“The survey was completed by 221 respondents, almost half of which represent smaller presses publishing less than 2,000 articles per year (n= 108) – university and library publishers, non-profits, and academic or professional societies. These organisations typically have a limited publishing portfolio consisting of in-house journals and other small, third-party journals. They are also slightly more likely to use vendor-provided publishing platforms or open source platforms to host and deliver their content, and in most cases their operations are managed by a publishing technology team consisting of just one to five people (56.5 per cent), or no dedicated technology team at all (19.4 per cent)….”
” For the last 6-7 years, paying for subscriptions has ceased to be necessary for access. One sign of the changing times is the support that initiatives such as DEAL, Bibsam etc. have: two years without subscriptions to Elsevier and what do you hear out of, e.g., Germany? Crickets! Nothing! Of course, it would be silly to conclude that in these two years nobody in Germany has read any Elsevier articles. The reason for the silence and the continued support for DEAL is that we now can access anything we want without subscriptions….
With the realization that EOSC; Plan S, DEAL, etc. are actually working on different aspects of the same issue, the problem to be solved is no longer that scholars publish in toll-access journals, but that institutions haven’t come up with a more attractive alternative. If individuals are not to blame, than there is no reason to mandate them to do anything differently. Instead, institutions should be mandated to stop funding journals via subscriptions or APCs and instead invest the money into a modern, more cost-effective infrastructure for text, data and code. Obviously, in this specificity, this is nearly impossible to mandate in most countries. However, there is a mandate that comes very close. It has been dubbed “Plan I” (for infrastructure). In brief, it entails a three step procedure:
Build on already available standards and guidelines to establish a certification process for a sustainable scholarly infrastructure
Funders require institutional certification before reviewing grant applications
Institutions use subscription funds to implement infrastructure for certification….”
“Following the report ‘Knowledge Exchange Approach to Open Scholarship’ and in line with the recommendations resulting from the workshop report Moving from Ambition to Reality, Knowledge Exchange developed a framework to articulate the changes occurring in scholarly communications: The Knowledge Exchange Open Scholarship Framework.
On the basis of this framework, we identified further work to understand the Economy of Open Scholarship as a priority and have worked on two interconnected activities dedicated to the Economy of Open Scholarship; one practical – Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship and one conceptual – Open Scholarship and the need for Collective Action….
As many of the challenges in navigating the transition to Open Scholarship are economic, the focus of the book is on the economic arena. In addition, great attention is given to the incentives, actions and influences of meso-level actors: groups, communities or organisations such as universities, disciplines, scholarly societies or publishers because of their enormous impact on developing open scholarship. The authors analyse how economic models can be applied to scholarship and conclude that economic theory cannot fully explain nor prescribe how Open Scholarship can be achieved. The challenges to achieve Open Scholarship, such as gravitational hubs and the complex governance of common pool resources, are highlighted.
The overall conclusion of the book is that for a successful transition to Open Scholarship, collective action approaches and establishment of a supportive infrastructure are key….”
“In recent years, mechanisms for sharing and preserving research data have grown considerably. But the landscape is crowded with a number of divergent models for data sharing. And because these divergent approaches to research data sharing are poorly distinguished in much of the discourse, it can be a confusing landscape. Some are driven by the needs of science, some by business strategy. Today, I propose that two fundamentally competing visions are emerging for sharing research data….”
“Library Cloud is a prototype metadata hub and data service that provides open, programmatic access to the metadata available within the Harvard Library ecosystem. It normalizes metadata so that it can be found across silos, and enriches it with connections to information within the Library’s collection and beyond. Benefits of such a metadata server include an open platform for developers to create related tools and applications, provision of data for research purposes, and lower barriers to creating services for specialized research and teaching communities….”
“The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) – during October 2016 until October 2019, conducted a landscape study (Academy of Science of South Africa, 2019) of what is happening on the continent in terms of Open Science and progress made regarding Open Access. This formed part of the pilot African Open Science Platform, in preparation of building an actual platform addressing the collaborative needs experienced by scientists in addressing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Awareness regarding Open Access is evident through the
12 Open Science-related (Open Access/Open Data/Open Science) declarations and agreements endorsed or signed by African governments (Academy of Science of South Africa, 2019);
196 Open Access journals from Africa registered on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ);
174 Open Access institutional research repositories registered on OpenDOAR (Directory of Open Access Repositories);
33 Open Access/Open Science policies registered on ROARMAP (Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies);
24 data repositories registered with the Registry of Data Repositories (re3data.org) (although the pilot project identified 66 research data repositories);
and one data repository assigned the CoreTrustSeal. Although this is a start, far more needs to be done to align all African research practices with global standards….”
“Key to EOSC architecture is its sustainability, which will primarily be driven by: 1- a participatory design and governance to accommodate different needs and requirements, 2- shared investments as they are being developed by member states (MS/AC), 3- the ability to adapt to new technologies and foster innovation. It is therefore critical that EOSC architecture avoids at any cost a monolithic and centralized approach, and follow a “System of Systems” approach, where resources are brought together at different levels to deliver data and data services. Emphasis is therefore placed on a business-tobusiness (B2B) sharing (data, services, people) and access, with agreements on: 1- A shared policy compliance framework (i) dictating and applying the rules of how the data elements are published, shared and re-used, and (ii) implementing an interlinked data space where every research result comes with its context (related entities), provenance (full data and science path) and usage….
EOSC will converge national support structures bringing all players together in a collaborative arrangement. No single organization is able to fulfil the Commons approach alone and implementation of Open Science requires specific handling, as most of the barriers are cultural and organizational….
For Open Science to succeed in EOSC, we need to: i) provide services for all stakeholders involved in the research life cycle, ii) ensure data federation for both small and big data to become an integral part of EOSC, iii) embed services in institutional settings, and iv) link to international infrastructures. …”
“We are thrilled to announce that Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) has been generously supported with an award of 150k USD from Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative founded by Eric and Wendy Schmidt. IOI is an effort to enable durable, scalable, and long lasting open scientific and scholarly infrastructure to emerge, thrive, and deliver its benefits on a global scale. We are a global coalition of projects, organizations, and initiatives actively working to build a sustainable future for open scholarly infrastructure….
With this initial support, we will be opening the search for a Director in the next few weeks. This will be a full time, remote-friendly position offered in partnership with IOI’s fiscal sponsor Code for Science & Society. Stay tuned for more details on this opportunity, and visit investinopen.org to show your support and get the latest news….”