“CAPSH (Committee for the Accessibility of Publications in Sciences and Humanities) is a French nonprofit association promoting the open access to academic publications. It is in charge of the Dissemin project….”
“Our portfolio company Altmetric announce that École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has become the latest institution to adopt the Explorer for Institutions platform to help analyse the online engagement surrounding its scholarly research outputs.
With an intuitive interface which enables users to browse, filter and report on the latest shares and mentions for over 10 million research outputs, the Explorer for Institutions platform makes it easy to identify where academic work has received mainstream or social media coverage, been referenced in public policy, or received attention from scholarly and broader audiences in places such as Wikipedia, Reddit and post-publication peer-review forums. Citation data from Scopus and Web of Science is also included where available.
EPFL joins leading institutions including Ghent University, ETH Zurich, The University of Helsinki and the International Institute of Social Studies and the Erasmus Research Institute of Management at Erasmus University Rotterdam in utilising Altmetric data to better understand the reach and influence of published research.”
“The journal Sociologie du travail has terminated the contract it has had with Elsevier since 1999 and is moving to a fully digital form of Open Access on Revues.org.
Issue 59, Volume 1 of Sociologie du travail, entitled ‘Les syndicats face aux transformations du secteur public’, has just been published on Revues.org. The journal has also been given a makeover. This is a twofold turning point for the journal, which is both breaking with restricted access distribution on Elsevier and switching from print to digital. For Didier Demanière, author of this issue’s editorial, the change ‘signals a rupture with an international publisher contested for its exorbitant fees and positions the journal in the movement for open access to scientific articles’.”
“All survey results converge towards the fact that the researchers have generally accepted the idea of open access and that they consider it as globally beneficial for their field, even if their information and publishing behaviour may be somewhat delayed. In Europe, 461 research organisations and funders have adopted open access mandates and policies that require or request their researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research article output by depositing it in an open access repository7 ; many have signed national or international statements on open access, such as the Berlin Declaration. Both, individual awareness and uptake and institutional, political commitment are crucial for the further progress of open access.
Senior researchers, especially research managers and directors of research centres, are key stakeholders in this process in two ways:
- They are appointed by their peers, coordinate the research activities and represent their colleagues in the executive and advisory bodies; as such, they act as a kind of transmission belt of the researchers’ opinions and demands, including reporting (bottom-up).
- At the same time, they stand for the research organisation and are the guardians of the application of institutional decisions and rules within the local laboratory, including supervision, follow-up and control (top-down).
This intermediary or middle function may not always be an easy situation, as a latent source of conflict, but it makes them particularly interesting and influential as opinion leaders and even as potential models for good practice. For this reason, instead of a new assessment of scientists’ attitudes and behaviours towards open access, the CNRS conducted an exploratory survey on Scientific and Technological Information (STI) specifically at the senior management level, i.e. the directors of the CNRS research units (laboratories). One part of this survey was about open access. Our paper reports the survey results on open access, in particular to obtain answers to four questions:
- Do the CNRS senior research managers (laboratory directors) share the positive opinion towards open access revealed by recent studies with researchers from the UK, Germany, the United States and other countries? Are they supportive of open repositories and OA journal publishing?
- Does their information behaviour, i.e. use and production of open access publications, meet the challenge of open access or does it lag behind their opinions?
- Like in other studies, will this survey identify a group of unaware or even reluctant senior research managers not interested in open access?
- And finally, what can be said about differences between scientific disciplines?”
“A new Europe-wide code of research conduct has ordered academics and journals to treat negative experimental results as being equally worthy of publication as positive ones….The new European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity frames the bias against negative results as an issue of research conduct, stipulating that “authors and publishers [must] consider negative results to be as valid as positive findings for publication and dissemination”….It has been drawn up by All European Academies (Allea), a network of academic organisations including the British Academy, Germany’s Leopoldina and the French Académie des Sciences….The new code also puts more emphasis on research organisations themselves to prevent and detect misconduct; for example, universities should reward “open and reproducible practices” when it comes to hiring and promoting researchers, it says….”
” “As politicians [said Axelle Lemaire, the French minister of state for digital affairs], we create policies that are not always based on facts [and] checked by academics and researchers. We shouldn’t have one administrative silo taking decisions on one side, and researchers researching on the other. The [French] government decided to open public data with the objective of providing researchers with the resources they need for their work.” It is “extremely paradoxical,” Lemaire continued, that we live in a “post-truth reality” when we have more access than “ever before in history” to technology that can help to verify information and inform government thinking on how to improve societies through policy. “We can have access to information and use the tools — big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning — to make use of these facts and information for the benefit of all,” she added….“We need to keep in sight the values that lie behind the academic research and the aim for education for all,” she said. “That’s what I’ve tried to put into place with the bill, by arming researchers with the tools that they need to research in an open environment.” With the bill’s open access provision, which gives researchers the right to share their research freely, academics should be able to take full advantage of “living in an open international world.” …”
From Google’s English: “The question of the merits of disseminating the names of parties in court decisions has never been taken seriously by the public authorities. The online dissemination of jurisprudence on various websites, public (Legifrance) and private (sometimes greedy appetites), coupled with the power of new search engines, has in particular made the anonymization of court decisions a matter fundamental.”
“INRA strengthens its policy of open access to scientific results”
“L’Inra publie sa charte pour le libre accès à ses publications et données scientifiques. Les orientations de la Commission Européenne en faveur de « l’open science » et les récentes lois françaises encouragent les chercheurs à aller plus loin, notamment en matière de diffusion des données.”
From Google Translate: “INRA published its charter for the free access to its publications and scientific data.The guidelines of the European Commission in favor of “open science” and the recent French laws encourage researchers to go further, especially with regard to dissemination.”
From Google Translate: “Last week we celebrated the Open Access Week and I had the opportunity to give several speeches about the implications of the law “digital Republic” on Open Access to scientific publications. It is known that Lemaire Act, which came into force on 8 October , dedicated a new “secondary exploitation right” for the benefit of researchers, including to facilitate the filing in open archives of their publications. But the article (30) which contains the new provisions is not easy to read and it even contains several rather delicate points to interpret. I have received in recent weeks many questions from colleagues who sought to have details or to remove ambiguities, and I took advantage of the interventions to Open Access Week to try to make some clarifications….”
“In France, the final text of a new law on Open Access has been adopted on June 29, 2016. On July 20, the Assemblée Nationale has approved the bill, and it still needs to be voted on by the Sénat on September 27….[Section I] When a scientific article, result of a research activity funded for at least half by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by national agencies or by European Union grant, is published in a journal which comes out at least once a year, his author has the right to provide, even if he has granted an exclusive right to a publisher, a free availability in an open format, via digital channels, subject to the agreement of possible co-authors, to all the successive versions of the manuscript till the final version accepted for publication, as soon as it is freely made available by the publisher via digital channels, or, failing that, within a set period starting from the first publication date. That period is a maximum of 6 months for a publication in sciences, technical sciences and medicine and 12 in humanities and social sciences….”