The National Academic Digital Repository of Ethiopia – Technical, Policy and Governance Aspects | National Academic Digital Repository of Ethiopia

“FAIR principles compliant digital repositories are deemed key enablers of Open Science. The National Academic Digital Repository of Ethiopia (NADRE) is the deposit service indicated in the National Open Access Policy of Ethiopia for Higher Education and is meant to provide researchers, lecturers, students as well as stakeholders from outside of the academic world access to all research published by Ethiopian universities and research institutions.

In this presentation, given at a Virtual Meeting of the Open Repositories Conference (OR2020), we discuss the three intertwined aspects of the NADRE: (i) the policy, (ii) the governance and leadership, and (iii) the underlying standard-based technologies.

Concerning (i), we show the importance of the Ethiopian Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s commitment to introduce and establish the policy.

Concerning (ii), we show the systems, structures, concepts, rights and accountabilities for NADRE related processes in order to bring the NADRE alive and to work towards sustainability at the individual university level. 

Concerning (iii), we show the functionalities of the latest NADRE release and discuss the opportunities for other organizations in Africa and elsewhere to profit from the reuse and customization of the NADRE for their Open Science compliant digital repositories….”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

COAR Recommendations for COVID-19 resources in repositories – COAR

“Around the world, research related to COVID-19 is being undertaken at unprecedented rates and rapid sharing of early research outputs at the international level is critically important. Many governments and funders are requiring immediate open access to COVID-19 outputs in the form of preprints, data and so on. With over 5,000 repositories around the world providing open access to data, articles, pre-prints and other valuable products of research, the international repository network represents critical research infrastructure. A coordinated and interoperability approach across repositories will to ensure that COVID-19 resources are widely available and discoverable.

To that end, COAR is making the following recommendations for repositories and repository networks: …”

Jisc and LYRASIS help US universities and research organisations gather new usage insights | Jisc

“Jisc and LYRASIS, a global non-profit membership association providing technology and content solutions for libraries, museums, and archives, are joining forces to introduce Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (IRUS) in the United States. 

IRUS-US is the first service to bring together standards-based usage statistics of participating repositories in the US. The service will enable US repositories to provide and gather comparable usage data, while also giving them the opportunity to benchmark usage at an international level. …”

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

Abstract:  The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Committee met in November 2014 to address one important element of the incentive systems – journals’ procedures and policies for publication. The outcome of the effort is the TOP Guidelines. There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each move scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources.

Data policy standardisation and implementation IG | RDA

“Increasing the availability of research data for reuse is in part being driven by research data policies and the number of funders and journals and institutions with some form of research data policy is growing. The research data policy landscape of funders, institutions and publishers is however too complex (Ref: http://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.284/) and the implementation and implications of policies for researchers can be unclear.  While around half of researchers share data, their primary motivations are often to carry out and publish good research, and to receive renewed funding, rather than making data available. Data policies that support publication of research need to be practical and seen in this context to be effective beyond specialist data communities and publications….”

ENABLING FAIR DATA PROJECT – COPDESS

“The Laura and John Arnold Foundation has awarded a grant to a coalition of groups representing the international Earth and space science community, convened by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), to develop standards that will connect researchers, publishers, and data repositories in the Earth, space, and environmental sciences to enable FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data on a large scale. This project will accelerate scientific discovery and enhance the integrity, transparency, and reproducibility of this data.”