Digital guide: working with open licences | The National Lottery Heritage Fund

“The National Lottery Heritage Fund’s licensing requirement supports open access to the rich heritage in the UK and the exciting possibilities of digital transformation in the cultural sector. All materials created or digitised with grant funding are subject to this requirement, which was updated in September 2020.

Open licences and public domain dedications are tools that give the public permission to use materials typically protected by copyright and other laws….

This guide explains open licensing and provides a step-by-step approach to the open licensing requirement for each stage of your project.

It is aimed at The National Lottery Heritage Fund applicants and grantees but contains useful information for anyone who supports open access to cultural heritage….”

Digital guide: working with open licences | The National Lottery Heritage Fund

“The National Lottery Heritage Fund’s licensing requirement supports open access to the rich heritage in the UK and the exciting possibilities of digital transformation in the cultural sector. All materials created or digitised with grant funding are subject to this requirement, which was updated in September 2020.

Open licences and public domain dedications are tools that give the public permission to use materials typically protected by copyright and other laws….

This guide explains open licensing and provides a step-by-step approach to the open licensing requirement for each stage of your project.

It is aimed at The National Lottery Heritage Fund applicants and grantees but contains useful information for anyone who supports open access to cultural heritage….”

Best Practices in Fair Use for Open Educational Resources – American University Washington College of Law

“We are pleased to announce the release of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Open Educational Resources. This document is intended to support authors, teachers, professors, librarians, and all open educators in evaluating when and how they can incorporate third party copyright materials into Open Educational Resources to meet their pedagogical goals….

Webinar:
Wednesday, February 17, 2021 | 3:00pm-4:30pm ET (12 pm PT)
Registration: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4oHpIFDnRoaJzOq8R6_fwg …”

Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Open Educational Resources

“This Code is a tool for educators, librarians, and authors to evaluate common professional scenarios in which fair use can enable them to incorporate inserts, including those protected by copyright, to create OER. It can provide groups working on OER projects with a shared framework for evaluating and understanding when and how to incorporate existing content to meet pedagogical needs….”

Why every OA journal should have peer review policies on its website and what to include

“When a scholar visits an open access journal’s website for the first time, they look for certain markers of publication quality. Chief among them are well-outlined peer review policies. Peer review policies are statements about the peer review guidelines and processes that a journal follows. The presence of peer review policies on a journal’s website indicates publication transparency and professionalism to submitting authors, their research institutions, and funders.

Many funders require OA journals to have peer review policies listed on their websites….”

Preprints in the public eye – ASAPbio

“Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints are being shared, reported on, and used to shape government policy, all at unprecedented rates and journalists are now regularly citing preprints in their pandemic coverage. As well as putting preprints squarely in the public eye as never before, presenting a unique opportunity to educate researchers and the public about their value, the rise in reporting of research posted as preprints has also brought into focus the question of how research is scrutinised and validated. Traditional journal peer review has its shortcomings and the number of ways research can be evaluated is expanding.  This can be a problem for journalists and non-specialist readers who sometimes don’t fully understand the difference between preprints peer-reviewed articles and different forms of peer review. Media coverage can result in the sharing of information which may later not stand up to scientific scrutiny, leading to misunderstanding, misinformation and the risk of damaging the public perception of preprints and the scientific process.

ASAPbio, with support from the Open Society Foundations, aims to consolidate and expand on existing efforts to set best practice standards for reporting research posted as preprints via the launch of our Preprints in the Public Eye project.  Read more in the project announcement.  To get involved, email Project Coordinator Jigisha Patel at jigisha.patel@asapbio.org….”

Preprints in the public eye – ASAPbio

“Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints are being shared, reported on, and used to shape government policy, all at unprecedented rates and journalists are now regularly citing preprints in their pandemic coverage. As well as putting preprints squarely in the public eye as never before, presenting a unique opportunity to educate researchers and the public about their value, the rise in reporting of research posted as preprints has also brought into focus the question of how research is scrutinised and validated. Traditional journal peer review has its shortcomings and the number of ways research can be evaluated is expanding.  This can be a problem for journalists and non-specialist readers who sometimes don’t fully understand the difference between preprints peer-reviewed articles and different forms of peer review. Media coverage can result in the sharing of information which may later not stand up to scientific scrutiny, leading to misunderstanding, misinformation and the risk of damaging the public perception of preprints and the scientific process.

ASAPbio, with support from the Open Society Foundations, aims to consolidate and expand on existing efforts to set best practice standards for reporting research posted as preprints via the launch of our Preprints in the Public Eye project.  Read more in the project announcement.  To get involved, email Project Coordinator Jigisha Patel at jigisha.patel@asapbio.org….”

The Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure

Open source – All software required to run the infrastructure should be available under an open source license. This does not include other software that may be involved with running the organisation.
Open data (within constraints of privacy laws) – For an infrastructure to be forked it will be necessary to replicate all relevant data. The CC0 waiver is best practice in making data legally available. Privacy and data protection laws will limit the extent to which this is possible
Available data (within constraints of privacy laws) – It is not enough that the data be made “open” if there is not a practical way to actually obtain it. Underlying data should be made easily available via periodic data dumps.
Patent non-assertion – The organisation should commit to a patent non-assertion covenant. The organisation may obtain patents to protect its own operations, but not use them to prevent the community from replicating the infrastructure….”

Input to “Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter” – COAR

“There has been significant concern expressed in the repository community about the requirements contained in the Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter, which sets out a number of criteria for the identification and selection of data repositories that will be used by publishers to guide authors in terms of where they should deposit their data.

COAR agrees that it is important to encourage and support the adoption of best practices in repositories. And there are a number of initiatives looking at requirements for repositories, based on different objectives such as the FAIR Principles, CoreTrustSeal, the TRUST Principles, and the CARE Principles of Indigenous Data Governance. Recently COAR brought together many of these requirements – assessed and validated them with a range of repository types and across regions – resulting in the publication of the COAR Community Framework for Best Practices in Repositories.

However, there is a risk that if repository requirements are set very high or applied strictly, then only a few well-resourced repositories will be able to fully comply. The criteria set out in Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter are not currently supported by most domain or generalist data repositories, in particular the dataset-level requirements. If implemented by publishers, this will have a very detrimental effect on the open science ecosystem by concentrating repository services within a few organizations, further exacerbating inequalities in access to services. Additionally, it will introduce bias against some researchers, for example,  researchers who prefer to share their data locally; researchers in the global south; or researchers who want to share their data in a relevant domain repository, so it can be visible to their peers and integrated with other similar datasets….”

Full article: Promoting scientific integrity through open science in health psychology: results of the Synergy Expert Meeting of the European health psychology society

Abstract:  The article describes a position statement and recommendations for actions that need to be taken to develop best practices for promoting scientific integrity through open science in health psychology endorsed at a Synergy Expert Group Meeting. Sixteen Synergy Meeting participants developed a set of recommendations for researchers, gatekeepers, and research end-users. The group process followed a nominal group technique and voting system to elicit and decide on the most relevant and topical issues. Seventeen priority areas were listed and voted on, 15 of them were recommended by the group. Specifically, the following priority actions for health psychology were endorsed: (1) for researchers: advancing when and how to make data open and accessible at various research stages and understanding researchers’ beliefs and attitudes regarding open data; (2) for educators: integrating open science in research curricula, e.g., through online open science training modules, promoting preregistration, transparent reporting, open data and applying open science as a learning tool; (3) for journal editors: providing an open science statement, and open data policies, including a minimal requirements submission checklist. Health psychology societies and journal editors should collaborate in order to develop a coordinated plan for research integrity and open science promotion across behavioural disciplines.