The meaning of open | Research Information

“So what is open research today, and what are the near horizons of tomorrow? For Baynes the three key developments in recent years have been the growth in open access publications in journals, research data and open data, and a proliferation of tools, both from start-ups and from funders.  These are only the first steps, however, in an increasingly complex open information landscape which poses challenges to everyone working in the scholarly research lifecycle: funders must encourage open research without dictating researchers’ research practice; researchers must balance personal interest and public good with an increasingly wide range of publishing choices and funder requirements; publishers must provide both innovative services that meet researcher and funder needs without risking the value of the current system; and libraries must both help researchers navigate the complex information ecosystem and increasingly help them measure and demonstrate researchers’ contributions to it. In this rapidly changing environment it is important for organisations to be agile. This, according to Baynes, is what Springer Nature is doing, developing sustainable and agile approaches that encourage open research: ‘We are one of the largest open access publishers, but also one of the most agile. It’s not the set business model, one-size-fits-all approach, it’s very much adapting and understanding what stakeholders want. For example, understanding the barriers, challenges and motivators for researchers to make data more openly available, well described, and fair.’ …”

Toward collaborative open data science in metabolomics using Jupyter Notebooks and cloud computing | SpringerLink

Abstract: Background

A lack of transparency and reporting standards in the scientific community has led to increasing and widespread concerns relating to reproduction and integrity of results. As an omics science, which generates vast amounts of data and relies heavily on data science for deriving biological meaning, metabolomics is highly vulnerable to irreproducibility. The metabolomics community has made substantial efforts to align with FAIR data standards by promoting open data formats, data repositories, online spectral libraries, and metabolite databases. Open data analysis platforms also exist; however, they tend to be inflexible and rely on the user to adequately report their methods and results. To enable FAIR data science in metabolomics, methods and results need to be transparently disseminated in a manner that is rapid, reusable, and fully integrated with the published work. To ensure broad use within the community such a framework also needs to be inclusive and intuitive for both computational novices and experts alike.

Aim of Review

To encourage metabolomics researchers from all backgrounds to take control of their own data science, mould it to their personal requirements, and enthusiastically share resources through open science.

Key Scientific Concepts of Review

This tutorial introduces the concept of interactive web-based computational laboratory notebooks. The reader is guided through a set of experiential tutorials specifically targeted at metabolomics researchers, based around the Jupyter Notebook web application, GitHub data repository, and Binder cloud computing platform.

Collaboration is the key to open access and open science | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Over the past 18 months, university library consortia in Germany, Sweden and California have cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals. This is because we have not yet reached agreement on how to support their objectives, which include making researchers’ published articles immediately open access.

Elsevier deeply regrets this situation. We fully support open access. And we recognise the benefits and importance of open access to many research communities. By sharing our perspective, we hope to build support to move things forward globally….”

Bridging Learned Society Publishing and Open Access: an International Collaboration and Webinar Series – Transitioning Society Publications to OA

“Scholarly or learned societies enable geographically diverse scholars to build and engage with communities that share and discuss ideas and findings, with the aim of promoting knowledge exchange for social value and the common good. Traditionally, societies achieve this convening function through a subscription-based publishing model in which society membership or institutional support affords scholars access to society publications. As global publishing shifts toward open access (OA), societies are wrestling with the need for new revenue streams and publishing strategies not only to ensure cost recovery, but also to sustain other important society functions—like educational programming, grant awards, professional development, and advocacy—once supported by membership or library subscription spends.

New financial models to support learned society publishing have significant implications for society operations and organizational structures, as well as the ability of authors and academic institutions to participate in society publishing. Whereas authors could once publish in society journals for free, many are now being asked to contribute article processing charges to subsidize OA publication costs. And many of the libraries and research organizations that once engaged in large licensing arrangements to provide their affiliates with access to aggregated society journal titles are now left exploring how to repurpose subscription budgets to support both access and publishing, including by undertaking society journal publishing directly. The mileage of these different OA financial models for societies may also vary: OA publishing is a global enterprise, subject to and reflecting different pressures, mandates, and opportunities within local or regional communities. 

Society publishing stakeholders may need support in navigating these contoured pressures. On the heels of Plan S, societies have begun organizing to bring clarity to the emerging OA landscape and its relationship with society publishing needs and infrastructures. In the UK, the Society Publishers’ Coalition (SocPC)—a group of like-minded, not-for-profit learned societies, community publishers, and membership charities who publish—has formed to help societies, funders, and research organizations collectively explore funding solutions that enable OA publication while buttressing core society functions and missions. In the United States, Transitioning Society Publications to OA (TSPOA) is a similar group seeking to connect society publishing stakeholders with support and useful resources related to an OA publishing transition. (Other resources and efforts are also underway. For instance, the Societies and Open Access Research project catalogs OA society journals in an effort, among other things, to help society publishers who have yet to commit to OA find peers at other societies.)…”

Announcing “Mind the Gap,” a major report on all available open-source publishing software | The MIT Press

“Mellon-funded report Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms catalogs and analyzes all available open-source software for publishing and warns that open publishing must grapple with the dual challenges of siloed development and organization of the community-owned ecosystem…

The MIT Press is pleased to release Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms (openly published at mindthegap.pubpub.org), a major report on the current state of all available open-source software for publishing. Funded by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the report “shed[s] light on the development and deployment of open-source publishing technologies in order to aid institutions’ and individuals’ decision-making and project planning.” It will be an unparalleled resource for the scholarly publishing community and complements the recently released Mapping the Scholarly Communication Landscape census….”

