“The Initiative for Science in Europe (ISE) is an independent platform of European Learned Societies and Research Organizations operating within different disciplines and across sectors. ISE supports all fields of science at a European level, involves researchers in the design and implementation of European science policies, and advocates strong independent scientific advice in European policy making. ISE has been instrumental in promoting disruptive excellence-based funding programmes for scientific research such as the ERC….
ISE was created in 2004; it played an central role in the creation of the European Research Council. Since 2006, it has been active in promoting the European scientific community’s views on the framework programmes and their budgets, open access, scientific advice and several other issues.”
“The following figure analyzes the spread of output across major regions, comparing papers published in all journals with those published in fully OA journals….
Authors from Asia-Pacific (APAC) account for just under 45% of papers, with Europe a close second and the Americas third. (Total papers in this model amount to just under 2.4 million.)
However, Europe leads in authorship in fully OA journals, covering 52% of output compared with APAC’s 43%. (The model covers just over 500,000 papers in fully OA journals.)…
The top chart shows publications in all journals. Each color represents a different year. We can see that APAC’s share of output is growing, while Western Europe is flatlining and North America lessening.
Share of output in fully OA journals (the bottom chart) shows a slightly different picture. APAC is growing, but in this case, Western Europe’s share is declining, and North America’s share is shrinking even faster.
Smaller economies are growing their share of fully OA faster than they are growing their share of overall output, albeit from lower bases….
By measuring share of output and including overlap between multi-author papers, we can analyze how the “influence” of authors from different regions is changing. As shown above, data confirms the increase in APAC output and the static or decreasing trends in Western Europe and North America, respectively.
The story is much more nuanced when you drill into each country’s contributions. For example, China accounts for a bit less than half (48%) of the APAC region’s influence. While countries such as South Korea, Japan, India, and Australia account for single-digit percentages each, together they are moving the needle, accounting for almost 38% of APAC’s total output….”
“This week the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling that digitally downloaded files are not subject to exhaustion (the EU equivalent of first sale in U.S. law). This means that consumers don’t have the right to resell (or give away, lend, or rent) ebooks and other digital files. This ruling brings EU law into line with the U.S. precedent established by the Second Circuit Appeals Court in the ReDigi case a year ago….”
“Last week, we launched our Guidelines for the Implementation of the DSM Directive. This is part of a series of blogposts dedicated to the various provisions analysed in our guidelines. Today we give a quick explanation of the mandatory provisions in the new Copyright Directive that allow cultural heritage institutions to digitise and make out of commerce works in their collections available online….”
“The road to Open Science is not a short one. As the chairman of the Executive Board of the European Open Science Cloud, Karel Luyben, is keen to point out, it will take at least 10 or 15 years of travel until we reach a point where Open Science is simply absorbed into ordinary, everyday science.
Within the Netherlands, and for research data in particular, we have made many strides towards that final point. We have knowledge networks such as LCRDM, a suite of archives covered by the Research Data Netherlands umbrella, and the groundbreaking work done by the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences.
But there is still much travel to be done; many new landscapes to be traversed. Data sharing is still far from being the norm (see here for a visualisation of these results).
The authors of this blog post have put together six areas that, in their opinion, deserve attention on our Open Science journey….”
“The backdrop: Open Science is gradually becoming the modus operandi in research practices, affecting the way researchers collaborate and publish, discover, and access scientific knowledge. Scientists are increasingly publishing research results beyond the article, to share all scientific products (metadata and files) generated during an experiment, such as datasets, software, experiments. They publish in scholarly communication data sources (e.g. institutional repositories, data archives, software repositories), rely where possible on persistent identifiers (e.g. DOI, ORCID, Grid.ac, PDBs), specify semantic links to other research products (e.g. supplementedBy, citedBy, versionOf), and possibly to projects and/or relative funders. By following such practices, scientists are implicitly constructing the Global Open Science Graph, where by “graph” we mean a collection of objects interlinked by semantic relationships.”
“In July of this year, The Directive on open data and the re-use of public sector information, also called the “Open Data Directive” went into effect. To aid in the implementation of this new legislation, of which members states have until 16 July 2021 to transpose, SPARC Europe today is releasing a summary coupled with implementation guidance. It is important that in each country, there are people willing to help represent the interests of open access to research data by helping influence policy-makers to implement this directive effectively. This can be accomplished more effectively by colleagues teaming up with one another on a country basis. This document should be of use in this effort.
This policymaking for Open Science was a collaborative effort between the Digital Curation Centre (DCC), EBLIDA, IFLA, LIBER, and SPARC Europe, with SPARC Europe as co-ordinator. We hope this guidance will prove useful to academic libraries in Europe when implementing this into national legislation.
