“The aim of this directory of institutional open access policies is to identify and analyze the existing policies that encourage, request or require open access to scholarly outputs that arise from projects, in whole or in part, supported by public funds….”
“On this page you will find indicators on how the policies of journals and funding agencies favour open access, and the percentage of publications (gold, green, hybrid and bronze) actually available through open access.
The indicators cover bibliometric data on publications, as well as data on funders’ and journals’ policies. Indicators and case studies will be updated over time.
You can download the chart and its data through the dedicated menu within each chart (top right of the image). …”
“Being able to demonstrate the benefits of OA for books can be powerful in changing attitudes. For authors who are considering whether to publish their books OA, the possibility of reaching a broader and more diverse readership is often an important factor. For funders, too, who are considering whether to expand OA policies and funding to books, understanding the effect of OA can be critical. The challenge – there is limited research on this topic and as such, while anecdotally we often hear of OA books achieving a broad readership, the evidence base to demonstrate this is still somewhat limited.
Earlier this year, we commissioned Collaborative Open Access Research & Development (COARD) to explore the effects of OA on the geographic reach of scholarly books. Collectively, we were interested in understanding where OA books were being read, and how patterns of usage between OA and non-OA books differed between countries and regions. In particular, was OA publication leading to increased readership in countries that are traditionally underrepresented in the production and use of scholarly research?
The findings are compelling. COARD’s analysis shows that OA has a robust effect on the number of downloads, geographical diversity of downloads, and citations of books. The effect was seen for all disciplinary groupings, in HSS and STM, across all three years of publication in the dataset, for all types of book (monographs, contributed volumes, and mid-length books) and for every month after publication. OA is, in other words, making a substantial difference to the reach of books and their authors.
Downloads of OA books in the study were on average 10 times higher than those of non-OA books, and citations of OA books were 2.4 times higher on average – an even larger OA effect than we found in our previous research in this area. In our new analysis, downloads of OA books from the open web were generally around double those from institutional network points, suggesting that OA may also be helping books to reach a more diverse readership. …”
“There are regular discussions among academics as to who should be the prime mover in infrastructure reform. Some point to the publishers to finally change their business model. Others claim that researchers need to vote with their feet and change how they publish. Again others find that libraries should just stop subscribing to journals and use the saved money for a modern publishing system. Finally and most recently, people have been urging funding agencies to use their power to attach strings to their grant funds and force change where none has occurred….
We, the scientific community and all institutions supporting them, are all responsible for change.
The more relevant question is: who is in the strategically best position to break the lock-in-effect and initiate change?
Researchers decide if they evaluate colleagues on glamour proxies that deteriorate the reliability of science by valuing “novelty” above all else, or if they stand up and demand an infrastructure from their institutions that supports reliability, saves time and provides for an optimized workflow in which they can focus on science again, instead of being constantly side-tracked by the technical minutiae of reviews, meetings, submissions, etc.
Libraries decide how to spend their ~10b€ annually: on subscriptions/APCs in opaque and unaccountable negotiations, exempt from spending rules or on a modern infrastructure without antiquated journals and with a thriving, innovative market that allows them to choose among the lowest responsible bidders?
Funders decide whether to support scientists at institutions that fund monopolists and reward unreliable science, or those that work at institutions which spend their infrastructure and research funds in a fiscally responsible way to provide an infrastructure that preserves not only text, but data and code as well, ensuring the reliability and veracity of the results….”
“Ripeta is a credit review for scientific publications. Similar to a financial credit report, which reviews the fiscal health of a person, Ripeta assesses the responsible reporting of the scientific paper. The Ripeta suite identifies and extracts the key components of research reporting, thus drastically shortening and improving the publication process; furthermore, Ripeta’s ability to extract data makes these pieces of text easily discoverable for future use….
Researchers: Rapidly check your pre-print manuscripts to improve the transparency of reporting your research.
Publishers: Improve the reproducibility of the articles you publish with an automated tool that helps evidence-based science.
Funders: Evaluate your portfolio by checking your manuscripts for robust scientific reporting.”
“Ripeta and Wellcome are pleased to announce a collaborative effort to assess data and code availability in the manuscripts of funded research projects.
The project will analyze papers funded by Wellcome from the year prior to it establishing a dedicated Open Research team (2016) and from the most recent calendar year (2019). It supports Wellcome’s commitment to maximising the availability and re-use of results from its funded research.
Ripeta, a Digital Science portfolio company, aims to make better science easier by identifying and highlighting the important parts of research that should be transparently presented in a manuscript and other materials.
The collaboration will leverage Ripeta’s natural language processing (NLP) technology, which scans articles for reproducibility criteria. For both data availability and code availability, the NLP will produce a binary yes-no response for the presence of availability statements. Those with a “yes” response will then be categorized by the way that data or code are shared….”
“CORE is happy to announce the release of a new version of the CORE Repository Dashboard. The update will be of particular interest to UK repositories as we are releasing with it a new tool to support REF2021 open access compliance assessment. The tool was developed for repository managers and research administrators to improve the harvesting of their repository outputs and ensure their content is visible to the world. Full details here.”
“Funders have the power to change incentives to support rigorous research. Together with Chris Chambers, co-founder of the UK Reproducibility Network, I have drafted a Universal Funders Policy that mandates and rewards the open deposition of all records associated with a publication.
Our proposal does not apply to all materials generated in the course of a project. To many, at least in the biomedical sciences, such a requirement would not be beneficial or pragmatic. It could result in a ‘data dump’ of limited value. Yet the bulk of a standard biomedical publication is based on smaller data sets that are often available only from the corresponding author ‘upon reasonable request’, a practice that hampers transparency.
For such a policy to be accepted and work long-term, its implementation route might find inspiration in Plan S developments: an initial phase of consultation with diverse stakeholders, followed by a transition period during which researchers and institutions prepare for the ‘new normal’. Finally, funders will need to enforce the mandate….”
“High-profile retractions have highlighted how the conventional model of academic publishing has struggled to keep pace with the race to understand the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The system is ripe for innovation. To that end, an open-access overlay journal known as Rapid Reviews: COVID-19 (RR:C19; see go.nature.com/3fufauw) uses the speed of technology to democratize the review process and strengthen the quality of research.
RR:C19 was launched this year by the MIT Press and the University of California, Berkeley, with support from the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Scientists, publishers and philanthropic foundations work together to swiftly deploy new models for digitally enabled publishing. The journal promotes rapid and transparent peer review of promising or controversial preprints, as well as dynamic curation of content (see B. M. Stern and E. K. O’Shea PLoS Biol. 17, e3000116; 2019).
Philanthropic foundations have been leaders in funding risky scientific ventures. In our experience, extending that support to advance the publishing process will boost the quality of research and accelerate its dissemination.”
“Amid growing clamor for more transparency from the pharmaceutical industry, Italy has become the first country to require drug makers to disclose data about public funding for any of their medicines during negotiations over pricing and reimbursement.
As a result, the Italian Medicines Agency, known as AIFA, will have insight into various costs, such as R&D and marketing, that drug companies incur, as well as data on revenue, patents, and prices offered to other countries, according to a decree published last week. The decree is notable, in part, because Italy is a Group of Seven country with a significant market for the global pharmaceutical industry….”