Sharing Data and Materials in Psychological Science – Apr 17, 2017

“Psychological Science is now introducing some minor changes designed to increase the frequency and ease with which editors and reviewers of submissions can access data and materials as part of the peer-review process. I anticipate that, in addition to enhancing the review process, these changes will further increase the percentage of Psychological Science articles for which researchers can quickly and easily access data and materials postpublication. The changes we are introducing are tweaks and nudges, not radical shifts. In the following, I explain the changes and why they are worth undertaking.”

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?”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science

“Over the past year, the Expert Group has reviewed available metrics, with special attention to altmetrics, and identified frameworks for responsible usage, in the context of the EC’s agenda for open science. This agenda is developing under five action lines: fostering and creating incentives for open science; removing barriers for open science; mainstreaming and further promoting open access policies; developing an open science cloud; and open science as a socio-economic driver.

A multi-stakeholder Open Science Policy Platform has been established, to advise on strategic direction and implementation.3 In May 2016, the EU Competitiveness Council issued a set of conclusions on the transition towards an open science system. It noted that the remit of the Open Science Policy Platform should include ‘adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics….and other aspects of open science.’4

This is the context in which the Expert Group on Altmetrics undertook its work, and will input findings to EC policymakers and to the Open Science Policy Platform.

[…] 

This report builds on the expertise of the group members, complemented by desk-research and an extensive literature review. The group also issued a call for evidence in June 2016, to gather the views of stakeholders11. Respondents had one month to reply with brief submissions. They were asked to indicate whether they were making an individual or organisational response, and what role they occupied in the open science agenda. In total, twenty responses to the call for evidence were received, of which nineteen were valid answers. The list of respondents can be found in Appendix 1.

A summary of the results from the call for evidence was presented at the Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference in Valencia (September 15, 2016)12 and the 3AM Conference in Bucharest (September 29, 2016)13. Both occasions were used to receive more feedback. The audience at the STI Conference mainly consisted of researchers in scientometrics and bibliometrics, whereas attendees at the 3AM Conference mainly came from research institutes, altmetric providers, and libraries. Feedback was mostly anonymous via plenary contributions and a paperand-pencil-exercise during the 3AM Conference.”

Survey: Patients Regard Open Access to Their Medical Records as Critical to Receiving High Quality Health Care | Business Wire

“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.”

Managing the Transitional Impact of Open Access Journals

Abstract:  The explosion of open access (OA) journals in recent years has not only impacted on how libraries manage contents and budgets, but also the choice of journals for academic researcher submission of their article for publication. A study conducted at the University of Hong Kong indicated that academic researchers have a gradual tendency in shifting some of their publications toward OA journals, and interestingly the shifts are discipline specific. While OA does offer an alternative to the unsustainable pricing of serials and supports a core value of ensuring openness to knowledge, the perceived value toward the impact of OA journals are still lacking consensus among stakeholders. 

 

 The aims of this study are to better understand from the perspective of academic researchers in 4 broad disciplines—Health Science, Life Science, Physical Science and Social Science, their preferences in paper submission. Data on actual article submission trends at HKU will be analyzed together with qualitative feedback from researchers to examine the trend and incentive in shifting toward OA publishing in different disciplines. Researcher’s attitude will be understood within the context of the university’s open policy and research assessment, as well as the current OA landscape to inform the scholarly communication trend going forward.

[Support for German OA policy]

Results of a survey by Germany’s Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Federal Ministry of Education and Research):

From Google Translate: The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) will undertake in their own project funding scientists to open access publication. Do you think that’s right?

79.7% YES

20.3% NO

(Votes: 895)

Perspectives on Open Access Publishing and Research – Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

“Many research funders support the idea of open access publications that allow free public access to timely peer-reviewed publications. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) commissioned interviews to better understand grantee and staff members’ opinions of open access publishing….In general, grantees and staff saw the benefits of open access as a way to democratize research access and findings, thus broadening dissemination and policy impact. Some concerns were raised, however, including: [1] The cost of publishing in journals that charge article processing fees may be prohibitive to junior faculty members.[2] The quality of open access publications is viewed by many as substandard to closed, top-tier peer-reviewed journals. [3] Career advancement for academics depends on publishing in high-impact journals, which tend to be closed, not open access journals that are not the standard journals in a field….”

The State of Open Data: Report Provides New Insights into the Global State of Open Data #stateofopendata – Digital Science

“Today, Figshare released the results of its global survey of 2,000 researchers in a report that assesses the global landscape around open data and sharing practices.

“The State of Open Data” – Figshare’s report and survey finds 80% of researchers value data citation as much as, or more than article citation.

This report has been supported by Digital Science and the survey was conducted in partnership with Springer Nature. It highlights the extent of awareness around open data, the incentives around its use, and perspectives researchers have about making their own research data open.”