The Directive is the result of an effort to provide a common legal framework for public sector information in the EU; a framework that reflects the evolution of digital technologies and encompasses materials held by public sector bodies in the Member States, from a national to a local level. Research institutions, libraries and archives are within the directive’s scope.
As written in our summary: “… the Directive takes positive steps to enhance the way that publicly-funded research data is made available, accessed, shared and re-used. Member States are required to develop national policies for open access to research data resulting from public funding, following the principle of ‘open by default’, while new harmonised rules on re-usability are to be applied to all publicly-funded research data which is already made accessible via open repositories.”…”
“MoRRI’s main objective is “to provide scientific evidence, data, analysis and policy intelligence to support directly Directorate General for Research and Innovation (DG-RTD) research funding activities and policy-making activities in relation with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)”.
RRI is a concept that is recently gaining momentum but it still lacks agreement on its definition, content and details. Hence, part of this study is to determine the scope and the benefits or RRI for Europe by:
Operationalising the concept;
Developing a sound conceptual framework and associated methodology, while at the same time;
Testing the potential of this methodology to allow monitoring the current state and short-term evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation and its socio-economic and democratic impacts….”
“This past March, Canada’s department of health changed the way it handles the huge amount of data that companies submit when seeking approval for a new drug, biological treatment, or medical device — or a new use for an existing one. For the first time, Health Canada is making large chunks of this information publicly available after it approves or rejects applications.
Within 120 days of a decision, Health Canada will post clinical study reports on a new government online portal, starting with drugs that contain novel active ingredients and adding devices and other drugs over a four-year phase-in period. These company-generated documents, often running more than 1,000 pages, summarize the methods, goals, and results of clinical trials, which test the safety and efficacy of promising medical interventions. The reports play an important role in helping regulators make their decisions, along with other information, such as raw data about individual patients in clinical trials.
So far, Health Canada has posted reports for four newly approved drugs — one to treat plaque psoriasis in adults, two to treat two different types of skin cancer, and the fourth for advanced hormone-related breast cancer — and is preparing to release reports for another 13 drugs and three medical devices approved or rejected since March.
Canada’s move follows a similar policy enacted four years ago by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of the European Union. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the other hand, continues to treat this information as confidential to companies and rarely makes it public….”
“As of 2017, the European University Association (EUA) assembled a unique collection of ‘Big Deals’ data on agreements between scholarly publishers and (national) consortia of libraries, universities and research organisations. This was carried out in the light of mounting higher education institution concerns about the increasingly unsustainable cost of subscriptions to scholarly publications. In 2016, EUA committed to “establishing an evidence base about current agreements and on-going negotiations with publishers in collaboration with NRCs”.1 Subsequently, data collected by EUA has served as the basis for two reports released in 2018 and 2019, respectively.2 Big Deals now receive increased attention due to their potential to ‘flip’ entire segments of the scholarly publication market from closed to open access publications. Big deals have also been widely criticised for locking-in library budgets, due to constantly increasing subscription costs. The 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report surveyed covered 30 European countries and found that over €1 billion is spent on electronic resources each year, including at least €726 million spent on periodicals alone. Big Deals are said to limit competition and innovation in the scholarly publishing system3 and curb universities’ and consortia’s financial freedom to pursue other priorities. However, recently, several European negotiating consortia and scholarly publishers have concluded Big Deals that allow eligible authors to publish articles in open access formats in specific journals. Known as ‘transformative agreements’, these contracts are also supported as one way to comply with future funder requirements that will apply as of 2021 under Plan S.4 In a system that is largely defined by Big Deals, this report aims to inform the transition to open access debate, by providing additional insights and indicators on these agreements’ costs, publication volumes and timelines. This has been achieved by placing EUA Big Deals data into context….
Part 1 explains the methods used to obtain the underlying data as well as limitations and responsible use of the data. Part 2 links the publication outputs of journal articles and reviews to the large five publishers’ market share. It seeks to provide a bigger picture of the relation between subscription costs and publishing output. Part 3 sets out an analysis of the price-per-article for each country and publisher, calculated on the basis of subscription prices and publication volume. It provides European negotiators with comparative Big Deals price per article data in 26 countries. Part 4 takes a closer look at the timeline of Big Deal agreements collected by the EUA Big Deals Survey. It shows that the 2018-2020 period is crucial for negotiations with scholarly publishers (in terms of market volume). Negotiations that occur during this time may also be crucial for the further development of ‘transformative’ agreements and therefore compliance with Plan S requirements. Part 5 provides a brief summary of our main findings, contextualises them with current developments and provides policy recommendations….”