“Adam is an MSc student at a local university in Kenya. He has to work part time to pay his school fees. Adam does the same through his research project to pay for bench fees at a local research institution. Through sweat and long nights, he manages to get a manuscript ready, as he has to publish to graduate. Adam recently attended a seminar where he was introduced to open science. He is excited about his first paper and wants to publish open access. His excitement is cut short when he realises he has to pay a US$3,000 article processing charge (APC) to get his manuscript published. What are his options? Are there publishers that can offer him a waiver or a subsidy? Or, are there some funding opportunities he can tap into for support? We envision a platform that can help Adam identify journals that can offer him waivers or subsidies, and how to access them; a platform that will point him to funding opportunities to help cover the APC. We seek a platform that will reduce the APC cost barrier for students from resource-poor settings, like Adam. …” UKRI to pilot Early Career Researchers Forum – UK Research and Innovation “UKRI is to launch a new UKRI Early Career Researchers’ Forum, Chief Executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser has told the Future Leaders Fellowships conference. A pilot for the forum will launch later this year and will seek to recruit 400 Early Career Researchers….” bjoern.brembs.blog » How academic institutions neglect their duty “As the technology for such an infrastructure is available off the shelf and institutions are spending multiple amounts of what would be required on legacy publishers, there remain only social obstacles as to why academic institutions keep neglecting their researchers. Given that institutions have now failed for about 30 years to overcome these obstacles, it is straightforward to propose that mandates and policies be put in place to force institutions (and not researchers!) to change their ways and implement such a basic infrastructure.” Rethinking assessment during the pandemic, particularly re. disability equality | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing The pandemic is not over. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill just went back for a week of in-person term. Seven days later, they have shut down, with over 500 students in isolation. They can now offer only remote tuition. So I repeat to those who are being optimistic about this year: no, the pandemic is not over, it is far from over, and there are many many challenges ahead. In this post I want to turn particularly to the challenge of access to library resources over the coming year for students, with particular reference to the disability equality implications. Young researcher groups reaffirm support for Plan S – Research Professional News “Leaked letter to Commission shows major pushback against ERC Scientific Council’s doubt over open-access initiative Europe’s main groups for young researchers have reaffirmed their support of the open access initiative Plan S, in a rebuke to the senior body of what is perhaps the EU’s most prestigious funding agency….” AoBP ECOS Awards – Buckley Lab at UC Davis “Beginning in 2020, AoBP will award USD$3,000 annually to each of up to three early-career researchers who have dedicated considerable effort to advancing the goals and ideals of open science.

The AoBP ECOS Awards (Early Career Open Science) aim to promote and celebrate people who are changing science for the better. People who are willing to go against the grain of hype-driven science. Willing to resist cynical citation-chasing. Willing to share their data, code and ideas. Willing to stand up for those who have been historically excluded or mistreated in science. Willing to publish negative results. Willing to promote others who respect these things.

To be eligible for an AoBP ECOS Award, you must have been active in research involving plants and the environment within the last two years, and you must be no more than eight years post-PhD. Scientists of any rank or position are eligible (students, postdocs, technicians, faculty). Individuals can self-nominate or be nominated by others (with the nominee’s agreement)….”

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

Det europeiske forskingsrådet (ERC) trekker støtte til Plan S

“The ERC, together with funders of research throughout Europe, has been behind the demand for open publication of research which is laid down in the so-called Plan S.

Now the collaboration is abruptly over.

In recent months, the ERC’s Scientific Council has “intensified the internal debate and reached a unanimous decision”, the press release states, and the result is that they will end their cooperation with Coalition S and work on the introduction of Plan S.

The Norwegian climate researcher Eystein Jansen, who is a professor at the University of Bergen, is a member of the Scientific Medical Council and has been involved in the unanimous decision. He tells Khrono that the decision has been made after thorough assessments….

Director of the Research Council, John-Arne Røttingen, is one of the leading figures in the international work on Plan S.

– The decision in the ERC comes as a big surprise, and the timing is strange, says Røttingen.

– When we established Plan S, we got the Scientific Council of the ERC on the team, and they played an important role in shaping the plan and the implementation plan.

He assures that the decision in the ERC will not affect the changes in financing terms that are planned to be introduced from 1.1. 2021. Since the EU Commission is allocating the money to the ERC’s budget, Røttingen believes that the ERC’s change of course will not put a stop to the plans for open publication as set out in Plan S.

– It is the EU Commission that set the framework for all project funding that is provided. The commission has wholeheartedly assured that they support Plan S and the implementation plan, says Røttingen….”

The ERC and Plan S: an open letter | by George Walkden | Jul, 2020 | Medium

“I was dismayed to read your press release of 20th July announcing that you are withdrawing your support from cOAlition S and Plan S. I was even more dismayed to see that you rationalized this based on the needs of “young researchers who represent the future of European science and innovation”, arguing that the unavailability of APC funding for hybrid journals under Plan S is detrimental to early career researchers. As a young researcher and ERC Starting Grant awardee myself, I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that I do not recognize this argument as valid.

The harm that hybrid journals cause to the ecosystem of scholarly publishing is well known. In particular, through “double dipping” — charging subscription fees at the same time as full APCs for Open Access articles — publishers of such journals are able to appropriate a far greater quantity of public funds than would otherwise be possible. Pinfield et al. (2015) demonstrate empirically, in a UK context, that double dipping is not merely a theoretical issue, but a genuine problem; they also show that hybrid journals charge on average vastly higher APCs than fully Gold Open Access journals, strongly suggesting that funding Open Access publication in hybrid journals represents bad value for money….”