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’. ”

Action Plan for Diamond Open Access | Zenodo

“Science Europe, cOAlition S, OPERAS, and the French National Research Agency (ANR) present an Action Plan for Diamond Open Access to further develop and expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond OA scholarly communication ecosystem. It focuses on efficiency, quality standards, capacity building, and sustainability, and it addresses the alignment and development of common resources for the whole Diamond OA ecosystem, including journals and platforms, while respecting the cultural, multilingual, and disciplinary diversity that constitutes the strength of the sector. The Action Plan intends to create an inclusive worldwide community that has the tools to strengthen existing Diamond OA journals and platforms and increase their visibility.”

US Repository Network Progress Report (public) – Google Docs

“The U.S. Repository Network initiative is a partnership between the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) aiming to catalyze a new U.S. network. As part of its Modernizing the Global Repository Network initiative, COAR has partnered with SPARC to hire a Visiting Program Officer for U.S. Repository Network (VPO) to assist in breaking down institutional silos and developing a more cohesive approach and greater collaboration around repositories in the U.S. This Network is envisioned as inclusive of all U.S. repositories rather than as a membership-based organization.

 

To date, the focus has been convening a high-level expert group of both Library Deans/Directors and IR managers from academic institutions committed to empowering the role of repositories to develop a strategic vision for repositories in the United States. The expert group includes sixty-three individuals from academic institutions of various sizes and geographic location and several consortial leaders. The expert group was first surveyed to gather their thoughts on the vision for repositories and the priority activities of a U.S. repository network. Then the expert group met in smaller groups of 10-12 people and were led through a series of activities to share and further probe the survey results. The results of the survey and small group ideation sessions are shared in this progress report….”

 

New strategy pushes universities to embrace open science

“The European University Association (EUA) has set out a radical vision to support its 850 member institutions in 48 European countries to move to an open science system that aspires to open access not only to scholarly outputs, but the whole research process.

The strategy unveiled in the EUA Open Science Agenda 2025 document has set the goal of placing Europe’s universities in “a scholarly ecosystem”, characterised by academic ownership of scholarly communication and publishing – with open science becoming an integral part of research assessment practices – within three years.

The move is part of a growing trend by the research community to challenge the global dominance of increasingly expensive academic publications, which, despite recent progress in open access to scholarly outputs, still sees an estimated 85% of new research articles published in journals being behind paywalls.

Dr Vinciane Gaillard, EUA deputy director of research and innovation, told University World News that the EUA open science agenda strategy has been a year in the making and will be followed up by an action plan, with specific targets and a timeline to monitor progress, to be published in June….”

Stakeholder-Workshop mit dem scholar-led.network: Die nicht-profitorientierte Perspektive auf Open Access (Stakeholder workshop with the scholar-led.network: The non-profit perspective on Open Access) | Open4DE – Open Access Blog Berlin

Von Martina Benz, Malte Dreyer und Maike Neufend

Open-Access-Strategien, die auf staatlicher Ebene verankert sind, bewirken dynamische Diskurse rund um das Thema Open Access, sie positionieren Länder gegenüber global operierenden Wissenschaftskonzernen und haben nicht zuletzt eine Leitbildfunktion für die Einrichtungen und Wissenschaftler*innen des betreffenden Landes. Dennoch hat Deutschland bislang, anders als viele andere europäische Staaten, keine nationale Open-Access-Strategie.

Um Vorschläge für die Gestaltung des Politikprozesses und die Inhalte einer Open-Access-Strategie für Deutschland zu erarbeiten, planen wir im Projekt Open4DE: Stand und Perspektiven einer Open-Access-Strategie für Deutschland eine Serie von Stakeholder-Workshops. Den Anfang machte am 28. Januar 2022 ein 60-minütiger Workshop mit dem scholar-led.network.

Das scholar-led.network diskutiert und artikuliert Interessen der im deutschsprachigen Raum operierenden, von Wissenschaftler*innen geführten Publikationsprojekte. In ihrem 2021 veröffentlichten Manifest treten sie unter anderem für eine Vielfalt von Publikationsformaten, nachhaltig und öffentlich finanzierte Publikationsinfrastrukturen und eine Community-basierte Entwicklung des non-profit Publikationsökosystems ein: ideale Anknüpfungspunkte für die Diskussion über Anforderungen an eine bundesweite Open-Access-Strategie.

Der Workshop teilte sich in zwei Phasen. Im ersten kollaborativen Teil sammelten wir auf einem virtuellen Whiteboard Aspekte, die unter die im Manifest genannten Handlungsfelder – Vernetzung, Finanzierung und Bibliodiversität – fallen. Der Workshop startete also mit der Frage, welche konkreten Herausforderungen aus Sicht der Teilnehmer*innen als besonders bedeutsam für einen bundesweiten Policy-Prozess empfunden werden. Die Antworten aus dieser Diskussion wurden nach Wichtigkeit bewertet und daraufhin im zweiten Teil des Workshops in drei Kleingruppen vertieft und aufbereitet.

