A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment

Abstract:  This study estimates the effect of data sharing on the citations of academic articles, using journal policies as a natural experiment. We begin by examining 17 high-impact journals that have adopted the requirement that data from published articles be publicly posted. We match these 17 journals to 13 journals without policy changes and find that empirical articles published just before their change in editorial policy have citation rates with no statistically significant difference from those published shortly after the shift. We then ask whether this null result stems from poor compliance with data sharing policies, and use the data sharing policy changes as instrumental variables to examine more closely two leading journals in economics and political science with relatively strong enforcement of new data policies. We find that articles that make their data available receive 97 additional citations (estimate standard error of 34). We conclude that: a) authors who share data may be rewarded eventually with additional scholarly citations, and b) data-posting policies alone do not increase the impact of articles published in a journal unless those policies are enforced.

 

Will the Hybrid Journal Be Transformed by Plan S? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In the “Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S”, cOAlition S committed to “consider developing a potential framework for ‘transformative journals’ where the share of open access content is gradually increased, where subscription costs are offset by income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments), and where the journal has a clear commitment to transition to full open access in an agreed timeframe.” In late November, cOAlition S released a draft framework for transformative journals and began a consultation (open for comment until 9:00 CET on January 6, 2020). 

The concept of “transformative journals” was initially proposed by Springer Nature in May 2019 in a response to the draft of the Plan S implementation guidelines.  At the time, I expressed skepticism that the idea would find a receptive audience given the coaition’s position on hybrid journals. As such, I will admit that I was rather surprised to see that cOAlition S incorporated the notion of transformative journals into the final guidelines and signaled the possibility of re-thinking the acceptability of hybrid journals and expanding the conditions under which they would be considered Plan S compliant. …”

Will the Hybrid Journal Be Transformed by Plan S? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In the “Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S”, cOAlition S committed to “consider developing a potential framework for ‘transformative journals’ where the share of open access content is gradually increased, where subscription costs are offset by income from payments for publishing services (to avoid double payments), and where the journal has a clear commitment to transition to full open access in an agreed timeframe.” In late November, cOAlition S released a draft framework for transformative journals and began a consultation (open for comment until 9:00 CET on January 6, 2020). 

The concept of “transformative journals” was initially proposed by Springer Nature in May 2019 in a response to the draft of the Plan S implementation guidelines.  At the time, I expressed skepticism that the idea would find a receptive audience given the coaition’s position on hybrid journals. As such, I will admit that I was rather surprised to see that cOAlition S incorporated the notion of transformative journals into the final guidelines and signaled the possibility of re-thinking the acceptability of hybrid journals and expanding the conditions under which they would be considered Plan S compliant. …”

‘Transformative journal’ rules allow titles Plan S reprieve | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Previously, Plan S had said it would still allow academics to publish in journals that are not fully open access until the end of 2024, provided their publishers have signed what are called “transformative agreements” committing to switch fully to open access.

Now, under new plans out for consultation unveiled on 26 November, individual journals can also be designated as “transformative”, provided they hit certain criteria to prove they genuinely plan to become fully open.

Such journals need to increase the share of open access content by at least eight percentage points a year, according to the criteria.

They also need to commit to going fully open access either before the end of 2024, or when at least half of content has become open access.

Journals also need to make this transition “cost neutral” and provide “transparent pricing” to show libraries exactly what content they are paying for.

One big concern for Plan S backers has been to avoid propping up so-called “hybrid” journals, a mixture of open access and paywalled articles paid for by subscriptions. They fear these journals can charge universities double – through subscriptions, and through article processing charges for open access papers….”

‘Transformative journal’ rules allow titles Plan S reprieve | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Previously, Plan S had said it would still allow academics to publish in journals that are not fully open access until the end of 2024, provided their publishers have signed what are called “transformative agreements” committing to switch fully to open access.

Now, under new plans out for consultation unveiled on 26 November, individual journals can also be designated as “transformative”, provided they hit certain criteria to prove they genuinely plan to become fully open.

Such journals need to increase the share of open access content by at least eight percentage points a year, according to the criteria.

They also need to commit to going fully open access either before the end of 2024, or when at least half of content has become open access.

Journals also need to make this transition “cost neutral” and provide “transparent pricing” to show libraries exactly what content they are paying for.

One big concern for Plan S backers has been to avoid propping up so-called “hybrid” journals, a mixture of open access and paywalled articles paid for by subscriptions. They fear these journals can charge universities double – through subscriptions, and through article processing charges for open access papers….”

NGOs’ experiences of navigating the open… | F1000Research

Abstract:  Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.

 

NGOs’ experiences of navigating the open… | F1000Research

Abstract:  Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.

 

Making it easier to be open: Johns Hopkins engineers innovative platform for repositories – SPARC

“Choudhury, Associate Dean for Research Data Management and the Hodson Director of the Digital Research and Curation Center at Johns Hopkins University, applied his engineering expertise to transform the campus library system’s infrastructure and technology capabilities. Most recently, he led a team that built the “Public Access Submission System” (PASS), a platform to help researchers comply with the access policies of their funders and institutions. After the 2013 White House policy requiring public access was passed, SPARC encouraged developers to create a “unified deposit portal” for manuscript deposit.

Choudhury took on the challenge to develop open source software to do just that. His goal: To embed the process of sharing research outputs into researchers’ existing workflows, and rebalance the relationship between authors, libraries and publishers. Now, with a grant from the National Science Foundation to generalize deposit into multiple federal repositories through third party applications, PASS holds promise for institutions and individuals to disseminate their scientific advances with ease….

The PASS platform is a unified approach for compliance that allows researchers to fulfill the requirements of access policies of their institutions and funders through a single website.  It provides interfaces (APIs, SWORD, email-driven-workflows) for researchers, institutional administrators and agencies to access, collaborate on, submit, be notified about, and perhaps format accepted manuscripts and metadata. Researchers can also deposit manuscripts and metadata in the repositories required or requested by the author….

Development of the platform was funded initially with money from the Office of the President at Hopkins, after the campus approved an open access policy in July of 2018.  And in October, NSF provided further support with a one-year, $250,000 grant for the expansion of PASS in partnership with Arizona State University, California Digital Libraries, Duke University, Harvard University, Michigan University, and Notre Dame….”

“Collaborating Across Campus to Advance Open Access Policy Compliance” by Andrew Johnson, Melissa Cantrell et al.

In 2018, the Data and Scholarly Communication Services Unit (DSCS) at the University of Colorado Boulder began implementing two open access (OA) policy workflows with the aim of increasing content in the institutional repository CU Scholar, expanding awareness of the campus OA policy that was passed in 2015, and decreasing the burden on researchers for participation in the policy. DSCS leveraged collaborative relationships with other library departments and campus units in order to mobilize the data, infrastructure, procedures, and documentation to execute these workflows. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) workflow identifies existing open access publications by CU Boulder faculty and mediates deposit in order to make them available in CU Scholar. The liaison outreach workflow partners with liaison librarians to request from faculty preprints and author’s final manuscripts of publications in which the publisher version may have copyright restrictions. At present, the DOAJ workflow has resulted in 754 articles deposited in CU Scholar, and the liaison outreach workflow has resulted in 91 articles deposited. Each of these workflows pose challenges that have required flexibility, experimentation, and clear communication between stakeholders. This case study, which includes detailed descriptions of both open access policy workflows, initial results, and plans for future implementation, may serve as a guide for other institutions wishing to adopt and/or adapt institutional repository workflows and forge collaborative relationships to further open access initiatives in their local context.

U.S. GAO – FEDERAL RESEARCH: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Public Access to Research Results

“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….”