Self-Archiving Journal Articles: A Case Study of Faculty Practice and Missed Opportunity

Abstract:  Carnegie Mellon faculty Web pages and publisher policies were examined to understand self-archiving practice. The breadth of adoption and depth of commitment are not directly correlated within the disciplines. Determining when self-archiving has become a habit is difficult. The opportunity to self-archive far exceeds the practice, and much of what is self-archived is not aligned with publisher policy. Policy appears to influence neither the decision to self-archive nor the article version that is self-archived. Because of the potential legal ramifications, faculty must be convinced that copyright law and publisher policy are important and persuaded to act on that conviction.

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

The science ‘reproducibility crisis’ – and what can be done about it

“The solution to the scientific reproducibility crisis is to move towards Open Research – the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as it is practical in the discovery process. We need to reward the publication of research outputs along the entire process, rather than just each journal article as it is published.”

There are two large ways to reduce OA to federally funded research

“There are two large ways that the Trump administration and Republican Congress could reduce the number of OA publications arising from federally funded research. First, Trump could require federal funding agencies to drop or dilute their OA policies. Second, Congress could cut their budgets, reducing the amount of research they could fund. Or both.

So far there’s no sign of the first danger materializing. (I’ll do my best to keep you posted.) But there are now signs of the second….”

OpenAIRE: Impact and Measurement of Open Access | Jisc scholarly communications

“The workshop directly connected to that call for more openness and fair sharing of information, but it also highlighted the difficulty of measuring openness and the continued dearth of products which can help do that. ‘Is OA measurable and if so how?’ is a question we repeatedly ask, in part, because it is about impact, which is difficult for the best of us to prove, and because OA is often about innovation, as much as it is about ensuring access.  In other places, it is clear we need to consider how measuring OA relates to research assessment for both researchers and funders; to do that, there needs to be an open metrics framework.

It needs to be underscored, nonetheless, that there actually is a great deal, and the two questions which remain ever under the surface are ‘when will the tipping point finally come for OA?’ and ‘why is it taking so long?’ Carlos Galan-Diaz from the University of Glasgow pointed out that there is a great deal of activity on and around open access, but unfortunately so much of it is organic and lacking in any kind of global coordination, e.g., ROARMAP, as of the 10th of February, listed 769 separate OA policies:

  • 19 in Africa
  • 40 in Oceania
  • 49 in Asia
  • 198 in America and
  • 463 in Europe

It is not obviously a terribly harmonised set of activities, despite the good will in place.  He highlighted that ultimately, OA is about: access, agile/fast dissemination of information, within/between communities to foster equality. He also pointed out that there are currently 6.73-8.9 million active full-time researchers in the UK, and that in 2009, it was estimated that we were over 50 million articles mark; by 2013, it was estimated that there were 2.4 million article outputs annually; however, only about 25% of the material is available online as OA. To accurately measure the benefits of open access, we need to work together more efficiently and with better strategies.

We know that there are direct economic benefits to all of the stakeholders involved, not just the public: the publishers, the researchers and their institutions, both developed, as well as developing countries, not to mention the private and third sectors. Thus, it was stressed, that there are three separate but integrated contexts to consider throughout the various activities centred around promoting and using OA, namely the individual, the social and the material; no aspect of what we are doing can extricate one from the others, since it is all about how we interact with others at various levels to create change and influence how information is presented and used freely.

In the end, the promotion of OA needs to emphasise that, although it is still about publication, things are shifting; it was stated that for academic researchers, it is no longer publish or perish, since, in reality, the publication of an article is only the start of the research process, a touchpoint where the article, itself, along with the data, can be tested, commented on, repeated and thereby validated by others.”

Pilot programme Open Research Data (ORD): Twelve projects could be funded

“Open access to qualified research data is a precondition for the reproducibility, verification and falsification of data for further scientific and practical purposes. Hence, the FWF, supported by the Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung, has initiated the pilot programme Open Research Data (ORD) in order to create role models for the openness of research data in the digital age. 

Open research data is defined as data produced in a course of research projects by experiments, source research, measurements, excavations, surveys or software developments and which are, following the FAIR Data Principles, findable, openly accessible, interoperable and re-usable. In January 2016, the FWF invited to an expression of interest for the pilot programme Open Research Data (ORD). 48 letters of interest were submitted. Based on the decision of the FWF Board in May 2016, 47 of those were invited for a full proposal. Until July 2016, the FWF received 41 full proposals, 19 in Humanities & Social Sciences, eleven in each the Natural Sciences and Life Sciences. After an international peer-review according to the high-quality FWF procedures, twelve projects could be funded:

List of projects  Especially the high share of projects from the Humanities is remarkable. On the basis of this experience, the FWF will implement guidelines in all programmes which help to increase the openness of research data. Furthermore, with the programme Synthesis Networks a new initiative is planned that will enable international projects to conflate, process and analyse large datasets in order to answer highly relevant questions to science and society.”

Wish of Education Minister: Creation of more Open Educational Resources | Defimedia

“Governmental and institutional decision makers play a crucial role in setting policies that shape the direction of education systems, and we must advocate for policies that can accelerate the adoption and the creation of more Open Educational Resources (OER). This statement was made by the Minister of Education and Human Resources, Tertiary Education and Scientific Research, Mrs Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun, at the opening of the Africa Regional Consultation on Open Educational Resources on 2 March 2017 at Le Voila Hotel, Bagatelle. The theme of the meeting was OER for Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education: From Commitment to Action. OER is the fourth regional consultation after those held in Malaysia, Malta and Qatar, and will be followed by two more, in Brazil and in New Zealand respectively. These regional consultations are a lead-up to the 2nd World OER Congress to be organised by UNESCO and the Government of Slovenia in September 2017 in partnership with Commonwealth of Learning.

 Referring to lifelong learning process, she said that the promotion and use of OERs help to both increase and widen access to education at all levels. This is applicable to both formal education set-ups as well as to non-formal ones, and the spinoffs for the individual and the society at large are enormous, she pointed out. According to Mrs Dookun-Luchoomun, it is highly pertinent for policy makers to ensure that educational materials developed with public funds are not available exclusively to the recipients of public funds. She reiterated Government’s commitment to support OERs internationally so that quality educational resources reach those most in need of them. Furthermore, she made mention of two programmes that her Ministry has embarked upon. The first one relates to the Inclusion Concept which ensures that learners with disabilities have access to appropriate educational opportunities. The second one is Equity-Related which entails the Student Support Programme for the lower secondary sub-sector. “

Impact of Social Sciences – Are universities finally waking up to the value of copyright?

“Following in the footsteps of the ‘Harvard-style’ open access policies that have proved so popular in the US, Imperial College are now heading up the development of a UK version, which would give UK universities a non-exclusive licence to make their academics’ work available in their institutional repositories, under a CC BY-NC licence, and on the date of publication. It is early days for this initiative, but it would seem to offer the best opportunity so far for enabling the retention of copyright by academia for academia. Perhaps, at long last, copyright in scholarly outputs will remain with those who both create and consume them….”