“The Open Science Observatory (https://osobservatory.openaire.eu) is an OpenAIRE platform showcasing a collection of indicators and visualisations that help policy makers and research administrators better understand the Open Science landscape in Europe, across and within countries.
The broader context: As the number of Open Science mandates have been increasing across countries and scientific fields, so has the need to track Open Science practices and uptake in a timely and granular manner. The Open Science Observatory assists the monitoring, and consequently the enhancing, of open science policy uptake across different dimensions of interest, revealing weak spots and hidden potential. Its release comes in a timely fashion, in order to support UNESCO’s global initiative for Open Science and the European Open Science Cloud (the current development and enhancement is co-funded by the EOSC Future H2020 project and will appear in the EOSC Portal). …
How does it work: Based on the OpenAIRE Research Graph, following open science principles and an evidence-based approach, the Open Science Observatory provides simple metrics and more advanced composite indicators which cover various aspects of open science uptake such us
different openness metrics
Plan S compatibility & transformative agreements
as well as measures related to the outcomes of Open Access research output as they relate to
network & collaborations
usage statistics and citations
Sustainable Development Goals
“To provide richer and more transparent information on how PLOS journals support best practice in Open Science, we’re going to begin publishing data on ‘Open Science Indicators’ observed in PLOS articles. These Open Science Indicators will initially include (i) sharing of research data in repositories, (ii) public sharing of code and, (iii) preprint posting, for all PLOS articles from 2019 to present. These indicators – conceptualized by PLOS and developed with DataSeer, using an artificial intelligence-driven approach – are increasingly important to PLOS achieving its mission. We plan to share the results openly to support Open Science initiatives by the wider community.”
“This book is the seventh full study of serious gold open access: open access articles in open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. This and previous editions are available as free PDF ebooks or paperbacks priced to cover production costs. Thanks to SPARC’s continued support, I was able to update the database to include all journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals as of very early January 1, 2022 (UMT) and to add 2021 counts and earlier counts as needed. This book follows the pattern of the previous versions. While there are major changes in the Countries book—it now reflects the “long tail”—the only significant change is in the dataset, where a new DOAJ field is included. That change has no effect on this book. Gold Open Access by Country 2016-2021: The Long Tail will appear a few weeks after this book appears….”
“As the fall semester begins and we welcome our students and faculty back to classes, we hope you’re excited about scholarly communications and Open Access too. Exciting projects to make scholarship and creative output more accessible for users seem to be announced every day, and it can become difficult to keep track of everything going on in the Open Access world. To help our readers, we’re offering three resources which can be used to track developments and projects that may be of interest.
The first resource is the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP). The OATP is crowd-sourced project that seeks “(1) to create real-time alerts for OA-related news and comment, and (2) to organize knowledge of the field, by tag or subtopic, for easy searching and sharing.” The project maintains a variety of feeds, from the general, comprehensive feed for all Open Access topics and news to feeds related to individual or specific topics or projects. The feed can be followed through an RSS reader, or it has a Twitter account.
The OATP is a part of the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP), which can be a valuable resource itself. Although it is no longer grant funded, the project is still active and does free consultations and maintains a webpage of useful resources. These resources cover a variety of topics, including best practices for universities drafting OA policies, books about OA and making work OA, and reference pages on federal legislation.
Finally it may come as no surprise that social media can be a place to learn about OA projects and developments, although the sheer number of results can be daunting and the source should always be considered when reading an announcement. The Open Access Directory maintains a list of social media sites about OA. The list includes links to groups and feeds on major social media platforms and in a variety of languages….”
Abstract: The Academy of Finland (AKA), Finland’s major public research funding agency, uses a Web of Science (WoS) based bibliometric indicator to assess the performance of research it has funded. We use an alternative methodology to compare (1) the research performance and (2) the scholarly communication profile of AKA-funded research to the Finnish universities’ entire output across the major fields of arts and sciences. Our data consists of 142,742 publications (years 2015–2018) registered in the national information service, which integrates Current Research Information System (CRIS) data of 13 Finnish universities. Research performance is analyzed using the Finnish community-curated expert-based rating of publication channels (so-called JUFO). Our results show that compared to the Finnish universities’ entire output a larger share of AKA-funded research is published in leading JUFO rated journals and book publishers. JUFO and WoS-based indicators produced consonant results regarding the performance of AKA-funded research. Analysis of publication profiles shows that AKA-funded research is more focused than the universities’ output on using peer-reviewed publications, articles published in journals, English language, foreign publishers and open access publishing. We conclude that the CRIS-based publication data can support multidimensional assessments of research performance and scholarly communication profiles, potentially also in other countries and institutions. CRIS development and maintenance require multi-stakeholder commitment, resources and incentives to ensure data quality and coverage. To fully recognize diverse open science practices and to enable international comparisons, CRISs need further development and integration as data sources.
Measure the evolution of open science in France using reliable, open and controlled data.
What are the differences with the Open Science Monitor of the European Commission?
The European Commission has published the Open Science Monitor whose design and production have been subcontracted to a consortium of CWTS, Esade and Lisbon Council by associating Elsevier as subcontractor. The Commission’s tool uses the Web of Science and Scopus business databases to define the publication field, as well as their affiliate (country) and disciplinary field. In the case of the French barometer, the perimeter is different (French affiliations only). The methodology developed by the French barometer is not commercially dependent, and is completely open (open code and resulting data in Open Data) .Ini, the European tool is based on the owner metadata of commercial bases. On the other hand, the French barometer has set up a transparent methodology to enrich open meta-data.
