“Concordia should: ? Broaden the university’s senate resolution on open access (dated to 2010) and update it to reflect the current state of open science and the need for widespread departmental and researcher buy-in. ? Continue to support foundational initiatives, like the Open Science @Concordia conference (inaugurally held in May 2022) and the Concordia Open Science Working Group led by Drs. Byers-Heinlein and Alessandroni, alongside library-hosted Open Access Week and Open Education Week events and services, which are crucial milestones along this pathway. These are key to creating awareness of the benefits of adopting open science practices, both broadly and in discipline-specific ways. ? Further the development of copyright support through an institutionally supported rights retention strategy, which can support green open access and diversify how research can be made openly accessible. ? Promote public outreach by creating (and enhancing existing) training programs in popular science writing for faculty and students using local expertise from the Department of Journalism, the Department of Communication Studies, and the Library. ? Strengthen ties with other institutions and organizations to secure long-term funding and resources for the implementation of open science. ? Position principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion at the core of open science practices, including designing, generating, and publishing science. ? Promote open education at Concordia, for example by highlighting in course calendars which courses use open materials, open software, and renewable assignments….”
Abstract: Open science—and open scholarship more broadly—is revolutionizing how research is conducted by democratizing access to knowledge and bringing inclusion and transparency to the forefront. By making research processes and products open and accessible to all, open science promotes fairness, efficiency, and accountability in the scholarly enterprise and ensures that the benefits of scientific and humanistic progress are shared with all segments of society.
In Canada, fostering the practical implementation of open science practices (e.g., open access, open educational resources, open data, open labs, open notebooks, open evaluation, open hardware, open-source software, and citizen science) is rapidly becoming a top priority. The Government of Canada’s Roadmap for Open Science envisions a complete transition to an “open by design and by default” model by 2025. This transition is underway, with policies being promoted by federal and provincial funding agencies. For example, the federal funding agencies, also known as the Tri-Council, have enacted an open-access policy requiring grant recipients to ensure that publications funded by the agencies are freely accessible within 12 months of publication. This can be achieved by depositing peer-reviewed manuscripts in institutional or disciplinary repositories or publishing them in open-access journals. Departing from the Tri-Agency model and aligning with Plan S, the Fonds de Recherche du Québec (FRQ) updated its Open-Access Policy in 2022, requiring that articles and theses be made freely available under an open license upon publication or institutional deposit. The fast-approaching date of 2025, in combination with new mandates and policies, will require institutional support and advocacy to achieve effective solutions.
On May 27, 2022, Concordia University took a decisive step towards advancing open science by hosting the Open Science @Concordia conference, which brought together a diverse group of open science advocates and stakeholders from Concordia University and other institutions. The conference included keynote talks by national and international speakers, interdisciplinary lightning-talk sessions, and roundtables. Ten national and international speakers presented on topics like open access, open data, open infrastructures, open educational resources, and citizen science. Jessica Polka (ASAPbio, USA) delivered a powerful keynote on the pressures of publishing with preprints, and Malvika Sharan (The Turing Way, UK) presented on fostering open communities.
Building upon the momentum generated from the conference, we established the Concordia Open Science Working Group, whose first workshop was held on September 30, 2022. During this half-day session, more than 20 faculty members, trainees, and students from 8 different academic units, including Psychology, Computer Science and Software Engineering, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Biology, Mechanical, Industrial, and Aerospace Engineering, Education, Communication Studies, and the Library, gathered at the Loyola Campus to explore the challenges and possibilities of promoting open science at Concordia. This report presents the key insights derived from this workshop, as well as a comprehensive examination of the methodologies used and a full account of the results.
“On March 28, 2023, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) released a request for information on “NASA’S Public Access Plan: Increasing Access to the Results of Scientific Research.” The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is pleased to offer the following comments in response to this request….”
Eight science publishers have signed a letter to the House Appropriations subcommittee to raise the dangers of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill’s draft language.
Frontiers says The US House Appropriations Committee has released its 2024 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. It proposes new spending of $58 billion and seeks to “rein in the Washington bureaucracy by right-sizing agencies and programs.”
A group of eight science publishers have signed a letter to the House Appropriations subcommittee to raise the dangers of the bill’s draft language. If enacted, it would block federally funded research from being freely available to American taxpayers without delay on publication.
