Multilevel analysis of factors affecting open-access institutional repository implementation in Nigerian universities | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The study aims to identify novel open-access institutional repository (OAIR) implementation barriers and explain how they evolve. It also aims to extend theoretical insights into the information technology (IT) implementation literature.

Design/methodology/approach

The study adopted the interpretive philosophy, the inductive research approach and qualitative case study research method. Three Nigerian universities served as the case research contexts. The unstructured in-depth interview and the participatory observation were adopted as the data collection instruments. The qualitative data collected were analysed using thematic data analysis technique.

Findings

Findings show that IR implementation barriers evolved from global, organisational and individual implementation levels in the research contexts. Results specifically reveal how easy access to ideas and information and easy movement of people across international boundaries constituted globalisation trend-driven OAIR implementation barriers given their influence on OAIR implementation activities at the organisational and individual implementation levels. The two factors led to overambitious craving for information technology (IT) implementation and inadequate OAIR implementation success factors at the organisational level in the research contexts. They also led to conflicting IR implementation ideas and information at the individual level in the research contexts.

Research limitations/implications

The primary limitation of the research is the adoption of qualitative case study research method which makes its findings not generalisable. The study comprised only three Nigerian universities. However, the study provides plausible insights that explain how OAIR implementation barriers emanate at the organisational and individual levels due to two globalisation trends: easy access to ideas and information and easy movement of people across international boundaries.

Practical implications

The study points out the need for OAIR implementers to assess how easy access to information and ideas and easy movement of people across international boundaries influence the evolution of conflicting OAIR implementation ideas and information at the individual level, and overambitious craving for IT implementation and setting inadequate OAIR implementation success factors at the organisational level. The study extends views in past studies that propose that OAIR implementation barriers only emanate at organisational and individual levels, that is, only within universities involved in OAIR implementation and among individuals working in the universities.

Social implications

The study argues that OAIR implementation consists of three implementation levels: individual, organisational and global. It provides stakeholders with the information that there is a third OAIR implementation level.

Originality/value

Data validity, sample validity and novel findings are the hallmarks of the study’s originality. Study data consist of first-hand experiences and information derived during participatory observation and in-depth interviews with research participants. The participants were purposively selected, given their participation in OAIR implementation in the research contexts. Study findings on the connections among global, organisational and individual OAIR implementation levels and how their relationships lead to OAIR implementation barriers are novel.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals

Abstract:  Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

 

Data Sharing of Imaging in an Evolving Health Care World: Report of the ACR Data Sharing Workgroup Part 2: Annotation, Curation, and Contracting – Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract:  A core principle of ethical data sharing is maintaining the security and anonymity of the data, and care must be taken to ensure medical records and images cannot be reidentified to be traced back to patients or misconstrued as a breach in the trust between health care providers and patients. Once those principles have been observed, those seeking to share data must take the appropriate steps to curate the data in a way that organizes the clinically relevant information so as to be useful to the data sharing party, assesses the ensuing value of the data set and its annotations, and informs the data sharing contracts that will govern use of the data. Embarking on a data sharing partnership engenders a host of ethical, practical, technical, legal, and commercial challenges that require a thoughtful, considered approach. In 2019 the ACR convened a Data Sharing Workgroup to develop philosophies around best practices in the sharing of health information. This is Part 2 of a Report on the workgroup’s efforts in exploring these issues.

 

Free for all, or free-for-all? A content analysis of Australian university open access policies | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Recent research demonstrates that Australia lags in providing open access to research outputs. In Australia, while the two major research funding bodies require open access of outputs from projects they fund, these bodies only fund a small proportion of research conducted. The major source of research and experimental development funding in Australian higher education is general university, or institutional, funding, and such funds are not subject to national funder open access policies. Thus, institutional policies and other institutional supports for open access are important in understanding Australia’s OA position. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to understand the characteristics of Australian institutional open access policies and to explore the extent they represent a coherent and unified approach to delivering and promoting open access in Australia. Open access policies were located using a systematic web search approach and then their contents were analysed. Only half of Australian universities were found to have an open access policy. There was a wide variation in language used, expressed intent of the policy and expectations of researchers. Few policies mention monitoring or compliance and only three mention consequences for non-compliance. While it is understandable that institutions develop their own policies, when language is used which does not reflect national and international understandings, when requirements are not clear and with consequences, policies are unlikely to contribute to understanding of open access, to uptake of the policy, or to ease of transferring understanding and practices between institutions. A more unified approach to open access is recommended.

