Wikimedia Movement and the Paradox of Open | 14 August 2021 | Wikimania

“Wikimedia Movement and the Paradox of Open

Saturday August 14, 17:00 UTC

Speakers: Anna Mazgal, Senior EU Policy Advisor at Wikimedia Deutschland

Tanveer Hassan, Senior Program Officer, Community Resources at Wikimedia Foundation

Alek Tarkowski, Strategy Director at Open Future Foundation, member of the Wikimedia Poland Association

Abstract: Open sharing of free knowledge, commons based peer production is increasingly seen as not only a challenge but also an enabler of concentrations of power online – this is the “Paradox of Open”. In early 2021, Alek Tarkowski co-authored (with Paul Keller) an essay describing this paradox. During the session we will conduct a conversation on this paradox and see how it applies to the Wikimedia Movement, often seen as one of the most significant achievements of the free knowledge / openness movement. In particular, we will reflect how we can solve this Paradox and combat unjust concentrations of power, as we implement the new Movement Strategy. The discussion will be led by movement members and partners who have been engaged in both current and past stages of the Movement Strategy 2030 process….”

Call for tenders: Pilot project for the co-creative development of a self-assessment tool “Road2Openness” for the strategy and organisational development in the field of Open Science

[via deepl.com] innOsci, the Stifterverband’s Forum for Open Innovation Culture, would like to work with interested universities to develop strategies and concepts for strategic opening, organisational development and profile building in the field of Open Science.

To this end, it has launched the Road2Opennes pilot project together with a team of Open Science experts. Road2Openness is an assessment tool that is intended to support universities in determining their own status quo in the field of Open Science by means of an interactive online questionnaire.

Furthermore, it is intended to provide recommendations for improving their own organisational Open Science activities and organisational development.

 

innOsci, das Forum für Offene Innovationskultur des Stifterverbandes möchte gemeinsam mit interessierten Hochschulen, Strategien und Konzepte für eine strategische Öffnung, Organisationsentwicklung und Profilbildung  im Bereich Open Science entwickeln.

Dafür hat es zusammen mit einem Team von Open Science Expert:innen das Pilotprojekt Road2Opennes ins Leben gerufen. Road2Openness ist ein Assessment Tool, das Hochschulen  dabei  unterstützen  soll,  den  eigenen  Status  Quo im  Bereich Open  Science anhand eines interaktiven online Fragenkatalogs zu erfassen.

Des Weiteren soll es Handlungsempfehlungen zur Verbesserung der eigenen organisationalen Open Science Aktivitäten und Organisationsentwicklung liefern.

Academic research should benefit society and not shareholders | Jisc

Introduction:

“Shareholder value maximisation has been severely criticised in recent years, with a growing number of prominent business leaders recognising that companies have obligations to society as well as their shareholders.

This moral responsibility is also emerging in scholarly communications. Most academic research is still published behind paywalls, but researchers and funders are increasingly looking to make data and research outputs freely and openly available for the benefit of society.

The lion’s share of academic research is publicly funded, yet revenues derived from that research are distributed disproportionately, serving shareholders rather than researchers. Academic publishers and their shareholders have benefitted from an increasing proportion of library budgets. In the past, publishers routinely sought annual increases of journal subscription fees in addition to significant revenue from open access article processing charges. This is particularly hard for the smaller institutions that want to publish open access.”

Informationsplattform Open Access: Open-Access-Publizieren (Open Access Publishing)

From Google’s English: 

“Only when scientists * in

InIf you publish your research results, your findings become visible and can be recognized and cited accordingly. For a long time, publishing in print media, e.g. B. as a journal article, book or contribution in anthologies the most common way to record and disseminate scientific information permanently. The possibility of electronic publications and, above all, Open Access has given rise to a large number of alternative publication options . This significantly increases the citation frequency and thus the visibility of research results ( Swan, 2010; Li et al., 2018 ). The following shows which aspects have to be taken into account in open access publications.”

Strategy and Membership Webinar: Recording now available | arXiv.org blog

“arXiv envisions its future as a central hub for accessing open research, aiming to make its vast scientific content highly accessible and interoperable for the benefit of the community — and to maximize the impact of the research produced. On June 30, 2021, more than 225 people joined arXiv’s Strategy and Membership Webinar to learn how we are working together with our diverse community to reinvent scientific communications. The recording is now available for viewing….”

