“On February 14, 2002, a small text of fewer than a thousand words quietly appeared on the Web: titled the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (BOAI), it gave a public face to discussions between sixteen participants that had taken place on December 1 and 2, 2001 in Budapest, at the invitation of the Open Society Foundations (then known as the Open Society Institute)….Wedding the old – the scientific ethos – with the new – computers and the Internet – elicited a powerful, historically grounded synthesis that gave gravitas to the BOAI. In effect, the Budapest Initiative stated, Open Access was not the hastily cobbled up conceit of a small, marginal band of scholars and scientists dissatisfied with their communication system; instead, it asserted anew the central position of communication as the foundation of the scientific enterprise. Communication, as William D. Harvey famously posited, is the “essence of science,” and thanks to the Internet, scientific communication could be further conceived as the distributed system of human intelligence….”
“The 15th anniversary of the BOAI offers an opportunity to take stock of our collective progress. To do this, feedback was solicited through an open survey, and we received responses from 69 countries around the world. Additionally, we have convened a small working group to synthesize the community feedback and use it to reflect on the values, impact, and continued relevance of the BOAI. The Working Group will review and digest the responses received and provide updated recommendations to reflect the current status of the movement. Later this week, we’re looking forward to the release of a comprehensive reflection on where the open access movement has been and where it may be headed, written by Jean-Claude Guédon, one of the original drafters of the BOAI, and a noted thought leader in the open access community. In the meantime, watch the BOAI 15 twitter feed (@TheBOAI) and #TheBOAI starting today for a series of tweets showcasing some of the reactions collected from the wider Open community on the impact of the BOAI and on open access in general. As recommendations are formulated, these will be supplemented with more action-oriented items from members of the BOAI 15 Working Group….”
“In April 2013, some of the original signers of DORA [Declaration on Research Assessment] wrote to executives at Thomson Reuters to suggest ways in which it might improve its bibliometric offerings. Suggestions included replacing the flawed and frequently misused two-year Journal Impact Factor (JIF) with separate JIFs for the citable reviews and for the primary research article content of a journal; providing more transparency in Thomson Reuters’ calculation of JIFs; and publishing the median value of citations per citable article in addition to the JIFs. Thomson Reuters acknowledged receipt of the letter and said, “We are carefully reviewing all the points raised and will respond as soon as possible.”…”
“The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals, recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scientific research are evaluated. The group met in December 2012 during the ASCB Annual Meeting in San Francisco and subsequently circulated a draft declaration among various stakeholders. DORA as it now stands has benefited from input by many of the original signers listed below. It is a worldwide initiative covering all scholarly disciplines. We encourage individuals and organizations who are concerned about the appropriate assessment of scientific research to sign DORA….”
“Four major organisations representing global science, the International Council for Science (ICSU), the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC), are collaborating in a series of action-oriented annual meetings, dubbed “Science International”….The following accord is the product of the first Science International meeting. The accord identifies the opportunities and challenges of the data revolution as one of today’s predominant issues of global science policy. It sets out principles that are consistent with ones being carried out in practice in some national research systems and in some disciplinary fields. It adds the distinctive voice of the scientific community to those of governments and inter-governmental bodies that have made the case for open data as a fundamental pre-requisite in maintaining the rigour of scientific inquiry and maximising public benefit from the data revolution. It builds on ICSU’s 2014 statement on open access by endorsing the need for an international framework of open data principles. …An abbreviated version of this accord summarises the issues in section A of this document and presents the open data principles that it advocates….”
“The unfolding digital revolution is a historical event as profound as the introduction of the printing press. Extremely large data sets, or “big data”, are the engine of this revolution, creating an opportunity for scientific discovery through analysis of complex systems such as weather, the economy and the brain. But to achieve the full benefit, publicly funded big data must be open data.We are seeking organizational endorsements for the principles set out in the accord “Open Data in a Big Data World”. The accord reflects our belief that in an era of big data research, open data is essential to allow rigorous independent testing and replication of findings. It is essential, as well, to allow developing nations full participation in the global research enterprise….”
“4 -Openarchives Pre-publication reviewing is important to control the quality of articles. However, open archives and preprint repositories also have a valuable role in allowing the rapid dissemination of scientific work and encouraging large scale, post-publication peer review by the entire community. To minimize delays in the dissemination of scientific work, articles should be deposited in open access repositories (also known as preprint servers). There are a number of established systems, including arXiv (for the physical sciences and mathematics) and bioRxiv (for the biological sciences). Such a deposit should not be considered a hindrance to the acceptance of an article by a journal and journals should make their policies clear on this matter. Significant effort should be made to improve the visibility of articles that have been deposited in open archives and which until now have not been taken into account by the main alerting services (for example Web of Science, Pubmed and Scopus).
5 -OpenAccess We support the principles of open access and would like to see all published scientific work freely available under fully open licenses as soon as possible at sustainable publication costs for the scientific community. We support both “green” and “gold” routes to open access and believe that the funds currently spent on journal subscriptions should be re-directed to fund publication charges. Ultimately, we believe that the “gold” open access publication route is likely to be the most sustainable option for open access journals, but that the payment of an article processing charge must be clearly separated from the editorial decision. We would like to see science publishing move away from large corporate interests and a stronger involvement of academies and learned societies in order that any surplus funds may be used for the benefit of science. At the same time, authors should always retain their intellectual property rights….”
“A resolution on access to medicines proposed by a number of developing countries was adopted today by the United Nations Human Rights Council, as well as a resolution on enhancing capacity-building in public health. This marks yet another United Nations fora in which developing countries seek to raise the issue of access to medicines, particularly with regard to high prices.”
“The reference to price of medicines in the resolution is an inadequate simplification of the issue, he said. Patents and prices are not directly linked, he said, as prices result from a variety of factors, such as import taxes, national medicine supply systems, and the role of intermediaries.”
“Currently, there is a strong push to address the apparent deficits of the scholarly communication system. Open Science has the potential to change the production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge for the better, but there is no commonly shared vision that describes the system that we want to create.
“Between April 2015 and June 2016, members of the Open Access Network Austria (OANA) working group “Open Access and Scholarly Communication” met in Vienna to discuss this matter. The main outcome of our considerations is a set of twelve principles that represent the cornerstones of the future scholarly communication system. They are designed to provide a coherent frame of reference for the debate on how to improve the current system. With this document, we are hoping to inspire a widespread discussion towards a shared vision for scholarly communication in the 21st century….”