DIAMAS receives grant to develop Diamond Open Access publishing in Europe | Plan S

Aix-Marseille Université, cOAlition S, and Science Europe are pleased to announce that they are participating in a Horizon Europe project called ‘Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication’ (DIAMAS). The 3-year project, launched on the 1st of September 2022, receives funding in the context of the Horizon Europe call on Capacity-building for institutional open access publishing across Europe.

The DIAMAS project, which was awarded a grant of €3m, brings together 23 European organisations that will map out the landscape of Diamond Open Access publishing in the European Research Area and develop common standards, guidelines and practices for the Diamond publishing sector. The project partners will also formulate recommendations for research institutions to coordinate sustainable support for Diamond publishing activities across Europe.

Moreover, the DIAMAS project will interact closely with the global community of the ‘Action Plan for Diamond Open Access’ signatories. While the project will spearhead some of the activities laid out in the Action Plan, it welcomes complementary actions and contributions. As a first step, DIAMAS project partners and members of the Diamond Open Access Plan Community had the chance to meet and discuss collaboration opportunities during the Diamond Open Access Conference (Zadar, Croatia, 19 – 20 September 2022).

 

Sharing our strategic and research roadmaps

“…Today, we share two roadmaps as living, breathing documents: Our Strategic Roadmap for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 builds off our 2021-2024 Strategic Plan. This roadmap seeks to actualize the Strategic Plan with a set of desired outcomes for the five goals laid out in the Strategic Plan, helping bring the strategic planning work of IOI down from the broad goals and closer to the day-to-day work of the organization. This Strategic Roadmap is intended to be both practical and aspirational, defining both a destination and a rough outline of how we plan to get there. As with any map, this exists to guide our staff and partners as well as inform our stakeholders and the broader community of those invested in building a vital ecosystem of open science and scholarly communication practices, tools, and services with both where we are and where we’re going. Our Research Roadmap brings our strategy even closer to the day-to-day work of IOI by linking the elements in the Strategic Roadmap to key research questions. We also track status (in development, being scoped, etc) and related deliverables, linking both to the tangible research outputs of IOI as well as to the Strategic Roadmap and the Strategic Plan. This is intended to outline our research objectives and key activities on a quarterly basis….”

Plenary: Recombinant Scholarly Publishing: Challenges, Trends, and Emerging Strategies | Science Editor

If you’re a member of CSE, you may be familiar with The Scholarly Kitchen, the official blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, which has established itself as a rich repository of information and an open forum for dynamic discourse that promotes collaborative, educational encounters among scholarly publishing professionals. Among the Scholarly Kitchen’s many designated “chefs” (i.e., regular writers) are Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Roger Schonfeld, both of whom possess a uniquely comprehensive, global perspective spanning the fields of scholarly publishing, scientific research, communication, academic libraries, and higher education. As joint plenary speakers at the 2022 CSE Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, Hinchliffe and Schonfeld shared their insights and observations about several recent trends and trajectories they’ve identified in the scholarly publishing industry.

 

Successful Implementation of Open Access Strategies at Universities of Science & Technology – Strathprints

Abstract:  While the CWTS Leiden ranking has been available since 2011/2012, it is only in 2019 that a first attempt was made at ranking institutions by Open Access-related indicators. This was due to the arrival of Unpaywall as a tool to measure openly available institutional research outputs – either via the Green or the Gold OA routes – for a specific institution. The CWTS Leiden ranking by percentage of the institutional research output published Open Access effectively meant the first opportunity for institutions worldwide to be ranked by the depth of their Open Access implementation strategies brushing aside aspects like their size. This provided an interesting way to map the progress of CESAER Member institutions that were part of the Task Force Open Science 2020-2021 Open Access Working Group (OAWG) towards the objective stated by Plan S of achieving 100% Open Access of research outputs. The OAWG then set out to map the situation of the Member institutions represented in it on this Open Access ranking and to track their evolution on subsequent editions of this ranking. The idea behind this analysis was not so much to introduce an element of competition across institutions but to explore whether progress was taking place in the percentage of openly available institutional research outputs year on year. The results of this analysis – shown in figures within this paper for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 editions – show strong differences across Member institutions that are part of the OAWG. From internal discussions within the group, it became evident that these differences could be explained through a number of factors that contributed to a successful Open Access implementation at an institutional level. This provided the basis for this work. The document identifies four key factors that contribute to a successful OA implementation at institutions, and hence to achieving a good position on the CWTS Leiden ranking for Open Access.