“Created by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI) in 2019, and as part of the National Plan for Open Science (PNSO), the Open Science Barometer measures the percentage and progression of open access publications, i.e. publications that can be freely consulted in their entirety by anyone and without restrictions.
The data used in the UniLaSalle Open Science Barometer come from various sources such as Web of Science, Scopus, Unpaywall and HAL. Only publications with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), a resource identification mechanism, are taken into account in the Barometer: the data is therefore not exhaustive.
This Barometer makes it possible to situate UniLaSalle in relation to the scientific productions carried out at national level. In this sense, the data retained concern the reference year 2019, in order to facilitate national comparisons….”
“The national partnership of university libraries and the National Library of the Netherlands, UKB, monitors the peer-reviewed articles that appear in open access. The results are reported annually by the Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The developments with regard to open access publishing are moving fast. Since 2016, a framework for this has been used, which is now being renewed for even more comprehensive monitoring.
Measuring more and better
It is important to choose the right policy principles and to motivate scientists to share their publications worldwide without barriers. The new framework anticipates further automation. It also includes a number of developments that have come into play in recent years.
More and more books, book chapters, conference papers and other publication types are published in open access. These publication types are part of the national open access ambitions.
The Dutch Copyright Act offers an additional possibility to publish short works of science in open access in the university repositories, six months after the first online publication. Work is being done on this in the project “You share, we take care!” (the green route). The various ways in which publications become open access will soon become clear in the monitoring.
Scientists connected to the NWO, KNAW and other non-profit knowledge institutions are also increasingly publishing in open access….”
“The Transformative Journal (TJ) model is one of the strategies cOAlition S endorses to help subscription publishers transition to full and immediate Open Access (OA). To be awarded TJ status, a title must publicly commit to transitioning to fully Open Access, and agree to:
work to increase the share of Open Access content, year on year, in line with publicly agreed targets; and
offset subscription income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments).
As of June 2022, some 16 publishers – large and small, for-profit, not-for-profit, society publishers and university presses – totalling some 2304 journals, have enrolled in this programme. Figure 1, shows the breakdown of TJs by publisher….
This blog post provides a summary of the first full year of the TJ programme, using data supplied by all participating publishers….”
The Transformative Journal (TJ) model is one of the strategies cOAlition S endorses to help subscription publishers transition to full and immediate Open Access (OA). To be awarded TJ status, a title must publicly commit to transitioning to fully Open Access, and agree to: work to increase the share of Open Access content, year on year, in line with publicly agreed targets; and offset subscription income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments). As of June 2022, some 16 publishers – large and small, for-profit, not-for-profit, society publishers and university presses – totalling some 2304 journals, have enrolled in this programme. Figure 1, shows the breakdown of TJs by publisher.
“Last year, driven by strong interest in these issues within our membership, the ORFG launched a working group dedicated to policy compliance and research output tracking. This group includes representatives from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP), Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, American Heart Association, Arcadia Fund, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Health Research Alliance, John Templeton Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. Through regular conversations, this group has honed in on specific roadblocks in the research output tracking workflow, and identified concrete actions that could be taken by key interested parties in the ecosystem to improve these processes.
We propose some of these actions here, organized into four priority areas: …”
“The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) engages a range of actors to develop principles and policies that encourage sharing of papers, data, and other research outputs. It is in this spirit of engagement and broad collaboration that today we publish an open letter to the community – a call to action for interested parties across the research ecosystem to engage, convene, and collaborate in service of better research output tracking.
Proliferation in research outputs and the growing diversity of dissemination channels is both a challenge and an opportunity. What is being produced throughout the lifetime of a grant? Where are these products shared? How are they being reused by citizens, researchers, and policy makers? Answering these questions could help funders better measure the impact of their grant dollars and research sharing policies, as well as help the larger academic community by making research outputs more discoverable and reusable.
Last year, the ORFG launched a working group dedicated to policy compliance and research output tracking. Through regular conversations, this group has honed in on specific roadblocks in the research output tracking workflow, and identified concrete actions that could be taken by key interested parties in the ecosystem to improve these processes.
We propose some of these actions in our open letter, organized into four priority areas: (1) funder acknowledgments, (2) persistent identifiers, (3) resource availability statements, and (4) machine readable metadata. Our proposed actions focus first on what we can do as funders to improve research output tracking, and then the complementary steps that could be taken by other actors in this space, including grants management systems, publishers, persistent identifier providers, and content repositories, among others. Our full letter can be found here. …”
“The LIBSENSE programme has expanded the compendium of case studies highlighting various initiatives and activities by institutions and countries to advance open science through policy formulation and implementation. Initiated as support material part of the first regional policy development workshop co-located with the UbuntuNet-Connect conference in November 2021, the compendium documents a broad range of open access/open science policy development initiatives from African higher education institutions and organisations. Expanded for the second iteration of the workshop in the WACREN 2022 conference, the representative universities cover a range of public and private institutions where research occurs, providing perspectives on open science policy development at the institutional level, including the motivations, successes, challenges and outcomes. The LIBSENSE policy working group solicited for case studies from partners across the African continent. The Compendium showcases key open science/open access initiatives written by those involved in developing and implementing them. The Compendium currently has 14 case studies from institutions across Francophone and Anglophone African countries, highlighting their open science or open access policy development processes and challenges and 1 regional case study from the Francophone region (CAMES)….”