From Google’s English: “On July 19, ScienceGuide published an open letter from 171 academics who are concerned about the new Recognition and Valuation of scientists. In fact, the signatories warn that the new ‘Recognize and Appreciate’ leads to more arbitrariness and loss of quality. This will jeopardize the international top position of Dutch science, argue the writers, which will adversely affect young academics in particular. …
It is noticeable that these young scientists, whom the letter speaks of, do not seem to be involved in drafting the message. It is also striking that signatories to the open letter themselves are mainly at the top of the academic career ladder; 142 of the 171 signatories are even professors. As Young Science in Transition, PhD candidates Network Netherlands, PostDocNL, a large number of members of De Jonge Akademies and many other young researchers, we do not agree with the message they are proclaiming. In fact, we worry about these kinds of noises when it comes to our current and future careers. Young academics are eagerly waiting for a new system of Recognition and Appreciation. …”
From Google’s English: “A group of 171 scientists, including 142 professors, warns in this open letter that the new Recognition and Valuation will harm Dutch science. The medical, exact and life sciences in particular are in danger of losing their international top position as a result of the new Recognition and Appreciation, because it is no longer clear how scientists are judged.
An article was recently published in Nature about the new policy of Utrecht University whereby the impact factors of scientific journals are no longer included in the evaluation of scientists. Measurable performance figures have been abandoned in favor of an ‘open science’ system and elevating the team above the individual.
Here 171 academics warn that this new ‘Recognition and appreciation’ will lead to more arbitrariness and less quality and that this policy will have major consequences for the international recognition and appreciation of Dutch scientists. This will have negative consequences in particular for young researchers, who will no longer be able to compete internationally. …”
From Google’s English: “In addition to a printed version, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin now also appears as a free digital magazine in Open Access. The peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Rijksmuseum, in which historical and art-historical research about the collection is presented, will thus be freely available online to everyone. All editions of the magazine from 2012 are currently online. Later this year, the archive will be expanded to include the first issue in 1953….”
“Subsequently, a study was conducted into the need and feasibility of a so-called Open Knowledge Base (OKB) in which all data from research information systems is openly available. The draft report of the feasibility study into an OKB was published in December 2020. The responses to this have been incorporated into the final final report. With regard to the interpretation, the report examines in detail the context of an OKB, what an OKB can look like in relation to existing systems and the various development scenarios. Based on Dialogic ‘s final report. It can be concluded that it is desirable and technically feasible for the Dutch scientific field to set up an open infrastructure for the metadata and analyzes of scientific research. In the coming months, the Taskforce will enter into discussions with the scientific field about setting up an OKB. …”
“With the approaching deadline of 1 January 2020 in sight, the VSNU, NFU, NWO and data company Elsevier have today come to a joint statement. The parties agree to continue to negotiate full open access, in combination with extensive cooperation in the field of open science….
In the past two years , extensive negotiations have taken place between the VSNU, NFU and NWO with the publishing company and data giant Elsevier about a follow-up to the first transformative deal from 2015. Where it was initially possible to work with an extension of the previous contract, the parties negotiated it last year with the prospect that on 1 January 2020 Elsevier would go black for Dutch knowledge institutions.
At the end of 2019, the parties have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that guarantees access to the more than 2500 scientific journals of Elsevier at least until the beginning of May 2020. In addition, Dutch researchers who submit (submit) an article during this period do not have to pay an open access fee. “This remains unchanged from the current OA deal with Elsevier,” says a spokesperson. “The number of titles in which this is possible has increased considerably.” In the meantime, the parties agree to work together on a wide range of pilots that should make open science and research information possible….”
From Google’s English: “Many US universities can publish scientific articles directly open access. They makeuse the Harvard open access licensing model for this. This article examines whether the Harvardlicensing model under Dutch law is permitted. That appears to be the case. That makes it for authors and institutions in the Netherlands very easy to meet the open access requirements of grant providers,as recently formulated in Plan S.”
From Google’s English: “Many US universities can publish scientific articles directly open access. For this they use the Harvard open access licensing model. This article examines whether the Harvard licensing model is permitted under Dutch law. That appears to be the case. This makes it very easy for authors and institutions in the Netherlands to comply with the open access requirements of grant providers, as they have recently been formulated in Plan S.”
” It is clear that the assessment criteria for researchers must change. There are other good reasons for that. Publishing in Science gets a lot of weight in the assessment of a scientist, but it is not in itself proof that a person’s research is important: there are also articles in this journal that are never or little quoted. And some fields are underrepresented.