Individual Americans would be prevented from seeing the full benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research they fund each year via taxes. Science for the few who can access it – as opposed to the many who pay for it – is inefficient as scientific or democratic governmental policy.
“We appreciate the benefits that collaborations with external partners, such as CHORUS, may provide. Because third-party vendors operate under terms that are subject to change, they should serve as a supplement to support compliance, rather than a proxy to indicate compliance. This approach ensures that NASA remains in a strong position to leverage external partners where it benefits the agency and its grantees while retaining flexibility to adapt its approach should the terms change under which services such as CHORUS are offered—without the burden of revising policy.
We further recommend that NASA explicitly emphasize the availability of compliance options that do not present financial barriers. NASA’s plan and associated policies and guidance should clearly describe how authors can fully comply with its public access policy at no cost by depositing the author’s accepted manuscript into NASA’s PubSpace or any other agency-approved repository.
Because authors may be encouraged to pay added Open Access fees in circumstances when they are unnecessary for compliance, NASA should clarify that any charges from publishers are publication charges—not compliance charges. It is critical that authors do not conflate compliance with article processing charges (APCs), which create significant barriers for less-well-resourced authors and institutions to make their research available. It is important for researchers to understand that the option to post their final peer-reviewed manuscript into an agency-designated repository is an affordable and equitable full compliance mechanism that is available to them.
Institutional repositories run by libraries and other research institutions generally do not charge authors to deposit articles or manuscripts. These can play an important role in easing compliance burdens on authors, improving discoverability of research outputs, and providing long-term preservation support. Therefore, we strongly recommend that NASA allow for the deposit of publications into other repositories beyond PubSpace, and suggest that NASA utilize the guidance set out in the U.S. Repository Network’s Desirable Characteristics of Digital Publications Repositories….”
“Unfortunately, a new House appropriations bill includes a provision that would block a Biden Administration order that ensures public access to unclassified research.
We must remind Congress why access to information is vital for libraries and the users we serve….”
“A group of eight scientific publishers has written collectively to the US government warning that a proposed bill is putting public access to published science under threat.
The US House Appropriations Committee’s 2024 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill proposes new spending of $58 billion and reportedly seeks to “rein in the Washington bureaucracy by right-sizing agencies and programs.”
The eight publishers – eLife, Frontiers, JMIR Publications, MDPI, the Open Library of Humanities, PeerJ, PLOS and Ubiquity Press – have signed a letter to ‘raise the dangers of the bill’s draft language’, warning that, if enacted, it would block federally funded research from being freely available to American taxpayers without delay on publication.
The letter states: “If enacted, the current Appropriations Bill will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the societal benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research that the U.S. government funds each year, as most of the research remains locked behind publishing paywalls. And it will remove the current requirement for commercial publishers to adapt their business models to make public access to science fair….”
“SPARC strongly supports the OSTP Memorandum’s emphasis on ensuring equity in contributing to, accessing, and benefitting from the results of federally funded research, and we appreciate NIST’s specific attention on how to ensure equity in publication opportunities for its funded authors. To ensure equity in publication opportunities, NIST should provide authors with compliance options that do not present financial barriers. To this end, NIST’s plan and associated policies and guidance should clearly state that authors can fully comply with its public access policy at no cost by depositing their author’s accepted manuscripts into PubMed Central (PMC) or any other agency-approved repository.
Further, NIST should clarify that any fee that authors may be asked to pay is a publication fee, and not a fee required by NIST for compliance. It is critical that authors do not conflate compliance with article processing charges (APCs), which create significant barriers for less-well-resourced authors and institutions to make their research available….
NIST should highlight the diversity of publication models available to authors who may face financial barriers in paying for APCs—including Subscribe to Open (S2O) and Diamond Open Access. Additionally, institutional repositories run by libraries and other research institutions generally do not charge authors to deposit articles or manuscripts, and can play an important role in easing compliance burdens on authors, improving discoverability of research outputs, and providing long-term preservation support. Therefore, we strongly recommend that NIST allow for the deposit of publications into other repositories beyond PMC, and suggest that NIST utilize the guidance set out in the U.S. Repository Network’s Desirable Characteristics of Digital Publications Repositories….”
“On June 30, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued a request for input on the agency’s draft public access plan.
