“A group of like-minded individuals from libraries, academic institutions, publishers, and consortia have organized to connect society journal editors and publishers (and any libraries or consortia that support them) with support and useful resources related to transitioning society publications to open access (OA). …”
“Eurodoc is the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. It is an international federation of 29 national organisations of PhD candidates, and more generally of young researchers from 28 countries of the European Union and the Council of Europe.
Eurodoc’s objectives are:
- To represent doctoral candidates and junior researchers at the European level in matters of education, research, and professional development of their careers.
- To advance the quality of doctoral programmes and the standards of research activity in Europe.
- To promote the circulation of information on issues regarding young researchers; organize events, take part in debates and assist in the elaboration of policies about Higher Education and Research in Europe.
- To establish and promote co-operation between national associations representing doctoral candidates and junior researchers within Europe….”
“Scientific societies have provided the foundations upon which the global system of scholarly communication was built, dating back to the 17th century and the birth of the scholarly journal. More recent developments in scholarly communication–corporate enclosure, financial uncertainty, and open-access policies from funders and universities–have shaken these foundations. Recognizing the crucial role that societies have played–and must continue to play in advancing scientific research and scholarship–a group of OA advocates, library stakeholders, and information strategists has organized to provide concrete assistance to society journals. The aim is to allow scholarly societies to step confidently towards OA, enabling them to renew, reclaim, and reestablish their role as a vital and thriving part of the future open science ecosystem….”
Advance knowledge in service of equitable and open scholarship.
CREOS seeks evidence about the best ways disparate communities can participate in scholarship with minimal bias or barriers.
- First, it aims to make research in every field more equitably and openly available to all who could benefit from and/or contribute to it.
- Second, it aims to accomplish the first goal by conducting and supporting original research and sharing it openly.
We believe in
- Rigorous, evidence-based research to inform actions
- Tackling grand challenges identified by the community and internally at MIT Libraries
- Multidisciplinary problem solving and methodologies
- The power of equitable and open scholarship to accelerate the pace of discovery and create a more robust and comprehensive knowledge base for human understanding, insight, and quality of life.
Who we are
CREOS acts as a catalyst for collaborative research inside and outside of MIT and is part of a growing global community committed to improving scholarly communication for everyone. CREOS is part of the MIT Libraries and leverages MIT’s longstanding emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, and open sharing of educational and research materials. CREOS itself consists of a small team that conducts and supports basic research and is also a collaboration of institutional partnerships, interested faculty, visiting researchers, scholarly communication enthusiasts, and financial supporters who are willing to invest in research with a shared vision. Our audience includes anyone who is influencing the future of scholarly communication….”
“Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE) is an independent research institute dedicated to improve the quality of science, science education, and quality of life for scientists, students and their families. We’re committed to open scientific practices, free (libre) and open science, and a healthy and global science and higher education. We aim to protect whistleblowers in science and to educate and train affiliated and external scientists and students on best scientific practices.
Scientists who adhere to open scientific practices can become affiliated with IGDORE. We currently have 37 affiliated researchers whose work spans over 15 scientific disciplines (e.g. astronomy; biology; chemistry; computer science; education; electrical engineering; law; materials science; medicine; metascience; paleontology; physics; psychology; sociology). Our location independence allows affiliated scientists to reside anywhere in the world: our scientists reside in no less than 17 countries (Australia; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Croatia; Denmark; Finland; France; India; Indonesia; Luxembourg; Netherlands; South Africa; Sweden; Turkey; United Kingdom; United States)….”
” “Academy-owned” seems to be the descriptor du jour in scholarly communications circles. We talk increasingly about academy-owned infrastructure, academy-owned publishing, academy-owned publications, etc. We find ourselves at meetings and conferences where we explore the challenges of supporting new forms of scholarly research, new modes of publication, new communities of readers — and there it is again — “academy-owned,” lurking in the conversation. We write grants whose very premise is that the academy will rise to claim its rightful place as the source, the maker, the distributor, the curator of its greatest asset — knowledge. There is definitely a movement afoot.
