“STM undertook a community-wide consultation to gain a better understanding of the current landscape of article sharing through scholarly collaboration network sites. As part of this consultation STM produced a draft set of ‘voluntary principles’ and invited all interested stakeholders to provide feedback and share their views. Fifty submissions were received during the consultation period, and a summary report and full details of all the submissions are both now available. Based on the consultation feedback received, the SCN working group has now revised the voluntary principles.”
“The signatories to these principles believe:
• Publishers have a core commitment to facilitate the dissemination and discovery of their authors’ scholarly articles.
Sharing should be allowed within research collaboration groups, namely groups of scholars or researchers invited to participate in specific research collaborations. Such groups would:
- be of the size that is typical for research groups of that discipline
- only share articles within and for the purposes of the group
- allow article sharing between subscribers and non-subscribers within the group
- include commercial researchers, subject to publisher policy or appropriate licensing
- include members of the wider public participating for the purposes of the group
• Publishers and libraries should be able to measure the amount and type of sharing, using standards such as COUNTER, to better understand the habits of their readers and quantify the value of the services they provide.
• Initiatives to facilitate sharing should:
- be based on standards to support the tools and platforms required by researchers
- be open to all participants supporting these principles
- integrate access and usage rights and data reporting into research workflows
- ensure that usage and activity data is managed in a manner consistent with personal privacy and security laws and requirements
• Public posting of article metadata and open access articles in scholarly collaboration networks should be encouraged.
• Publisher policies on research collaboration group sharing and public posting of articles should be clear and easily discoverable, and we call on publishers to work toward this goal.”
“The maintenance of knowledge base metadata across the scholarly publishing supply chain is a difficult task. Many publishers and content providers supply KBART-formatted title lists to a few commercial knowledge bases, each of which must consume, normalize, disseminate, and update that data in an endless cycle. Libraries, as consumers of this data, participate in the supply chain by performing quality control and reporting errors back to their knowledge base vendors. However, each library’s efforts benefit only those others who happen to subscribe to the same product. The current supply chain is messy, duplicative, and entwined with proprietary products.
GOKb’s mission is to solve problems across the supply chain by providing a central, open platform where stakeholders can create and share metadata of interest to the community. Within GOKb, participants can work on creating high-quality data in areas that mesh with their skills and priorities. The data can then be reused by anyone, for any purpose. Potential use cases include knowledge bases providers looking to supplement their data, libraries building open source software, and individuals experimenting with open data….”
“By posting funded award information into grantee ORCID records, funding organizations can make it easy for researchers to share information with other systems. In turn, this, ensures that authoritative information is shared – with the researcher’s permission – as they use their iD in research systems and workflows, building trust and transparency in the research process. Funders can also use ORCID to recognize the work of reviewers.
Not only can this reduce the drudgery of form-filling for researchers, it also ensures that funder names are used in a standard way, and makes it possible for publishers to streamline the capture of funding information. This information can then be used to automate reporting processes, saving time, shortening the reporting cycle, and increasing accuracy and completeness, as described in this blog post by Wellcome Trust….”
“We are excited to announce an expanded integration with ORCID. eRA Commons is establishing a real-time link with ORCID, which allows users to associate ORCID with their eRA account. We encourage investigators who have not done so already to go ahead and create an ORCID profile, which takes about 30 seconds (creating a fully-fleshed out profile will take some more time). Next, link your ORCID profile to your eRA Commons account for continued success of this activity. Those who participate should expect to see additional functionality over time, such as assistance completing NIH applications and reporting requirements as well as allowing public data on NIH grant awards to populate ORCID.
Further, NIH and other funders are collaborating on the ORCID Reducing Burden and Improving Impact Tracking (ORBIT) project. This effort will expand the ORCID data model beyond publications to data elements typically found on a CV, such as grants, courses taught, presentations, and other research products.
ORCID promises to serve as a hub for these data. Users will be able to link their faculty profile, publisher, and funder accounts to ORCID. Moreover, ORCID will be able to verify and exchange data across all these systems, reducing burden for the user….”
“Researchers rejoice! Funders have been working to integrate ORCID iDs in grant application and reporting workflows, and you should start to experience benefits in the form of single sign on, streamlined application data entry, and reduced post-award reporting burden….
Funders play a critical role, along with universities and publishers, in building and supporting the infrastructure to support open research. Major funders, including the European Commission, agree that persistent identifiers for people and works are necessary components of this infrastructure….”
“The ORCID Reducing Burden and Improving Transparency (ORBIT) project engages funders to use persistent identifiers to automate and streamline the flow of research information between systems.
ORBIT rests on a simple idea: by pooling our know-how and influence, we can deliver a huge step forward for the transparency and reliability of research information.
ORCID iDs serve as keys that permit researchers to easily share information with research systems. For these benefits to be realized, each sector of the research community – funders, publishers, universities – needs to engage with researchers to collect ORCID iDs, store them in their systems, and actively share information with embedded identifiers….
Ultimately, ORBIT will optimize an open infrastructure that supports open research. Project success will increase the efficiency of grant application workflows; improve the ease of program data collection; and result in more systems sharing more research information….”
Purpose: The present study explored tendencies of the world’s countries—at individual and scientific development levels—toward publishing in APC-funded open access journals. Design/Methodology/Approach: Using a bibliometric method, it studied OA and NOA articles issued in Springer and Elsevier’s APC journals? during 2007–2011. The data were gathered using a wide number of sources including Sherpa/Romeo, Springer Author-mapper, Science Direct, Google, and journals’ websites. Findings: The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland ranked highest in terms of their OA shares. This can be attributed to the financial resources allocated to publication in general, and publishing in OA journals in particular, by the countries. All developed countries and a large number of scientifically lagging and developing nations were found to publish OA articles in the APC journals. The OA papers have been exponentially growing across all the countries’ scientific groups annually. Although the advanced nations published the lion’s share of the OA-APC papers and exhibited the highest growth, the underdeveloped groups have been displaying high OA growth rates. Practical Implications: Given the reliance of the APC model on authors’ affluence and motivation, its affordability and sustainability have been challenged. This communication helps understand how countries at different scientific development and thus wealth levels contribute to the model. Originality/Value: This is the first study conducted at macro level clarifying countries’ contribution to the APC model—at individual and scientific-development levels—as the ultimate result of the interaction between authors’ willingness, the model affordability, and publishers and funding agencies’ support.”
“Although librarians initially hoped institutional repositories (IRs) would grow through researcher self-archiving, practice shows that growth is much more likely through library-directed deposit. Libraries must then find efficient ways to ingest material into their IR to ensure growth and relevance.”