Canadian policy: Data management requirement takes effect in March

“Canadian institutions are preparing for a research data management policy developed by three major federal granting agencies to go into effect this March. The policy of the Tri-Agency Council, comprising the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), asserts that “research data collected through the use of public funds should be responsibly and securely managed and be, where ethical, legal and commercial obligations allow, available for reuse by others.” Dryad would be pleased to assist any Canadian institution seeking a solution to help support their affiliated researchers with this policy….”

Time to Reform Academic Publishing | Forum

“In particular, as graduate, professional, and medical students, we have been shaped by the relics of an inequitable publishing model that was created before the age of the internet. Our everyday work—from designing and running experiments to diagnosing and treating patients—relies on the results of taxpayer-funded research. Having these resources freely available will help to accelerate innovation and level the playing field for smaller and less well-funded research groups and institutions. With this goal of creating an equitable research ecosystem in mind, we want to highlight the importance of creating one that is equitable in whole….

But today, the incentives for institutions do not align with goals of equity, and change will be necessary to help support a more equitable system. Nor do incentives within institutions always align with these goals. This is especially true for early-career researchers, who might struggle to comply with new open-access guidelines if they need to pay a high article publishing fee to make their research open in a journal that is valued by their institutions’ promotion and tenure guidelines.

To these ends, it is imperative that the process for communicating research results to the public and other researchers does not shift from a “pay-to-read” model to a “pay-to-publish” model. That is, we should not use taxpayer dollars to pay publishers to make research available, nor should we simply pass these costs on to researchers. This approach would be unsustainable long-term and would go against the equity goals of the new OSTP policy. Instead, we hope that funders, professional societies, and institutions will come along with us in imagining and supporting innovative ways for communicating science that are more equitable and better for research….”

Confused by open-access policies? These tools can help

“Funding-agency policies mandating that scientific papers and data are made publicly available have helped to drive the adoption of preprints, open-access publishing and data repositories. But agencies often struggle to measure how closely grant recipients comply with the funding policies. Awardees, and the institutes that employ them, can struggle to ensure they are following the rules. Now, digital tools are cropping up to help both sides of the funding equation stick to the regulations.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, has invested US$1.8 million to support the development of OA.Report, a tool that helps funders to track awardee compliance with foundation open-access policies. Developed by OA.Works in London, OA.Report uses text-mining techniques to match articles with the funder that supported the work, by sifting through academic papers and open-access metadata. The software also tracks article-processing charges, as well as the subsequent reports that summarize the outcomes of grants….”

Guest Post – “We are ready to move forward”: A Professional Society’s Route to Open Access – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Some publishers have been quoted as saying it is too soon to tell if this mandate will impact their journals. My colleagues and I at the ANS have known for some time that our journals would be impacted by the wider movement toward open research publishing. In many ways, the OSTP’s latest public access guidance is a big win for federally funded researchers and the entire nuclear community. ANS has recently published numerous OA supplements alongside some national US labs and the benefit to authors and researchers is far-reaching. The Nelson Memo only reaffirms that we as publishers must continue to be proactive in finding sustainable solutions that work for authors, the publishers of those journals and for society. We are ready to move forward.

But it is not an all-or-nothing approach. The ANS has long taken a progressive stance to ensure that we stay at the fore of the evolution of scholarly publishing, whilst ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of our members and our wider research community….”

 

Supporting open access publishing for books: myth-busting webinars event summary – Research

“As part of our work with UKRI to support the implementation of the UKRI open access policy for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024, we re-visited some of the key areas of concern for researchers that surfaced during the consultation period for the policy (see UUK Open access and monographs. Evidence review and Open access and monographs: Where are we now? A position paper by the British Academy).

There was a clear need for a focused period of engagement with key stakeholder groups such as researchers/academics across all career levels, librarians/scholarly communication managers, research offices, and rights holders, with the aim being to split the real issues from the perceived problems. As a result, we collaborated with a number of UK university presses and the Open Access Books Network to hold a series of webinars on the subject of the myths around open access for books, as well as to address legitimate concerns and suggest ways to remove barriers to open access publishing.

We held three 90-minute webinars, each consisting of three short presentations from a panel including authors, publishers, open access publishing support services and policy makers. These were then followed by a Q&A session where audience questions were invited. All sessions were chaired by an expert in the field of open access.

The opening session set the context and covered the key themes, and this was then followed by more focused sessions covering specific areas in more detail. You can find all the event recordings, transcripts, presentations, and our panels’ responses to the questions we didn’t have time to cover on our Events webpage and also via the links below….”

Webinar: Data sharing: what do we know and where can we go? – OASPA

“OASPA is pleased to announce our next webinar which will focus on the what about and the why of data sharing.

The recent OSTP “Nelson memo” served as a re-focus on data as a first class research output. But maybe that’s a misrepresentation for those of us who think ‘hold on, we’ve been focused on data this whole time!?’ Well here’s a chance to learn from and with a group of experts who are thinking carefully about data sharing: what that means from different perspectives, tangible steps to take and policies to make around data, and what we can do next in our communities of practice. Attendees are more than welcome to bring their own perspectives!…”

NIH’s new data sharing policy is coming, and it’s a ‘big cultural shift’ | News | Chemistry World

“Biochemists and other researchers who apply for funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will have to include comprehensive data management and sharing plans in grants from 25 January. These will be formal strategies for managing, preserving and sharing scientific data, as well as the accompanying metadata.