Pampel (2021) Strategische und operative Handlungsoptionen fu?r wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation (Strategic And Operational Options For Research Institutions To Shape The Open Access Transformation) | eDoc server, HU Berlin

Pampel, Heinz. 2021. ‘Strategische Und Operative Handlungsoptionen Für Wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen Zur Gestaltung Der Open-Access-Transformation’. PhD Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät. https://doi.org/10.18452/22946.

This thesis investigates the role of research institutions in Germany in transforming scholarly publishing from subscription to Open Access in the field of scientific journals. Open Access transformation aims to overcome the traditional subscription model to further innovative methods of digital scholarly communication. The study examines the options open to higher education institutions and research performing organizations for shaping the Open Access transformation. The thesis presents a description of these options in the areas of strategy and communication, services and infrastructures, business relations with publishers and cooperation. Then, the implementation of these options in practice was analyzed. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among 701 academic institutions in Germany. The response rate of 403 responding institutions (57.49%) can be considered very positive. This survey, which is probably the most comprehensive on the subject to date, shows that higher education institutions and research performing organizations in Germany have so far implement-ed only a few options for promoting Open Access. While the distribution of Open Access repositories is positive, the handling of Open Access publication charges and the associated monitoring of publication costs are still at the beginning. The results of the survey indicate a high need for action. The presented quantitative survey closes the gap of missing data on Open Access in Germany. Based on this new dataset, the study formulates recommendations for further engagement with the Open Access transformation at research institutions in Germany. One focus is on activities that arise in the area of academic libraries.

 

Chief Scientist on her brief from government: “this is a fabulous thing” | Campus Morning Mail

“Dr Foley also set out the “four critical foundation issues” she will champion

* AI and quantum computing

* education. “If Australia is to avoid locking in a two-speed society, we need people with the expertise to design, develop and operate future technologies”

* diversity, “It should not need saying that we are more likely to succeed if we use our full human potential … including the knowledge base of Indigenous Australians.”

* open access. “Access to information is the great enabler for innovation and for research commercialisation.  Lack of access to information is a real roadblock, and hinders our ability to compete internationally.”

Dr Foley added, she is “closely considering” an “OA strategy in Australia.” …”

Strategy 2021 to 2022 – DOAJ News Service

“Strategic objectives

Secure a sustainable funding model
With a focus on a sustaining support model.

Improve DOAJ’s value and place in the discovery chain
Develop strategic relationships with discovery services, integrate features and services that enhance DOAJ’s position, and improve coverage.

Communicate the value of DOAJ and raise our profile
Implement a Communications strategy, use multiple languages and focus on integrating the DOAJ database in national accreditation programmes.

Continue to focus on our key activity of reviewing applications and journals
Make our key services even faster and even more efficient, and increase the diversity of our coverage….”

The UK National Data Strategy 2020: engaging for resilience – The ODI

“At the ODI, we want a world where data works for everyone, and our manifesto outlines how this vision can be achieved. Engagement is one of our manifesto points. Everyone must be able to take part in making data work for us all. Organisations and communities should collaborate on how data is used and accessed to help solve their problems. How could this principle be realised in a national data strategy?”

Open access: “Information wants to be free”?

“Below is a list of the main points I make in this document

– Internet mantras like information wants to be free misled OA advocates about what is possible in an online world. Amongst other things, these mantras led to the mistaken belief that publishing would be very much cheaper on the internet.

– BOAI was intended to achieve three things: to resolve the longstanding problems of affordability, accessibility, and equity that have long dogged scholarly communication.

– It now seems unlikely that the affordability and equity problems will be resolved, which will impact disproportionately negatively on those in the Global South. And if the geopolitical situation worsens, solving the accessibility problem may also prove difficult.

– OA advocates overestimated the wider research community’s likely interest in open access. This led them to lobby governments and funders to insist that they force open access on their peers. This was a mistake as it opened the door to OA being captured by neoliberalism.

– The goals of the OA movement are out of sync with the current economic and political environment. This is not good news for scholarly communication, for library budgets or for OA.

– Populism and nationalism pose a significant threat to open access. – The pandemic looks set to wreak havoc on budgets. This is likely to be bad news for OA.

– Rather than being a democratic force for good, the internet created power laws and network effects that saw neoliberalism morph into neofeudalism and paved the way for the surveillance capitalism and data extractivism that the web giants have pioneered. These negative phenomena look likely to become a feature of scholarly communication too.