 

Open-Access-Strategie – Open Access Blog Berlin

“Open Access (OA) is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access and open science (OA and OS) in Germany. In this series of Open4DE project blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide Open Access strategies.

After starting this series with an article about Lithuania and Sweden, we now continue our journey around the Baltic Sea. Our next stop is Finland:

In a comparison of European Openness strategies, Finland stands out for its sophisticated system of coordinated policy measures. While other countries have a strategy that bundles different aspects of the Openness culture into one central policy, the Finnish model impresses with unity in diversity. The website of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, which was set up specifically to provide information on Open Science (OS), lists four national policies on OS and research in Finland. In addition to a policy for data and methods, a policy on open access to scholary publications and a policy on open education and educational ressources document activity at a high level. The openness culture in Finland targets all stages of scientific communication but also teaching and learning. In addition, a national information portal provides orientation on publication venues, projects and publicly funded technical infrastructures. It is an exemplary tool to get an overview of the constantly growing Open Access (OA) and OS ecosystem and its numerous products and projects….”

Building Data Resilience Through Collaborative Networks | Educopia Institute

“The aim of this symposium is to share information and best practices on the opportunities, challenges, models, methodologies, successes, and collaborative strategies concerning data sharing for digital scholarship, science, and community formation more broadly. The broad audience addressed will include faculty, librarians, technologists, and university administrators interested in these topics….”

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 …”

Webinar: Normalizing Open Research practices via grassroots community-building – OASPA | June 29, 2022

“OASPA is pleased to announce our next webinar which will focus on the ways in which researchers and scholars are normalizing Open Research practices via grassroots community-building. We will hear from four speakers from different regions who will relate what has worked in their specific communities, quick wins and slow wins, and what they recommend for other members of the community (whether other researchers, or publishers and librarians).”

Open access policy & strategy | Utrecht University

“Utrecht University aims at a publishing climate in which academic authors publish fully open access (OA). The Executive Board of Utrecht University has agreed to a new OA policy in 2022 to realise this ambition.

By expanding the availability of research results, transparency, applicability and reuse of these results increase. In addition, it will benefit the (societal) impact of research. That is why the university wants to increase the number of publications that are published in open access. This fits in with the ambitions in the field of Open Science. Another part of this OA policy is to control the costs of open access publishing….”

Draft Strategic Vision for U.S. Repositories Open for Community Consultation | comments by May 13, 2022

“COAR and SPARC are seeking comment from the repository community on a draft strategic vision for U.S. repositories. The strategic vision is intended to be aspirational yet achievable over time through active community collaboration within the U.S. Repository Network. This Network is envisioned as inclusive of all U.S. repositories rather than as a membership-based organization. The process for reaching this draft vision is outlined in the U.S Repository Network Initiative Progress Report. This public comment phase is the final step before finalizing the strategic vision. Please contribute your comments by May 13, 2022….

In addition to welcoming written comments, two live consultation sessions will also be offered via Zoom. Join these sessions to discuss the draft Strategic Vision live with other community members. Click the links below to register:

Wednesday, May 4, 2022, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

Friday, May 6, 2022, 10:00-11:00am Eastern…”

Opening Up to Open Science

“This way of sharing science has some benefits: peer review, for example, helps to ensure (even if it never guarantees) scientific integrity and prevent inadvertent misuse of data or code. But the status quo also comes with clear costs: it creates barriers (in the form of publication paywalls), slows the pace of innovation, and limits the impact of research. Fast science is increasingly necessary, and with good reason. Technology has not only improved the speed at which science is carried out, but many of the problems scientists study, from climate change to COVID-19, demand urgency. Whether modeling the behavior of wildfires or developing a vaccine, the need for scientists to work together and share knowledge has never been greater. In this environment, the rapid dissemination of knowledge is critical; closed, siloed knowledge slows progress to a degree society cannot afford. Imagine the consequences today if, as in the 2003 SARS disease outbreak, the task of sequencing genomes still took months and tools for labs to share the results openly online didn’t exist. Today’s challenges require scientists to adapt and better recognize, facilitate, and reward collaboration….

