Cambridge University Press issues public statement on Plan S | Cambridge University Press

“We fully endorse the benefits of open research and recognize the recent announcements about Plan S as an important contribution to the conversation about the ongoing transition.

There is a wide range of views about how to move forward with open research across different parts of the global academic community, which means the debate about how it should develop needs a process of wide consultation, as happened with the UK’s Finch report on open access six years ago.

We believe there are a number of specific developments which could help open research and its longer-term sustainability, including areas we have been working on such as:

1)    Wider adoption of new business models which have been put in place in some countries, particularly models allowing APC-free open access including read-and-publish deals;

2)    Improvements to the hybrid journal model to support academic communities where a full transition to open access isn’t yet possible;

3)    A community standard for a fair and balanced Green OA policy, with publishers supporting institutions to meet funders’ open access requirements;

4)  Ensuring academic freedom for researchers about where they can publish….”

FOAA Board recommendations for the implementation of Plan S

“ii. Define a clear transition path for hybrid journals to (Gold) OA. We suggest, in line with Stephan Kuster’s comment at the LERU meeting of October 2018, that to be compliant, the journal would need to be able to demonstrate it is transitioning within a 3-4 year period to fully gold OA by reporting on progress every year. iii. Provide clarity if and how green Open Access (OA) will be compliant. Green OA repositories seem to be endorsed only for preservation, not for OA itself. However, if compliant green OA is explicitly defined as unembargoed libre green OA, this is just as satisfactory as unembargoed libre gold OA, and this might incentivize publishers to hasten the transition of their journals to full gold OA. In this way, the value of repositories for OA itself can be acknowledged, not just for preservation and editorial innovation. iv. We strongly recommend that support for OA promised in Plan S infrastructure be public and open infrastructure, that is, platforms running on open-source software, under open standards, with open APIs for interoperability, owned or hosted by non-profit organizations. This should avoid infrastructure being acquired by large commercial publishers, which is a deliberate approach being taken to increase ownership of the whole scholarly communication ecosystem ….”

EPA fight against ‘secret science’ slowed amid pushback from researchers – ABC News

“A furious public response has slowed down the Trump administration’s plan to stop using so-called “secret science,” a move that scientists complained could have restricted the types of research used to regulate toxins, pesticides and pollution….”

EPA quietly puts controversial ‘secret science’ plan on hold — for now – ThinkProgress

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to have put a deeply controversial plan limiting the use of scientific data in policymaking on hold for the time being. The move follows significant outcry from experts and the agency’s own staff….

On its face, that push for transparency might resonate with some — but experts have repeatedly emphasized that confidential data is private for a reason. Making it public could violate patient privacy or industry confidentiality, in many instances breaking the law and potentially allowing for distortions of the information. Limiting the data government officials can use, meanwhile, could hinder efforts to protect both human health and the environment….”

Publisher Communications about the UC OA Policies – Office of Scholarly Communication

“Though the vast majority of publishers that UC authors work with have been aware of UC’s Senate OA policy for over four years, very few of them have asked authors to opt out of the policy by getting a waiver, and those who have requested waivers have done so inconsistently.  No publisher has notified the University that it plans to request waivers from all UC authors as a matter of course. Based on two years of waiver requests by UC faculty, it appears that authors publishing with Nature, PNAS, AAAS, and ARRS are generating the greatest number of waivers.

Below are the number of waivers requested by UC authors between August 2, 2013, when the UC-wide senate policy was announced, and August 1, 2018. …”

Europe’s Plan S aims for expansion to US and beyond | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Plan S, a project initially signed by a coalition of 11 funding agencies, was unveiled by Science Europe just one month ago. Since then, two more funding bodies, from Sweden and Finland, have joined. Enthusiasm for the scheme, however, extends well beyond Europe.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s senior adviser on open access and the architect of Plan S, said that he had already embarked on discussions with White House representatives in the US, where invitations to discuss the policy had come in “one after another”.

Furthermore, Mr Smits said that colleagues from Science Europe had earlier this month engaged in “exploratory talks” with sector leaders in Japan, where the concept had been met with “real interest”. “Next I want to start conversations with India, with South Africa [and with] China,” he added. “It has really taken a global dimension, and the only issue that is my biggest enemy at the moment is time.” …

A Plan S implementation task force has been set up, with a target to deliver the policy details by the end of the year….”

Open Access: Europe’s Game Changer in Science

“Senior Communications Officer Martin Caudron discusses Europe’s move to make open access to publicly-funded scientific publications a reality by 2020, with Mary Kavanagh (Minister-Counselor for Science and Innovation at the EU Delegation to the U.S.), Robert-Jan Smits (European Commission’s Envoy for Open Access), Marc Schiltz (President of Science Europe and Chief Executive of Luxembourg National Research Fund), and David Sweeney (Executive Chair, Research England, UK Research and Innovation Agency).”

Environmental Protection Agency Rule on ‘Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science’ – SPARC

“SPARC has serious concerns with this proposed rule and calls for it to be rescinded in the detailed response submitted on July 18, 2018. The rule claims to support Open Research Data, however, it calls for the EPA to only use studies whose underlying data is openly available for the purpose of replicating/validating the studies’ conclusions. Basing important policymaking decisions off of studies where the underlying data must be publicly accessible deliberately excludes the use of a wide swath of important data sets – including key longitudinal studies that underpin current clean air and water regulations. SPARC calls for the proposed rule to be rescinded….”

EPA: Wheeler punts Pruitt’s science overhaul — Wednesday, October 17, 2018 — www.eenews.net

“Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler has put Scott Pruitt’s plan to restrict the science used in crafting new regulations on the back burner.

The draft rule issued when Pruitt was EPA administrator — titled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” — was listed under “long-term actions” in the administration’s fall 2018 regulatory plan released last night, with an expected completion date of January 2020.

In regulatory parlance, that means the proposal is not a top agency priority at the moment….”

 

Opening Science with Institutional Repository: A Case Study of Vilnius University Library

Abstract:  The future strategies for opening science have become important to libraries which serve scientific institutions by providing institutional repository infrastructures and services. Vilnius University Library provides such an infrastructure for Vilnius University, which is the biggest higher education institution in Lithuania (with more than 20,200 students, 1,330 academic staff members, and 450 researchers ), and manages services and infrastructure of the national open access repository eLABa and the national open access data archive MIDAS. As the new platforms of these repositories began operating in the beginning of 2015, new policies and routines for organizing work with scientific publications and data had to be implemented. This meant new roles for the Library and librarians, too. The University Senate approved the new Regulations of the Library on 13 June 2017 with the task to develop the scholarly communication tools dedicated to sustaining open access to information and open science. Thus, Vilnius University Library performs the leading role in opening science by providing strategic insights and solutions for development of services dedicated to researchers, students and the public in Lithuania. As it was not presented properly at the international level before, this article presents the case of Vilnius University Library which actively cooperates with other Lithuanian academic institutions, works in creating and coordinating policies, conducts research on the improvements and services of eLABa and MIDAS, and suggests and implements the integral solutions for opening science.