[Funder support, and lack of support, for Plan S]

“FWIW I’ve tabulated and coded the replies to your Plan S questions. My worksheet is attached. Obviously, this kind of work doesn’t withstand scientific scrutiny—coding is very subjective, and given that not every respondent provided a detailed reply, it’s possible (even likely) that proportions get exaggerated. But based solely on the respondents who provided detailed replies—37 out of 60 total—it looks like funder support for Plan S may be softer than your original tally suggests. That is, in your original tally, one might reasonably conclude that roughly half of respondents have either signed Plan S (12 of 60 surveyed), are aligning their policies with Plan S (3 of 60), or are philosophically aligned with Plan S (16 of 60); as well, one might conclude that those who are aware of Plan S but haven’t formulated a position yet are still “neutral” (20 of 60). However, when you code all these replies, it’s clear that more respondents oppose Plan S than support it (and that only about 35% of respondents strongly support Plan S, which is roughly the same percent in OSI who support Plan S as written or with minor changes, so this seems consistent)….”

NIH Requests Public Comment on a Draft Policy for Data Management and Sharing and Supplemental Draft Guidance | SEA Currents

“Yesterday, NIH released a Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and supplemental draft guidance for public comment. The purpose of this draft policy and supplemental draft guidance is to promote effective and efficient data management and sharing that furthers NIH’s commitment to making the results and accomplishments of the research it funds and conducts available to the public. Complete information about the draft Policy and draft supplemental guidance can be found on the NIH OSP website.

Stakeholder feedback is essential to ensure that any future policy maximizes responsible data sharing, minimizes burden on researchers, and protects the privacy of research participants.  Stakeholders are invited to comment on any aspect of the draft policy, the supplemental draft guidance, or any other considerations relevant to NIH’s data management and sharing policy efforts that NIH should consider.

To facilitate commenting, NIH has established a web portal that can be accessed here. To ensure consideration, comments must be received no later than January 10, 2020….”

Repositories for academic products/outputs: Latin… | F1000Research

Abstract:  Open access policies have been progressing since the beginning of this century. Important global initiatives, both public and private, have set the tone for what we understand by open access. The emergence of tools and web platforms for open access (both legal and illegal) have placed the focus of the discussion on open access to knowledge, both for academics and for the general public, who finance such research through their taxes, particularly in Latin America. This historically unnoticed discussion must, we believe, be discussed publicly, given the characteristics of the Latin American scientific community, as well as its funding sources. This article includes an overview of what is meant by open access and describes the origins of the term, both in its philosophical sense and in its practical sense, expressed in the global declarations of Berlin and Bethesda. It also includes the notion of open access managed (or not) by some reputable institutions in Chile, such as CONICYT (National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research) and higher education institutions reputed nationally, such as the Universdad de Chile and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Various Latin American initiatives related to open access (Scielo, Redalyc, among others) are described, as well as the presence of Chilean documents in those platforms. The national institutional repositories are listed, as well as their current status and a discussion about what open access has implied in Latin America and its importance for the replicability of the investigations carried out locally. Finally, we describe some governmental initiatives (mainly legislative) at the Latin American level and propose some recommendations regarding the promotion and implementation of repositories for the access to scientific data (for access and replication purposes) of the national research.

 

Guest Post – Transparency: What Can One Learn from a Trove of Invoices? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The dataset Ashley [Farley] provided us [from the Gates Foundation] (covering the period from August 1, 2016, to March 31, 2019) includes:

3,268 invoices for articles in peer-reviewed journals
720 journals
90 publishers

In total the Foundation paid $9,002,225 to these publishers to ensure results of all Foundation research was disseminated with a CC BY license with no embargos — an average cost for “open” of $2,755 per article.

We think we’ve uncovered some interesting trends in this data, but our main objective is to share the research dataset we have developed, along with the Foundation’s original invoicing data. That way anyone can use these for further research….

In 2016, only 22% of authors were choosing to publish in fully-OA journals; in 2019, 50% have done so….

Traditional publishers charge significantly more for APCs than OA-only publishers….

Researchers choosing to publish in a fully OA Journal show a strong preference for OA-only publishers’ titles….

There are no significant differences in for-profit vs. non-profit publishers’ APCs for fully OA journals….”

NIH’s DRAFT Data Management and Sharing Policy: We Need to Hear From You! – Office of Science Policy

“Around this time last year, I wrote about a request for information (RFI) on potential key elements that could comprise a future NIH data management and sharing policy.  Not surprisingly, we received a lot of helpful feedback. Most commenters supported data sharing and the importance of prospectively planning for where, when, and how scientific data should be managed and shared.  There were, however, concerns about how one policy could fit all sizes and types of data across the biomedical research universe as well as potential burden on the research community.

