ERC Work Programme 2022

“Under Horizon Europe, beneficiaries of ERC grants must ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications13 relating to their results as set out in the Model Grant Agreement used for ERC actions. Beneficiaries must ensure that they or the authors retain sufficient intellectual property rights to comply with their open access requirements….

In the Track record (see “Proposal description”) the applicant Principal Investigator should list (if applicable, and in addition to any other scientific achievements deemed relevant by the applicant in relation to their research field and project): 1. Up to five publications in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conferences proceedings and/or monographs of their respective research fields, highlighting those as main author or without the presence as co-author of their PhD supervisor (properly referenced, field relevant bibliometric indicators21 [“except the Journal Impact Factor”] may also be included); preprints may be included, if freely available from a preprint server (preprints should be properly referenced and either a link to the preprint or a DOI should be provided);…”

Why Use OJS for Journal Publishing & Management |

“OJS, short for Open Journal Systems, is an open-source (free to use) software that enables authors and publishers to submit, edit, publish, archive, and manage peer-reviewed scholarly journals online. It is an end-to-end journal publishing and management system that can be easily operated by authors, reviewers, editors, or publishers.

Moreover, OJS’s latest upgrade enables you with more flexible roles and task management features. You can create new roles and modify, rename, or even rearrange the existing roles.

The PHP application developed originally by Public Knowledge Project (PKP) has been on a growth trajectory since its release in 2001. Used by 10,000+ journals worldwide, OJS provides a solid foundation to all journal publishers aiming to improve the quality of their scholarly publishing and expand the reach of research work….”

Bilan du Plan national pour la science ouverte : des engagements tenus, des avancées majeures réalisées en 3 ans – Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation

“On July 4, 2018, Frédérique Vidal, Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, launched the National Plan for Open Science on the occasion of the LIBER days, which bring together more than 400 European university libraries, in the University of Lille.

The report on the implementation of the plan published today traces the many actions carried out during these three years and is a powerful testimony to the respect of the commitments made .

The National Open Science Fund was created , it launched two calls for projects in favor of open scientific publication and it supported structuring international initiatives.  
Substantial resources have been deployed to strengthen and perpetuate the national open archive HAL, both technically and for its governance and economic model.  
The National Research Agency and other funding agencies now require open access to publications and the drafting of data management plans for the projects they fund.  
The function of ministerial research data administrator has been created and a network is being deployed in the establishments. It is about having a strategic vision on the management and openness of research data.  
Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice in everyday research have been published.  
About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy.  
France has taken its full place at European and international level to promote its vision of open science  : – the National Open Science Fund has supported structuring international initiatives, such as Software Heritage, the world archive of software, or Research Data Alliance, – it plays its full part in the structuring of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and participates in its governance….”

Winning over funders through open science – Research Professional News

“Science funders are slowly dismantling the barriers that prevent research outputs from being disseminated beyond the pages of subscription journals. While many researchers welcome this direction of travel, it also has implications for winning funding.

With various funders taking steps to ensure that content is made freely available online, they are increasingly turning the magnifying glass on researchers, looking for evidence that academics are working to ensure their outputs have an impact in the wider world….

Grigorov, a researcher on open science at the Technical University of Denmark, said that solid proposals too often failed because scholars did not give enough thought to incorporating open science in their projects. “I’m surrounded by applicants whose research is excellent and who are very capable of scoring five out of five, but they really lose points on impact,” he said.

Grigorov has firsthand experience, having conducted a workshop for researchers on incorporating open-science practices into grants at his university. “We asked them if they’d let us hack their proposal all the way from research excellence, methods and impacts…to implementation,” he said….

According to Féret, a librarian in charge of open access and research data management at the University of Lille in France, meeting funder expectations on open science is not impossible for researchers but it does require a bit of forethought. Not only that, but flagging open-science provisions in a proposal can bolster a project’s appeal to reviewers….”

What We Learned Doing Fast Grants – Future

“And so, in early April, we decided to start Fast Grants, which we hoped could be one of the faster sources of emergency science funding during the pandemic. We had modest hopes given our inexperience and lack of preparation, but we felt that the opportunity to provide even small accelerations would be worthwhile given the scale of the disaster. 

The original vision was simple: an application form that would take scientists less than 30 minutes to complete and that would deliver funding decisions within 48 hours, with money following a few days later….

The first round of grants were given out within 48 hours. Later rounds of grants, which often required additional scrutiny of earlier results, were given out within two weeks. These timelines were much shorter than the alternative sources of funding available to most scientists. Grant recipients were required to do little more than publish open access preprints and provide monthly one-paragraph updates….”

Top health research funders’ guidance on… | F1000Research

“The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing).”

Open access: it works best when enforced | Campus Morning Mail

“Last month the National Health and Medical Research Council sought submissions on going immediate OA on publication. If publishers refuse the council suggested authors’ accepted manuscripts could be made available by named institutional repositories (CMM April 16).

