CREOS [Center for Research on Equitable and Open Scholarship], MIT Libraries

“Mission

Advance knowledge in service of equitable and open scholarship.

Our Work

CREOS seeks evidence about the best ways disparate communities can participate in scholarship with minimal bias or barriers.

  • First, it aims to make research in every field more equitably and openly available to all who could benefit from and/or contribute to it.
  • Second, it aims to accomplish the first goal by conducting and supporting original research and sharing it openly.

We believe in

  • Rigorous, evidence-based research to inform actions
  • Tackling grand challenges identified by the community and internally at MIT Libraries
  • Multidisciplinary problem solving and methodologies
  • The power of equitable and open scholarship to accelerate the pace of discovery and create a more robust and comprehensive knowledge base for human understanding, insight, and quality of life.

Who we are

CREOS acts as a catalyst for collaborative research inside and outside of MIT and is part of a growing global community committed to improving scholarly communication for everyone. CREOS is part of the MIT Libraries and leverages MIT’s longstanding emphasis on innovation, entrepreneurship, and open sharing of educational and research materials. CREOS itself consists of a small team that conducts and supports basic research and is also a collaboration of institutional partnerships, interested faculty, visiting researchers, scholarly communication enthusiasts, and financial supporters who are willing to invest in research with a shared vision. Our audience includes anyone who is influencing the future of scholarly communication….”

Harvard Library and MIT Libraries provide recommendations for Plan S implementation | MIT Libraries News

“There are two good reasons to broaden the green road. First, green OA is a workable and inexpensive path to OA in all academic fields and regions of the world. Second, barriers to green OA put researchers, particularly early-career researchers, in an untenable situation. A reasonable green OA option will let researchers publish where they must in order to advance their careers, and still satisfy their funders by making their work OA. Without a reasonable green OA option, early-career researchers will be torn between the demands of their funders and the demands of their promotion and tenure committees.

A good green OA option enables authors to submit new work to the journals of their choice, and thereby answers an objection based on academic freedom. If an author’s journal of choice is not OA (or does not satisfy the Plan S criteria for eligible OA journals), then a green option would let the author comply with Plan S by making the work OA in a repository. Plan S has already expanded its original green OA option by allowing deposit of the Author’s Accepted Manuscript or the Version of Record (AAM or VOR), and by making the green OA option permanent rather than limiting it to a transition period.  These are important ways to support a viable green OA option. By adjusting a few other conditions on green OA, Plan S could fully realize its vision of openness to science and scholarship while avoiding needless and damaging barriers to  those who create that science and scholarship….”

Article in Journal ‘Science’ Argues MOOC Participation is Declining as Providers Pivot | EdSurge News

What lessons can be learned from the rise and pivot of MOOCs, those large-scale online courses that proponents said would disrupt higher education?

An article this week in the prestigious journal ‘Science’ explores that question, digging into six years of data from MOOCs offered by Harvard University and MIT on the edX platform launched by the two universities….

MOOCs have not disrupted higher education….”

The MOOC pivot | Science

Summary: When massive open online courses (MOOCs) first captured global attention in 2012, advocates imagined a disruptive transformation in postsecondary education. Video lectures from the world’s best professors could be broadcast to the farthest reaches of the networked world, and students could demonstrate proficiency using innovative computer-graded assessments, even in places with limited access to traditional education. But after promising a reordering of higher education, we see the field instead coalescing around a different, much older business model: helping universities outsource their online master’s degrees for professionals (1). To better understand the reasons for this shift, we highlight three patterns emerging from data on MOOCs provided by Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) via the edX platform: The vast majority of MOOC learners never return after their first year, the growth in MOOC participation has been concentrated almost entirely in the world’s most affluent countries, and the bane of MOOCs—low completion rates (2)—has not improved over 6 years.

FINAL REPORT: A Grand Challenges-Based Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication and Information Science

“A global and multidisciplinary community of stakeholders came together in March 2018 to identify, scope, and prioritize a common vision for specific grand research challenges related to the fields of information science and scholarly communications. The participants included domain researchers in academia, practitioners, and those who are aiming to democratize scholarship. An explicit goal of the summit was to identify research needs related to barriers in the development of scalable, interoperable, socially beneficial, and equitable systems for scholarly information; and to explore the development of non-market approaches to governing the scholarly knowledge ecosystem.