Why has this phrase taken hold lately? The landscape is increasingly dominated by large, multinational corporations that are vacuuming up tools and platforms throughout the scholarly communication lifecycle. Although many of these corporations are familiar to libraries as content publishers, they are expanding their reach well beyond publishing to control both upstream and downstream activities: pre-print servers, OA publishing platforms, current research information systems, etc. A rebellion is stirring among those who worry that we are increasingly abdicating control of the academy’s intellectual property, its data, its ability to share information — even its values — to for-profit companies. The more we rely on licensed resources to read, distribute, and measure the impact of our research — as well as to determine the success of our researchers and the value of our institutions — the more in thrall the academy is to a set of values that are derived from a profit-driven marketplace founded on restricted access to information and abstract performance metrics.
And yet this noble impulse to claim a space for the academy in the exchange and evaluation of scholarly research is also rife with linguistic confusion. While the drive toward “academy-owned” solutions is pervasive, the language we use to articulate this drive lacks precision. Sometimes we talk about “academy-owned” projects, but just as often we describe them as “academic-led” or “community-led” or any number of other permutations.  These phrases are not synonymous — their distinctions are actually quite important — yet we use them interchangeably and nod to each other, as if we know what we mean. What, exactly, do we mean? It’s time to ask ourselves to identify the big issues and difficult questions embedded both in the terms themselves and the vagueness with which we use them. …”
Abstract: Digital infrastructures and tools allow organizations and institutions to create opportunities for projects, information transfer, learning, and platforms for a range of voices. It also creates opportunities that promote open access, social justice, and social impact. Panelists who are directly involved in digital initiative projects that specifically seek to impact society, either by opening up information resources to everyone, or by giving people the digital resources they need to be self-supportive, will talk about their projects and the beliefs that underpin their efforts. From libraries, to online content providers, to digital skills educators, the panel represents a wide range of organizations that are employing digital initiatives for social good. Organizations participating in this panel discussion include three nonprofit organizations: the Catholic Research Resources Alliance, Digital Divide Data, and the Center for Bibliographical and Research Studies, UC-Riverside.
“Africa OSH is a community of makers, hackers, practitioners and researchers in science and technology inclusive of government officials, private sector players and civil society across the African continent, the global south and the world. Africa OSH provides people interested in open science and hardware an alternative to traditional intellectual property (IP) and closed systems as a means to achieve locally adaptable technologies that will foster economic growth in Africa….”
“On his Twitter bio, Carl Malamud describes himself as a civil servant. In real life, he seems to spend a lot of time coming up with new ways to get in trouble with civil servants worldwide. Over the last three years, he has been involved in six different court cases across three continents. His crime? Making public information accessible to the public.
At the 19th International World Wide Web Conference in 2010, Malamud articulated his ‘10 Rules for Radicals’. Among them was the commandment “run really fast” because, “as a small player, the elephant can step on you, but you can outrun the elephant.” Malamud, dressed in business formals ahead of what promises to be a typically hot and humid Mumbai day, has the aura of someone who never stops running….”
“In 2018 the OLH launched the EmpowOA programme, designed to provide scholars and librarians working in the humanities with tools, spaces and cogent arguments about open access. Visitors to the website can now make use of a collection of advocacy resources and read our new Open Insights series featuring interviews and opinion pieces from a rich variety of scholars and librarians within the humanities OA communities. As part of this initiative we have also been arranging a series of Twitter chats to explore the topics of the blog posts. Many of you have been part of the initiative already!
We are in the process of translating some of these resources and have recently added a Spanish version of the poster, infographics, OLH conference presentation and Glossary of OA terms to the website. We are also planning to add multilingual content to our bibliography.
The OLH advocacy network is another step in building a community around OA and the scholarly commons. It is a new space where OA ECRs, scholars, editors, librarians, or information specialists can have a conversation, share information, propose new initiatives and provide feedback. …”