Which is good, but Drs Kingsley and Smith (both ex Cambridge University’s Office of Scholarly Communication) suggest tighter wording to make intent impossible to ignore.

And they call for checks, which institutions could use to make sure OA actually occurs. “There is evidence that even ‘light touch’ compliance checking results in significant behavioural change,” they write. Especially if “there is a significant consequence for non-compliance,” – which could be tying grants to OA rules….”

Open Access Policy | NHMRC

“NHMRC supports the sharing of outputs from NHMRC funded research including publications and data. The aims of the NHMRC Open Access Policy are to mandate the open access sharing of publications and encourage innovative open access to research data. This policy also requires that patents resulting from NHMRC funding be made findable through listing in SourceIP….

NHMRC is seeking input from relevant stakeholders about proposed revisions to the Open Access Policy and Further Guidance. The proposed revisions are limited to sections of the documents about publications….”

COVID-19 and the research scholarship ecosystem: help! – Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Highlights

Data sharing is not common as part of biomedical publications
To increase data sharing biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should introduce policies that will enhance data sharing and other open science practices
As part of research assessments incentives and rewards need to be introduced

Abstract

Objectives

Data sharing practices remain elusive in biomedicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the problems associated with the lack of data sharing. The objective of this article is to draw attention to the problem and possible ways to address it.

Study Design and Setting

This article examines some of the current open access and data sharing practices at biomedical journals and funders. In the context of COVID-19 the consequences of these practices is also examined.

Results

Despite the best of intentions on the part of funders and journals, COVID-19 biomedical research is not open. Academic institutions need to incentivize and reward data sharing practices as part of researcher assessment. Journals and funders need to implement strong polices to ensure that data sharing becomes a reality. Patients support sharing of their data.

Conclusion

Biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should act to require stronger adherence to data sharing policies.

Opinion | Joe Biden Made a Promise to Scientists. He Can Still Keep It. – The New York Times

“Researchers who receive federal help consistently fail to report their results to the public. The government should hold them accountable….

Researchers using federal funds to conduct cancer trials — experiments involving drugs or medical devices that rely on volunteer subjects — were sometimes taking more than a year to report their results to the N.I.H., as required. “If you don’t report, the law says you shouldn’t get any funding,” he said, citing an investigation I had published in Stat with my colleague Talia Bronshtein. “Doc, I’m going to find out if it’s true, and if it’s true, I’m going to cut funding. That’s a promise.”

It was true then. It’s true now. More than 150 trials completed since 2017 by the N.I.H’s National Cancer Institute, which leads the $1.8 billion Moonshot effort, should have reported results by now. About two-thirds reported after their deadlines or not at all, according to a University of Oxford website that tracks clinical trials regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health. Some trial results are nearly two years overdue. Over all, government-sponsored scientists have complied less than half the time for trial results due since 2018. (A spokeswoman for the N.I.H. said, “We are willing to do all measures to ensure compliance with ClinicalTrials.gov results reporting.”)…

In 2016, Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, announced that the agency would begin penalizing researchers for failing to comply with its reporting requirements. “We are serious about this,” he said at the time. Yet in the years since, neither the F.D.A. nor N.I.H. has enforced the law. …”

Incentivization Blueprint — Open Research Funders Group

“A growing number of funders are eager to encourage grantees to share their research outputs – articles, code and materials, and data. To accelerate the adoption of open norms, deploying the right incentives is of paramount importance. Specifically, the incentive structure needs to both reduce its reliance on publication in high-impact journals as a primary metric, and properly value and reward a range of research outputs.

This Incentivization Blueprint seeks to provide funders with a stepwise approach to adjusting their incentivization schemes to more closely align with open access, open data, open science, and open research. Developed by the Open Research Funders Group, the Blueprint provides organizations with guidance for developing, implementing, and overseeing incentive structures that maximize the visibility and usability of the research they fund.

A number of prominent funders have committed to taking steps to implement the Incentivization Blueprint. Among them are the following: …”

Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) | DORA

“The ORFG released guidance for funders called, Incentivizing the sharing of research outputs through research assessment: a funder implementation blueprint. The group created the document to assist funders in encouraging researchers to maximize the impact of their work by openly sharing research outputs. The blueprint identifies three goals to be successful:

change the perception that publication in high-impact journals is the only metric that counts;
provide demonstrable evidence that, while journal articles are important, we value and reward all types of research outputs; and
ensure that indicators like the venue of publication or journal impact factor are not used as surrogate measures of quality in researcher assessment.

To do this, the blueprint provides three steps with concrete actions for funders: 1) policy development and declarations, 2) implementation, and 3) engagement.  Template language for funders is included in the document to promote easy uptake….”