Impact of Social Sciences – Formalised data citation practices would encourage more authors to make their data available for reuse

“It is increasingly common for researchers to make their data freely available. This is often a requirement of funding agencies but also consistent with the principles of open science, according to which all research data should be shared and made available for reuse. Once data is reused, the researchers who have provided access to it should be acknowledged for their contributions, much as authors are recognised for their publications through citation. Hyoungjoo Park and Dietmar Wolfram have studied characteristics of data sharing, reuse, and citation and found that current data citation practices do not yet benefit data sharers, with little or no consistency in their format. More formalised citation practices might encourage more authors to make their data available for reuse.”

The NIH Public Access Policy (April 2012)

“NO HARM TO PUBLISHERS IS EVIDENT: • Publishers retain up to a 12?month embargo on NIH?funded papers before they are made available to the public without charge under fair use principles. • The Public Access requirement took effect in 2008. While the U.S. economy has suffered a downturn during the time period 2007 to 2011, scientific publishing has grown: – The number of journals dedicated to publishing biological sciences/agriculture articles and medicine/health articles increased 15% and 19%, respectively.5 – The average subscription prices of biology journals and health sciences journals increased 26% and 23%, respectively.6 – Publishers forecast increases to the rate of growth of the medical journal market, from 4.5% in 2011 to 6.3% in 2014.7 …

KEY FACTS ABOUT PMC: • Over 2.4 million articles are now in PMC. In addition to the NIH?funded papers deposited into PMC, publishers voluntarily deposit more than 100,000 papers per year. • Every weekday, 700,000 users access the database, retrieving over 1.5 million articles. • Based on internet addresses, an estimated 25% of users are from universities, 17% are from companies, and 40% from the general public …”

RCUK Open Access Block Grant analysis – Research Councils UK

“This document summarises the information that RCUK has collected as part of the ongoing financial and compliance monitoring of its Open Access Policy. For the first reporting period, which covered the period April 2013- July 2014, RCUK did not collect individual article level APC data but for the second and third reporting periods (August 2014 – July 2015 and August 2015 – July 2016) this information was collected and is reported on within….”

CSIR Ghana adopts open access policy | EIFL

“EIFL welcomes the adoption of an open access (OA) policy by Ghana’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the body mandated by the government to carry out scientific and technological research for national development.

The adoption of the policy emerged out of an EIFL-funded project implemented by the CSIR’s Institute for Scientific and Technological Information (CSIR-INSTI). The project, which aims to foster development and implementation of an OA policy, started in 2015.”

ARC Open Access Policy Version 2017.1 | Australian Research Council

How has the policy changed from the previous ARC Open Access Policy?

The revised policy issued on 30 June 2017 remains substantively the same as the previous version of the policy. The revisions remove ambiguities in application and includes:

  • The addition of a definitions section
  • The specification to make research ARC-funded research outputs openly accessible in an institutional repository has been removed, and replaced with the requirement that these outputs must be made openly accessible. Only the metadata for research outputs must be made available to the public in an institutional repository
  • The scope has been clarified to apply to all outputs, rather than just publications (journal articles and scholarly monographs as is currently the case) arising from ARC-funded research and its metadata
  • Greater guidance around the metadata requirements for ARC-funded research outputs
  • Specifying the need for appropriate licensing of research outputs in order to provide guidance on allowable access and reuse
  • Significantly clarifying the roles and responsibilities in relation to the ARC’s open access requirements.

The requirement that any research output arising from ARC funded research must be made openly accessible within a twelve (12) month period from the publication date has not changed….”

H2020 compliance of roarmap database

“This web site allows the comparison of any Open Access (OA) policy registered in ROARMAP database with the Horizon2020 funding program OA requirements.

Data are fetched directly from the ROARMAP web site and web API.

The criteria used to determine the level of compliance of a ROARMAP-classified policy with H2020 OA requirements have been documented in this document ….”

FWF-E-Book-Library :: Forschungsinfrastruktur

From Google’s English: “The FWF-E-Book-Library is a repository for the open-access publication of self-supporting publications funded by the FWF. Idente electronic copies of all publications submitted since December 2011 and funded by the FWF will be made available free of charge and free of charge in the FWF E-Book Library on the Internet. The joint open-access archiving of the supported books is intended to ensure a better visibility and further dissemination of the scientific publications on the Internet. For the publications to be found by their readers, the electronic copies are provided with a licensing model of the Creative Commons licenses as well as with metadata, which are linked to international scientific platforms and search engines. 

The FWF archives in the FWF-E-Book-Library not only all publications supported since 2011, but also all books published by the FWF and published since the year 2000, to which the FWF from the authors and the publishers the necessary rights were….”

Cambridge’s journey towards Open Access

“Presentation given at Open Repositories 2017, Brisbane, Australia. General track 13: Evaluation and assessment. This presentation discusses the open agenda supported by funder policies in the United Kingdom (UK), how these policies interact with one another and the resulting implications for higher education institutions using the case study of the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has responded to the challenges of open research by founding the Office of Scholarly Communication and dedicating specialized teams to manage compliance with both Open Access and research data requirements. Since 2013 the Open Access Service has processed over 10,000 article submissions and spent more than £7 million on article processing charges. The experiences at Cambridge in responding to these challenges are an important lesson for anyone engaged in open research. This talk offers some insights into a potential way to manage funder mandates, but also acts as a cautionary tale for other countries and institutions considering introducing mandates around Open Access and what the implementation of certain policies might entail. The skills around management of open policies are significantly different to traditional library activity, and this has implications for training and recruitment of staff.”