Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes | Science and Public Policy | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  Lists of endorsed and discouraged scholarly publications recently emerged as an important transition in Chinese journal evaluation. Among the targeted users of these lists are researchers, who are to avoid publishing in discouraged journals and focus efforts on endorsed journals. However, it is unclear how these lists affect researchers’ valuations when choosing publication outlets. This explorative study investigates the reception of such journal lists in Chinese scientists’ research practices. Our findings suggest that three logics interact in respondents’ journal valuations: institutional evaluation regimes, differing epistemic cultures, and the influence of the commercial publishing industry. The reactive effects of both endorsed and discouraged journal lists appear to differ with the ranking status of universities, the seniority of scholars, and research fields. Apart from the new institutional evaluation regimes in this interplay, there appear to be more predominant factors than journal lists that inform publishing choices: quantitative indicators, publishers’ branding, epistemic cultures, and editorial procedures and publishing models.


Transforming Research Assessment for an Equitable Scientific Culture | Septentrio Conference Series

Abstract:  Science plays a pivotal role in the advancement of democratic societies, and there is a growing consensus advocating for its recognition as both a common good and a fundamental human right. To effectively fulfil this role, science necessitates the trust of society, the support of policy makers, and robust international collaboration, enabling the mobility of researchers and the free flow of knowledge. To encourage this, our responsibilities as researchers extend beyond the realm of academic publishing. They encompass science outreach, education, diplomacy, policy advocacy, entrepreneurship, and collaborations aimed at addressing global challenges or progress towards more equitable societies. However, this is hampered by current research assessment practices and the academic reward system, which perpetuate a ‘publish or perish’ research culture that confines the scope of science to academic publishing, fosters privilege-based biases, and prioritises quantity over quality, as well as prestige over integrity. During this talk, I will share my personal journey as an early career researcher from the Global South, now affiliated with one of the most innovative research labs worldwide. My research journey, which was enabled by securing highly competitive funding since early stages of my career, provided me with first-hand insight into the biases and repercussions of current research assessment practices on the trajectories of researchers. Further validating this perspective is a ground-breaking study I co-led with colleagues from the Global Young Academy, exploring research assessment for career advancement on a global scale. This study shows that research institutions worldwide heavily rely on bibliometrics to evaluate career progression, irrespective of the academic discipline. However, while more established institutions appear to be walking away from these practices, these are becoming more popular in emerging research institutions from low-middle income countries. These findings highlight the need for transformational global (inclusive) initiatives. I am privileged to be part of one such initiative – The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). CoARA brings together a community of researchers and research enablers dedicated to reforming this perilous research culture. CoARA’s guiding principles centre on acknowledging the diversity of contributions and careers in science, shifting research evaluation towards qualitative aspects where research ethics and integrity are at the core, and recognizing that excellence is context-dependent, varying for each candidate, role, and projects. A standout feature of CoARA is its unwavering commitment to early career researchers, placing them at the heart of its principles, governance, structures, and interventions. Thus, ensuring that future generation of scientific leaders is well-equipped to navigate and transform the landscape of research assessment and scientific culture.

Improving the Research Culture: COS Celebrates 10 Years

“Improving the Research Culture: COS Celebrates 10 Years

May 25th, 2023,Center for Open SciencePosted in: Open Science, Culture ChangeBlue background with COS logo and tagline that reads “Science Works Best in the Open”

The Center for Open Science (COS) celebrated its 10th anniversary on Monday, May 8, 2023 at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, DC. This event featured a day-long symposium with partners and supporters to discuss the progress and future direction of open science.

The anniversary symposium included presentations by COS staff and board members about the progress, strategy, and direction to advance its mission, along with stakeholders and colleagues giving presentations that highlighted particular areas of open science practices, impact, and COS’s Theory of Change.

Recordings from this event are now available….”

A decade of surveys on attitudes to data sharing highlights three factors for achieving open science | Impact of Social Sciences

“Over a 10 year period Carol Tenopir of DataONE and her team conducted a global survey of scientists, managers and government workers involved in broad environmental science activities about their willingness to share data and their opinion of the resources available to do so (Tenopir et al., 2011, 2015, 2018, 2020). Comparing the responses over that time shows a general increase in the willingness to share data (and thus engage in Open Science)….