– Today we see a mix of incompatible strategies being pursued by libraries, funders, and OA advocates – including unbundling, transformative agreements and the adoption of publishing platforms, as well as experiments with scholar-led and “collective action” initiatives. There appears to be no coherent overarching strategy. This could have perverse effects, which has in fact been an abiding feature of OA initiatives.

– OA advocates have unrealistic expectations about diamond open access and the possibility of the research community “taking back ownership” of scholarly communication.

– While publicly funded OA infrastructures would be highly desirable there currently seems to be little likelihood that governments will be willing to fund them, certainly at the necessary scale and with sufficient commitment.

– OA advocates have probably overplayed their claim that publishers are engaged in price gouging. Nevertheless, the industry consolidation we have seen has led to a publishing oligopoly that now dominates scientific publishing in a troubling way. And as these companies develop ever larger and more sophisticated platforms and portals, we can expect to see more worrying implications than high costs emerge. Unfortunately, governments and competition authorities currently seem either not to understand the dangers or are unwilling to act….”

Manager of Public Policy & Advocacy

“Assist the Executive Director in the development of SPARC’s policy goals and priorities, and lead SPARC’s implementation of federal advocacy with Congress and the Executive Branch. This will include:

Monitor and report on legislative and regulatory activities related to SPARC’s policy priorities.
Track the development of relevant international, federal, and state policy to identify trends or future problems.
Provide in-depth analysis of regulations, guidance, and legislation (existing and proposed) as it affects SPARC’s priorities.
Draft clear compelling materials for policymakers, SPARC members, and the public, including reports, fact sheets, FAQs, talking points, memorandums, and public comments.
Represent SPARC in meetings with policymakers and staff (in Congress, Executive branch, etc.) and provide regular feedback to SPARC leadership.
Represent SPARC in relevant coalitions, and develop and maintain partnerships with key collaborative organizations.
Oversee policy advocacy engagement with the SPARC membership, coalition partners, and the broader open community.
As a member of the management team, provide vital input for short- and long-term strategic and operational planning within the organization specific to the policy agenda….”

Statement by the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) on combatting COVID-19: the importance of sharing knowledge to create a comprehensive and publicly available evidence-base

The COVID-19 outbreak is affecting everyone worldwide, and policymakers, scientists and practitioners are exploring uncharted territory while trying to get to grips with this new virus. Especially in such times of great uncertainty, building on up-to-date and accurate information is crucial. Robust systems of epidemic intelligence that can provide solid national and regional-level epidemiological data to inform modelling of disease transmission at the population level, and ultimately offer effective guidance on public health action, are needed. Sharing data, research outcomes and experiences in order to build a common, growing body of intelligence is key when battling the outbreak and saving lives. Indeed, we see many examples of information being shared, across disciplinary, sectoral and geographical borders, contributing to new insights and accelerated generation of knowledge. EUPHA, as a science-based organisation, commends this open attitude, and calls upon all relevant authorities, organisations and experts to share evidence to the maximum extent possible.

Developing a strategy to improve data sharing in health research: A mixed-methods study to identify barriers and facilitators. – PubMed – NCBI

Abstract:  

BACKGROUND:

Data sharing presents new opportunities across the spectrum of research and is vital for science that is open, where data are easily discoverable, accessible, intelligible, reproducible, replicable and verifiable. Despite this, it is yet to become common practice. Global efforts to develop practical guidance for data sharing and open access initiatives are underway, however evidence-based studies to inform the development and implementation of effective strategies are lacking.

OBJECTIVE:

This study sought to determine the barriers and facilitators to data sharing among health researchers and to identify the target behaviours for designing a behaviour change intervention strategy.

METHOD:

Data were drawn from a cross-sectional survey of data management practices among health researchers from one Australian research institute. Determinants of behaviour were theoretically derived using well-established behavioural models.

RESULTS:

Data sharing practices have been described for 77 researchers, and 6 barriers and 4 facilitators identified. The primary barriers to data sharing included perceived negative consequences and lack of competency to share data. The primary facilitators to data sharing included trust in others using the data and social influence related to public benefit. Intervention functions likely to be most effective at changing target behaviours were also identified.

CONCLUSION:

Results of this study provide a theoretical and evidence-based process to understand the behavioural barriers and facilitators of data sharing among health researchers.

IMPLICATIONS:

Designing interventions that specifically address target behaviours to promote data sharing are important for open researcher practices.