Collaborating for public access to scholarly publications: A case study of the partnership between the US Department of Energy and CHORUS – Dylla – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

The success of the CHORUS and DOE relationship is the result of nearly two decades of interactions between the DOE and a group of scientific publishers.
The relationship between CHORUS and the US federal agencies required understanding of different motivations, operations, and philosophies.
Although achieving public access was simple in principle, it required considerable effort to develop systems that satisfied all parties.
Publishers had been working with federal agencies to achieve open access before the 2013 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, but this helped to create a path for a more fruitful relationship….”

Toward Easy Deposit: Lowering the Barriers of Green Open Access with Data Integration and Automation

Abstract:  This article describes the design and development of an interoperable application that supports green open access with long-term sustainability and improved user experience of article deposit. The lack of library resources and the unfriendly repository user interface are two significant barriers that hinder green open access. Tasked to implement the open access mandate, librarians at an American research university developed a comprehensive system called Easy Deposit 2 to automate the support workflow of green open access. Easy Deposit 2 is a web application that is able to harvest new publications, to source manuscripts on behalf of the library, and to facilitate self-archiving to a university’s institutional repository. The article deposit rate increased from 7.40% to 25.60% with the launch of Easy Deposit 2. The results show that a computer system can implement routine tasks to support green open access with success. Recent developments in digital repository provide new opportunities for innovation, such as Easy Deposit 2, in supporting open access. Academic librarians are vital in promoting “openness” in scholarly communication, such as transparency and diversity in the sharing of publication data.

 

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….”

Advancing Open: Views from Scholarly Communications Practitioners

“Discussion focused on five key themes that had been determined following preevent consultation with the open scholarship community: ? Open Policy (institutional, regional, national, and international policies) ? Open Workflow and Operations (e.g. day-to-day open scholarship work) ? Open Technology (software and/or infrastructure that supports open scholarship) ? The Human Element — Open People (diversity and inclusion, workload, and community support) ? Open Outreach (open scholarship advocacy)…

Areas of focus: 1. Explore a national approach to institutional repositories similar to what has been established for research data as exemplified by the Portage Network initiative. 2. Advocate for federal funding to support shared infrastructure, discoverability and interoperability of institutional repositories. Include small post-secondary institutions in this conversation to determine their capacity to be active participants in, and supporters of, developing this infrastructure. 3. Convene a group of interested and knowledgeable individuals to develop guidelines, toolkits, and workshops to inform scholarly communications practitioners on best practices to decolonize open scholarship and ensure that Traditional Knowledge is served appropriately. This work must be done collaboratively and driven by the expressed needs of Indigenous Peoples and communities and in constant, persistent consultation. 4. Bring together key stakeholders (libraries, scholarly communications practitioners, researchers, funders) to develop a Made in Canada plan for open scholarship in order to build a community-led, non-commercial scholarly communications ecosystem. 5. Convene a wide variety of low-cost and free training opportunities for library staff to help develop scholarly communications skills, with particular emphasis on advocacy and policy approaches to changing institutional culture toward open scholarship, as well as the development of technical skills. 6. Open a dialogue on the role and scope of scholarly communications work. Expand the conversation beyond scholarly communications practitioners to include library staff in resources, collections, liaison roles, copyright, archives, and IT specialties. 7. Devote institutional funds to collaborative open scholarship efforts (regional and national) and bring leaders and practitioners together in these efforts. Prioritize cross-institution resource, expertise and knowledge-sharing. 8. Invigorate the discussion on transitioning funding from supporting traditional collections development to supporting open scholarship — and open collections — at our academic institutions 9. Further nurture the scholarly communications community of practice to foster the exchange of ideas and professional development to support practitioners in the expanding range of open scholarship endeavors. 10. Ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion form the foundation of any future open scholarship initiatives, systems, and developments….”

New Report from ORWG: Advancing Open: Views from Scholarly Communications Practitioners – Canadian Association of Research Libraries

“The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) is pleased to announce the publication of the third report in a series by its Open Repositories Working Group (ORWG). This think piece presents a discussion of views expressed by participants during the Advancing Open workshop in May 2019.

Initiated by a group of repository managers and supported by CARL as part of its ongoing commitment to open scholarship in Canada, Advancing Open was envisioned as “a unique (and free) opportunity for the Canadian academic library scholarly communication practitioner community to convene and explore refreshed strategies to foster open scholarship (including open access, open data, and open education) in Canada.” …”

New Report from ORWG: Advancing Open: Views from Scholarly Communications Practitioners – Canadian Association of Research Libraries

“The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) is pleased to announce the publication of the third report in a series by its Open Repositories Working Group (ORWG). This think piece presents a discussion of views expressed by participants during the Advancing Open workshop in May 2019.

Initiated by a group of repository managers and supported by CARL as part of its ongoing commitment to open scholarship in Canada, Advancing Open was envisioned as “a unique (and free) opportunity for the Canadian academic library scholarly communication practitioner community to convene and explore refreshed strategies to foster open scholarship (including open access, open data, and open education) in Canada.” …”

Unlocking Research | University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication

“While we are now very adept at archiving manuscripts in Apollo (thanks in large part to Fast Track and Orpheus) it remains a challenge to properly and accurately update Apollo records with either correct embargoes for accepted manuscripts, or the open access version of record. It is a futile task to be constantly checking whether a manuscript has been published. While the Open Access Team keeps a list of every publication that requires updating, this is a thankless job that should be highly automatable.

To that end, we have recently leveraged Orpheus to do at lot of the heavy lifting for us. By interrogating every journal article in Apollo and comparing its metadata against Orpheus we can now quickly determine which items can be updated and take the necessary next steps, changing embargoes where appropriate or identifying opportunities to archive the published version of record.

To do this we created a DSpace curation task to check every “Article” type in Apollo that had at least one file that was currently under embargo. We then compared the publication metadata against the information held in Orpheus to determine what steps needed to be taken. In total we found 9,164 items in need of some attention. The results are displayed below in a Tableau Public visual and summarised in Table 1….”

Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial | Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:  Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing. A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles. The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication. The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups. The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools. What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.