[…]

English translation via deepl.com

OA strategies that are anchored at the state level generate dynamic discourses around the topic of OA, they position countries vis-à-vis globally operating science corporations and, last but not least, have a guiding function for the institutions and scientists of the country in question. Nevertheless, unlike many other European countries, Germany does not yet have a national OA strategy. In order to develop proposals for shaping the policy process and the content of an OA strategy for Germany, we are planning a series of stakeholder workshops in the project Open4DE: Status and Perspectives of an OA Strategy for Germany. The first was a 60-minute workshop with the scholar-led.network on 28 January 2022. The scholar-led.network discusses and articulates the interests of scholar-led publication projects operating in German-speaking countries. In their manifesto published in 2021, they advocate, among other things, a diversity of publication formats, sustainable and publicly funded publication infrastructures and a community-based development of the non-profit publication ecosystem: ideal starting points for the discussion on requirements for a nationwide Open Access strategy. The workshop was divided into two phases. In the first collaborative part, we collected aspects on a virtual whiteboard that fall under the fields of action mentioned in the manifesto – networking, funding and bibliodiversity. The workshop thus started with the question of which concrete challenges the participants felt were particularly significant for a nationwide policy process. The answers from this discussion were rated in terms of importance and then discussed in greater depth and processed in three small groups in the second part of the workshop.

[…]

 

RLUK Strategy 2022-2025

Research Libraries UK, an alliance of 37 significant research libraries in the UK and Ireland, is committed to working with, and on behalf of, its members to enable them to face shared challenges and seize collective opportunities.

This strategy outlines the ways in which RLUK harnesses the collective voice, experience, and expertise of its members, its determination to support them as they face current and emerging challenges, and its ability to act as a confident voice on behalf of the community.

This strategy is also an invitation, to like-minded stakeholders, to join with RLUK and its members as we work to transform scholarship and the role of the research library.

100+ Conversations to inspire our new Direction – Open Knowledge Foundation blog

“It has been almost two decades since OKF was founded. Back then, the open movement was navigating uncharted waters, with hope and optimism. We created new standards, engaged powerful actors and achieved change in government, science and access to knowledge and education, unleashing the power of openness, collaboration and community in the early digital days. You were a key mind in shaping the movement with your ideas and contributions.

Now, the World changed again. Digital power structures are in the hands of a few corporations, controlling not only the richest datasets but also what we see, read and interact with. The climate crisis is aggravated by our digital dependencies. Inequality is rampant and the benefits of the digital transition are once again, unevenly distributed. We transferred racism and prejudices of the past to the technologies of the future, and the permissionless openness we enabled and encouraged led in some cases to new forms of extractivism and exploitation.

What is the role of Open Knowledge Foundation to face the new challenges of “open” and the new threats to a “knowledge society and economy”? Which are the most urgent and important areas of action? Who are the partners we need to bring in to gain relevance and traction? Who are the allies we need to get closer to? Priorities? Areas of opportunity? Areas of caution?

We are meeting 100+ people to discuss the future of open knowledge, as we write our new strategy, which will be shaped by a diverse set of visions from artists, activists, academics, archivists, thinkers, policymakers, data scientists, educators and community leaders from all over the World, to update and upgrade our path of action and direction to meet the complex challenges of our times….”

100+ conversations to inspire our new direction

“We are meeting 100+ people to discuss the future of open knowledge, as we write our new strategy, which will be shaped by a diverse set of visions from artists, activists, academics, archivists, thinkers, policymakers, data scientists, educators and community leaders from all over the World, to update and upgrade our path of action and direction to meet the complex challenges of our times.

We believe you can help us understanding who could make a difference in this conversation….”

Warning: the creeping takeover of Open Science

 

The cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) was designed to provide researchers with the opportunity to submit their manuscript to any research journal they choose whilst remaining compliant with Plan S. As such, it was developed with the aim of empowering researchers to be able to use their own author accepted manuscripts (AAMs) as they choose, without having restrictive third party terms of use imposed on them. At the stage when the article is accepted by the editor for publication, after the author has made changes as a result of peer review,  the content of the article is the intellectual property of the author. The RRS is currently directed towards research articles published in academic journals – a Plan S high priority.

Warning: the creeping takeover of Open Science

 

The cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) was designed to provide researchers with the opportunity to submit their manuscript to any research journal they choose whilst remaining compliant with Plan S. As such, it was developed with the aim of empowering researchers to be able to use their own author accepted manuscripts (AAMs) as they choose, without having restrictive third party terms of use imposed on them. At the stage when the article is accepted by the editor for publication, after the author has made changes as a result of peer review,  the content of the article is the intellectual property of the author. The RRS is currently directed towards research articles published in academic journals – a Plan S high priority.

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….”