“David Lewis has recently proposed that libraries devote 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons….In the early stages of exploring this idea, we want to come to some level agreement about what would in fact count as such an investment, and then build a registry that would allow libraries to record their investments in this area, track their investments over time, and compare their investments with like institutions. The registry would also serve as a guide for those looking for ideas for how to make the best investments for their institution, providing a listing of all ‘approved’ ways to invest in open, and as a place for those seeking investment to be discovered. As a first step towards building such a thing, we are crowdsourcing the creation of the inventory of ways to invest….”
“OpenUP Hub is an open, dynamic and collaborative knowledge environment that systematically captures, organizes and categorizes research outcomes, best practices, tools and guidelines. Explore the given material about opening up the review-dissemination-assessment phases of the research lifecycle and practices to support the transition to a more open and gender sensitive research environment.”
“Like many others in the scholarly community, we were very disappointed to learn about the recent acquisition by Elsevier of bepress, the provider of the popular Digital Commons repository platform.1The acquisition is especially troubling for the hundreds of institutions that use Digital Commons to support their open access repositories. These institutions now find their repository services owned and managed by Elsevier, a company well known for its obstruction of open access and repositories.2
While we were disappointed, we were not surprised. Elsevier’s interest in bepress and Digital Commons is reflective of the company’s long term strategy to stake an ownership claim in all the functions vital to the research cycle—from data gathering and annotation, to sharing and publication, to analytics and evaluation. Prior high-profile acquisitions (including SSRN and Mendeley) have made this strategy crystal clear. While this might be a smart business move on the part of a commercial company, it presents significant challenges and risks to the academic and research community.
The dangers inherent in the increasing control of crucial research communication functions in the hands of a small number of commercial players are well-known and well-documented.3 The dysfunction in the academic journal market serves as a case in point. This consolidated control has led to unaffordable costs, limited utility of research articles, the proliferation of western publishing biases, and a system in which publisher lock-in through big deal licenses is the norm. This situation is damaging for the research enterprise, individual researchers, and for society. Further consolidation of the market across functions and platforms—including key elements like research information systems and open access repositories—will exacerbate this already unhealthy situation.”
” … we were pleased to see the Center for Open Science (COS) and its Open Science Framework (OSF) highlighted in your article as a public goods infrastructure alternative to commercial, proprietary platforms. The Association of Research Libraries has been working in partnership with COS for several years on a project called SHARE, a free, openly accessible database of metadata describing both research product and process. Simply put, platforms and business arrangements that lock in scholarly content and data about scholarly process make stewardship of that content — research libraries’ core mission—impossible. By working with scholars to adopt and invest in open platforms like the OSF and SHARE, librarians can provide their expertise in data management, metadata standards, and preservation, and ensure that the resulting data and publications can be made accessible over the long term.”
“Although Open Science is an issue currently being discussed by policy-makers in Germany and at EU level, there is a lack of drive to implement it in practice. In the context of the Open Science Fellows Program initiated by Wikimedia Deutschland and the Stifterverband in 2016, young academics have joined forces and, working in accordance with the principles of Open Science, have drawn up five points that need to be implemented in policy and research in order to make full use of the advantages it offers: the Berlin Appeal for Open Science. They call for the basic conditions for Open Science to be further improved in a bid to promote the cultural transition towards more openness in science. Only then can the possibilities offered by Open Science be fully exploited, enabling us to advance as a knowledge society.”
“Improving the quality and transparency in the reporting of research is necessary to address this. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines offer standards as a basis for journals and funders to incentivize or require greater transparency in planning and reporting of research….The TOP guidelines54,65 promote open practices, while an increasing number of journals and funders require open practices (for example, open data), with some offering their researchers free, immediate open-access publication with transparent post-publication peer review (for example, the Wellcome Trust, with the launch of Wellcome Open Research). Policies to promote open science can include reporting guidelines or specific disclosure statements (see Box 6). At the same time, commercial and non-profit organizations are building new infrastructure such as the Open Science Framework to make transparency easy and desirable for researchers…..”
“The EOSCpilot project will support the first phase in the development of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). It will:
- Propose and trial the governance framework for the EOSC and contribute to the development of European open science policy and best practice;
- Develop a number of demonstrators functioning as high-profile pilots that integrate services and infrastructures to show interoperability and its benefits in a number of scientific domains; and
- Engage with a broad range of stakeholders, crossing borders and communities, to build the trust and skills required for adoption of an open approach to scientific research.
These actions will build on and leverage already available resources and capabilities from research infrastructure and e-infrastructure organisations to maximise their use across the research community.
- Reduce fragmentation between data infrastructures by working across scientific and economic domains, countries and governance models, and
- Improve interoperability between data infrastructures by progressing and demonstrating how data and resources can be shared even when they are large and complex and in varied formats.
The EOSCpilot project will improve the ability to preserve and reuse data resources and provide an important step towards building a dependable open innovation environment where data from publicly funded research is always open and there are clear incentives and rewards for the sharing of data and resources….”