Abstract: Research funders spend considerable efforts collecting information on outcomes of the research they fund. To help funders track publication output associated with their funding, Crossref initiated FundRef in 2013, enabling publishers to register funding information using persistent identifiers. However, it is hard to assess the coverage of funder metadata because it is unknown how many articles are the result of funded research and therefore should include funder metadata. In this paper we looked at 5,004 publications reported by researchers to be the result of funding by a specific funding agency: the Dutch Research Council NWO. Only 67% of these articles contain funding information in Crossref, with a subset acknowledging NWO as funder name and/or Funder IDs linked to NWO (53% and 45%, respectively). Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Dimensions are all able to infer additional funding information from funding statements in the full text of the articles. Funding information in Lens largely corresponds to that in Crossref, with some additional funding information likely taken from PubMed. We observe interesting differences between publishers in the coverage and completeness of funding metadata in Crossref compared to proprietary databases, highlighting potential to increase the quality of open metadata on funding.
“In 2021, NWO awarded funding to 26 projects to boost open science practices. Where we have the project leaders’ consent, we are publishing the proposals that were assessed in the first round of the Open Science Fund, including the assessment by the selection committee….”
” ‘The fact that over eighty percent of publications resulting from research funded by NWO and ZonMw were available in open access form in 2020 is a huge step forward’, says Robert-Jan Smits, President of the Executive Board of the Eindhoven University of Technology. ‘Don’t forget that, at the beginning of 2018, only eleven percent of publications worldwide were open access. I expect the rest to follow in the coming years.’ Smits was Director-General for Research and Innovation at the European Commission before being appointed EU Special Envoy Open Access in 2018. Later that year, his appointment resulted in Plan S, and towards the end of the year, he published the book Plan S: Science, Shock, Solution. In a nutshell, Plan S (Shock) requires that publicly funded research is made available immediately, with no paywall or embargo. Moreover, re-use of content is permitted under a CC-BY licence….”
“The bottom line is that, for scientific knowledge to be published, someone has to pay. But who? And could those costs be reduced? ‘The risk is that you replace the barrier to reading with a barrier to publishing.’ …
One option is to find other sources of funding. Several universities and research funders have funds to allow open access journals. A few years ago, Jean-Sébastien Caux, a physicist at the University of Amsterdam, founded SciPost, a platform where anyone can read and post scientific publications free of charge. Some universities and funders pay for costs such as layout, a website, the peer-review system and archiving. In addition, KNAW, NWO and the OPUS Foundation support the platform openjournals.nl, which enables smaller independent Dutch and Belgian journals in the social sciences and humanities to publish open access. Societies or journal owners can use the platform at cost price, and authors can publish without publication costs. Existing publishers could also start to work differently, for instance using the subscribe-to-open model. In this case, libraries still pay subscription fees but on the condition that publishers use those funds to make their journals open access, with no APCs. ‘We’ve focused on the big deals for a long time’, says Bianca Kramer. ‘Now it’s time to explore alternative funding models.’ This does not yet mean that costs will come down; for that, the dependence on certain journals would have to lessen. Kramer: ‘Researchers are in a dilemma: they do want to get away from that journal prestige, but they still feel compelled by the existing system of research evaluation to publish in precisely these journals.’ ”
“Many academics argue that open science will only work if we recognise and reward researchers differently. We want to do justice to more scientists, but ‘we’re already walking on a bridge that we haven’t even finished building yet.’ Experienced researchers object to this at times, and sometimes this creates uncertainty among young academics….”
“Eighty-seven per cent of all researchers have a (very) positive attitude about open science. Young scientists are even more enthusiastic with a percentage of 94%. But researchers are still coming across obstacles when it comes to practical implementation. This has emerged from a poll commissioned by NWO among researchers from all disciplines.
The aim and the reality in everyday practice are most closely aligned when it comes to the open access publication of research results. Ninety-five per cent of the researchers surveyed consider this to be (very) important, while 83% actually publish their research openly, often or always. When it comes to sharing data, there is still a gap between intention and reality. Ninety-three per cent of the researchers surveyed say they consider this (very) important, but only 56% say they actually do it in practice. The lack of infrastructure, clear instructions and guidelines are mentioned as obstacles (44% and 47%), but the lack of financial resources (72%) scores highest….”
“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….”
“The Open Library for Humanities (OLH) has received a three-year grant for the Library Partnership Subsidy system. OLH is an academic Open Access platform without costs for the authors who publish there.
NWO is deeply committed to Open Access and is dedicated to realising this transition. The sustainable funding of digital infrastructures is essential in this regard. NWO tries to contribute to that where possible. Today, NWO will announce that it is entering a three-year partnership with the Open Library for Humanities. OLH is high-quality Open Access platform in the humanities….”
” It is clear that the assessment criteria for researchers must change. There are other good reasons for that. Publishing in Science gets a lot of weight in the assessment of a scientist, but it is not in itself proof that a person’s research is important: there are also articles in this journal that are never or little quoted. And some fields are underrepresented.
This is one of the reasons why NWO recently issued the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).signed. This calls for a broader assessment of a person’s contribution to science: not just on the basis of a few simple core indicators such as the h-index. It does not only have to be researched: a method can also be groundbreaking. And research data can in itself already have great value for other scientists and even for society as a whole.
NWO will adapt the instructions to its reviewers in order to give this change in the assessment criteria hands and feet….”
“On 1 January 2018, NWO will terminate its Incentive Fund for Open Access Publications and Conferences. NWO will meet all of its prior financial commitments made to the fund.
NWO introduced the Incentive Fund in 2010 to finance open access publications and activities that bring attention to open access during academic conferences. Since it was introduced many years ago, the Incentive Fund has proved to be a useful way of promoting open access publishing. NWO believes that the academic world is now sufficiently aware of open access publishing and its importance.”
“NWO will tighten its granting conditions in the area of Open Access with effect from 1 December. In concrete terms this means that all publications emerging from a ‘call for proposals’ published by NWO after this date must be immediately accessible to everybody from the moment of publication …”