The most surprising result was that a higher willingness to share data corresponded with a decrease in satisfaction with data sharing resources across nations (e.g., skills, tools, training) (Fig.1). That is, researchers who did not want to share data were satisfied with the available resources, and those that did want to share data were dissatisfied. Researchers appear to only discover that the tools are insufficient when they begin the hard work of engaging in open science practices. This indicates that a cultural shift in the attitudes of researchers needs to precede the development of support and tools for data management….

Mandated requirements to share data really do work. However, this effect was shown in the surveys as government researchers were consistently far more willing to share data than those in academia or corporations, and this willingness to share increased substantially from 2011 to 2019….

Researchers working in academia were less willing to share than those in government, but did show significant increases in willingness to share from 2011 to 2015. Researchers in the commercial sector were, unsurprisingly, the least willing to share their data….

government involvement and funding play an important role in improving the attitudes researchers have towards open science practices. The organisational influence of government funding and mandates shifts individual incentives. Researchers then realize that they lack the knowledge, tools, and training they need to properly share data, which can push the social change needed to drastically change the way that science is done for the better.”

Statement of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) on European Council Conclusions on “High-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing”

“In particular, the DFG underpins the propositions that scholarly publication channels ? should continue to evolve as high-quality, openly accessible, sustainably funded digital infrastructures for research; ? should be organised in such a way that they protect the principles of the freedom of research, contribute to research integrity and quality, and ensure the highest possible accessibility and re-usability of research results; ? must apply the highest standards to the quality assurance of publications, the trustworthiness of processes and the reliability and reproducibility of content; ? should make even more effective use of the innovative possibilities of digital publishing…”

DFG, German Research Foundation – DFG welcomes EU Council Conclusions on Scholarly Publishing

“The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) welcomes the Council Conclusions on scholarly publishing adopted today, Tuesday 23 May 2023, by the Com-petitiveness Council of the European Union.

In the opinion of the largest research funding organisation and central self-governing body of the research community in Germany, the conclusions adopted under the title “On high-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing” contain a series of trend-setting recommendations. These are commented on in detail in a statement issued simultane-ously by the DFG.

The DFG underlines that the academic publication system should continue to develop based on high-quality, openly accessible, sustainably funded digital infrastructures for research. It must be organised in such a way that the principles of the freedom of research are protected, scien-tific integrity and quality are guaranteed and the accessibility and re-usability of research re-sults are enabled….”

All Things Must Pass | Research Information

“Andrew Barker and Elaine Sykes reflect on Lancaster University’s shift to an open research culture

We begin this opinion piece with a statement of confidence, ambition and intent: this is the best and most exciting time to be a librarian; universities are progressing towards a new research culture, a culture that puts openness and equity at its centre – and librarians are using our knowledge, skills, relationships and our ambitions to be at the centre of that progressive shift. That shift includes, but is not limited to, the future of scholarly outputs, data, digital scholarship and citizen science engagement opportunities. This piece will outline thoughts from Lancaster University on what we are going to do to support the move to an open research culture, but it also make it clear that the status quo has to change, and we are explicit that now is the time to accept that change and for the sector to work together on a range of activities that cut across the different parts of our sector….”

HEIs must embrace 2028 REF’s research culture focus | Times Higher Education (THE)

“The UK’s next Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise promises changes that could make research more effective and the research environment more equitable. It is up to higher education institutions whether this rare opportunity to recognise the teams they rely on is seized or squandered….

Of course publications are vital, but they are far from the only important output, and they frequently owe their existence to other, overlooked research outputs. For instance, about 70 per cent of researchers from across disciplines report that software is fundamental to their work. But of the 186,000 outputs submitted to the last REF, only 31 were for data work and 11 for software….”