 

Annual report: a recap of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) activities in 2020 | DORA

“Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that research assessment reform is a systems challenge that requires collective action. Point interventions simply do not solve these types of complex challenges that involve multiple stakeholders. Because of this, we dedicated our efforts in 2020 on building a community of practice and finding new ways to support organizations seeking to improve the decision-making that impacts research careers.

Current events also influenced our approach this year and evolved our thinking about research assessment reform. The Covid-19 pandemic led to the abrupt global disruption of academic research, along with many other industries. For academics with limited access to research laboratories and other on-campus resources, work stalled. Without appropriate action, this disruption will have a profound effect on the advancement and promotion of the academic workforce, and it will likely disproportionately affect women and underrepresented and minoritized researchers. So in April DORA called on institutions to redefine their expectations and clearly communicate how evaluation procedures will be modified. In May, DORA organized a webinar with Rescuing Biomedical Research to better understand specific faculty concerns as a result of the pandemic….

In the Fall of 2020, DORA initiated a new community project with Schmidt to develop a means for institutions to gauge their ability to support academic assessment interventions and set them up for success. Our goal for the project was to support the development of new practices by helping institutions analyze the outcomes of their efforts. More than 70 individuals in 26 countries and 6 continents responded to our informal survey in August, and about 35 people joined us for 3 working sessions in September. From these activities, we heard it was important to look beyond individual interventions to improve assessment, because the success of these interventions depends on institutional conditions and capabilities. We were also reminded that institutional capabilities impact interventions, so it is important not only to gauge success but also to support interventions. These and other insights led us to create SPACE to Evolve Academic Assessment: a rubric for analyzing institutional conditions and progress indicators. The first draft of the rubric was developed in the last quarter of 2020. The final version was released in 2021 after an initial pilot phase with seven members of the academic community, including a college dean, policy advisor, research administrator, faculty member, and graduate student….

Another addition to the website was a repository of case studies documenting key elements of institutional change to improve academic career assessment, such as motivations, processes, timelines, new policies, and the types of people involved. The repository, Reimagining academic assessment: stories of innovation and change, was produced in partnership with the European University Association and SPARC Europe. At the time of launch, the repository included 10 structured case studies coming from 7 universities and 3 national consortia. Nine of the 10 cases are from Europe and one is from China. The case studies have shown us the importance of coalition-building to gain bottom-up support for change. We also learned that limited awareness and capacity for incentivizing and rewarding a broader range of academic activities were challenges that all the cases had to overcome. By sharing information about the creation of new policies and practices, we hope the case studies will serve as a source of inspiration for institutions seeking to review or improve academic career assessment….

Policy progress for research assessment reform continued to gain momentum in 2020. A new national policy on research assessment in China announced in February prohibits cash rewards for research papers and indicates that institutions can no longer exclusively hire or promote researchers based on their number of publications or citations. In June, Wellcome published guidance for research organizations on how to implement responsible and fair approaches for research assessment that are grounded i

OAreport: Put OA policies into practice in minutes, not months.

“We discover papers and data using open scholarly metadata, targeted text and data mining, and an institution’s internal data sources….

We transparently analyse those papers against all the terms of the institution’s current policy, or custom criteria, to provide detailed statistics and key insights….

We help libraries and funders unlock individual papers as they’re published by making outreach a one-click process, and help build evidence for systemic changes….”

Open science practices for eating disorders research

Abstract:  This editorial seeks to encourage the increased applicationof three open science practices in eating disordersresearch: Preregistration, Registered Reports, and the shar-ing of materials, data, and code. For each of these prac-tices, we introduce updated International Journal of Eating Disorders author and reviewer guidance. Updates include the introduction of open science badges; specific instruc-tions about how to improve transparency; and the intro-duction of Registered Reports of systematic or meta-analytical reviews. The editorial also seeks to encourage the study of open science practices. Open science prac-tices pose considerable time and other resource burdens.Therefore, research is needed to help determine the valueof these added burdens and to identify efficient strategies for implementing open science practices.

How should Dora be enforced? – Research Professional News

“One lesson is that the declaration’s authors did not consider redundancy as a possible outcome of research assessment, focusing instead on hiring, promotion and funding decisions. However, in my view, redundancy processes should not be delegated to crude metrics and should be informed by the principles of Dora. 

