Sharing knowledge in COPIM and beyond · COPIM

“COPIM divides its work across six interlinked work packages (WPs), ranging from developing consortial and institutional funding systems, examining production workflows and monograph metadata, through to looking at experimental publishing and open access (OA) book archiving. The work package that we are running (WP3), is dedicated to sharing knowledge as part of the project’s core commitment to dissemination. Part of this involves showcasing COPIM’s work externally so that others, including other book publishers, can use the infrastructures that the project produces.

One of the central planks of WP3 is to help at least two non-OA publishers to transition their business models to new OA versions. Working with these publishers, WP3 will assist them in migrating their economic models to open-access equivalents, while documenting the process and sharing this publicly….”

The Varying Openness of Digital Open Science Tools | Zenodo

Abstract:  Digital tools that support Open Science practices play a key role in the seamless accumulation, archiving and dissemination of scholarly data, outcomes and conclusions. Despite their integration into Open Science practices, the providence and design of these digital tools are rarely explicitly scrutinized. This means that influential factors, such as the funding models of the parent organizations, their geographic location, and the dependency on digital infrastructures are rarely considered. Suggestions from literature and anecdotal evidence already draw attention to the impact of these factors, and raise the question of whether the Open Science ecosystem can realise the aspiration to become a truly “unlimited digital commons” in its current structure. 

In an online research approach, we compiled and analysed the geolocation, terms and conditions as well as funding models of 242 digital tools increasingly being used by researchers in various disciplines. Our findings indicate that design decisions and restrictions are biased towards researchers in North American and European scholarly communities. In order to make the future Open Science ecosystem inclusive and operable for researchers in all world regions including Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, those should be actively included in design decision processes. 

 

Digital Open Science Tools carry the promise of enabling collaboration across disciplines, world regions and language groups through responsive design. We therefore encourage long term funding mechanisms and ethnically as well as culturally inclusive approaches serving local prerequisites and conditions to tool design and construction allowing a globally connected digital research infrastructure to evolve in a regionally balanced manner.

4Science, share your knowledge: research data and digital libraries

“Our mission is to support universities, research and cultural institutes in managing the different phases of a digital project.

To successfully fulfill this mission 4Science chose DSpace, the most widely used repository software in the world.

As a DSpace Registered Service Provider and thanks to our Team of experts, that includes 2 DSpace Committers, we provide any kind of support to your repository.

4Science is constantly working with the DSpace Community on improving the platform, developing new functionalities and add-on modules and implementing compliancy with international standards.

Thanks to our natural inclination towards innovation and our deep understanding of the Research Data & Information and the Cultural Heritage domains, we developed two out-of-the-box configurations of DSpace that meet the requirements of these two areas….”

Knowledge Infrastructure and the Role of the University · Commonplace

“As open access to research information grows and publisher business models adapt accordingly, knowledge infrastructure has become the new frontier for advocates of open science. This paper argues that the time has come for universities and other knowledge institutions to assume a larger role in mitigating the risks that arise from ongoing consolidation in research infrastructure, including the privatization of community platforms, commercial control of analytics solutions, and other market-driven trends in scientific and scholarly publishing….

The research community is rightfully celebrating more open access and open data, yet there is growing recognition in the academic community that pay-to-publish open access is not the panacea people were hoping for when it comes to affordable, sustainable scholarly and scientific publishing. Publication is, after all, only one step in a flow of research communication activities that starts with the collection and analysis of research data and ends with assessment of research impact. Open science is the movement towards open methods, data, and software, to enhance reproducibility, fairness, and distributed collaboration in science. The construct covers such diverse elements as the use of open source software, the sharing of data sets, open and transparent peer review processes, open repositories for the long-term storage and availability of both data and articles, as well as the availability of open protocols and methodologies that ensure the reproducibility and overall quality of research. How these trends can be reconciled with the economic interests of the publishing industry as it is currently organized remains to be seen, but the time is ripe for greater multi-stakeholder coordination and institutional investment in building and maintaining a diversified open infrastructure pipeline.”

OPTIMISING THE OPERATION AND USE OF NATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES

Abstract:  Research Infrastructures (RIs) play a key role in enabling and developing research in all scientific domains and represent an increasingly large share of research investment. Most RIs are funded, managed and operated at a national or federal level, and provide services mostly to national research communities. This policy report presents a generic framework for improving the use and operation of national RIs. It includes two guiding models, one for portfolio management and one for user-base optimisation. These guiding models lay out the key principles of an  effective national RI portfolio management system and identify the factors that should be considered by RI managers with regards to optimising the user-base of national RIs. Both guiding models take into consideration the diversity of national systems and RI operation approaches.

This report also contains a series of more generic policy recommendations and suggested actions for RI portfolio managers and RI managers.

[From the body of the report:]

As described in Section 8.1.2, data-driven RIs often do not have complex access mechanisms in place, as they mostly provide open access. Such access often means reducing the number of steps needed by a user to gain access to data. This can have knock-on implications for the ability of RIs to accurately monitor user access: for instance, the removal of login portals that were previously used to provide data access statistics….

