“On 14th June, Research England announced the award of a £2.2 million grant to the COPIM (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs) project, which is designed to build much-needed community-controlled, open systems and infrastructures that will develop and strengthen open access book publishing. As a founder member of ScholarLed, one of the COPIM partners, we will be taking a key role in this project and our co-Director Rupert Gatti will be leading work packages on the dissemination and archiving of open access scholarly books. (For more details about the COPIM project and the aims of the various interlinked work packages, see the ScholarLed statement released on 17th June.)…”
“Aim: To create a stable library publishing services ecosystem that allows for flexibility and modularity, but also insists on the alignment of these services with the ethos of open, values-driven scholarly publishing….”
“The overall objective of this study was to explore the place of preprints in the research lifecycle from the points of view of researchers, research performing organisations, research funding organisations and preprint servers/ service providers. Our investigation covered:
` Core benefits and usage in the case of researchers, including incentives and disincentives
` Attitudes of research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funders
` Values, strategies and aims of service providers….”
“With more open-access journals making research articles free for people to view, some journals are charging authors publication fees to help cover costs. While some journals that do this are still peer-reviewed and credible, others are not and will publish lower quality work strictly for profit. The difference can be hard to tell, even to the most seasoned author….”
“This school provides early career researchers (at MSc-level to 3 years after their PhD) from the Latin American Region with the necessary set of foundational data science skills to enable them to analyse their data in an efficient and effective manner for the 21st century.
The material covered here is fundamental to all areas of data science and hence open to researchers and professionals from all disciplines that deal with significant amounts of data. The goal is to provide a practical introduction to these topics with extensive labs and seminars….”
“I’ve found that blogging helps me in my scholarship in a variety of ways. There are also challenges as I strive to embed these practices in my everyday work….
When I submitted my materials for third year review at UNH, the first page of my binder included the URL and a QR code to the address for my main blog. I indicated that my binder would contain my publications, teaching evaluations, and service documentation. But that I believed my best work lived on my website, and it was an example of how I viewed my role as a scholar. My dean at the time ripped out the page at my review meeting and threw it away. She indicated that none of that mattered, and would only serve to confuse reviewers and my colleagues.
I learned a lesson that day. My work blogging as an open scholar was set aside from my work at the institution. If I chose to continue this work, it would (for the most part) not be valued in most/all of my evaluations. I have continued this practice, and have been motivated by others as they continue to write, share, and document their thinking….”
“As discussions moved from open access and institutional repositories, to open science and digital scholarship, I have followed the growing sense that there is a deeper responsibility beyond content, to include infrastructure – the services, protocols, standards and software on which scholarly knowledge lives and moves.
The conversation about open research and open knowledge is summarised neatly in the following statement, from the Invest in Open initiative: We have worked for a long time on open content, but we have seen that open content can be purchased by people that may not share our values and principles. So, what can we do to remove ourselves from the system that exists and create our own new system with new workflows, technical processes and procedures, funding, resources, etc.? Over a long year arc from a formal statement about open access like the Berlin Open Access Declaration (2003) to these grand systemic questions in 2019, the work of open research and scholarship in libraries has expanded and blossomed.
I am confident that discussions about infrastructure will continue to deepen the impact and value of openness in higher education. Paired with movements in diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as a growing sense that the evaluation and validation of research outputs desperately needs to evolve, open is embracing a new horizon. …”
“The adoption of open access (OA) publications has also driven change among university press heavyweights.
Enhancing OA monographs is considered a ‘key mission’ by MIT Press and Libraries, with the Press undertaking a major initiative to flip its scholarly monographs to open access and make these available on MIT Direct. Meanwhile, Cambridge University Press committed 18 months ago to shift to a fully OA model, recently creating an Open Research platform to publish pre-prints on early-stage research.
The University of Michigan Press is also increasing its OA publishing content, which, as Watkinson comments, was a key reason to develop its own platform….
