“In support of Open Data Day 2018, we outline below a set of criteria that explain how we assess repositories for inclusion in this list. (For more from PLOS on the theme of Open Data Day 2018 see here.) These criteria follow FAIR principles on data openness, which we encourage repository owners to adhere to when setting up and managing their repositories. These criteria will also be posted to the PLOS websites in the near future.”
“We are indexing all kinds of academically relevant resources – journals, institutional repositories, digital collections etc. – which provide an OAI interface and use OAI-PMH for providing their contents (learn more about OAI at the Open Archives Initiative or Wikipedia). In case your source does not provide an OAI interface, upload your documents to aggregators like DataCite or Zenodo, to subject repositories like RePEC or add your open access journal to DOAJ. We are indexing these sources regularly.
However, the best way to get your documents indexed by BASE is to provide an OAI interface. We have compiled some golden rules that might be helpful to optimize your OAI interface. If your OAI interface complies with these rules, we can assure fast and smooth indexing of your source. Data from your source will be presented completely and in the best possible way.
You can check some of the following items using our OAI-PMH validator OVAL….”
“…Yet the abuse of research metrics has become too widespread to ignore. We therefore present the Leiden Manifesto, named after the conference at which it crystallized (see http://sti2014.cwts.nl). Its ten principles are not news to scientometricians, although none of us would be able to recite them in their entirety because codification has been lacking until now. Luminaries in the field, such as Eugene Garfield (founder of the ISI), are on record stating some of these principles3, 4. But they are not in the room when evaluators report back to university administrators who are not expert in the relevant methodology. Scientists searching for literature with which to contest an evaluation find the material scattered in what are, to them, obscure journals to which they lack access.
We offer this distillation of best practice in metrics-based research assessment so that researchers can hold evaluators to account, and evaluators can hold their indicators to account….”
To position repositories as the foundation for a distributed, globally networked infrastructure for scholarly communication, on top of which layers of value added services will be deployed, thereby transforming the system, making it more research-centric, open to and supportive of innovation, while also collectively managed by the scholarly community.
Our vision rests on making the resource, rather than the repository, the focus of services and infrastructure. Rather than relying on imprecise descriptive metadata to identify entities and the relationships between them, our vision relies on the idea inherent in the Web Architecture, where entities (known as “resources”) are accessible and identified unambiguously by URLs. In this architecture, it is the references which are copied between systems, rather than (as at present) the metadata records. Furthermore we encourage repository developers to automatize the metadata extraction from the actual resources as much as possible to simplify and lower the barrier to the deposit process.
- To achieve a level of cross-repository interoperability by exposing uniform behaviours across repositories that leverage web-friendly technologies and architectures, and by integrating with existing global scholarly infrastructures specifically those aimed at identification of e.g. contributions, research data, contributors, institutions, funders, projects.
- To encourage the emergence of value added services that use these uniform behaviours to support discovery, access, annotation, real-time curation, sharing, quality assessment, content transfer, analytics, provenance tracing, etc.
- To help transform the scholarly communication system by emphasizing the benefits of collective, open and distributed management, open content, uniform behaviours, real-time dissemination, and collective innovation. “
“Global Access in Action, a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, seeks to expand access to lifesaving medicines and combat the communicable disease burden that disproportionately harms the world’s most vulnerable populations. We accomplish this by conducting action-oriented research, supporting breakthrough initiatives, facilitating stakeholder dialogue, and providing policy advice to pharmaceutical firms on best practices to increase impact. GAIA uses its pragmatic and neutral viewpoint to enable dialogue across traditional boundaries between government, industry, nonprofits, and academia, and to promote new, innovative solutions amongst these parties to create better outcomes.”
“The government has established the following national guidelines to ensure all stakeholders work towards the same goal, including measures that shall support the ongoing work:
- Publicly funded research articles are to be made openly available. Researchers shall examine the possibilities for publishing their articles in open access journals and choose open access journals where academically acceptable. Only in exceptional circumstances may articles that are publicly funded be published in journals that do not allow the article to be made available in an academic repository.
- All publicly funded research articles must be deposited in a suitable academic repository. This shall take place at the latest on the publication date, irrespective of the publishing channel and when the article can be made openly available.
- Institutions and consortia that negotiate agreements with publishers shall ensure that these agreements promote open access without increasing total costs, and that the terms and conditions are open and transparent.
- Institutions that fund research projects shall contribute to cover the costs associated with open access publishing. In research performing institutions costs associated with open access publishing shall be seen as part of research budgets, just as costs associated with other key activities. Researchers and research performing institutions are encouraged via their networks to contribute to the promotion of publishing services that deliver the required quality at an appropriate price.”