Over the course of the last year, NIH has been incorporating many of these suggestions into our thinking and continuing to engage the community on their thoughts about data management and sharing. We’ve also been working with sovereign Tribal Nations through consultation sessions held across the U.S which have been vital in shaping NIH”s perspective on the potentially unique data sharing needs of those communities.

Today, NIH has released for public comment in the Federal Register a Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing along with supplement draft guidance. The draft policy furthers NIH longstanding commitment to making available the results and products of the research we fund and conduct.

To facilitate public comments, NIH has established a web-portal where folks can easily and securely provide their feedback.  The portal can be accessed by clicking here. To ensure that your comments are considered, responses must be submitted no later than January 10, 2020….”

Position statement on open access – Open Pharma

“Our immediate priority is to secure authors publishing company-funded research the same right to publish open access as authors publishing research funded by other sources, so that all research can be made free to read from the date of publication. This would enable pharmaceutical companies to follow the lead of other research funders in requiring all the research they fund to be published with open access, without impacting on journal choice.5-7 In order to provide publishers the time to adapt their policies and protect their copyright interests, any variant of Creative Commons or equivalent licence could be used….

Our long-term goal is to secure authors publishing company-funded research the same terms as authors publishing research funded by other sources, so that all research can be made free to read – and reuse – from the date of publication….”

Make it Public – how our consultation is informing the development of a new strategy for research transparency – Health Research Authority

“This summer more than 700 organisations and individuals took part in our 12-week Make it Public consultation.

The consultation, which ran from June to September, asked for feedback on our draft strategy to improve research transparency. …

We’re now working closely with the Research Transparency Strategy Group to devise a final strategy before the end of the year. The group met earlier this month to consider the top line responses to the strategy and you can read the minutes of their meeting here. After their next meeting a strategy will be shared with the HRA Board in December, before being presented to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. You can read more about our engagement with the Committee on the transparency section of our website….”

Open and Shut?: The OA Interviews: K. VijayRaghavan, Principal Scientific Adviser, Government of India

“It is, however, clearly problematic that cOAlition S has remained an essentially European initiative. For this reason when, in February, the Indian Government’s Principal Scientific Adviser, Professor VijayRaghavan posted a series of tweets saying that India was joining cOAlition S the news was greeted with great excitement by cOAlition S members, as well as by Plan S supporters like the European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Carlos Moedas.

 

The news was greeted with less enthusiasm back home in India, with concerns raised about the cost implications, the likely impact on small journals and publishers, and the way in which it would allow commercial publishers to continue to profit excessively from the research community – see, for instance, here, here and here.

 

Following Prof. VijayRaghavan’s tweets, however, radio silence set in, with no confirmation that India had formally joined, or any updates on the status of its plans. For this reason many ears pricked up last Friday when, during a lecture he gave at IISc Bangalore to mark Open Access Week, Prof. VijayRaghavan commented, “We are not committed to whatever Plan S does or does not do.” This sufficiently piqued the interest of Vasudevan Mukunth that he sought out Prof. VijayRaghavan and asked for clarification, which led to an interview in The Wire where it was confirmed that India no longer plans to join cOAlition S.

 

As I had been trying to interview Prof. VijayRaghavan for some months, I too was piqued by his comments and so took to Twitter to again invite him to answer the questions I had sent him in June. He agreed and below are his answers to an updated list of questions I emailed over to him….”

Daring to dream of Universal Open Access

Abstract:  This talk will discuss recent developments with an amalgamated model for open access based on library and funder support that holds out some promise for addressing the current need for universal open access. The talk will consider the calculus underlying the model; in relation to precursors (e.g., SCOAP3, OLH, Knowledge Unlatched, Gates’ Chronos) and its advantages of the model for researchers, libraries, funders, societies, and publishers. The talk will also take into account the global dimensions of such a model; it will report on current initiatives in implementing it in the social sciences while considering its implications for the sciences.

 

The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals

Abstract:  The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) imposed a public access policy on all publications for which the research was supported by their grants; the policy was drafted in 2004 and took effect in 2008. The policy is now 11 years old, yet no analysis has been presented to assess whether in fact this largest-scale US-based public access policy affected the vitality of the scholarly publishing enterprise, as manifested in changed mortality or natality rates of biomedical journals. We show here that implementation of the NIH policy was associated with slightly elevated mortality rates and mildly depressed natality rates of biomedical journals, but that birth rates so exceeded death rates that numbers of biomedical journals continued to rise, even in the face of the implementation of such a sweeping public access policy.