SPARC submitted comments outlining the need for NIST to clarify the language in their plan to ensure research funded by NIST is made immediately available, with no embargo, to the public as required by the Nelson Memo.
Read SPARC’s Comments: Response to NIST RFI on Draft Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research.”
“Join fellow COAPI members for our first Virtual Coffee Klatsch at 1:00 EST on Tuesday, August 15. Grab your favorite beverage and join us for informal community building and conversation about how libraries are responding to the 2022 OSTP Public Access Memo (Nelson Memo).
While there is no formal structure to the call, we do encourage participants to think about and be ready to share: – Library outreach and education programs – Collaboration with other campus offices or within library – Resources to share/repurpose – If/how your institution has responded to the draft bill to block implementation of the OSTP memo.”
“A coalition of leading open-access research publishers is warning against a move in the US Congress to reverse a Biden administration order to make federally funded research findings immediately and freely available.
Joe Biden announced the shift a year ago, aiming to end decades of open-access debates by setting a 2025 deadline for ending any paywalls on the published results of federally funded research.
Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives, however, have advanced a fiscal year 2024 budget bill with language that – without any explanation for their position – would block the Biden order.
The heads of eight leading open-access-format science publishers wrote to Republican lawmakers warning that their plan “will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the societal benefits of the more than $90 billion [£70 billion] in scientific research that the US government funds each year”….”
An outline of nine methods for authors to retain rights when the publish scholarly articles, plus a handful of methods blending some of the first nine.
“In our capacity as representatives of leading fully Open Access research publishers and Open Science platforms, we submit our objection to the draft language2 in the Subcommittee’s FY24 spending bill3 that blocks implementation of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) August 2022 guidance to make federally funded research freely available without delay.
As a group of global publishers, we share a single aim – the transition to fully open scientific communication for the benefit of all parts of society. We believe the restriction of funds as outlined in Sec 552 of the bill is detrimental to this goal. We strongly support the OSTP guidelines which we believe represent a significant policy advancement for global scientific and academic research.
If enacted, the current Appropriations Bill will prevent American taxpayers from seeing the societal benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research that the U.S. government funds each year, as most of the research remains locked behind publishing paywalls. And it will remove the current requirement for commercial publishers to adapt their business models to make public access to science fair. Science for the few who can access it – as opposed to the many who pay for it – is inefficient as scientific or governmental policy….”
“This year, 2023, has been declared the Year of Open Science. This is why, for the first time, over 100 open science practitioners and policy-makers gathered at CERN’s Globe of Science and Innovation from 10 to 14 July. Co-organised by CERN, Europe’s leading particle physics laboratory, and NASA, the USA’s largest scientific agency, it brought together experts to discuss and learn how scientific bodies can promote and accelerate the adoption of open science. Over 70 different institutes were represented from five different continents.
Open science is when institutes make their research freely available to other scientists and collaborators and, to some extent, the public. This encompasses sharing data from experiments, open-source hardware, open-source software and open infrastructure. It also involves a commitment to education and outreach. These should all be made available according to FAIR – findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable – practices, leading to ease of collaboration, reproducibility of scientific results and efficient advancement of science.
In the context of the global challenges we face, it has never been a more appropriate time to push for a way of doing science that is more open and collaborative. “In late 2022, a small group got together and started thinking: CERN and NASA both have open science policies. What can we do to push open science forward and make a difference?” explains Chelle Gentemann, leader of NASA’s Transform to Open Science mission and conference co-chair. While NASA and CERN are both large scientific organisations with already-developed open science policies, many attendees of the conference came from institutes that are just beginning to bring these values to the forefront of their organisations. However, the summit offered an opportunity for all to learn from each other and harmonise open science practices across borders….”
“A cohort of HELIOS member representatives have joined with other open source experts to author a PLOS Biology perspective, “Policy recommendations to ensure that research software is openly accessible and reusable”. The piece provides policymaking guidance to federal agencies on leveraging research software to maximize research equity, transparency, and reproducibility. It makes the affirmative case that to accurately be able to replicate and reproduce results and build on shared data, we must not only have access to the data themselves, but also understand exactly how they were used and analyzed. To this end, federal agencies in the midst of developing their responses to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum on “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research” can and should ensure that research software is elevated as a core component of the scientific endeavor….”