A video explaining how Chronos can help Gates-funded researchers comply with the Gates OA policy.
“What is Chronos?
Chronos is a “one stop shop” guiding and supporting researchers through the publishing process to ensure 100% compliance with funders’ mandates and along the way providing a unique new service which reduces administration time and cost and a direct link from funders to the individuals and universities they support….
It helps you select journals which are compliant, links you directly to the publisher submission systems, and then oversees your published article is afforded the correct publishing licence and is submitted to your preferred repository. At the same time, universities and funders have access to live reporting of essential publication data. …”
“Open Research Central is a portal through which research in any field can be submitted for formal publication on one of the open research publishing platforms.
These platforms are currently operated by F1000 and use a model of immediate publication followed by transparent invited peer review, and require the inclusion of all supporting data (see here for more details of the model).
This model has been running on F1000Research since its inception in 2013. It is also used on Wellcome Open Research (launched November 2016) for Wellcome grant holders, and will also be used on the upcoming Gates Open Research for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant holders and UCL Child Health Open Research for all research groups at UCL focusing on child health. See the respective platforms for details of the current model, as well as author guidelines and policies.
The model continues to evolve through ongoing consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders, including numerous researchers across scientific disciplines, research funders, institutions, policy makers, and others.
While F1000 is currently maintaining Open Research Central and the publishing platforms, our longer-term plan is to transition Open Research Central to being owned and governed by the international research community with broad representation across research funding agencies, research institutions, and researchers themselves. We will assemble a governing board shortly to start this process….”
“As of January 1, 2015 our Open Access policy will be effective for all new agreements. During a two-year transition period, publishers will be permitted to apply up to a 12 month embargo period on the accessibility of the publication and its underlying data sets. This embargo period will no longer be allowed after January 1, 2017.
Our Open Access policy contains the following elements:
Publications Are Discoverable and Accessible Online. Publications will be deposited in a specified repository(s) with proper tagging of metadata.
Publication Will Be On “Open Access” Terms. All publications shall be published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic License (CC BY 4.0) or an equivalent license. This will permit all users of the publication to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transform and build upon the material, including for any purpose (including commercial) without further permission or fees being required.
Foundation Will Pay Necessary Fees. The foundation would pay reasonable fees required by a publisher to effect publication on these terms.
Publications Will Be Accessible and Open Immediately. All publications shall be available immediately upon their publication, without any embargo period. An embargo period is the period during which the publisher will require a subscription or the payment of a fee to gain access to the publication. We are, however, providing a transition period of up to two years from the effective date of the policy (or until January 1, 2017). During the transition period, the foundation will allow publications in journals that provide up to a 12-month embargo period.
Data Underlying Published Research Results Will Be Accessible and Open Immediately. The foundation will require that data underlying the published research results be immediately accessible and open. This too is subject to the transition period and a 12-month embargo may be applied.”
“Chronos is currently available to Gates grantees and employees. We anticipate making Chronos available to a wider audience sometime next year….Chronos processes and pays publisher Article Processing Charges (APCs) on behalf of grantees and employees, conducts policy compliancy checks, and tracks publishing activity, along with its impact….
“One of Europe’s biggest science spenders could soon branch out into publishing. The European Commission, which spends more than €10 billion annually on research, may follow two other big league funders, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and set up a “publishing platform” for the scientists it funds, in an attempt to accelerate the transition to open-access publishing in Europe….”
“The University of Oxford has announced grants totaling nearly $8 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and others in support of efforts to speed up diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis….The grants will enable Oxford researchers to expand that library [of genomce sequences] by collecting and analyzing a hundred thousand additional samples from around the world….The Oxford team will then assemble the results into a single open-access database….”
“Science should not, and need not, be shackled by journal publication. Three sensible reforms would ensure that researchers’ results could be communicated to more people more quickly, without any compromise on quality. Step one is for the organisations that finance research to demand that scientists put their academic papers, along with their experimental data, in publicly accessible ‘repositories’ before they are sent to a journal. That would allow other researchers to make use of the findings without delay. Those opposed to such ‘preprints’ argue that they allow shoddy work to proliferate because it has not yet been peer-reviewed. That may surprise physicists and mathematicians, who have been posting work to arXiv, a preprint repository, for more than 25 years with no ill effects. After peer review, research should also be freely available for all to read. Too much science, much of it paid for from the public purse, languishes behind paywalls.
Step two is to improve the process of peer review itself. Journals currently administer a system of organising anonymous peer reviewers to pass judgment on new research—a fact they use, in part, to justify their hefty subscription prices. But this murky process is prone to abuse. At its worst, cabals of researchers are suspected of guaranteeing favourable reviews for each other’s work. Better that reviewers are named and that the reviews themselves are published. The Gates foundation has announced its support for an online repository where such open peer review of papers takes place. The repository was launched last year by the Wellcome Trust, meaning that the world’s two largest medical charities have thrown their weight behind it. Others should follow (see article).
Fight for your right
Finally, science needs to stop relying so much on journal publication as the only recognised credential for researchers and the only path to career progression. Tools exist that report how often a preprint has been viewed, for example, or whether a clinical data set has been cited in guidelines for doctors. A handful of firms are using artificial intelligence to assess the scientific importance of research, irrespective of how it has been disseminated. Such approaches need encouragement. Journals may lose out, but science itself will benefit.”
“One of the world’s biggest funders of scientific research is to establish an open access platform that will allow its grant winners to publish their findings, in a move that could be swiftly followed by the European Commission….Initiative will emulate Wellcome Trust’s publishing model, with European Commission set to follow”