Mind the Gap

“The number of open source (OS) online publishing platforms, i.e. production and hosting systems for scholarly books and journals, launched or in development, has proliferated in the last decade. Many of these publishing infrastructure initiatives are well-developed, stable, and supported by a small but vigorous distributed community of developers, but promising new ventures have also recently launched.

The notable increase in the number of OS platforms suggest that an infrastructure ‘ecology’ is emerging around these systems. Distinguishing between systems that may evolve along competitive lines and those that will resolve into a service ‘stack’ of related, complementary service technologies will help potential adopters understand how these platforms can or should interoperate.

In 2018 the MIT Press secured a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to conduct a landscape analysis of open source publishing systems, suggest sustainability models that can be adopted to ensure that these systems fully support research communication and provide durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services. John Maxwell at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver conducted the environmental scan and compiled this report.

 

We are posting the final report on PubPub and invite readers to share their comments on the findings and recommendations….”

 

Mind the Gap

“The number of open source (OS) online publishing platforms, i.e. production and hosting systems for scholarly books and journals, launched or in development, has proliferated in the last decade. Many of these publishing infrastructure initiatives are well-developed, stable, and supported by a small but vigorous distributed community of developers, but promising new ventures have also recently launched.

The notable increase in the number of OS platforms suggest that an infrastructure ‘ecology’ is emerging around these systems. Distinguishing between systems that may evolve along competitive lines and those that will resolve into a service ‘stack’ of related, complementary service technologies will help potential adopters understand how these platforms can or should interoperate.

In 2018 the MIT Press secured a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to conduct a landscape analysis of open source publishing systems, suggest sustainability models that can be adopted to ensure that these systems fully support research communication and provide durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services. John Maxwell at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver conducted the environmental scan and compiled this report.

 

We are posting the final report on PubPub and invite readers to share their comments on the findings and recommendations….”

 

Open Source for Scholarly Publishing: An Inventory and Analysis – The Scholarly Kitchen

“But there is another field of activity, adjacent to or in some cases competing with this commercial marketplace, composed of open source products and initiatives. Open source brings many benefits and is used in many corporations, and CoKo has seemed like one especially promising initiative. But open source is not a silver bullet — at least in some arenas, waves of innovation and then consolidation overshadow the necessary ongoing work of steady maintenance and ongoing reinvestment, yielding all too limited impact and no shortage of personal and professional disruption.

Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms, by lead author John Maxwell of Simon Fraser University. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives. The study is bounded around open source: It is not intended to guide an organization seeking to make pragmatic decisions about which software to adopt or utilize among all the available options in a particular segment, but may be quite useful to those looking for a guide to the open source options that are available for example to address a digital humanities project or library publishing initiative. But even more than this, the study provides a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles. The report, which is published on the open source PubPub platform, is well worth reading. …”

Open Source for Scholarly Publishing: An Inventory and Analysis – The Scholarly Kitchen

“But there is another field of activity, adjacent to or in some cases competing with this commercial marketplace, composed of open source products and initiatives. Open source brings many benefits and is used in many corporations, and CoKo has seemed like one especially promising initiative. But open source is not a silver bullet — at least in some arenas, waves of innovation and then consolidation overshadow the necessary ongoing work of steady maintenance and ongoing reinvestment, yielding all too limited impact and no shortage of personal and professional disruption.

Today, the MIT Press is issuing a new research report, Mind the Gap: A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms, by lead author John Maxwell of Simon Fraser University. It provides an inventory of some 52 ongoing open source publishing initiatives. The study is bounded around open source: It is not intended to guide an organization seeking to make pragmatic decisions about which software to adopt or utilize among all the available options in a particular segment, but may be quite useful to those looking for a guide to the open source options that are available for example to address a digital humanities project or library publishing initiative. But even more than this, the study provides a thoughtful analysis of the open source community in publishing — tracking its development without shying away from its struggles. The report, which is published on the open source PubPub platform, is well worth reading. …”

RDA and COAR Collaborate to Progress Research Data Management Internationally | RDA

“The Research Data Alliance (RDA) and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) are pleased to announce an agreement to work together to strengthen and expand capacities for research data management within the international data repository community.

COAR and RDA have a shared mission to improve access and use of research outputs, leading to better research and new discoveries. As part of this agreement, the organizations intend to coordinate more closely on strategic initiatives of shared interest, regularly exchange information about activities, and conduct joint webinars and events to support common aims….”