Andrew Lockett, press manager of the digital-first, open access University of Westminster Press, is following developments at MIT Press and UMP. As he puts it: ‘I will be very interested to see how these platforms perform in the long run. A problem with the monograph system, bearing in mind that the majority of revenue is still with print, is that from the sale of a monograph some 35 per cent of that is directed into distribution. If you think about supplying an open access title direct, there is potentially this percentage of the cover price of the monograph to be saved.’ …”
“So what is open research today, and what are the near horizons of tomorrow? For Baynes the three key developments in recent years have been the growth in open access publications in journals, research data and open data, and a proliferation of tools, both from start-ups and from funders. These are only the first steps, however, in an increasingly complex open information landscape which poses challenges to everyone working in the scholarly research lifecycle: funders must encourage open research without dictating researchers’ research practice; researchers must balance personal interest and public good with an increasingly wide range of publishing choices and funder requirements; publishers must provide both innovative services that meet researcher and funder needs without risking the value of the current system; and libraries must both help researchers navigate the complex information ecosystem and increasingly help them measure and demonstrate researchers’ contributions to it. In this rapidly changing environment it is important for organisations to be agile. This, according to Baynes, is what Springer Nature is doing, developing sustainable and agile approaches that encourage open research: ‘We are one of the largest open access publishers, but also one of the most agile. It’s not the set business model, one-size-fits-all approach, it’s very much adapting and understanding what stakeholders want. For example, understanding the barriers, challenges and motivators for researchers to make data more openly available, well described, and fair.’ …”
“A journal from Cambridge University Press (CUP) is aiming for a ‘radical new approach’ to both publishing and peer reviewing research.
Experimental Results aims to tackle the crisis in the reproducibility of results, to provide an outlet for standalone research that currently goes unpublished – and to make peer review faster, less onerous and more transparent.
Submissions are open for the journal, which will give researchers a place to publish valid, standalone results, regardless of whether those results are novel, inconclusive, negative or supplementary to other published work.
It will also publish the outcome of attempts to reproduce previously published experiments, including those that dispute past findings….”
Read the complete Statistical Guidelines here The cornerstone of research credibility and reproducibility lies in ensuring that research is conducted and reported in an accurate manner. These values are reflected in PLOS ONE Criteria for
“A set of workflow software tools that guides article authors to make the scientific outputs including Additional Research Objects (AROs, i.e datasets and null results) more easily reproducible/reusable and it captures all the events of reuse over the period of time after publications to reward those who have contributed towards it. It makes the improvement of research outputs a continuous process rather than one-time event….”
“SCELC, a California based consortium of 113 private academic and nonprofit research libraries, fully supports the University of California in their decision to not renew their Elsevier subscriptions until a transformative open access agreement can be reached. As North America’s largest publicly funded research university system, UC’s position puts it in the forefront of the global movement to shift the publication of research to open access, placing control of researchers’ output in the hands of its creators. Unsustainable journal subscription price increases have far exceeded the capacity of library budgets, and open access models such as that being negotiated by the UCs offer a long-term viable alternative that benefits both libraries and public access to the research that is often supported by public and grant funds….”
“We need all those who care about better research to stay invested, and this will not happen by telling the next generation of scientists to just sit back and hope. Early-career researchers do not need to wait passively for coveted improvements. We can create communities and push for bottom-up change.
ReproducibiliTea is one way to do this. Sam Parsons, Sophia Crüwell and I (all trainees) started this grass-roots journal club in early 2018, at the experimental-psychology department at the University of Oxford, UK. We hoped to promote a stronger open-science community and more prominent conversations about reproducibility. The initiative soon spread, and is now active at more than 27 universities in 8 countries….”
“Ask Dr. Suso Baleato about how his past two years working as a postdoctoral fellow at IQSS furthered his research, and he will talk less about the research itself than on the exciting technologies that have enabled it to be analyzed and made public. “Differential privacy,” he said, “is a computational way to safely share statistical analysis of sensitive data. Now you can apply differential privacy to real cases. This is IQSS!”
To understand the importance of differential privacy and two other Harvard-developed tools, DataTags and Dataverse, one need look no farther than Baleato’s work studying the digitalization of society. Personal computers, mobile phones, social media, the internet itself – these have all seen exponential growth in the past two decades, allowing average citizens to answer their doorbells and control the settings on their toasters from halfway across the globe. More importantly, the rise of digitalization has made information more accessible, in some cases beyond what some governments may wish their citizens to have….”