FORCE11 and COPE Release Recommendations on Data Publishing Ethics for Publishers and Repositories: A Discussion with the Working Group Leadership – The Scholarly Kitchen

“FORCE11 was formed out of a community of researchers, publishers, librarians and software developers who found common cause in attempting to rethink the ecosystem of scholarly communications and get the community to leverage the benefits of electronic scholarship.  Over the years, the group has been at the forefront of initiatives such as data citation, the FAIR initiative, software citation and its use in scholarship, as well as researcher rights among others. Partnerships have also been core to FORCE11’s mission with many of these initiatives being joint efforts across the community including with the Research Data Alliance (RDA), Research Software Alliance (ReSA), UCLA, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  

Last fall, the joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publication Ethics Working Group published recommendations for the ethical handling of research data publication. The group has built on the recommendations and released policy templates for journals and publishers, as well as data repositories. Both are freely available via the FORCE11 website. The leaders of this group, Daniella Lowenberg and Iratxe Puebla, along with group member Matthew Cannon, shared their reflections on the project, its goals, and what the group has accomplished ….”

Nine best practices for research software registries and repositories [PeerJ]

Abstract:  Scientific software registries and repositories improve software findability and research transparency, provide information for software citations, and foster preservation of computational methods in a wide range of disciplines. Registries and repositories play a critical role by supporting research reproducibility and replicability, but developing them takes effort and few guidelines are available to help prospective creators of these resources. To address this need, the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group convened a Task Force to distill the experiences of the managers of existing resources in setting expectations for all stakeholders. In this article, we describe the resultant best practices which include defining the scope, policies, and rules that govern individual registries and repositories, along with the background, examples, and collaborative work that went into their development. We believe that establishing specific policies such as those presented here will help other scientific software registries and repositories better serve their users and their disciplines.


Author interview: Nine best practices for software repositories and registries

PeerJ talks to Daniel Garijo about the recently published PeerJ Computer Science article Nine best practices for research software registries and repositories. The article is featured in the PeerJ Software Citation, Indexing, and Discoverability Special Issue.


Can you tell us a bit about yourself?

This work would not have been possible without the SciCodes community, the participants of the 2019 Scientific Software Registry Collaboration Workshop and the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group. It all started when a task force of that working group undertook the initial work that is detailed in the paper, and then formed SciCodes to continue working together. We are a group of software enthusiasts who maintain and curate research software repositories and registries from different disciplines, including geosciences, neuroscience, biology, and astronomy (currently more than 20 resources and 30 worldwide participants are members of the initiative) 


Can you briefly explain the research you published in PeerJ?

In examining the literature, we found best practices and policy suggestions for many different aspects of science, software, and data, but none that specifically addressed software repositories and registries. Our goal was to examine our own and other similar resources, share practices, discuss common challenges, and develop a set of basic best practices for these resources.  


What did you find? and how do these practices have such an impact?

We were surprised to find a lot of diversity between our resources. We expected that  our  domains, missions, and types of software in our collections would be different but we expected more commonality in the software metadata our  different resources collect! We had far  fewer fields in common than expected. For example, some resources might collect information on what operating system a software package runs on, other resources may not. In retrospect, this makes sense, since disciplines have different goals and expectations for sharing and reusability  of research software and different heterogeneities (or not) in technology used.


The practices outlined in our work aim to strengthen registries and repositories by including enacting policies that make our resources more transparent to our users and encourage us to think more about the long-term availability of software entries. They also provide a way for us to work cooperatively to establish a way for our metadata to be searched, as software that is useful in one field may have application in another.  

Our proposed practices are already having an impact. They have helped member registries audit their practices and start enacting policies and procedures to strengthen their practices. By doing so, they encourage long-term success for their communities. Through this paper, we hope that other registries find these useful in improving their practices and just maybe, contribute to the conversation by joining SciCodes.


What kinds of lessons do you hope your readers take away from the research?

We hope the proposed practices will help new and existing resources consider key aspects of their maintainability, metadata and future availability. We expected that the process of converging in common practices would be easy but developing policies and practices that cover a wide range of disciplines and missions was challenging. We are grateful to our funders that we could convene such a great group of experts together and of course, to the experts for contributing their time in helping make our initial draft better.


