Open Science: The Next Frontier for Neurology

“What are One Mind’s open science principles?

To support Open Science for brain disease and injury, One Mind urges the international research community to adopt the following principles:

Provide informed consents for collection of medical data obtained from patients, which should permit use of their de-identified (anonymous) data for research related to a broad range of conditions — consistent with protecting patient privacy.

Use widely accepted common data elements and conform to the highest possible standards when clinical data is collected. This enables it to be used by the widest possible array of users, whether academic, medical, clinical or commercial.

Make data available to the research community as soon as possible after study completion, with the goal of opening data access within six months whenever possible.

Make data accessible to external researchers during the course of a study (subject to relevant data use agreements).

Give data generators proper attribution & credit from those who use their data.

Do not delay the publication of findings, as it may affect patient care.

Intellectual property should not stand in the way of research, but be used to incentivize material participation….”

OA Dashboard feasibility study: Our findings and conclusions | Jisc scholarly communications

“As work comes to a close on the OA Dashboard project, we wanted to share our findings and conclusions and give an outline of what we are planning to do next in this space. Taken forward by Research Consulting in partnership with Pleiade Management and Consultancy and Digirati, the project aimed to assess the feasibility of a dashboard that would support institutions by combining and visualising data on OA. Such a system has the potential to improve institutional workflows by providing easier access to information on OA….

We reached the conclusion that a full business case cannot be built at this time, as the strength of the available evidence is, on average, low, and does not enable a strong case for further investment to be made. A key factor is that, although there is a gap in terms of analysing data on OA, open data sources are not mature enough to power a dashboard and may undermine the validity of its outputs.Whilst it is recommended that the development of a dashboard of this nature is put on hold and re-evaluated in the future, Jisc recognises the importance of centralised systems that enable libraries in being able to monitor their OA activity, encourage the discovery of OA content and support decision-making relating to their library holdings more generally. Therefore, the sector should be assured that work will continue in earnest to investigate new, innovative ways of working in this area….”

Estimated costs of implementing an open access policy at a private foundation | bioRxiv

“Background: The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in understanding the potential effects of a policy requiring open access to peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research the foundation funds. Methods: We collected data on more than 2000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open access policies might have affected grantee publishing habits. Results: We found that 99.3% of the articles published by grantees would have complied with a policy that requires open access within 12 months of publication. We also estimated the maximum annual costs to GBMF for covering fees associated with “gold open access” to be between $400,000 and $2,600,000 annually. Discussion: Based in part on this study, GBMF has implemented a new open access policy that requires grantees make peer-reviewed publications fully available within 12 months.”

ARC Open Access Policy Version 2017.1 | Australian Research Council

How has the policy changed from the previous ARC Open Access Policy?

The revised policy issued on 30 June 2017 remains substantively the same as the previous version of the policy. The revisions remove ambiguities in application and includes:

  • The addition of a definitions section
  • The specification to make research ARC-funded research outputs openly accessible in an institutional repository has been removed, and replaced with the requirement that these outputs must be made openly accessible. Only the metadata for research outputs must be made available to the public in an institutional repository
  • The scope has been clarified to apply to all outputs, rather than just publications (journal articles and scholarly monographs as is currently the case) arising from ARC-funded research and its metadata
  • Greater guidance around the metadata requirements for ARC-funded research outputs
  • Specifying the need for appropriate licensing of research outputs in order to provide guidance on allowable access and reuse
  • Significantly clarifying the roles and responsibilities in relation to the ARC’s open access requirements.

The requirement that any research output arising from ARC funded research must be made openly accessible within a twelve (12) month period from the publication date has not changed….”

H2020 compliance of roarmap database

“This web site allows the comparison of any Open Access (OA) policy registered in ROARMAP database with the Horizon2020 funding program OA requirements.

Data are fetched directly from the ROARMAP web site and web API.

The criteria used to determine the level of compliance of a ROARMAP-classified policy with H2020 OA requirements have been documented in this document ….”

Cambridge’s journey towards Open Access

“Presentation given at Open Repositories 2017, Brisbane, Australia. General track 13: Evaluation and assessment. This presentation discusses the open agenda supported by funder policies in the United Kingdom (UK), how these policies interact with one another and the resulting implications for higher education institutions using the case study of the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has responded to the challenges of open research by founding the Office of Scholarly Communication and dedicating specialized teams to manage compliance with both Open Access and research data requirements. Since 2013 the Open Access Service has processed over 10,000 article submissions and spent more than £7 million on article processing charges. The experiences at Cambridge in responding to these challenges are an important lesson for anyone engaged in open research. This talk offers some insights into a potential way to manage funder mandates, but also acts as a cautionary tale for other countries and institutions considering introducing mandates around Open Access and what the implementation of certain policies might entail. The skills around management of open policies are significantly different to traditional library activity, and this has implications for training and recruitment of staff.”

 

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Open Access Policy – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

“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:

  1. Publications Are Discoverable and Accessible Online.  Publications will be deposited in a specified repository(s) with proper tagging of metadata. 

  2. 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. 

  3. Foundation Will Pay Necessary Fees.  The foundation would pay reasonable fees required by a publisher to effect publication on these terms. 

  4. 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.

  5. 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.”