Conference Report, Berlin OA Conference

“Inclusivity in scholarly publishing is good for science and scholarship…

The most scalable strategy to enable open access for readers and authors…

Newly calibrated objectives to complete the open access transition…

A change in culture at all levels is re-establishing science as a public good…”

My research culture is better than yours | Wonkhe

“So whilst I disagree with Iain Mansfield that it’s a mistake to allocate 25 per cent of REF outcomes to research culture, we need to make sure this has the desired long-term effect. The risk of pitting us all against each other in some unholy research culture competition is that hyper-competition was always at the heart of so many of our unhelpful research cultures. In fact, a lot of the research culture challenges we face are outwith the agency and reach of individual institutions, leaving collaboration as our only mechanism to create real change.

One thing is for sure: if we don’t get this right and research culture does become the next big competition in HE, we all know who’s going to win: our large, old and wealthy friends, the Very Research Intensives. Not only do they do more research – a fundamental prerequisite when it comes to research culture – they also benefit from many other forms of social and economic ‘research capital’….”

Frankl | Towards an Author-Centered Open Access Monograph Program: Understanding Open Access Cultures in Scholarly Publishing | The Journal of Electronic Publishing

Abstract:  Author attitudes towards Open Access (OA) remains an important area of investigation in academic publishing. The successful implementation of new OA infrastructure and business models depend on their reception within scholarly communities. This paper proposes “Open Access Culture” — the set of beliefs, practices, and attitudes towards OA publishing shared by members of an academic field — as a framework to understand how OA innovations are and will be received by different scholarly communities. The investigation of OA culture helps identify the needs of individual academic fields (e.g., the importance of print publishing for a particular field), thus foregrounding author preferences in the publishing process. The University of Michigan Press (UMP) is drawing upon the OA Culture framework to aid the implementation of its OA monograph initiative. UMP has undertaken research (author survey as well as editor, author, and librarian interviews) to understand how the monograph initiative will integrate different fields. This paper presents results of this research demonstrating the application of the OA Culture framework to several fields, as well the Humanities, Arts, and Humanistic Social Sciences (HSS) more broadly. This is one way that University Presses may take an author-centered approach to OA publishing programs, one that foregrounds the needs of individual authors and considers their unique disciplinary context. Moreover, the paper offers a recent view of sentiments towards OA in the HSS and thus helps to contextualize the current OA landscape. 


Open science: A magic carpet ride – | TecScience

“In this universe of possibilities, in which movements and practices open windows on learning for everyone, we can recognize the lights of different stakeholders and areas of expertise. If we look at it from the perspective of an infinite universe, we find the lights of those who make it possible to open up knowledge. Of course, we find the researchers who are seeking to generate knowledge, as well as the directors who are paving the way to support them on their quest. Also in this constellation are the teachers and communities who help provide everyone with cross-cutting education for collaboration and ethics in science. There are key stakeholders whose technological, digital, and legal wisdom makes it possible to open these windows of knowledge for everyone, such as computer experts, engineers, librarians, editors, financiers, public officials, decision-makers, and society as a whole. 

These movements, practices, knowledge, and assorted stakeholders call us to the big challenge of constructing a “culture of open science” together. A culture that requires the ability to open up learning to everyone, ideas that help us scale the infinite heights provided by sharing knowledge freely, recognizing these attitudes through our shared efforts. The culture of open science will lead us to broaden that universe of possibilities, that magic carpet ride toward the solutions our society needs, toward that endless space in the universe where the lights allow us to create and grow together.”

A look at CC’s Open Culture Roundtable in Lisbon

“Group photo at CC’s Open Culture Roundtable in Lisbon” licensed CC BY 4.0

As part of our Open Culture Program, we at Creative Commons (CC) are exploring avenues to build momentum towards a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Culture. On 11 May, 2023, we hosted our first in-person Open Culture event, in Lisbon, Portugal. In this blog post, we look back at the day’s highlights and map out next steps.


Over the past decade, the open movement has made incredible strides in the cultural sector — take a look at some of the pioneers — yet it is still facing major barriers and challenges. But challenges are opportunities in disguise. In September last year, UNESCO declared culture a global public good at Mondiacult 2022. With the successes of the 2019 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources and 2021 Recommendation on Open Science, the world looks to UNESCO’s leadership to create the necessary international framework that would unlock the possibilities of equitable, ethical, and respectful sharing of cultural heritage in the digital age: a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Culture. For an explanation of useful terms related to open culture, take a look at the glossary developed by the CC open culture platform.

