Guidance for research organisations on how to implement the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment | Wellcome

The draft guidance […] provides information for Wellcome-funded organisations on how to implement the core principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

We want to hear your comments and feedback on this guidance, before we publish an updated and final version in spring 2020. Fill in our short survey (opens in a new tab) by 17:00 GMT, 24 February 2020. 

STM comment on cOAlition S Guidance on Implementation – Addendum

“STM agrees that targets and milestones are necessary to measure the transition to Open Access, but mandating them may run counter to our overall shared goal. With only 6% of all journal articles connected to funding by the current cOAlition S membership, the specified targets will be difficult to achieve and support without a significant number of new funders and institutions willing to financially support the transition to OA. Setting a blanket ‘tipping point’ does not recognise the differences in funding which exist across research communities. Some journals would be able to transition to full OA when they reach a 50% penetration rate, however others would not prove sustainable with the remaining 50% made up of many unfunded authors….”

STM comment on cOAlition S Guidance on Implementation – Addendum

“STM agrees that targets and milestones are necessary to measure the transition to Open Access, but mandating them may run counter to our overall shared goal. With only 6% of all journal articles connected to funding by the current cOAlition S membership, the specified targets will be difficult to achieve and support without a significant number of new funders and institutions willing to financially support the transition to OA. Setting a blanket ‘tipping point’ does not recognise the differences in funding which exist across research communities. Some journals would be able to transition to full OA when they reach a 50% penetration rate, however others would not prove sustainable with the remaining 50% made up of many unfunded authors….”

NGOs’ experiences of navigating the open… | F1000Research

Abstract:  Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.

 

NGOs’ experiences of navigating the open… | F1000Research

Abstract:  Grant-led consortia working in the global development sector rely on the input of local and national non-government organisations in low- and middle-income countries. However, the open access mandates and mechanisms embedded within grants and promoted by funders and publishers are designed almost exclusively with large universities and research institutions in mind. Experiences from the consortium of health research non-government organisations comprising the Communicable Diseases Health Service Delivery research programme show that implementing open access mandates is not as simple or frictionless as it initially appears.

 

Making it easier to be open: Johns Hopkins engineers innovative platform for repositories – SPARC

“Choudhury, Associate Dean for Research Data Management and the Hodson Director of the Digital Research and Curation Center at Johns Hopkins University, applied his engineering expertise to transform the campus library system’s infrastructure and technology capabilities. Most recently, he led a team that built the “Public Access Submission System” (PASS), a platform to help researchers comply with the access policies of their funders and institutions. After the 2013 White House policy requiring public access was passed, SPARC encouraged developers to create a “unified deposit portal” for manuscript deposit.

Choudhury took on the challenge to develop open source software to do just that. His goal: To embed the process of sharing research outputs into researchers’ existing workflows, and rebalance the relationship between authors, libraries and publishers. Now, with a grant from the National Science Foundation to generalize deposit into multiple federal repositories through third party applications, PASS holds promise for institutions and individuals to disseminate their scientific advances with ease….

The PASS platform is a unified approach for compliance that allows researchers to fulfill the requirements of access policies of their institutions and funders through a single website.  It provides interfaces (APIs, SWORD, email-driven-workflows) for researchers, institutional administrators and agencies to access, collaborate on, submit, be notified about, and perhaps format accepted manuscripts and metadata. Researchers can also deposit manuscripts and metadata in the repositories required or requested by the author….

Development of the platform was funded initially with money from the Office of the President at Hopkins, after the campus approved an open access policy in July of 2018.  And in October, NSF provided further support with a one-year, $250,000 grant for the expansion of PASS in partnership with Arizona State University, California Digital Libraries, Duke University, Harvard University, Michigan University, and Notre Dame….”

Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

Testing the Future of Self-Archiving – openaccessbutton

“Self-archiving has a reputation for causing confusion. With shareyourpaper.org, we are working to streamline the process, since, like anyone who has ever had to explain the difference between publisher’s proofs and preprints knows, that reputation for confusion is well-earned. Upsetting that reputation requires mechanizing as much of the process as possible. It also requires user testing. I want to share some of what we’re learning from user testing, and shareyourpaper.org’s all-new workflows for your feedback….”

Data Repository Selection: Criteria That Matter – Request For Comments – F1000 Blogs

“Publishers and journals are developing data policies to ensure that datasets, as well as other digital products associated with articles, are deposited and made accessible via appropriate repositories, also in line with the FAIR Principles. With thousands of options available, however, the lists of deposition repositories recommended by publishers are often different and consequently the guidance provided to authors may vary from journal to journal. This is due to a lack of common criteria used to select the data repositories, but also to the fact that there is still no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. 

To tackle this, FAIRsharing and DataCite have joined forces with a group of publisher representatives (authors of this work) who are actively implementing data policies and recommending data repositories to researchers. The result of our work is a set of proposed criteria that journals and publishers believe are important for the identification and selection of data repositories, which can be recommended to researchers when they are preparing to publish the data underlying their findings. …”

Data Repository Selection: Criteria That Matter – Request For Comments – F1000 Blogs

“Publishers and journals are developing data policies to ensure that datasets, as well as other digital products associated with articles, are deposited and made accessible via appropriate repositories, also in line with the FAIR Principles. With thousands of options available, however, the lists of deposition repositories recommended by publishers are often different and consequently the guidance provided to authors may vary from journal to journal. This is due to a lack of common criteria used to select the data repositories, but also to the fact that there is still no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. 

To tackle this, FAIRsharing and DataCite have joined forces with a group of publisher representatives (authors of this work) who are actively implementing data policies and recommending data repositories to researchers. The result of our work is a set of proposed criteria that journals and publishers believe are important for the identification and selection of data repositories, which can be recommended to researchers when they are preparing to publish the data underlying their findings. …”