2021 Pressbooks H5P OER Development Grant – BCcampus

“This call for proposals is for post-secondary instructors and faculty in British Columbia to develop sets of content types in H5P that support open textbooks in the B.C. Open Textbook Collection (see below for a list of suggested books). The intent of these grants is to develop activities in which students can practice applying new concepts and skills that align with content within the selected open textbook.

Eligible grantees include individual instructors, groups of faculty or instructors, departments, institutions, or external working groups made up of instructors and faculty connected to B.C. post-secondary institutions (i.e., articulation groups or other working groups). Collaboration between individuals and departments at different institutions is not only allowed, but encouraged.

The maximum value of each grant is $10,000….”

Launching the Open Data Day 2021 mini-grant scheme – Open Knowledge Foundation blog

“We are thrilled to announce that once again the Open Knowledge Foundation is giving out mini-grants to support people hosting Open Data Day events across the world.

Open Data Day is an annual celebration of open data taking place for the eleventh time on Saturday 6th March 2021. Everyone can take part as groups from around the globe create local events to show how they use open data in their communities….”

Launching the Open Data Day 2021 mini-grant scheme – Network and Community / Open Data Day – Open Knowledge Forums

“I am thrilled to announce that once again the Open Knowledge Foundation is giving out mini-grants to support people hosting Open Data Day events across the world.

We have 50 mini-grants of $300 USD each to give out this year and we are providing mini-grants to both:

Real world events in your location, and
Online events to connect with community members and people around the world virtually

To be awarded a mini-grant, events must fit into one of the four tracks:

Environmental data
Tracking public money flows
Open mapping
Data for equal development

Find out more in our launch blog post:…”

OSF | Center for Open Science – NSF 21-511 AccelNet-Implementation-Community of Open Science Grassroots Networks (COSGN).pdf

“Overview. The Community of Open Scholarship Grassroots Networks (COSGN), includes 107 grassroots networks representing virtually every region of the world and every research discipline These networks communicate and coordinate on topics of common interest. We propose, using an NSF 21-515 Implomentation grant, to formalize governance and coordination of the networks to maximize impact and establish standard practices for sustainability. In the project poriod, we will increase the capacity of COSGN to advance the research and community goals of the participating networks individually and collectively, and establish governance, succession planning, shared resources and communication pathways to ensure an active community sustained network of networks By the end of the project poriod, we will have established a self-sustaining notwork of networks that leverages disciplinary and regional diversity actively collaborates across networks for grassroots organizing, and shares resources for manum impact on culture change for open scholarship.”

The Failure of the US Government to Fund Science Infrastructure is Causing Things to Literally Collapse – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Overall non-defense R&D funding is only 16% of what it had been as a fraction of the US economic output in 1976. Compared to the entire economy, the NSF R&D investment as noted above is funded at a level that is just over one fifth of what it was back in 1976.  The NIH has sustained its fraction of GDP better than other agencies, but even that is less than 40% of 1976 levels. Had NSF simply been able to maintain as NIH had, it’s budget would be roughly at its 1988 level relative to GDP and would be close to double what it is now. The same could be said for nearly every other major science funding arm of the government, NOAA, DOE, USDA, NASA, or the DOT. Again using data from AAAS, the trend of investment in research and development has shrunk from over 2.25% of national GDP in 1976 to just 0.38% today. The scramble for resources impacts the science that can be done, as well as the overall investments in the scholarly and research landscape as well, which includes libraries, publishers, and scholarly societies.

It is not simply NSF that is having trouble managing the costs of infrastructure. Also this month, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that it is considering throttling back access to its data feeds, because the bandwidth demands during peak times around sever weather events are becoming overwhelming. Data access at peak times were bottlenecking its systems. Why a multibillion dollar agency cannot afford a scalable content distribution network (CDN) system to support the public’s bandwidth needs is astounding. While not trivial, the costs to support such a data network were estimated to cost in the range of $2-5 million per year; hardly unmanageable for an organization whose mission is to gather and distribute climate information. For example, a 4,000-TB/month-level service on Microsoft’s Azure CDN system would cost roughly $4 million per year – and that is quite a lot of data throughput, and of course Azure or Amazon’s AWS services can certainly scale beyond that. Today, distributing climate information is all about distributing data and to limit the agency’s ability to share data is certainly not in keeping with the direction of science or the public’s need for these resources. There is no reason to believe that data demands will diminish. As our ability to capture data increases, the ability to store data reduces in cost, and the demands from science and industry for data increase, we will need ever more robust infrastructure to create and share data….

It is worrying the focus on scientific successes this year might reinforce the notion that funding of science more broadly is functioning at an appropriate level. As evidenced by the recent science news that isn’t related to the pandemic, it obviously is not. Hopefully, those in positions of power to affect the national research funding agenda might look at the recent successes and failures and consider the value to increasing investments in basic research and reinvest in a science-based future.”

NRPF grant awarded to digitize ISU lectures | University Library | Iowa State University

“Iowa State University has received $15,000 in grant funding from the National Recording Preservation Foundation (NRPF) to digitize 991 audio recordings of University Lectures….

The ISU Special Collections and University Archives will utilize the NRPF funds to outsource the digitization of 259 reel-to-reel audiotapes and 732 audiocassettes to Preserve South. The ISU Library will match the funds received to outsource captioning to Rev.com, create metadata and provide open access to the digitized files. To aid in discoverability and accessibility, copies will be added to the Special Collections and University Archives YouTube channel. Items will be added into the ISU Library’s digital collections platform, as well as Aviary for full-text searching and syncing of captions….”

Award – Einstein Foundation Berlin

“The Einstein Foundation Award honors individual researchers from all fields, as well as collaborations, institutions, and organizations (NGO or governmental), that … have made substantial contributions to fostering research integrity through outstanding measures that increase the quality and reliability of research, e.g. by improving transparency, access to research results (‘Open Science’), overcoming the fragmentation of research (‘Team science’); …”

Open Access Community Investment Program Pilot

“How do libraries, consortia, and other scholarly publishing stakeholders decide what open access (OA) content to invest in when divesting from paywalled content? In the emerging OA publishing market, stakeholders must consider thousands of OA publications, while often lacking sufficient data relevant to their own values or the pros and cons of each opportunity. This one-off nature of OA investment is not conducive to easy administration or participation. Vetting and procurement processes become onerous as programs increase. While the scholarly publishing community has a great willingness to work together to support OA efforts, we need a stronger, more effective connection infrastructure to sustainably transition to OA. 

LYRASIS, TSPOA, and Duke University Press have developed this Open Access Community Investment Program Pilot (“Pilot Project”) to test the viability, scalability, and sustainability of infrastructure, a criteria-based vetting mechanism, and outreach to help match funding entities or potential investors with publishers or journals seeking funding to publish open access. These potential investors encompass the range of scholarly publishing stakeholders, including for example: libraries, consortia, and funders, academic centers/departments, and cultural institutions. The term “stakeholders” as used throughout this document references this range of potential investors. While the initial set of open access initiatives or programs will be U.S. based, the community of investing stakeholders is expected to be global….”