Meeting highlights

Recognizing that such an international instrument requires deliberative, inclusive community consultations, the in-person event focused on the foundational work of gathering community input. Structured around a co-created agenda and under the able guidance of Abdul Dube and Mona Ebdrup, facilitators at Visual Confidence, just under 40 experts gathered to exchange views and open initial discussions on the need to realize open culture as a global public good. 

Participants came from far and wide across the open movement and beyond, spanning the fields of law, library science, policy, design, anthropology, history, museum curation, international organizations, and many others. Attending from CC’s team were Brigitte Vézina, Director of Policy and Open Culture; Connor Benedict, Open Culture Coordinator; Jennryn Wetzler, Director of Learning and Training; and Jocelyn Miyara, Open Culture Manager. 

During convivial, engaged, polyphonous and cross-pollinating conversations, we exchanged our diverse perspectives; explored potential common grounds on backgrounds and contexts, core issues, and key principles; built a common understanding of what we collectively want to achieve; and elaborated a skeleton of a shared vision for “open culture.” Issues discussed included the role of copyright over access to cultural heritage, the impact of artificial intelligence, the “platformization” of culture, a sense of a generational shift in the open movement, the need to account for ethical sharing, the economics of open culture, open beyond “GLAMs” (galleries, libraries, archives and museums), the need for diversity and inclusivity in global and local contexts (including traditional knowledge and Indigenous rights), a vision for open culture in 100 years, and a lot more!

Take a look at the meeting’s graphic record, offering a visual summary of the diverse perspectives that felt most resonant within our breakout groups and that surfaced in plenary debriefs.

