Science ouverte, le défi de la transparence – Académie éditions

From Google’s English: “A new way of conceiving scientific research, open science, was born with the computer revolution. In the wake of Open Access  (free access to the results of research funded by public money), it supports the great ideal of transparency that today invades all spheres of life in society. This book describes its origins, perspectives and objectives, and reveals the obstacles and obstacles to private profit and academic conservatism.

Bernard Rentier is a Belgian virologist. After an international career as a researcher, he became vice-rector ( 1997-2005 ) and then rector of the University of Liège ( 2005-2014 ). It has established an institutional repository system for scientific publications that has become a model of open access and is currently dedicated to promoting open science in all its implications for research and researchers….”

Plan S: HighWire whitepaper explores the options publishers are considering – Highwire Press

When we launched HighWire back in 1995, the Internet was transforming the way academic research content was developed, hosted and communicated. It was an exciting time. The rapidly accelerating digital era brought published content to international research communities in an instant. This was access like never before….

Plan S has invigorated the most active debate since the proposal of “ebiomed” and PubMed Central about 20 years ago. How will publishers achieve Open Access compliance? What are the main questions and concerns publishers and journals have? And what could genuine solutions be, based on what we currently know? …

Bringing the HighWire community together over the course of 4 months, we were able to identify and explore 14 implementation options for publishers and how they could deliver against the ten principles as set out by cOAlition S. This whitepaper summarizes the findings and details the 4 most preferred options….”

 

Plan S: HighWire whitepaper explores the options publishers are considering – Highwire Press

When we launched HighWire back in 1995, the Internet was transforming the way academic research content was developed, hosted and communicated. It was an exciting time. The rapidly accelerating digital era brought published content to international research communities in an instant. This was access like never before….

Plan S has invigorated the most active debate since the proposal of “ebiomed” and PubMed Central about 20 years ago. How will publishers achieve Open Access compliance? What are the main questions and concerns publishers and journals have? And what could genuine solutions be, based on what we currently know? …

Bringing the HighWire community together over the course of 4 months, we were able to identify and explore 14 implementation options for publishers and how they could deliver against the ten principles as set out by cOAlition S. This whitepaper summarizes the findings and details the 4 most preferred options….”

 

Open Knowledge Institutions: Reinventing Universities

Can 13 authors, from the USA, Germany, Australia, China and South Africa, many previously unknown to one another, get together and, from scratch, write a 150-page book –– on a topic none of them has tackled before –– in 5 days?

If the group in question is committed to the same goals as MIT’s PubPub platform, to “socialize the process of knowledge creation”; and if the process they use is a Book Sprint, a professionally facilitated “collaborative process that captures the knowledge of a group of experts in a single book,“ then the answer is yes.

What drew our diverse group together is “open knowledge.” By this we mean not just the technical specifics of open access publishing or open source computing, and not just a general commitment to an open society, open government or open science, but a need to understand how these technical and social possibilities can be brought together in open knowledge institutions.

Specifically, how can the most long-lasting, successful and expanding version of a knowledge institution –– the university –– face the mounting challenges of global, digital and contested knowledge systems, in order to transform universities into Open Knowledge Institutions?

We present the results of our work here to the wider community for annotation, commentary, constructive criticism and engagement, with a view to extending the collaborative spirit further. We want the book to gain further analytical richness and precision from crowd-sourced expertise. You are invited to join us as we work through some of the issues that may enable or stand in the way of socialising knowledge itself….”    

Levelling the playing field in scholarly communications – Research Consulting

“It was recognised that the problems facing research and researchers in the Global South are highly complex and multi-faceted, so a pragmatic and focused approach is needed to deliver change.  One measurable outcome of increased inclusivity and equality is the number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals (whether they are published in the North or the South), so this gave us a useful touchpoint throughout our discussions.   One stark statistic is that, in 2017, research publications from the top 10 countries in the world outnumbered those from the bottom 200 by 5 to 1!  (Source: Scopus)….

The three workshops generated a great deal of engagement and ideas, with some highly practical and achievable recommendations for further action.  A key question remains whether it is appropriate for the Global South simply to replicate the systems of research communication and evaluation which have existed for centuries in the North, or whether a completely new approach is needed, taking advantage of more recent developments in technology and publishing.

What was very clear from the discussions is that we need to move Research4Life beyond simply solving the problem of access to scholarly content and use it as a springboard to improve the skills of researchers to perform and communicate their own research activities on equal terms….”

The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete. Here’s What’s Next. – The Atlantic

“Perhaps the paper itself is to blame. Scientific methods evolve now at the speed of software; the skill most in demand among physicists, biologists, chemists, geologists, even anthropologists and research psychologists, is facility with programming languages and “data science” packages. And yet the basic means of communicating scientific results hasn’t changed for 400 years. Papers may be posted online, but they’re still text and pictures on a page.

What would you get if you designed the scientific paper from scratch today? …

Software is a dynamic medium; paper isn’t. When you think in those terms it does seem strange that research like Strogatz’s, the study of dynamical systems, is so often being shared on paper …

I spoke to Theodore Gray, who has since left Wolfram Research to become a full-time writer. He said that his work on the notebook was in part motivated by the feeling, well formed already by the early 1990s, “that obviously all scientific communication, all technical papers that involve any sort of data or mathematics or modeling or graphs or plots or anything like that, obviously don’t belong on paper. That was just completely obvious in, let’s say, 1990,” he said. …”

 

 

Guidelines for open peer review implementation | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Abstract:  Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions).

Recommendations for Supporting ORCID in Repositories

The ORCID in Repositories Task Force was charged with drafting recommendations for repository platform developers, intended to ensure a consistent base level of support for ORCID across different platforms. Their draft recommendations were shared for community comment, and that feedback has been incorporated into this document, which represents the group’s overall recommendations….”

Springer Nature pledges support for Plan S | Research Information

Springer Nature is specifically calling on cOAlition S funders to:

  • Commit to undertake research to demonstrate the benefits of OA and the promotion of it to increase author and other funder take-up;
  • Commit to make transformative deals, such as Publish and Read deals, a key part of Plan S given their proven ability to drive growth in OA and within these deals and to remove its requirement for publishers to commit to ‘flip’ hybrid journals to OA in the near future;
  • Rethink more broadly its opposition to hybrid journals at a time when many academic disciplines and many geographic regions are not yet fully supportive of Gold OA;  
  • Remove the requirement to provide APC discounts for middle income countries such as China which is the largest publisher of academic research in the world and the second largest investor in R&D;
  • Recognise that highly selective journals and those with significant levels of non-primary research content need to be treated differently; and
  • Support platforms providing early access to primary research….”