Abstract: When it comes to publishing, researchers’ stated norms for established best practices often do not align with their actual behaviour1. Consider the example of data sharing: failure to share research data when publishing is increasingly viewed as a barrier to research progress, and to contribute to waste and inefficiency2. Policies seeking to maximise the value of public funding are at the heart of the data sharing movement. Patients appear to be overwhelmingly agreeable to their data being shared too3.
Abstract: The ACcess to Transparent Statistics (ACTS) call to action assembles four measures that are rapidly achievable by journals and funding agencies to enhance the quality of statistical reporting. The ACTS call to action is an appeal for concrete actions from institutions that should spearhead the battle for reproducibility.
Abstract: The objective of this study is to analyze the present status of the open access movement in Pakistan, identify challenges, and make recommendations for the effective use of this publishing model. The article looks primarily at the open access movement in Asia, with special reference to Pakistan, India, and China. Findings show that, since the emergence of the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2001, the open access movement has developed rapidly at the international level. From the Pakistani perspective, gold open access, in which articles or monographs are freely available in their original form on publishers’ websites, developed quickly. However, green open access, which relies on authors to self-archive their articles in institutional or subject repositories, has been relatively slow to develop. A lack of support from educational institutions, libraries, library associations, and funding bodies may explain the slow growth of green open access in Pakistan. The author recommends that Pakistani universities, research institutions, and funding agencies develop open access policies, set up institutional repositories, and encourage publishing in open access journals and self-archiving in institutional repositories.
Abstract: The FAIR Guiding Principles, published in 2016, aim to improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of digital research objects for both humans and machines. Until now the FAIR principles have been mostly applied to research data. The ideas behind these principles are, however, also directly relevant to research software. Hence there is a distinct need to explore how the FAIR principles can be applied to software. In this work, we aim to summarize the current status of the debate around FAIR and software, as a basis for the development of definite community-agreed principles for FAIR research software in the future. We discuss what makes software different from data with respect to the application of the FAIR principles, present an analysis of where the existing principles can directly be applied to software, where they need to be adapted or reinterpreted, and where the definition of additional principles is required. Furthermore, we discuss desired characteristics of research software that go beyond FAIR.
“As part of its ongoing work to support open access (OA) both on campus and in the wider world of academia, in October the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released two documents that will amplify open sharing of MIT resources and clarify communications with scholarly publishers.
On October 17, the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, chaired by Class of 1922 Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Hal Abelson and Director of Libraries Chris Bourg, released its OA Task Force Final Report, a set of recommendations that will support and increase open sharing of MIT publications, data, software, and educational materials.
In addition, MIT Libraries staff partnered with the task force and the Committee on the Library System to develop a framework, based on those core principles, to help guide negotiations with scholarly publishers, support the needs of scholars, and advance science. The MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts was released on October 23….”
From p. 15: “The Executive Board,
1. Having examined documents 207 EX/7 and 207 EX/PG/1.INF.3 and Corr.,
2. Takes note of the consolidated roadmap towards the adoption of a possible UNESCO recommendation on open science contained in the Annex to document 207 EX/7;
3. Notes the importance of ensuring an open and transparent process based on a proper geographical and gender balance for the selection of the members of the Advisory Committee;
4. Requests the Director-General to ensure a broad and geographically representative Open Science Partnership, with relevant stakeholders and institutions from all regions and from all branches of Basic and Applied Sciences, including Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, and Social and Human Sciences, particularly taking into account local and indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge;
5. Recommends that the specific challenges of scientists in developing countries in regards to weak Science Technology and Innovation (STI) policy and legal systems, and the digital, technological and knowledge divides, be adequately addressed within the consolidated Roadmap and future recommendation to enable the scientists to fully participate and reap the benefits of the Open Science framework;
6. Also recommends that the General Conference, at its 40th session, invite the Director-General, to initiate, in accordance with the applicable rules and provided the resources are available, the process of elaborating a draft text of a new standard-setting instrument on open science, in the form of a recommendation, to be submitted for consideration by the General Conference at its 41st session;
7. Further recommends that the General Conference, at its 40th session, request the Director-General to hold at least one Category 2 intergovernmental meeting in presentia with a view to the elaboration of a recommendation on Open Science;
8. Recommends the Director-General to elaborate a draft Terms of Reference of The Open Science Advisory Committee to be presented at the next General Conference, for its consideration.”
“Further to the Executive Board decision, 206 EX/Decision 9, the objective of this document is to present a consolidated Roadmap towards a possible UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science for consideration by the Executive Board at its 207th session.Action expected of the Executive Board: proposed decision in paragraph 7.”
“This initiative is inscribed in the continuity and follow-up of the UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific researchers, approved by the General Conference at its 39th session in 2017 and the UNESCO Strategy on Open Access to scientific information and research approved by the General Conference in its 36th session in 2011. The overall objective of this document is to present the preliminary findings of the study of the desirability for UNESCO’s action, programmatic and regulatory, in the field of Open Science. A possible UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science is presented as an option to affirm UNESCO’s normative and standard-setting role in this regard.Action expected of the Executive Board: proposed decision in paragraph 39.”
“Public access to the results of federally funded research can accelerate scientific breakthroughs. In 2013, certain federal agencies were directed to create plans for increasing access to publications and data they funded.
The 19 agencies we reviewed made progress, but some have not fully implemented their plans. For example:
7 agencies have not taken steps to make data findable, such as creating a single web access point
4 don’t require all researchers to submit a plan to provide access to data
11 don’t fully ensure that researchers comply with access requirements
We made 37 recommendations to 16 agencies to address these and other issues….”
“[T]he UNESCO OER Recommendation has five objectives: (i) Building capacity of stakeholders to create access, use, adapt and redistribute OER; (ii) Developing supportive policy; (iii) Encouraging inclusive and equitable quality OER; (iv) Nurturing the creation of sustainability models for OER; and (v) Facilitating international cooperation….”