Abstract: Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online. Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines. We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively. We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.
“The issue of cost also factors into interviewees’ approach to making their peer-reviewed publications available via open access. When asked about whether their publications are available via open access, many interviewees focused on the cost of gold open-access models. These interviewees highlighted that while they are generally supportive of open access, the cost of making their articles open access through the journals they publish in is prohibitively high, especially since they are expected to publish multiple articles per project and per year. A typical response by an interviewee: “I am all for the open access. That’s good but I have mixed feelings because you have to pay to get your paper published… That’s a lot of money and my lab can publish around twenty papers a year. I tell my students to please find a free journal. If it is open access where is my money?” Some had built those costs into their grants or had qualified for funds made available for that purpose by their institution, but others noted that money is already such a concern that they didn’t perceive it as prudent to allot costs towards open access or that institutional funds were not available. As the same interviewee highlighted, “Yes you can use grants to get it published, but you have to make the cuts somewhere else to make it work. …When I first came the department would pay for publication but now the department cannot afford it.”
Interviewees rarely reported deliberately seeking out green open access peer-reviewed publications, which reflects that other considerations such as reputation and scope are generally more important. Interviewees also reported low participation in their institutional repositories as a mechanism for making their publications open access, with some being unaware of such programs or perceiving the participation as too onerous. Some recognize that they may be required in the future to deposit their publications in an appropriately designated repository as a condition of receiving government funding, but the majority had not yet experienced such a requirement. Those who have reported that they deposited did so because non-agriculture-specific agencies, such as the National Institute of Health, required it. Others conflated open access and institutional repositories with academic social networking sites (discussed in further detail below)….”
“This report looks closely at the attitudes on open access of a sample of 314 deans, chancellors, department chairmen, research institute directors, provosts, trustees, vice presidents and other upper level administrators from more than 50 research universities in the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland and Australia. The report gives detailed information on what they think of the cost of academic journal subscriptions, and how they understand the meaning of the term “open access.” The study also gives highly detailed data on what kind of policies the research university elite support or might support in the area of open access, including policies such as restricting purchases of very high-priced journals, paying publication fees for open access publications, mandating deposit of university scholarship into digital repositories, and developing open access educational materials from university resources.
Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:
- The lowest percentage considering the high cost of journals a big problem was in the United States, where only 11.56% of higher education leadership had this opinion; the highest share, in Canada, 27.45% had this view.
- More than 40% of administrators from public universities in the sample supported the idea of using university funds to develop open access textbooks from materials developed or owned by the university or its scholars.
- Support for mandatory deposit requirements for scholarly output into university digital repositories was highest among the universities ranked in the top 41 worldwide.
Data in the report is broken out by country, university ranking, work title, field of work responsibility, level of compensations, age, gender and other variables.”
“We invite you to participate in our second community survey. Your responses will help us better understand what you think about ORCID and to prioritize what user features we include in our roadmap planning for the next 1-2 years.
We also will be using your responses to help us clarify ORCID training and support materials. My role as Education and Outreach Specialist is to audit, review, and update our help and support materials so that you can quickly find the information you need. Your feedback will help us to restructure ORCID’s help webpages, to develop an ORCID curriculum to identify learning paths for different audiences, and to create new outreach resources for use by ORCID members, ambassadors, and other advocates….”
The purpose of this paper is to examine the access and use of the institutional repository (IR) among academic staff at Egerton University.
The paper provides a description of the building and development of the IR at the Egerton university and describes expected benefits of the repository to the University and relevant stakeholders. A survey was conducted among 84 academic staff with an aim of examining their levels of awareness on the existence of the IR at the Egerton University and assess their access and use. Through a structured questionnaire both quantitative and qualitative data were collected.
The study revealed that majority of the academic staff at the Egerton University are still not aware of the existence of the IR. Staff also faced challenges in accessing and using the content available. The paper provided suggestions on how best to enhance the access and utilization of the IRs among the academic staff.
From a practical point of view, the paper provides implications on the access and use of IRs by the academic staff. The paper points out some challenges faced by this group of users which other academic institutions may try to solve in their respective contexts.
Findings and discussions provided in the paper will pave way to solving the challenges faced in access and use of IR by the academic staff at the Egerton University.
“The OPERAS consortium is launching today a survey on the usage of Open Access, in particular in the field of humanities and social sciences. The purpose is to identify current practices and services that should be developed or invented. It will serve as a basis for defining the future infrastructure.
The survey addresses five different audiences, all actors, in various capacities, of Open Access: publishers, researchers, librarians, funders and the general public. It will collect information and suggestions mainly about common standards, good practices, new features and new integrated services.
The survey will end on 31st May 2017. Since all the OPERAS European partners are involved in the dissemination, the survey is entirely written in English in order to facilitate the processing of the answers.
The link for the general public’s survey is: https://survey.openedition.org/index.php/214336“
“Author survey shows that publication speed and the ability to share a variety of research outputs are the primary reasons why authors publish on the Wellcome Open Research publishing platform. Michael Markie, Publisher at F1000 and Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research, Wellcome discuss the survey results and what actions will taken based on them.”
“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?”
“CAMPBELL, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–In the era of digital health, patients have very high expectations for medical information sharing, but they may not be aware of the health care industry’s current limitations. That’s according to a new digital health survey released today by Transcend Insights, a population health management company. The survey found that a vast majority of patients (97 percent) believe it is important for any health institution, regardless of type or location, to have access to their full medical history in order to receive high-quality care.
Patients were also asked to rate factors that are most important to receiving personalized care. Top priorities for patients included having access to their own medical records (92 percent) and the ability for care providers to easily share and receive important information about their medical history—wherever they needed treatment (93 percent).
Are these demands being met? The survey suggests that there could be a significant gap between the level of information sharing that patients expect and what is possible today. While the health care industry has undergone rapid digitization in the last decade, effectively sharing medical information and communicating across many different health care information technology systems — often referred to as interoperability — has remained elusive.
According to a recent interoperability study conducted by the American Hospital Association, only a quarter of all hospitals are able to functionally exchange (find, send, receive and use) clinical information with external providers. Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that only 34.8 percent of specialists receive information about a patient from their referring primary care physician (PCP), even when the PCP attempts to share patient records. In other words, data is not traveling with patients despite the importance that they place on open access to their information.”