A hand drawn flowchart depicts the agenda for the day with “Snap Shot: Visual Agenda” in a speech bubble at the top. Beginning at the top with a smiling face coming through a doorway; two stick figures greeting each other, and arrows pointing to our three movements as described in the caption. All of this leads to a globe encircled by arrows and an opening question “what are you here to help achieve?”Our work together was organized in three flows or movements. Flow #1: Mapping our Collective Knowledge, Flow #2: Context Mapping, and Flow #3: Bold Steps. These movements were designed to help us gather our collective knowledge, and hold multiple perspectives and truths at the same time. © Creative Commons / Abdul Dube and Mona Ebdrup, CC BY 4.0This graphic recording is a hand-drawn representation of our conversations. With a bold black line framing the box, there is a speech bubble around “#01 Flow” next to the words “History of Open Culture”. In the center of the diagram is a globe with Africa centered. Themes with doodles orbit the globe. Clockwise from the top - “focus on western references and achievements”, “Pessimism or optimism” with a question mark, “new opportunities emerging in a quickly changing context” with an arrow pointing away from the globe, “AI comes with risks and benefits” with two lap tops chatting with each other, “different places but together”, “Missing global south perspectives” with speech bubbles, one colored orange, “negative actors: lack of clarity and infrastructure…risk of being illegal when working within open culture” with a skull and crossbones saying “who owns what?”, “History can mean many things” with a timeline, and “focus on ownership and access”.In our first flow, participants were divided into five groups to discuss the History of Open Culture, and then came back together to identify key themes. This is a visual representation of some themes that were discussed, including ownership, western references and achievements, emerging opportunities in a quickly changing context, missing global south perspectives and the emergence of AI with its risks and benefits. © Creative Commons / Abdul Dube and Mona Ebdrup, CC BY 4.0This graphic recording is a hand-drawn representation of our conversations. With a bold black line framing the box, there is a speech bubble around “#02 Flow” next to the words “Context Mapping”. In the center of the diagram is a piece of paper with the words “open culture” and a globe with arrows pointing to it. Around the piece of paper are the themes discussed with doodles to accompany them. Themes include “What’s the role of open culture?” with an arrow to “clear goals”, “who uses OPEN”, “blurriness around legal safety”, “AI concerns - what/how/where/when”, “Need to expand memory institutions”, “emergent technologies”, “activism: direct, hacker, subvert platformization”, “Digital barbershops”, “what is info literacy?”, “build bridges” written in the shape of a bridge, “How do we accommodate all the different needs” with a big drawn question mark, “internet know how”, “false!! Universality”, “NB boundaries for the greater goods”, “bad actors”, “license trolls”, “the traps of open: ethical concerns to fuzzy times..” with an open eyeball, “more access but gated” with a drawn wall with a gate, “identifying gaps” with arrows to “technical knowledge, generational, stakeholder needs”, “the rise of conservatism and its affects on culture”, “what are we supposed to do” with arrows to “choosing battles, allies in other forms of monopoly, ethics of open culture needs an update”. In Flow #2, groups met again to discuss the context around open culture, including the political climate, internal and outside trends, economic climate, tech factors, stakeholder needs and uncertainties. A few major themes were the desire to build bridges, the need to accommodate diverse needs of diverse stakeholders, the desire to identify what our shared goals are and better define the role of open culture. © Creative Commons / Abdul Dube and Mona Ebdrup, CC BY 4.0This graphic recording is inside a bold black framed box, with a speech bubble at the top “#03 Flow” surrounded by “Bold steps…towards open culture”. Underneath is a sun rising on the horizon with a road narrowing towards it. Surrounding this are all some of the major themes with doodles accompanying them. “What are the opportunities for cultural change”, “bold steps are also known steps'' with a stick figure going up a staircase, “Assumption that we have shared values and sense of urgency”, “we can be more ambitious” with a stick figure atop an exclamation mark holding a sign that says “copyrights”, “strong opinions on platforms” surrounding a stack of flat rectangles, “meeting with more diverse stakeholders”, “UNESCO global fair use recommendation for culture; ethics open to local interpretation”, “TAX the RICH: taxation that supports cultural creation”, “need of different voices still…” with a heart drawing, “need for economic resources” with a big exclamation mark, “long term intentionality: centuries vs. decades vs. 100 year strategies”, on a theater stage “power of cultural literacy” on top and “space for telling stories” on the stage, a laptop with the words “investment for building different infrastructure” on its screen, “we don't’ really know why we really want open culture”, a venn diagram with private and public in two circles and “division between” below - “can we build sustainable and reliable relationships?”, a three-part venn diagram encircled by the worlds “partnerships with private sector” surrounding it and “can there be detachment from commercial interests” below. “Commercial platforms role in cultural creation” with a stick figure standing on an exclamation mark with an open eye above, “limited liability for cultural heritage institutions/public interest institutions”. In our third and final flow, we discussed “Bold Steps toward Open Culture”. By focusing on our values, supports, and challenges, we discussed what bold steps we might make toward our shared vision of the future of Open Culture. Major themes included discussions around partnerships between public and private actors; division between public and private interests and the need to build sustainable and reliable relationships, need for economic resources to support open, and the desire to meet with more diverse stakeholders. © Creative Commons / Abdul Dube and Mona Ebdrup, CC BY 4.0

Participants appreciated the opportunity to meet peers and build new relationships, and got a sense of the possibilities of going down a common path together. While in-person meetings such as this cannot include all of the perspectives needed, participants noted the value of in-person discussions to probe various approaches to open culture deeply. We aim to offer additional avenues to include more perspectives in follow-up activities.

Here’s what some of the participants shared about their experience: 

“The CC Open Culture Roundtable was an opportunity to meet and engage with open culture experts and advocates around the world and see how, despite the many contextual differences, there are meaningful ways for us to collaborate and shape nuanced, context-mindful perspectives for projects and policies aiming at a shared and open culture.”

Mariana Valente, Assistant Professor in law, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland and Associate Director, InternetLab (Brazil).


“It was a great opportunity to hold first discussions about the initiative, and it allowed me to reflect on possible options further.” 

Gašper Hrastelj, Secretary General, Slovenian National Commission for UNESCO


“The CC Open Culture Roundtable was a perfect opportunity to meet in person to discuss Open Culture, and it allowed me to enlarge my view and learn other perspectives.”

