The European Commission (EC)’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG R&I) published the final report of the second mandate of the European Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP), entitled “Progress on Open Science: Towards a Shared Research Knowledge System“. The European OSPP is a High-Level Advisory Group established by the EC DG R&I in May 2016 and made up of 25 expert representatives of the broad constituency of European science stakeholders. This OSPP final report provides a brief overview of its four-year mandate (from 2016 to 2020), followed by an update on progress over the past two years since the publication of the OSPP’s recommendations across the EC’s eight ambitions on Open Science. It proposes a vision for moving beyond Open Science to create a shared research knowledge system by 2030.
This study of Science Communication Research (SCR) triangulates a bibliometric and content analysis of approx. 3,000 journal papers with a multi-stage panel study and a review of grey literature spanning four decades. Quantitative findings from the journal analysis (e.g. about disciplinary contexts or topics, research methods, data analysis techniques used) were considered by a panel of 36 science communication researchers in a multi-stage series of qualitative interviews. These experts represent the international and disciplinary diversity of the research field, including past and present editors of the most relevant journals of science communication, and the majority of the most often cited science communication scholars.
We are planning to do further deep-dives into specific aspects of this hugely comprehensive material, which includes dozens of expert interviews and thousands of publications content-analysed. For any suggestions about such specific research questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
“COAR has been working to strengthen our role in terms of capacity building. We launched the COAR Webinar and Discussion Series to help raise awareness of our activities as well as important trends for repositories. We have also been actively seeking opportunities to develop more concrete training activities for repository managers, through leveraging relationships with partners and looking for external funding opportunities. It is expected that we will be able to launch some training events in 2017, with a special focus on developing regions. While sustainability and staffing continues to be a challenge for COAR, since the reduction of membership fees several years ago, we did gain several new members in 2016 and expect membership to continue to rise in 2017. We continue to benefit greatly from the voluntary participation of members and external experts in many of our activities, and these contributions are fundamental to COAR’s progress. On behalf of the Executive Board, and the COAR staff, I want to thank you for your participation in COAR and I look forward to continued engagement and collaboration in 2017-2018 year….”
“LIBER is in charge of running the OpenAIRE FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot.
Approved requests for the FP7 post-grant OA pilot. The pilot recently completed its first year of operation, and has already committed its first €1 million in funding, out of €4 million total. Some results of the work done so far are included in a progress report.”
“As long as there has been open access (OA), there has been talk of a global ‘flip’ of research journals away from the subscription business model. The difficulties in coordinating an enormous number of stakeholders with different interests have continued to make this unlikely. However, a recent paper from the Max Planck Digital Library claiming that, ‘An internationally concerted shifting of subscription budgets is possible at no financial risk, maybe even at lower overall costs,’ has once again fueled talk of a flip. Has this paper discovered a golden ticket to global OA sustainability, or is it based on flawed assumptions? Long-time green OA advocate Stevan Harnad has written at length about the improbable nature of a global overnight flip to Gold OA via an organized system of membership deals, and about the adverse selection such a system would create … Much of the drive toward a flip is based in the EU and the UK, where public higher education is highly centralized at the national level. This creates the notion that there exists a global pool of funds that could be diverted away from subscriptions and toward OA fees. But the difficulties in coordinating action between self-interested parties becomes even more evident when one thinks about how libraries are funded and subscriptions are paid for in the US, still the major producer of scholarly articles worldwide. I frequently ask US librarians where their subscription budget comes from and the responses vary widely, but the most common answers are tuition, student fees and some portion of grant overheads. Because tuition and student fees are collected by individual institutions, there’s no big pool of funds that can be diverted centrally from one purpose to another. Such a flip would massively increase the financial burden on productive institutions, while freeing non-productive institution from any responsibility in funding research access. If I’m running a small teaching school and can save money by cancelling subscriptions, my Dean is going to be much more interested in spending our students’ tuition fees on our students, rather than sending that money off to Harvard to help their poor professors publish papers. US universities are increasingly cash-strapped, which makes any coordinated give-aways like this unlikely. And having major contributors to the literature like the US, Japan and Australia choose the Green route puts a damper on any global move to Gold OA But a recent paper from three members of the Max Planck Digital Library suggests the whole thing could be done immediately and at a cost-savings. Their thesis is that each individual library could stop paying subscription fees and instead divert those same funds toward article processing charges (APCs) for their campus authors, and that doing this could happen within current library budgets, requiring no additional funds from outside, and no pooling of funds between institutions. As Rick Anderson recently pointed out, there’s a difference between advocacy and analysis. Reading this paper, it’s clear which this is. The authors clearly state that they are trying to advocate for a cause …”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”