Open Research Leads and R&I Culture Lead (2000008Y)

“Open Research is crucial to ensure the UK can benefit from the high quality and impactful R&D and maintain public and international trust in the reliability of the research we fund. We have publicly committed to ensuring openness and transparency in research, recognising it as a key foundation for research and innovation. In order to lead positive change across UKRI, nationally and internationally, we have established the UKRI Open Access review to achieve full OA to peer reviewed publications and the team is leading on the adoption of openness in research processes, information and technology to enable efficiency, collaboration, research quality and innovation and to support maximum access, impact and participation in research and innovation. …”

Global first for UKRI – recording funding peer review contributions in ORCID records – UK ORCID Support

“Researchers can now have their grant peer review contributions made visible and recognised when added to their ORCID Record by the UKRI’s Je-S funding platform.

UKRI and nearly 100 UK Higher Education and research organisations are members of ORCID, an international non-profit organisation that is committed to help achieve recognition and support for researchers by linking their contributions to the researcher’s unique ORCID identifier.

UKRI have recently announced that they have implemented the ORCID reviewer recognition feature in their grants management system, Je-S….”

ORCID reviewer recognition for UKRI reviewers – UKRI

“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.

The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”

Towards a National Collection | Collections United

“Funded by UKRI’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, Towards a National Collection is supporting research that breaks down the barriers that exist between the UK’s outstanding cultural heritage collections, with the aim of opening them up to new research opportunities and encouraging the public to explore them in new ways….

Collections United is a social media campaign connecting and highlighting the rich and diverse range of cultural heritage collections across the UK. The aim is to bring together material from more than one collection, telling the stories that connect them, and encouraging the public to do the same….”

Persistent identifiers and open access in the UK: the way forward | Jisc

“Today, more than ever, a resilient and efficient research infrastructure is critically important. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are an essential element of global research data infrastructures and have become central to building and maintaining reliable and robust links between people, communities and infrastructures.

Professor Adam Tickell’s 2018 independent advice to the UK government on open access to research publications, included a recommendation for Jisc to “lead on selecting and promoting a range of unique identifiers … in collaboration with sector leaders with relevant partner organisations”.

During this online event, we will share progress made towards implementing this recommendation and establishing a persistent identifier roadmap for open access – and open research more broadly – in in the UK. We will highlight the role PIDs can play in improving open access workflows, in the context of Plan S requirements and the recently published UKRI OA review.

You will hear from practitioners, as well as from the Jisc team working on the project. And we want to hear from you too, so there will be plenty of time for Q&A….”

Arcadia Fund | Our response to UKRI’s open access review consultation – Arcadia Fund

“The publisher must make efforts to advertise the existence of a freely available version on the DOI-landing page of the publisher version of the work, and in all metadata supplied in the form of MARC records, ONIX feeds, and CrossRef DOI associated metadata. The licence of the work should be clearly given on the DOI-landing page and in all forms of associated metadata that the publisher supplies be it MARC or ONIX or DOI or all. If the publisher is known to not provide adequate metadata about open access and open access licensing, then withhold all Book Publishing Charges from that publisher until they provide it. Better still, warn authors not to submit to the publisher with a ‘blacklist’ of non-compliant publishers.

Some publishers both in journals and in monographs have been doing rather sneaky things to hide the existence of a freely accessible version. See Piwowar (2018) ‘Where’s Waldo With Public Access Links’. For ‘gold’ open access works, ensure the publisher creates a link from which the entirety of the book can be downloaded as PDF (or other format e.g. EPUB) in one-click – far too many platforms break-up books into chapters with absolutely no provision of a link to download the work in its entirety – this is annoying for users….”

UKRI Open Access Consultation- University of Cambridge Response

“This is the University response to the 2020 UKRI Open Access Consultation, submitted via an online form on 27 May 2020. The response was developed based on input from across the University, including from Schools, Departments, individual researchers and Cambridge University Press and aims to represent the breadth of disciplinary perspectives across the University. The draft response was circulated for comment to the Open Research Steering Committee, the Research Policy Committee, the Library Syndicate and governance within CUP for comment prior to the development of the submitted version.”

 

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”