That said, it is not Dora’s job as an organisation to intervene in the gritty particulars of industrial disputes. Nor can we arbitrate in every dispute about research assessment practices within signatory organisations. …

Recently, we have re-emphasised that university signatories must make it clear to their academic staff what signing Dora means. Organisations should demonstrate their commitment to Dora’s principles to their communities, not seek accreditation from us. In doing so, they empower their staff to challenge departures from the spirit of the declaration. Grant conditions introduced by signatory funders such as the Wellcome Trust and Research England buttress this approach. 

Dora’s approach to community engagement taps into the demand for research assessment reform while acknowledging the lack of consensus on how best to go about it. The necessary reforms are complex, intersecting with the culture change needed to make the academy more open and inclusive. They also have to overcome barriers thrown up by academics comfortable with the status quo and the increasing marketisation of higher education. In such a complex landscape, Dora has no wish to be prescriptive. Rather, we need to help institutions find their own way, which will sometimes mean allowing room for course corrections….”

FAIR Digital Objects (FDO) Forum IN: New GO FAIR Implementation Network – GO FAIR

“Check out the most recent addition to GO FAIR’s Implementation Networks: FAIR Digital Objects (FDO) Forum IN.

The FDO Forum IN is a group of international experts from relevant research institutions and infrastructure initiatives committed to specify FAIR Digital Objects (FDO) and its components and to foster the implementation of an infrastructure ready to support FDOs practically.

The FDO Forum will actively work together with working groups from other initiatives such as RDA, OAI, W3C, ISO, and IETF to achieve these goals. As the name already indicates, the FAIR principles are the starting point of the IN’s considerations. They will look for a variety of implementation models that meet the FDO requirements….”

cOAlition S statement on Open Access for academic books | Plan S

Academic books – defined here to include monographs, book chapters, edited collections, critical editions, and other long-form works – are an important mode of publication for scholars, especially in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Several studies have pointed out the benefits of Open Access (OA) book publishing. In 2019, Science Europe published five principles for OA to academic books and recommendations for six types of research stakeholders.  Springer Nature has recently shown that OA books receive 2.4 times more citations and are downloaded 10 times more than non-OA books.

Principle 7 of Plan S acknowledged that the timeline to achieve Open Access for books requires a separate and due process. The Implementation Guidance specified that “by the end of 2021, a statement on Plan S principles would be issued as they apply to monographs and book chapters, together with related implementation guidance”.

Since the Plan S principles for research articles were published, many cOAlition S funders have developed their own OA policies around academic books. (For an overview of cOAlition S funders with an existing OA books policy, see Annex A).  On critical elements, like embargoes and licences, policies of cOAlition S organisations have already converged. Most cOAlition S funders have adopted or advise CC licences, and embargoes range between 0 and 12 months.

cOAlition S recognizes that academic book publishing is very different from journal publishing. Our commitment is to make progress towards full open access for academic books as soon as possible, in the understanding that standards and funding models may need more time to develop. Rather than to decree a uniform policy on OA books, we have therefore decided to formulate a set of recommendations regarding academic books – in line with Plan S principles – that all cOAlition S organisations will seek to adopt within their own remits and jurisdictions.

Implementing EOSC together: read the report of the EOSC Symposium 2021 | Trust-ITServices

“The EOSC Symposium 2021 provided a key engagement opportunity for the EOSC community after the European Open Science Cloud finally entered its highly-anticipated implementation phase in 2021. Delivered online to just under 1,000 EOSC stakeholders from over 63 different countries, this was not only the largest EOSC Symposium yet, but it was also an essential opportunity for convergence and alignment on principles and priorities.

The EOSC Association will play an important role in this phase. With already over 210 member and observer organisations from across Europe, the Association represents a single voice for the advocacy and representation of the broader EOSC Stakeholder community in Europe, promoting alignment of EU research policy and priorities….”

FAIRsFAIR teaching and training handbook for HEIs – Google Docs

“The handbook was written and edited by a group of about 40 collaborators in a series of six book sprint events that took place between 1 and 10 June 2021. It aims to support higher education institutions the practical implementation of content relating to the FAIR principles in their curricula and teaching by providing practical material, such as lesson plans, and supporting information.

The feedback to the current draft version for public review will inform future iterations. The final version of the handbook will be published in December 2021. …”