How did you first hear about PeerJ, and what persuaded you to submit to us?

An editor of this special issue on software citation, indexing and discoverability (

mentioned that this would be an interesting paper for the community. While not fitting neatly into this category, we felt that workshop discussions and resulting best practices contribute substantially to the software citation ecosystem as repositories and registries are a mechanism to promote discovery, reuse, and credit for software.


You can find more PeerJ author interviews here.

FORCE11 Board Completes Strategic Planning Exercise – FORCE11

“In 2021, the FORCE11 board conducted a strategic planning exercise to review our work, our goals, and how our organization is being run. We followed the ITAV (It Takes a Village) framework developed by Lyrasis with the support from an Institute of Museum and Library Services (ILMS) grant. We conducted six strategy sessions. The sessions were prepared by then co-chair of the Board, Violeta Ilik, with the help of Board members Dr. Mantra Roy and Dr. Miho Funamori. The first strategy session was held on May 10, 2021 and the last one on August 9, 2021. 

Here are some highlights from each strategy session: 

First strategy session: reviewed different stakeholder groups and prioritized them to identify those that  need the most attention from the FORCE11 BOD. 
Second strategy session: re-evaluated our mission and vision. 
Third strategy session: examined our governance.  The need to document clear and succinct descriptions for all board officers and charters/charges for all task forces/groups/committees emerged as an important objective and next step. 
Fourth strategy session: focused on discussing the community infrastructure and BOD members identified many initiatives, some already underway, that will enhance the infrastructure. Some of them are: 

Establishing an annual Force11 Community award program 
Launching a new blog focused on original content regarding open scholarship and the future of open access 
Revamping the way membership is administered to include easy process for including all registrants to annual conference and FSCI 
Revamping the working group program to ensure all working groups are represented at FSCI and annual conferences 
Using the new website to organize our community lists and membership rolls so that we have a consolidated understanding of how we communicate with our community

Fifth strategy session: focused on resources, both human and fiscal, that need to grow in order to launch open community programs and help them thrive. Programs need to evaluate their resource plans in response to the broader landscape and trends in the domain FORCE11 serves. 
Sixth strategy session: focused on community engagement and what we need to focus on in the future. Some immediate action items include: 

Bringing more people into the fold – turning community members into stakeholders
Setting up processes and infrastructure to facilitate engagement 
Communicating clearly our practices and policies  
Increasing non-directed community activities …”

FSCI 2022 Call for Course Proposals

“Please use this form to submit proposals to conduct a course at FSCI 2022, which will be held virtually July 25-29, 2022.

Please see last year’s abstracts <> to get a sense of our topics and how courses are typically structured. The FSCI Program Committee will deliberate on curriculum choices and work through March 2022 to finalize the selection of courses; registration will open in April.”


“Today we are announcing Upstream. And if you’re reading this, you’re already a part of it!

Upstream is a community blogging platform designed for Open enthusiasts to discuss… you guessed it: all things Open. It’s a space for the whole community to voice opinions, discuss open approaches to scholarly communication, and showcase research….

Supported by FORCE11, this is a global and inclusive blog, bringing together diverse perspectives from all corners of scholarly communications from institutions to libraries to researchers to publishers to funders and policy-makers. Of course, there are lots of niche blogs out there, for example, at the university level or the stakeholder level, but our wider community has never had a central place to exchange in writing ideas about open research and all that it encompasses: open metadata; open code; open research data; open infrastructure; the culture of open; social justice and diversity in our community; open metrics; open citations; open access… You get the picture….”


Open and Inclusive Access to Research

“Open and Inclusive Access to Research is a four day virtual symposium, organised by Gimena Del Rio Riande, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, and Wouter Schallier. Primary funding was provided by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), with addition financial and in-kind support provided by Eclac, Force11, and the Sloan Foundation through the Reimagining Educational Practices for Open (REPO) project. The coapplicants and collaborators on the proposal were Gimena Del Rio Riande, CONICET; Juan Pablo Alperin, Simon Fraser University; Wouter Schallier, ECLAC; and Tanja Niemann, Université de Montréal.

