Why are national PID strategies having a moment, and why should you care? Find out in today’s post by Alice Meadows.
The post Why PID Strategies Are Having A Moment — And Why You Should Care appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Why are national PID strategies having a moment, and why should you care? Find out in today’s post by Alice Meadows.
The post Why PID Strategies Are Having A Moment — And Why You Should Care appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Funder guidance is too vague when it comes to identifiers and metadata. It needs to get specific to be effective.
The post We All Know What We Mean, Can We Just Put It In The Policy? appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
In the second of two posts on persistent identifiers in scholarly communications, Phill Jones and Alice Meadows share information about a new cost-benefit analysis showing the value of widespread PID adoption
The post Making the Case for a PID-Optimized World appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
by Claudia Sittner
Knowledge Exchange (KE), a cooperative partnership of six national research-supporting organisations in Europe, has explored the development of an Openness Profile during an 18-month research evaluation of Open Science. In the report, instead of Open Science, the term “open scholarship” is used with a broader understanding. The final project report “Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship” has recently been published. During the process, 80 people from 48 organisations at all levels of the “open scholarship ecosystem” were involved and surveyed.
In January 2020, the group already published preliminary results on the concept of the Openness Profile. In the blogpost Openness Profile Interim Report: What Libraries Could Take Away” we explored what libraries and infrastructure providers could learn from it.
Fig 1 aus: Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship, lizensiert unter der (CC BY 4.0)
We will briefly introduce the concept of the Openness Profile and take a look at which recommendations could be interesting for libraries and information infrastructures to promote open research practices and their acknowledgement, thereby supporting the Open Science community.
The concluding report ultimately concerns a well-known problem of Open Science: open activities are often invisible and unacknowledged. For researchers, therefore, they basically play hardly any role in career planning. This also applies to activities of partly non-scientific staff that are important for Open Science but are not even considered in the scientific evaluation system. Those activities include, for example, curating research data, developing infrastructures or conducting training for open practices. It also means that these kinds of qualified specialists tend to migrate from science to industry or commercial sectors, owing to lack of recognition and incentives.
Science is increasingly taking place at a global and interconnected level. A comprehensive global reform of the scientific incentive system, in which more stakeholders and open activities play a (larger) role, is required so that Open Science can ultimately gain acceptance.
This is where the Openness Profile comes into play. The Openness Profile is a kind of portfolio that makes activities in the field of Open Science visible, thereby increasing the awareness of the scientific community and all participants about the current lack of recognition for Open Science activities and stakeholders in the scientific evaluation system. In a first step, the Openness Profile should build upon existing persistent identifiers (PIDs), initially ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID). The advantage is that many scientists already have an ORCID ID anyway.
Fig 1 aus: Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship, lizensiert unter der (CC BY 4.0).
An ORCID record would then also be supplemented by the Openness Profile; and open activities and further stakeholders such as data stewards or project managers, who remain unacknowledged and therefore not remunerated for open activities in the current scientific system, can be made visible. This thereby simultaneously creates an incentive for open activities. The Openness Profile is therefore not only useful for individuals, who would need to maintain it themselves – but can also be taken up by funders who have grants to award or institutes who have vacancies to fill.
Fig 2 aus: Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship, lizensiert unter der (CC BY 4.0).
Open activities can be recorded and linked in a structured way in the Openness Profile by existing identifiers such as DOI, ORG ID or Grant ID, but manual entries with URLs and descriptive text are also possible. The Openness Profile is thus intended to become the central hub for collecting and linking of Open Science activities and results.
At the end of the report, KE provides recommendations for joint activities that are required to actually implement the Openness Profile, for four different groups of stakeholders:
Below we take a closer look at the general recommendations as well as those for the infrastructure providers.
The general recommendations are:
Fig 5 aus: Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship, lizensiert unter der (CC BY 4.0).
The integration of persistent identifiers and the interoperability of the systems through the use of APIs is emphasised in the technical implementation. In terms of the analysis of the infrastructure landscape, KE finds that much is already in place that could support the Openness Profile. It would be a good idea if employees from libraries or other infrastructure providers became part of this permanent working group.
KE sees the role of infrastructure providers in relation to the Openness Profile primarily in increasing and ensuring interoperability between research systems, which can be achieved through persistent identifiers. This would be more sustainable anyway and would lead to a further development of the Openness Profile. In the most recent JISC report on persistent identifiers (PIDs), five major players were identified: ORCID, Crossref, Datacite, ARDC (RAiD) and RoR. Libraries and infrastructure providers could therefore focus on taking care of the interoperability of their existing systems through PIDs.
Furthermore, the following recommendations are made expressly for infrastructure providers in the concluding report:
Fig 4 aus: Openness Profile: Modelling research evaluation for open scholarship, lizensiert unter der CC 4.0.
The report also proposes expanding and intensifying collaborations between national research organisations and infrastructure providers, thereby driving Open Science forward.
The Openness Profile is an ambitious project to make Open Science and all its participating stakeholders visible. A far-reaching reform of the monoculturally oriented scientific incentive system is long overdue. Whether the Openness Profile will actually be realised depends heavily on whether there are enough sponsors among the stakeholders who are willing to invest in the project – both financially and in terms of personnel.
Libraries and infrastructure providers would be important stakeholders here owing to their expertise; and their own (open) activities and contributions could also be better captured and recognised by inclusion in an Openness Profile. They should also ensure that they are represented when the stakeholders summit and send committed Open Science enthusiasts to the working group to be established in the long-term – so that their interests are represented and their comprehensive know-how can be used. On a practical level, they can already ensure the integration of persistent identifiers in their systems, thereby making them interoperable and sustainable.
You may also be interested in:
This text has been translated from German.
The post The Openness Profile of Knowledge Exchange: What can infrastructure providers do? first appeared on ZBW MediaTalk.
Rubriq
|
Peereviewers
|
Publons
|
Peerage of Science
|
Academic Karma
|
|
Service/s
|
Clients choose: review of contents + statistics, or review of contents + suggestion of suitable journals
|
Database of reviewers
|
Record of reviewers, journals and reviews
|
Reviews and publishing offers
|
Exchange of services
|
Review protocol
|
Closed. All manuscript go under the same protocol (Scorecard)
|
Open. Clients can customize the protocol of review
|
–
|
Open (Peerage Essay)
|
Open. Clients can customize the protocol of review
|
Fee (valid in 2015)
|
Several options depending on the services, from $500 to $650 (3 reviewers included)
|
$100 per reviewer
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
Type of acknowledgment to reviewers
|
Monetary (100$)
|
Monetary (50$), Certificate
|
Online record
|
Online record, ability to submit own articles for review
|
Online record, ability to submit own articles for review
|
Rubriq
|
Peereviewers
|
Publons
|
Peerage of Science
|
Academic Karma
|
|
Service/s
|
Clients choose: review of contents + statistics, or review of contents + suggestion of suitable journals
|
Database of reviewers
|
Record of reviewers, journals and reviews
|
Reviews and publishing offers
|
Exchange of services
|
Review protocol
|
Closed. All manuscript go under the same protocol (Scorecard)
|
Open. Clients can customize the protocol of review
|
–
|
Open (Peerage Essay)
|
Open. Clients can customize the protocol of review
|
Fee (valid in 2015)
|
Several options depending on the services, from $500 to $650 (3 reviewers included)
|
$100 per reviewer
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
Type of acknowledgment to reviewers
|
Monetary (100$)
|
Monetary (50$), Certificate
|
Online record
|
Online record, ability to submit own articles for review
|
Online record, ability to submit own articles for review
|