Deborah de Angelis, Chapter Lead, Creative Commons Italy


The CC Open Culture Roundtable was a great opportunity to meet people from diverse organizations and parts of the world, and it allowed me to see different perspectives on IP and ‘openness’ as a concept and movement.”

Matt Voigts, Copyright and Open Access Policy Officer, IFLA


“It was an excellent opportunity to bring different open culture stakeholders together and reignite and expand important discussions among them. And it allowed me to reflect on the possibilities in my reach to contribute more effectively to the progress of open culture, both locally and globally.”

Fátima São Simão, Chapter Lead, Creative Commons Portugal


“It was an inspiring opportunity to share ideas of the open culture and notice that there are a lot of people trying to solve similar questions from different angles, and it allowed me to meet many new and interesting people and to enjoy working together.”

Johanna Lilja, Director of Services, National Library of Finland, and IFLA Cultural Heritage Advisory Board


“For me, it was an opportunity to do a historical reflection exercise where we were able to look at how we have grown as a movement. And it allowed me to collaborate in the construction of a more or less common concept or idea of what is understood in different corners of the world as “open culture”. It also allowed me to connect with people who are doing amazing projects.”

Ivan Martinez, Coordinator, Creative Commons Mexico


“The CC Open Culture Roundtable was a first step on a exploratory journey on how GLAMs could be better supported through open approaches to public domain material. It allowed me to understand the diversity of stakeholders’ perspectives on the issue.”

Lutz Möller, Deputy Secretary-General, German National Commission for UNESCO


“The CC Open Culture Roundtable was a pitstop for ongoing discussions around the importance of open culture, and it allowed me to reconnect to the wider international community.”

Maarten Zeinstra, Owner, IP Squared and Member, Creative Commons Netherlands


“It was firstly a chance to meet people who are actively involved in the movement, particularly from different contexts, it allowed me to better see somewhat paradoxically the boundaries of open culture, and have the space to start to think about what openness means for knowledges outside of the legal frameworks of IP.”

Abira Hussein, Advisor, Whose (Digital) Archives? and Lab Partner, GLAM-E Lab


“The CC Open Culture Roundtable was a warm gathering of fellow travelers and it allowed us to imagine new ways to act together.”

Fiona Romeo, Senior Manager, Culture and Heritage, Wikimedia Foundation 

Next steps

We are excited to take the outcomes of our Lisbon event forward. We are already planning to continue the conversation at the CC Summit in Mexico in October, and hopefully at GLAM Wiki 2023 in Montevideo, Uruguay in November this year. We will also organize multiple virtual opportunities to contribute as we engage more community members in our work on open culture.

Interested in knowing more about CC’s work in the field of open culture? Join our open culture platform or write to us at

The post A look at CC’s Open Culture Roundtable in Lisbon appeared first on Creative Commons.

Working towards an open, collaborative and reproducible data culture in archaeology | Zenodo

Abstract:  Data sharing is part of the recent developments in opening up scientific research (a movement also known as Open Science/Scholarship). By opening up more aspects of research than just the final output in the form of a publication, the transparency of scientific research increases and reproducibility of results improves. Opening up the scientific process also promotes equitable access to resources, facilitates collaborations, and allows for the recognition of outputs other than the traditional scientific publication, such as data, code and analysis protocols. Many funders (for example, the European Commission and Wellcome) and publishers (such as the American Journal of Biological Anthropology) now also require researchers to share the data underlying publications whenever possible. This talk will go deeper into ethical considerations of data sharing and why data sharing is beneficial. You will be introduced to tools that facilitate data sharing, as well as communities where you can find support throughout your journey towards a more open, collaborative, and reproducible data culture.


Generative AI Meets Open Culture Tickets, Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:00 AM | Eventbrite

“With the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), there has been increasing interest in how AI can be used in the description, preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage. While AI promises immense benefits, it also raises important ethical considerations.

In this session, leaders from Internet Archive, Creative Commons, and Wikimedia Foundation will discuss how public interest values can shape the development and deployment of AI in cultural heritage, including how to ensure that AI reflects diverse perspectives, promotes cultural understanding, and respects ethical principles such as privacy and consent.

Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on the future of AI in cultural heritage, and learn how we can work together to create a more equitable and responsible future.”