This tension between individual and institutional incentives and the progress of science must be recognized and resolved in a manner that contributes to solving the great challenges of today and the future. To change the culture, researchers must do more than take a pledge; they must change the game—the structures, the policies, and the criteria for success. In a word, open science must be institutionalized….

A powerful open science story can be found in the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), established in 1995. Before CMIP, with the internet in its infancy, climate model results were scattered around the world and difficult to access and use. CMIP inspired 40 modeling groups and about 1,000 researchers to collaborate on advancing modeling techniques and setting guidelines for how and where to share results openly. That simple step led to an unexpected transformation: as more people were able to access the data, the community expanded, and more groups contributed data to CMIP. More people asking questions and pointing out issues in their results helped drive improvements. In its assessment reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on research publications using CMIP data to assess climate change. As a platform, CMIP enabled thousands of scientists to work together, self-correct their work, and create further ways to collaborate—a virtuous circle that attracted more scientists and more data, and increased the speed and usefulness of the work….

The most important message from these reports is that all parts of science, from individual researchers to universities and funding agencies, need to coordinate their efforts to ensure that early adopters aren’t jeopardizing their careers by joining the open science community. The whole enterprise has to change to truly realize the full benefits of open science. Creating this level of institutional adoption also requires updating policies, providing training, and recognizing and rewarding collaborative science….”

Successful implementation of Open Access strategies at Universities of Science & Technology

“While the CWTS Leiden ranking has been available since 2011/2012, it is only in 2019 that a first attempt was made at ranking institutions by Open Access-related indicators. This was due to the arrival of Unpaywall as a tool to measure openly available institutional research outputs – either via the Green or the Gold OA routes – for a specific institution.

The CWTS Leiden ranking by percentage of the institutional research output published Open Access effectively meant the first opportunity for institutions worldwide to be ranked by the depth of their Open Access implementation strategies brushing aside aspects like their size. This provided an interesting way to map the progress of CESAER Member institutions that were part of the Task Force Open Science 2020-2021 Open Access Working Group (OAWG) towards the objective stated by Plan S of achieving 100% Open Access of research outputs.

The OAWG then set out to map the situation of the Member institutions represented in it on this Open Access ranking and to track their evolution on subsequent editions of this ranking. The idea behind this analysis was not so much to introduce an element of competition across institutions but to explore whether progress was taking place in the percentage of openly available institutional research outputs year on year.

The results of this analysis – shown in figures within this paper for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 editions – show strong differences across Member institutions that are part of the OAWG. From internal discussions within the group, it became evident that these differences could be explained through a number of factors that contributed to a successful Open Access implementation at an institutional level. This provided the basis for this work.

The document identifies four key factors that contribute to a successful OA implementation at institutions, and hence to achieving a good position on the CWTS Leiden ranking for Open Access. These factors are:

• Open Access policies. This aspect is highlighted as the key driver for a successful OA implementation: high-ranked institutions typically implement strong OA policies, whereas low-ranked ones often lack a specific policy beyond the (common) one issued by the European Commission for its framework programmes.

• Institutional system configuration (repositories and/or current research information system (CRIS) systems). The way institutional systems support OA implementation are configured is also a critical element for a high ranking. High-ranked institutions within the OAWG often have an interconnected institutional repository and a CRIS. Other institutions only operate a repository and some have neither.

• Institutional research support staff. A strong OA policy and an adequately configured set of institutional systems may not be enough to guarantee a successful OA implementation if the research support staff behind such work is not numerous or well-trained enough.

• Open Access advocacy strategies. One of the key areas of activity for such staff is the communication with researchers to highlight the relevance of Open Access implementation at a given institution and to provide the required support workflows….”

OSC 2022: “Scholarly Communication in the Open Science framework: The Diamond Open Access model” – YouTube

“Presntation by Suzanne Dumouchel // Huma-Num (CNRS), France

The talk will present the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access, developed by Science Europe, cOAlition S, OPERAS, and the French National Research Agency (ANR). The goal of the Action Plan is to further develop and expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond OA scholarly communication ecosystem. The Action Plan proposes to align and develop common resources for the entire Diamond OA ecosystem, including journals and platforms, while respecting the cultural, multilingual, and disciplinary diversity that constitutes the strength of the sector. It focuses on four central elements: efficiency, quality standards, capacity building, and sustainability, following up on the recommendations of the ‘Open Access Diamond Journals Study’. ”