openly-stated ambition to disrupt and reform the world of scholarly publishing of many other funders. Following this consultative tradition, the current policy was circulated in draft form to publisher members of CHORUS, of which JST is a participating funder, for comment prior to publication….

The most noticeable difference between the new policy and previous iterations is the introduction of an embargo period which stipulates that at minimum the Accepted Manuscript (AM) of any paper arising from a project submitted for funding to JST after the go-live date of April 1, 2022, must be made publicly accessible in an institutional or public repository in Japan within 12 months of publication of the resultant journal article. Whilst cautious by European standards, this is the first time that an embargo of any type has been included in the JST policy. In addition to AMs of research articles, the policy covers those of review articles and conference papers. While the revised policy signals a preference for the green route and does not mandate that the VoR be made available open access, publication as an open access article is a “permitted” route and under the new policy, APCs are fully reimbursable from grant money….

Furthermore, it is notable that both the policy and its implementation guidelines are silent on the twin subjects of transformative journals and transformative agreements. …

Advocates of faster and more radical transformation will probably lament the lack of clarity or silence on certain issues – such as a ban on publishing in hybrid journals and gaps around CC BY licensing for the AM – that have become totemic in many open access circles and offer a more lukewarm response. Those in the latter group may find some consolation in the knowledge that in Japan, caution does not necessarily indicate disapproval and is often regarded as a virtue, encapsulated in the phrase: ???????? (Ishibashi wo tataite wataru) “to tap on a stone bridge before crossing.” Cautious progress may initially be slower than those who rush headlong, but caution helps avoids missteps. And you’re still going across the bridge.”

 

University of Maryland’s Senate Approves Policy to Enhance Equitable Access to Scholarly Publications | UMD PACT

“At its meeting on April 6, 2022, University of Maryland’s Senate voted to approve a new institutional policy that will advance equitable, open access to the University’s research and scholarship. In alignment with the University’s land-grant mission and its social justice values, the new policy, entitled “Equitable Access to Scholarly Articles Authored by University Faculty,” aids in the removal of price and permission barriers related to discoverability and access for anyone seeking UMD’s peer-reviewed scholarly work. 

The policy was spearheaded by UMD PACT, a campus-wide working group sponsored by the University Library Council, the Office of the Provost, and the Division of Research. The benefits and features of the policy are summarized briefly below: …

Through the policy, faculty members grant certain nonexclusive rights over their scholarly articles to the University of Maryland. This grant of nonexclusive rights, called the Equitable Access License, allows the University to distribute peer-reviewed versions of the articles free-of-charge to the general public, through DRUM, the University of Maryland’s online institutional repository. Faculty members commit to depositing (self-archiving) peer-reviewed versions of their scholarly articles into DRUM. The policy includes waiver and embargo options to enhance author freedom and control over their work….”

UMD’s Senate Approves Policy to Enhance Equitable Access to Scholarly Publications – News | UMD Libraries

“At its meeting on April 6, 2022, University of Maryland’s Senate voted to approve a new institutional policy that will advance equitable, open access to the University’s research and scholarship. In alignment with the University’s land-grant mission and its social justice values, the new policy, entitled “Equitable Access to Scholarly Articles Authored by University Faculty,” aids in the removal of price and permission barriers related to discoverability and access for anyone seeking UMD’s peer-reviewed scholarly work. 

The policy was spearheaded by UMD PACT, a campus-wide working group sponsored by the University Library Council, the Office of the Provost, and the Division of Research. The benefits and features of the policy are summarized briefly below: …”

 

Implementing the Declaration on Research Assessment: a publisher case study

Abstract:  There has been much debate around the role of metrics in scholarly communication, with particular focus on the misapplication of journal metrics, such as the impact factor in the assessment of research and researchers. Various initiatives have advocated for a change in this culture, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which invites stakeholders throughout the scholarly communication ecosystem to sign up and show their support for practices designed to address the misuse of metrics. This case study provides an overview of the process undertaken by a large academic publisher (Taylor & Francis Group) in signing up to DORA and implementing some of its key practices in the hope that it will provide some guidance to others considering becoming a signatory. Our experience suggests that research, consultation and flexibility are crucial components of the process. Additionally, approaching signing with a project mindset versus a ‘sign and forget’ mentality can help organizations to understand the practical implications of signing, to anticipate and mitigate potential obstacles and to support cultural change.

 

Implementing the new UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) open access policy | Jisc

“isc is planning to:

Identify and agree with our members their requirements for transformative journals and incorporate transformative journals as one of the models that publishers can adopt/authors can publish in
Increase our engagement and negotiations with the many small and medium sized publishers and societies to provide them with opportunity to adopt open access models that enable compliant options for UKRI funded authors and meet the requirements of our members
Complete the first phase of our data work which will focus on expanding our data collation and analysis to enable us to deliver quality data and intelligence to our members and UKRI to drive value and evaluate the impact of transitional arrangements
Establish new partnerships that will support the accurate and timely sharing of data so that authors have the most up to date information to support publication decisions, in particular with the cOAlition S supported Journal Checker Tool
Run a series of roundtables, workshops and webinars with our members, research organisations, publishers and funders, to discuss challenges around the implementation and to consider solutions that will reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency…”