The new rule, which is generating some concern within the research community, replaces the NIH’s existing data sharing policy that has been around since 2003, and applies to only those seeking at least $500,000 (£419,200) in direct costs from the agency in any given year. The original regulation required researchers to submit a plan that describes how they will share the underlying data, or if they cannot share it then why not.

By contrast, the latest policy affects all NIH grants, regardless of specific budget. It will apply to competing grant applications, proposals for contracts and other funding agreements submitted to the NIH on or after 25 January.

The agency will now mandate that researchers describe their strategy to share scientific data needed to ‘validate and replicate’ their research findings, whether or not the data is used to support scholarly publications….”

open.science.gov – Your Gateway to U.S. Federal Science

“Open Science is the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility, and equity. Federal agencies are celebrating 2023 as a Year of Open Science, a multi-agency initiative across the federal government to spark change and inspire open science engagement through events and activities that will advance adoption of open, equitable, and secure science….”

“…Science.gov is the U.S. contribution to WorldWideScience.org, which provides access to science information from more than 70 nations…”

Open access for book chapters: event summary – Research

“Long form scholarly works, such as monographs, book chapters and edited collections, will become in scope of the new UKRI open access policy if published after 1 January 2024. UKRI is developing a dedicated fund to support these new requirements.

A variety of publishing models already exist to help cover the cost of publishing open access. However, many publishers have already introduced the Chapter Processing Charge (CPC) as their preferred publishing model, and similarly to the Book Processing Charge (BPC) model, there are concerns that the CPC model will not scale with this limited fund….

The inclusion of book chapters in the UKRI open access policy raises a number of issues that must be resolved prior to policy launch:

Where book chapters contain a UKRI funder acknowledgement, but the edited works that they are contained within do not, the individual book chapters must be made open access (OA) within 12 months of publication. This applies to each chapter, if more than one chapter acknowledges funding
If the whole edited work acknowledges funding, then the policy applies to the whole book, even if book chapters acknowledge different UKRI funding
Chapters in edited works from born OA publishers and those made OA via a subscribe to open or community driven (diamond) models would be compliant…”

Policy Assistant

“The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established to advise the President and others in the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets….

As a Policy Assistant, GS, 0301, 9/11 your responsibilities will include:

 

Supporting CTO Leadership Team in daily tasks, including calendar management and travel coordination
Arranging meetings with stakeholders and preparing meeting materials
Managing frequent and routine correspondence
Assisting CTO team members with tracking priorities, tasks, and requests
Performing technical policy research
Drafting policy memoranda on science and technology policy topics
Other tasks as assigned…”

DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft schafft Grundlagen für die Veröffentlichung von Abschlussberichten

From Google’s English:  “Recipients of grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG) are obliged to report on their work and the results obtained after completing their project. The reports serve to account for the use of public funds and provide information about the success of the funding and for the further development of funding programs….

In order to broaden the scientific information base and to contribute to the necessary culture change in scientific publishing, the DFG Executive Board has decided to make final reports of DFG projects easier to access and to make the scientific results section from project reports publicly accessible….

In future, grant recipients will be asked to make part of the final report intended for publication accessible in suitable repositories. The publication is supported by corresponding templates, which specify a structuring into a part intended for publication and a non-public part. In addition, the DFG provides a non-binding white list that identifies at least one possible place of publication for each scientific area according to tested quality standards….

For most applications approved after January 1, 2023, the templates provided are mandatory when preparing the final report. Projects that were approved at an earlier point in time can also use the templates. From summer 2023 it will be possible to send the link to the repository to the DFG via the elan application portal and link the reports in GEPRIS….”

When research data is shared freely

“In Norway, the proportion of research being published openly has increased considerably in the past ten years. While less than 40% of Norwegian research articles were published openly in 2013, in 2021 that proportion had increased to around 75%, according to the OA barometer from the service provider, Sikt.

Sharing data is not quite as common….

Wenaas and Gulbrandsen also believe that data sharing is a question of culture. It is new to many, for others it may have been the practice for a long time….”

 

Community Forum on the 2022 OSTP Public Access Policy Guidance (November 7, 2022) – YouTube

“On Monday, November 7th, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held a virtual community forum about the 2022 Public Access Memorandum titled, Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content…. The OSTP briefing was led by Dr. Alondra Nelson, Deputy Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Director for Science and Society, and Dr. Christopher Steven Marcum, Assistant Director for Open Science and Data Policy. Federal government perspectives were provided by representatives from three federal agencies and included members of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Open Science. Discussion points from the OSTP briefing included Biden-Harris Administration priorities involving public access, principles motivating the 2022 OSTP Memorandum, details on the provisions of the Memorandum, and a review of the timeline for federal agency implementation expectations.”