To support the implementation of Open Science in the transport domain, the EU-project BE OPEN was launched in January 2019. Coordinated by Greek research institute CERTH, the project included 17 partners from across Europe. In BE OPEN UITP’s role was key in ensuring that the public transport and practitioners’ perspective was well integrated in the project and its deliverables.
Open science or open access? Impact factor and risk for research diversity?
In medicine and the life sciences, open access is particularly supported by mandates from research funders such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Wellcome Trust, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Calls for freer access to the results of research in medicine and the life sciences refer to the direct link between open access and public health, especially in the global South. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) is also committed to promoting open access to the results of medical research, and operates IRIS, a repository for information sharing. Some research funders also provide publication platforms on which the results of the research that they fund can be published. Examples of such platforms include Wellcome Open Research and Gates Open Research. To comply with funding requirements, the published results of NIH-funded research must be made accessible in PubMed Central (PMC), the disciplinary repository for biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the NIH National Library of Medicine.
“China is working on a master plan for the internationalisation of its domestic journals and plans to pursue an open science strategy at a national level.
That was one of the main messages of a session at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Scholarly Publishing (SSP) held last week, and hosted by Cactus Communications (Cactus), a technology company accelerating scientific advancement….
During an interview with Christine Hu, general manager of Greater China for Cactus, Dr. Lyu stated: ‘China has always focused on the global progress of Open Science and has actively participated in it. The Excellence Action Plan, led by CAST, has an OA (open access) ratio of 81 per cent for new journals, which shows that Chinese STM journals are becoming an important force in the open access landscape….”
“This survey is intended to identify participants interested in participating in a focus group exploring attitudes towards open access publishing among faculty who identify as Black, Indigenous and/or people of color in STEM fields. The focus group will last approximately 90 (ninety) minutes and will be conducted online. This survey is completely voluntary and should take less than 20 (twenty) minutes to complete. All responses will be kept confidential by the two member research team….”
Abstract: The movement toward open science, data sharing, and increased transparency is being propelled by the need to rapidly address critical scientific challenges, such as the global COVID-19 public health crisis. This movement has supported growth in fields, such as artificial intelligence (AI), which has demonstrated potential to accelerate science, engineering, and medicine in new and exciting ways. To further advance innovation around these new approaches, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board on Research Data and Information convened a public virtual workshop on October 14-15, 2020, to address how researchers in different domains are utilizing data that undergo repeated processing, often in real-time, to accelerate scientific discovery. Although these topics were not originally part of the workshop, the impact of COVID-19 prompted the planning committee to add sessions on early career researchers’ perspectives, as well as rapid review and publishing activities as a result of the pandemic. Participants also explored the advances needed to enable future progress in areas such as AI, cyberinfrastructure, standards, and policies. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the workshop.
Open science increases access to resources for training.
Open education practices empower educators to make use of open science resources.
PURSUE is an open education initiative for training in psychophysiology.
PURSUE’s model of open education can generalize to other STEM fields….”
This academic thought piece provides an overview of the history of, and current trends in, publishing practices in the scientific fields known to the authors (chemical sciences, social sciences and humanities), as well as a discussion of how open access mandates such as Plan S from cOAlition S will affect these practices. It begins by summarizing the evolution of scientific publishing, in particular how it was shaped by the learned societies, and highlights how important quality assurance and scientific management mechanisms are being challenged by the recent introduction of ever more stringent open access mandates. The authors then discuss the various reactions of the researcher community to the introduction of Plan S, and elucidate a number of concerns: that it will push researchers towards a pay-to-publish system which will inevitably create new divisions between those who can afford to get their research published and those who cannot; that it will disrupt collaboration between researchers on the different sides of cOAlition S funding; and that it will have an impact on academic freedom of research and publishing. The authors analyse the dissemination of, and responses to, an open letter distributed and signed in reaction to the introduction of Plan S, before concluding with some thoughts on the potential for evolution of open access in scientific publishing.
“Overall, the Permissive licenses (CC0, CC BY – the paler colors) are most commonly used, outnumbering more restrictive ones by around 3:2.
Within fully OA journals, the ratio is nearer 2:1, compared with an even split in hybrid publications….”
When it comes into force at the beginning of 2021, the Open Access initiative “Plan S” is poised to help opening up and improving academic publishing. Ulrich Pöschl, a chemist and Open Access advocate of the first hour, explains why free access to research results is important and how an up-to-date academic publishing system can work.
“In 2016, the National Science Foundation (NSF) unveiled a set of “Big Ideas,” 10 bold, long-term research and process ideas that identify areas for future investment at the frontiers of science and engineering (see https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/index.jsp). The Big Ideas represent unique opportunities to position our Nation at the cutting edge of global science and engineering by bringing together diverse disciplinary perspectives to support convergent research. When responding to this solicitation, even though proposals must be submitted through the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) within the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors.
NSF’s Harnessing the Data Revolution (HDR) Big Idea is a national-scale activity to enable new modes of data-driven discovery that will allow fundamental questions to be asked and answered at the frontiers of science and engineering.
This solicitation will establish a group of HDR Institutes for data-intensive research in science and engineering that can accelerate discovery and innovation in a broad array of research domains. The HDR Institutes will lead innovation by harnessing diverse data sources and developing and applying new methodologies, technologies, and infrastructure for data management and analysis. The HDR Institutes will support convergence between science and engineering research communities as well as expertise in data science foundations, systems, applications, and cyberinfrastructure. In addition, the HDR Institutes will enable breakthroughs in science and engineering through collaborative, co-designed programs to formulate innovative data-intensive approaches to address critical national challenges….”
Abstract: Many scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy.
From each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science’s 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals’ data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy.
Of the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17–0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05–7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98–15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85–4.81]).
These findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers’ engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.
Rationale, Aims, and Objectives
To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID?19) pandemic.
The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID?19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts.
The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer?review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID?19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices.
While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.
Abstract: In this study, the authors examine attitudes of researchers toward open access (OA) scholarly journals. Using two-step cluster analysis to explore survey data from faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at large North American research institutions, two different cluster types emerge: Those with a positive attitude toward OA and a desire to reach the nonscholarly audience groups who would most benefit from OA (“pro-OA”), and those with a more negative, skeptical attitude and less interest in reaching nonscholarly readers (“non-OA”). The article explores these cluster identities in terms of position type, subject discipline, and productivity, as well as implications for policy and practice.
Abstract: Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA. This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S. We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project. We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream. We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit. Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.