To spur discussion and exploration, grand challenge provocations were suggested by participants and framed into one of three sections: scholarly discovery, digital curation and preservation, and open scholarship. A few people participated in three segments, but most only attended discussions around a single topic….”

The MIT Press to launch print and open access book series with support from the MIT Libraries | MIT Libraries News

In Spring 2019, the MIT Press will launch <strong>Ideas, a hybrid print and digital open access book series intended for general readers that will provide strongly argued and provocative views of the effects of digital technology on our ideas and thus on culture, business, government, education, and our lives.

Series authors are experts in their field who are writing for a broad audience. Forthcoming books in <strong>Ideas include Hacking Life: Systematized Living and Its Discontents by Joseph M. Reagle, Jr. (April 2019); The Smart Enough City: Putting Technology in Its Place to Reclaim Our Urban Future by Ben Green (April 2019); Sharenthood by Leah Plunkett (Fall 2019); and Data Feminism by Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein (Spring 2020), which is available now for community review.

The series is edited by David Weinberger, an author and senior researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, and will be published open access with financial support from the MIT Libraries….”

Hopkins partners with Harvard and MIT to launch Public Access Submission System (PASS) and support open access – The Sheridan Libraries Blog

“Johns Hopkins University’s Sheridan Libraries, in collaboration with the Harvard University Office for Scholarly Communication, the MIT Libraries, and with inspiration from Jeff Spies, formerly of the Center for Open Science, have developed the Public Access Submission System, or PASS. The innovative web application helps researchers comply simultaneously with the open access policies of both their funders and their institutions….”

A Grand-Challenges Based Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication and Information Science

“A global and multidisciplinary community of stakeholders came together in March 2018 to identify, scope, and prioritize a common vision for specific grand research challenges related to information science and scholarly communications. The participants were both traditional domain researchers and those who are aiming to democratize scholarship. An explicit aim of the summit was to identify research needs related to barriers in the development of scalable, interoperating, socially beneficial, and equitable systems for scholarly information; and to explore the development of non-market approaches to governing the scholarly ecosystem….”

 

EU open-access envoy urges foundations to join Plan S

“Organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust should join Plan S to continue their “moral leadership” on open research, Plan S founder and European Commission open-access envoy Robert-Jan Smits told Research Europe. He was speaking on his return from a weeklong tour of federal agencies, universities and learned societies in the United States, where he was attempting to boost international support for the plan….

Smits claimed that the feedback on Plan S he received in the US was mostly that independent foundations need to join….

Smits has said that Plan S is based on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s policies. These include that papers reporting research it has funded must be made openly available immediately and with a licence that permits unrestricted reuse. The foundation has forced some of the world’s most prestigious journals to change their policies so that they comply.

During the trip, Smits sought to quell fears that Plan S would undermine the so-called green open-access model, in which papers are placed in repositories, usually after a publisher-imposed embargo period. Plan S will not accept embargo periods, causing some concern that it will only support the gold open-access model in which papers are made openly available immediately, usually by paying publishers an article-processing charge.

Smits said that Plan S leaves “ample room” for repositories, article preprints and self-archiving. He also admitted that organisations in the US flagged the plan’s lack of recognition for publishers using the so-called diamond and platinum open-access models, which do not charge authors publication fees….

According to Smits, those he met who were most enthusiastic about Plan S were librarians and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.

More cautiously interested parties, he said, were the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Smits said this was because the OSTP is awaiting a new director who will set the agenda for open access at the federal level. Research Europe has approached these organisations for comment.

Those who were most sceptical of the plan were the learned societies, Smits said. These organisations rely on income from journal subscription charges and fear that the loss of revenue caused by a switch to open access would affect activities such as the organisation of conferences, he said….”

MIT, Google, Cisco and USPTO create Prior Art Archive for better patents | TechCrunch

“The patent system is broken — there are too many ways to list here, really. The problems surrounding prior art are certainly among them, and a team of high profile companies and organizations are joining forces to address some of the these with the Prior Art Archive.

The database is a collaboration between MIT’s Media Lab, Google,  Cisco and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which certainly has the most to gain here. Using the MIT-hosted archive, patent applicants can find easily accessible examples of prior art and other technical information for reference….”