Spreadsheet results of a survey of GLAM institution policies relevant to copyright, licensing, and OA.
“This 61-page report [$114 for one PDF copy] looks closely at academic library activity to support open access. The study gives highly precise data on librarian perceptions of faculty support for open access, and for library activities in peer review, open access publishing and other ventures and activity to support open access, including the payment of author fees and development of institutional digital repositories. The study helps its readers to answer questions such as: What percentage of libraries are active in helping to develop peer review networks? How much do libraries spend on author fees? How many themselves publish open access journals? What percentage of faculty routinely deposit their scholarly articles in the institutional digital repository? How effective have librarians been in promoting the repository to faculty? How do librarians evaluate the current effectiveness of future probably impact of open access? How do librarians view the level of support that they are getting from university management on open access issues? How many staff positions are largely devoted to various specified open access activities?
Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:
Public colleges were significantly more likely than private ones to report support from university or college administration for open access initiatives.
25% of respondents from research universities reported more than just modest progress over the past two years in convincing faculty to deposit their research articles into institutional digital repositories.
13.64% of the MA/PHD level colleges and universities in the sample published their own open access journals.
Nearly 24% of respondents from institutions with enrolment of greater than 10,000 FTE were active in developing peer review networks for open access publications.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.
Data in the report is broken out by size and type of institution, by tuition level, for public and private institutions and by other useful variables.”
“In August 2019, the government launched the National Scientific Repository (RIN) to become a national-level repository that aggregates research data from various sources.
Born from the mandate of Indonesia’s new science law, the repository aims to make research data accessible for the academic community to verify scientific discoveries better and make it easier for other scientists to further contribute to the field.
Although challenges remain, the newly launched national repository is a great first step in strengthening open data practices and improving research quality in Indonesia….”
“Yesterday, NIH released a Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and supplemental draft guidance for public comment. The purpose of this draft policy and supplemental draft guidance is to promote effective and efficient data management and sharing that furthers NIH’s commitment to making the results and accomplishments of the research it funds and conducts available to the public. Complete information about the draft Policy and draft supplemental guidance can be found on the NIH OSP website.
Stakeholder feedback is essential to ensure that any future policy maximizes responsible data sharing, minimizes burden on researchers, and protects the privacy of research participants. Stakeholders are invited to comment on any aspect of the draft policy, the supplemental draft guidance, or any other considerations relevant to NIH’s data management and sharing policy efforts that NIH should consider.
To facilitate commenting, NIH has established a web portal that can be accessed here. To ensure consideration, comments must be received no later than January 10, 2020….”
Abstract: Open access policies have been progressing since the beginning of this century. Important global initiatives, both public and private, have set the tone for what we understand by open access. The emergence of tools and web platforms for open access (both legal and illegal) have placed the focus of the discussion on open access to knowledge, both for academics and for the general public, who finance such research through their taxes, particularly in Latin America. This historically unnoticed discussion must, we believe, be discussed publicly, given the characteristics of the Latin American scientific community, as well as its funding sources. This article includes an overview of what is meant by open access and describes the origins of the term, both in its philosophical sense and in its practical sense, expressed in the global declarations of Berlin and Bethesda. It also includes the notion of open access managed (or not) by some reputable institutions in Chile, such as CONICYT (National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research) and higher education institutions reputed nationally, such as the Universdad de Chile and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Various Latin American initiatives related to open access (Scielo, Redalyc, among others) are described, as well as the presence of Chilean documents in those platforms. The national institutional repositories are listed, as well as their current status and a discussion about what open access has implied in Latin America and its importance for the replicability of the investigations carried out locally. Finally, we describe some governmental initiatives (mainly legislative) at the Latin American level and propose some recommendations regarding the promotion and implementation of repositories for the access to scientific data (for access and replication purposes) of the national research.
“Policy should incentivise. In the case of the UKSCL model institutional open access policy there are:
Incentives for the academic: the retention of academic freedom to publish in the venue of choice knowing that rights have legally been retained in order to meet funder open access aims
Incentives for the library and finance directors: reassurance that funder mandates are not accompanied by significant new financial burdens for the institution
And finally, incentives for publishers: to work with us so that an affordable transition can be achieved, and so that it is the Version of Record which is freely and publicly available on publication.
Finally, If I were to have one wish, it would be this: that, having done all this work to establish this legal approach to solving first, the OA policy stack, and now, the challenges for implementing cOAlition S aims, that the policy was not, in the end, needed, and that we were instead able to find an affordable and workable route to full and immediate open access….”
“The dataset Ashley [Farley] provided us [from the Gates Foundation] (covering the period from August 1, 2016, to March 31, 2019) includes:
3,268 invoices for articles in peer-reviewed journals
In total the Foundation paid $9,002,225 to these publishers to ensure results of all Foundation research was disseminated with a CC BY license with no embargos — an average cost for “open” of $2,755 per article.
We think we’ve uncovered some interesting trends in this data, but our main objective is to share the research dataset we have developed, along with the Foundation’s original invoicing data. That way anyone can use these for further research….
In 2016, only 22% of authors were choosing to publish in fully-OA journals; in 2019, 50% have done so….
Traditional publishers charge significantly more for APCs than OA-only publishers….
Researchers choosing to publish in a fully OA Journal show a strong preference for OA-only publishers’ titles….
There are no significant differences in for-profit vs. non-profit publishers’ APCs for fully OA journals….”
“? What are the new contours of peer-reviewed journal publication for Humanities and Social Science disciplines following the establishment of cOAlition S in September 2018?
? How prepared are History journals and History researchers for the implementation of Plan S-aligned open access mandates in the UK?
? What are the potential implications for UK-based and international History journals of implementing (or choosing not to implement) Plan S-aligned open access policies?
? What is the evidence base that should inform UKRI’s consultations on open access? …”
“Around this time last year, I wrote about a request for information (RFI) on potential key elements that could comprise a future NIH data management and sharing policy. Not surprisingly, we received a lot of helpful feedback. Most commenters supported data sharing and the importance of prospectively planning for where, when, and how scientific data should be managed and shared. There were, however, concerns about how one policy could fit all sizes and types of data across the biomedical research universe as well as potential burden on the research community.
Over the course of the last year, NIH has been incorporating many of these suggestions into our thinking and continuing to engage the community on their thoughts about data management and sharing. We’ve also been working with sovereign Tribal Nations through consultation sessions held across the U.S which have been vital in shaping NIH”s perspective on the potentially unique data sharing needs of those communities.
Today, NIH has released for public comment in the Federal Register a Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing along with supplement draft guidance. The draft policy furthers NIH longstanding commitment to making available the results and products of the research we fund and conduct.
To facilitate public comments, NIH has established a web-portal where folks can easily and securely provide their feedback. The portal can be accessed by clicking here. To ensure that your comments are considered, responses must be submitted no later than January 10, 2020….”