This is one of the reasons why NWO recently issued the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).signed. This calls for a broader assessment of a person’s contribution to science: not just on the basis of a few simple core indicators such as the h-index. It does not only have to be researched: a method can also be groundbreaking. And research data can in itself already have great value for other scientists and even for society as a whole.
NWO will adapt the instructions to its reviewers in order to give this change in the assessment criteria hands and feet….”
In Google’s English: “Currently he is still special Envoy Open Access and introduced Plan-S earlier this month with 14 European scientific organizations. He received a lot of praise for this internationally. After clearing this initial impulse to prepare the EU for more Open Access, he leaves for [Eindhoven University of Technology] on 1 March….
In March 2019, the born Brabander Robert-Jan Smits will succeed lecture chairman Jan Mengelers, who will retire in mid-2019. Nicole Ummelen will succeed Jo van Ham as vice-chairman of the Executive Board on 1 January 2019. Jo van Ham will also retire in mid-2019. Until then, he will focus on broadening the international coalition for Plan S and the implementation of the open access policy….
The plan seems to have a lot of impact. Since the announcement of this plan on 4 September, a day after Smits took care of the Academic Year Opening at Eindhoven University of Technology, the share of the largest scientific publisher Elsevier has already fallen by 7% in market value, stock market analysts attribute this to the introduction of Plan S. International he has also received much praise for this plan….
In the coming months, Smits will focus primarily on expanding the coalition at an international level. Last weekend gave the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation already commit themselves to the coalition, and there is interest from the US, China and Japan. In early October Smits travels to the US to speak with American partners for a global rollout of Schedule S. “This week I have a meeting with the TNCs from Europe to explain the plan.”
In a week’s time, a task force headed by ScienceEurope will start the concrete implementation of the European organization of NWO-like institutions….”
From Google’s English: “It is nothing less than a revolution. From 2020 onwards, scientists will no longer be allowed to publish paid research in scientific journals that charge subscription fees. Researchers, but also general practitioners, patients, hospitals and companies that can not afford to pay expensive subscriptions to professional literature, should then be able to view publicly paid research free of charge….”
From Google’s English: “Gianfranco Bertone, UvA physicist and until recently editor-in-chief of Elsevier’s Physics of the Dark Universe…announced Friday his departure as editor-in-chief of the renowned physics journal Physics of the Dark Universe on Twitter. ‘I have resigned as editor-in-chief of Elsevier’s’ Physics of the Dark Universe ‘and intend to support open access not-for-profit publishers such as @scipost_dot_org,’ Bertone wrote….When he joined Physics of the Dark Universe in 2011, the plan was to change the subscription model in such a way that the entire magazine would be open access, says Bertone. ‘It has been a fantastic scientific adventure, but in the end we did not manage to create the business model that we had in mind. It was time for me to look at other possibilities to realize my vision. ‘ …”
“44% of all peer-reviewed publications of the VU and the VUmc are published Open Access.
This includes all articles, letters, reviews and books that are available immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download on the website of the publisher. The policy of the Dutch universities is starting to pay off. During the past two years, universities have made agreements with publishers including Springer, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier about funding Open Access publishing.”
From Google’s English: “Publisher Elsevier shall abide by the decision of the Appeals Committee to publish the open access contracts with Dutch universities. This means that the international negotiations now take place in more openness.
Recently did the appeals board decision in the case between publishers Elsevier and Springer against the Dutch universities. The subscription contracts, including the open access point should be made public . The publishers had six weeks to go against this appeal, but for now Elsevier chooses to leave it at that….”
From Google Translate: “The agreements between the Dutch universities and Cambridge University Press (CUP) are unique, says Board Chairman Jaap Winter of the University, university association VSNU negotiator.
The agreement with CUP universities have open access surrendered at once. Seventeen fully open access journals and 339 hybrid journals, Dutch researchers from June 1 to publish at no extra cost.
This is in discussions about open access as the ‘golden road’: the items are in the archives of the magazine itself and anyone can read them. Another form of open access is less far and is called the ‘green road’. Then scientists can make their articles freely accessible in an archive of their own university or at their website, but they are in the magazine itself still behind a paywall.
The Dutch universities will only renew subscriptions to scientific journals and publishers open access one step closer. Negotiations with Oxford University Press this faltered .
In old subscription science actually pays twice: researchers write articles yourself and additionally paid subscriber to read the magazines. The results of (mostly publicly funded) research are also not accessible to outsiders.
The advocates of open access, including Secretary Sander Dekker, want to change that. Ideally pay science no longer to articles read , but to publish . The articles themselves are free for everyone.”