Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity

“This Call was drafted on the campus Jussieu in Paris by a French group comprising researchers and scientific publishing professionals working together in Open Access and Public Scientific Publishing task forces of BSN (Bibliothèque scientifique numérique, or Digital Scientific Library).

This Call is aimed at scientific communities, professional associations and research institutions to promote a scientific publishing open-access model fostering bibliodiversity and innovation without involving the exclusive transfer of journal subscription monies to APC payments….

We find it necessary to foster an Open Access model that is not restricted to a single approach based on the transfer of subscriptions towards APCs (publication fees charged to authors to allow free access to their articles). Such an approach would hamper innovation and otherwise would slow if not check the advent of bibliodiversity….

Open Access must be complemented by support for the diversity of those acting in scientific publishing – what we call bibliodiversity – putting an end to the dominance of a small number among us imposing their terms to scientific communities….

The scientific communities must be able to access national and international infrastructures which guarantee the preservation and circulation of knowledge against any privatization of contents….

Priority should be given to business models that do not involve any payments, neither for authors to have their texts published nor for readers to access them. Many fair funding models exist and only require to be further developed and extended: institutional support, library contributions or subsidies, premium services, participatory funding or creation of open archives, etc. We endorse the clear message to the scientific community at large released by the League of European Research Universities (LERU): Research funding should go to research, not to publishers! This is why current journal subscription spendings should be changed into investments enabling the scientific community to regain control over the publishing system and not merely into new spendings only earmarked to pay the publication fees for researchers to commercial publishers….

We call on creating an international consortium of stakeholders whose primary aim should be to pool local and national initiatives or to build an operational framework to fund open access publishing, innovation and sharing of resulting developments. We call on research organizations and their libraries to secure and earmark as of now a share of their acquisition budgets to support the development of scientific publishing activities, which are genuinely open and innovative, and address the needs of the scientific community….”

G7 Science Ministers’ Communiqué, September 28, 2017

“16. We affirm the principle that efforts should be directed to promote a widespread participation of researchers in the network of global research infrastructures, taking account of the opportunities offered by open science paradigms. Significant contributions to this discussion come from the “Group of Senior Officials on Global Research Infrastructures” (GSO) and the G7 “Open Science Working Group” (OS WG)….[18] We welcome the GSO’s 2017 report that includes both the evolution of the Framework corresponding to a broader and deeper consensus on global access criteria, the developments on open innovation and open data policies….19. We recognize that ICT developments, the digitisation and the vast availability of data, efforts to push the science frontiers, and the need to address complex economic and societal challenges, are transforming the way in which science is performed towards Open Science paradigms. We agree that an international approach can help the speed and coherence of this transition, and that it should target in particular two aspects. First, the incentives for the openness of the research ecosystem: the evaluation of research careers should better recognize and reward Open Science activities. Secondly, the infrastructures for an optimal use of research data: all researchers should be able to deposit, access and analyse scientific data across disciplines and at the global scale, and research data should adhere to the FAIR principles of being findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable….20. We support the work and results achieved so far by the G7 Open Science Working group. The OS Working Group has identified priorities that deserve and require common aligned actions, both in encouraging openness and data skills in scientific research practice, through workforce development and training. We encourage the OS WG to follow-up actions taken by G7 members according to the WG’s recommendations and to collect good practices, in order to report to the next G7 Science Minister’s Meeting. In particular, we support the OS WG deepening its efforts on the two topics identified above (paragraph 19), namely the incentives for openness of the research ecosystem, including the role of research indicators and metrics relevant to open science, and the infrastructures and standards for optimal use of research. The summary report of the OS working group is attached to this Communiqué….”

European Institutions Adopt Altmetric Explorer for Institutions – Digital Science

“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 leaves ELSEVIER for Open Access on Revues.org – ejournals@cambridge

“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’.”

Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS)

“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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. Like in other studies, will this survey identify a group of unaware or even reluctant senior research managers not interested in open access?
  4. And finally, what can be said about differences between scientific disciplines?”

Stop binning negative results, researchers told | Times Higher Education (THE)

“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….”

French minister seeks to mend ‘broken links’ between academics and political leaders

” “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.” …”

Open data et décision de justice « anonyme », un mariage impossible ?

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.”

L’Inra se lance dans l’Open science et l’open-data

“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.”