The goal of this workshop is to bring experts and early career research professionals from Canada and Latin America together in a bilingual workshop environment that will enable them to exchange knowledge and expertise about Open Research Practices in a strategic yet very hands-on manner, with panels and prominent speakers from both continents. Researchers and policy makers in both Canada and Latin America have played leading roles internationally in the area of Open and Inclusive access to research, and particularly in Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science and Scholarship as a means to achieve this. The goal of this workshop is to bring those experts and early career researchers together to discuss areas of convergence and difference in a more systematic way….”

Recommendations for the handling of ethical concerns relating to the publication of research data | FORCE11

“The growth in data sharing over the last few years is an undeniably positive trend, providing the research community with ready access to valuable outputs and affording researchers further opportunities to extend the reach of their work. As more datasets are deposited and published, it is important — and necessary — to develop standards for the handling of possible ethical challenges that may arise in relation to published data: both to protect the researchers who contribute datasets and to secure trust by the scientific community in the value and reliability of public datasets.

While ethical standards have been developed for journal publications, this is a relatively new space for datasets and data publications. As the number of published datasets has increased, so has the amount and range of data-related ethics issues that data repositories and journals are encountering, and thus, the need for recommendations for a consistent and adequate handling of this type of cases has become more pressing. It is also important to recognize that while data repositories and journals may hold aligned integrity principles, the tools, processes and resources available at journals and data repositories differ. In the context of data publication, there may also be different research outputs that come into play (the dataset, the related journal article or preprint, perhaps different publications based on the same dataset). There is, therefore, a need to develop dedicated guidelines that account for these differences and nuances when handling ethical concerns related to a published dataset….”

Best Practices for Software Registries and Repositories | FORCE11

“Software is a fundamental element of the scientific process, and cataloguing scientific software is helpful to enable software discoverability. During the years 2019-2020, the Task Force on Best Practices for Software Registries of the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group worked to create Nine Best Practices for Scientific Software Registries and Repositories . In this post, we explain why scientific software registries and repositories are important, why we wanted to create a list of best practices for such registries and repositories, the process we followed, what the best practices include, and what the next steps for this community are….”

FORCE 11 Scholarly Communication Institute (FSCI) | FORCE11

“Year after year, it’s attendees like yourself that bring life and success to this incredible institute. New or returning, the community is drawn together to develop their skills through focused courses, build and strengthen their network, and engage in important global discussions….”

FAIR Principles for Research Software (FAIR4RS Principles) | RDA

“Research software is a fundamental and vital part of research worldwide, yet there remain significant challenges to software productivity, quality, reproducibility, and sustainability. Improving the practice of scholarship is a common goal of the open science, open source software and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) communities, but improving the sharing of research software has not yet been a strong focus of the latter.

To improve the FAIRness of research software, the FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) Working Group has sought to understand how to apply the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship to research software, bringing together existing and new community efforts. Many of the FAIR Guiding Principles can be directly applied to research software by treating software and data as similar digital research objects. However, specific characteristics of software — such as its executability, composite nature, and continuous evolution and versioning — make it necessary to revise and extend the principles.

This document presents the first version of the FAIR Principles for Research Software (FAIR4RS Principles). It is an outcome of the FAIR for Research Software Working Group (FAIR4RS WG).

The FAIR for Research Software Working Group is jointly convened as an RDA Working Group, FORCE11 Working Group, and Research Software Alliance (ReSA) Task Force.”

Fireside Chat with FSCI

“Join Fireside Chat with FSCI [FORCE11 Scholarly Communications Institute] in The Reimagining Educational Practices for Open (REPO) Community Event Series!

Serah Rono, Director of Community Development and Engagement at The Carpentries, will chat with Martin J. Brennan, Scholarly Communication Education Librarian at UCLA, about his role in the FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute (FSCI), and the impact of the pandemic upon FSCI and open science training more broadly….”

Reimagining Educational Practices for Open (REPO) | FORCE11

“At Jisc we’ve been committed to open research practices for years. Recent events have highlighted again exactly why all this matters. The ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis demonstrates our global connectedness and we’ve all seen that opening up research into the virus has enabled a global research and development effort to develop vaccines and treatments.

Our open research team works nationally and internationally to influence policy in favour of open scholarship. We partner with like-minded organisations around the world to develop services that support open approaches and to build the plumbing for the new processes, links, standards, workflows, policies, and incentives….”