Requiring users to submit Data Management Plans (DMPs) prior to the provision of access to an RI may encourage users to consider compliance with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles whilst planning their project (Wilkinson et al., 2016[12]). The alignment of requirements for Data Management Plans (Science Europe, 2018[13]) used for RI access provision and those used more generally in academic research should be considered to facilitate their adoption by researchers….

The two opposing extremes, described above, of either FAIR / open access or very limited data access provision, highlight the diversity in approaches of national RIs towards data access, and the lack of clear policy guidance…..

It is important that RIs have an open and transparent data policies in line with the FAIR principles to broaden their user base. Collaborating with other RIs to federate repositories and harmonize meta-data may be an important step in standardising open and transparent data policies across the RI community. …

There are a wide variety of pricing policies, both between and also within individual RIs, and the need for some flexibility is recognised. RIs should ensure that their pricing policies for all access modes are clear and cost-transparent, and that merit-based academic usage is provided openly and ‘free-from-costs’, wherever possible. …

SE-OECD Policy Paper on Optimising the Operation and Use of National Research Infrastructures – Science Europe

“The majority of research infrastructures (RIs) are funded, managed, and operated within national systems. They mostly provide services to national research communities.

As research budgets are limited, and governments and funding agencies need to support increasingly large and complex RIs and RI portfolios, Science Europe and the OECD Global Science Forum joined forces to analyse how to optimise their operation and use within a national context….”

Biological Collections Their Past, Present, and Future Contributions and Options for Sustaining Them | National Academies

“Biological collections are a critical part of the nation’s science infrastructure and a fundamental resource for understanding the natural world. Without enhanced strategic leadership and investments in their infrastructure and growth many biological collections could be lost. This report recommends approaches for biological collections to develop long-term financial sustainability, advance digitization, recruit and support a diverse workforce, and upgrade and maintain a robust physical infrastructure in order to continue serving science and society. The aim is to stimulate a national discussion about strategies to ensure collections thrive and continue to grow throughout the 21st century and beyond….”

Labour of Love: An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity, and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences · Commonplace

“The undersigned are a group of scholar-publishers based in the humanities and social sciences who are questioning the fairness and scientific tenability of a system of scholarly communication dominated by large commercial publishers. With this manifesto we wish to repoliticise Open Access to challenge existing rapacious practices in academic publishing—namely, often invisible and unremunerated labour, toxic hierarchies of academic prestige, and a bureaucratic ethos that stifles experimentation—and to bear witness to the indifference they are predicated upon….

What can we, as researchers, do? We can reinvigorate ties with journals published by scholarly societies. We can act creatively to reclaim ownership over the free labour that we mindlessly offer to commercial actors. We can conjure digital infrastructures (think of platforms from OJS to Janeway, PubPub, and beyond) that operate in the service of the knowledge commons. Scholar-led OA publishing has the power to bypass gatekeeping institutions, bridge the knowledge gap produced by commercially driven censorship, and provide support to homegrown digital activism in countries where access to scholarship is restricted. All of this, without neglecting scholarly institutions such as a constructive peer review process or other forms of consensus-building and quality assurance proper to the humanities and interpretive social sciences….”

Building capacity through open approaches: Lessons from developing undergraduate electrophysiology practicals

Abstract:  Electrophysiology has a wide range of biomedical research and clinical applications. As such, education in the theoretical basis and hands-on practice of electrophysiological techniques is essential for biomedical students, including at the undergraduate level. However, offering hands-on learning experiences is particularly difficult in environments with limited resources and infrastructure. In 2017, we began a project to design and incorporate electrophysiology laboratory practicals into our Biomedical Physics undergraduate curriculum at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. We describe some of the challenges we faced, how we maximized resources to overcome some of these challenges, and in particular, how we used open scholarship approaches to build both educational and research capacity. The use of open tools, open platforms, and open licenses was key to the success and broader impact of our project. We share examples of our practicals and explain how we use these activities to strengthen interdisciplinary learning, namely the application of concepts in physics to understanding functions of the human body. Our goal is to provide ideas, materials, and strategies for educators working in similar resource-limited environments.

 

Future of Open Scholarship project: Preliminary Findings

“This report shares a preliminary summary of the findings and top level insights of the Future of Open Scholarship stakeholder interviews, run by the authors from June 29 to August 24, 2020. Over 54 interviews were conducted (some individual, some group), with a total of 81 participants from 56 different institutions, scholarly societies, and supporting organizations. (There are an additional 18 participants as a part of this research effort who have not yet participated in an initial user interview at the time of this report).

Engagement in this work involves representatives from 18 countries and 5 continents around the world. These include Egypt, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Mali, Zimbabwe, Kenya, South Africa, Algeria, Sudan, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. 

We invite feedback  and comments directly in this document. This is primarily written for study participants, as well as other institutional leaders, infrastructure providers, and decision makers working to advance open scholarship….”