The intersections between DORA, open scholarship, and equity | DORA

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), published in May 2013, does not mention the term ‘open scholarship.’ And yet DORA and open scholarship are becoming increasingly entwined[1]. DORA’s ambition is to improve research evaluation practices but the practicalities of implementation make it impossible to separate the evaluation of research from questions about who and what research is for, who gets to be involved, and how it should best be carried out, all of which have to take account of the power dynamics that shape the scholarly landscape. Equally, progress towards open scholarship, which aims to make the products and processes of academic work as accessible to as many stakeholders as possible, requires changes in the ways that researchers and their research outputs and practices are assessed, incentivized and constructed. Here we examine the growing interactions between DORA and the open scholarship movement. By clarifying the alignment of the values and principles that underpin both endeavors, we see that they raise vital questions about equity and inclusion in research that must be central to reform within research organizations and the wider scholarly community.

OAR@UM: Academics’ perspective of open access and institutional repositories, University of Malta : a case study

Abstract:  This research explores factors affecting academics’ willingness towards self-archiving in their University’s IR. Academics are the main contributors of Institutional Repositories (IRs). Whatsoever, voluntary contributions from their end lacks, which is a problem faced by Universities globally. Since the situation at the University of Malta (UM) is of no exception to such hindrance to its IR (OAR@UM) content and potential, this study specifically tackled UM academics. Both positive and negative drivers towards self-archiving in OAR@UM were investigated in terms of perceptions, awareness, practice and knowledge. Apart from the IR, OA publishing in general was also considered. Also, from the reviewed literature a gap was identified. Thus, this study attempted to fill such gap by extending its scope to also explore the academics’ willingness towards engaging in knowledge sharing activities along with, related preferences such as, venue and material type. This study adopted the Willingness Indicator Model, a new research model based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour and that was specifically developed by this researcher for the purpose of this study. A quantitative research design using online questionnaire survey was employed albeit questions that derive both quantitative and qualitative information were incorporated. Findings transpired that despite low contribution, overall, participants did positively perceive OAR@UM to be a high quality venue, acknowledged access benefits, recognised that it benefits the UM and regarded it as the majorly preferred self-archiving venue. They also overall acknowledged that it benefits the UM. Among others, the major inspiring factors towards depositing respectively were the prospect of increased professional visibility and altruism in terms of benefiting other researchers. On the other hand, among others, major inhibiting factors respectively were, not finding the time, self-archiving being unusual practice within discipline, and copyright concerns. High awareness about the availability of OA and OAR@UM showed. Nonetheless, a lack of OA and self-archiving concept knowledge along with, knowledge related to OAR@UM in relation to concept and related services emerged. To this effect, low OAR@UM contributors resulted. As concluded, this particularly occurred as a consequence of negative perceptions, unrecognised benefits and concerns which most were unfounded ones and that thus, could simply cease through the acquisition of appropriate concept related knowledge that of course could only be derived through appropriate education, promotion and communication.

OAR@UM: Academics’ perspective of open access and institutional repositories, University of Malta : a case study

Abstract:  This research explores factors affecting academics’ willingness towards self-archiving in their University’s IR. Academics are the main contributors of Institutional Repositories (IRs). Whatsoever, voluntary contributions from their end lacks, which is a problem faced by Universities globally. Since the situation at the University of Malta (UM) is of no exception to such hindrance to its IR (OAR@UM) content and potential, this study specifically tackled UM academics. Both positive and negative drivers towards self-archiving in OAR@UM were investigated in terms of perceptions, awareness, practice and knowledge. Apart from the IR, OA publishing in general was also considered. Also, from the reviewed literature a gap was identified. Thus, this study attempted to fill such gap by extending its scope to also explore the academics’ willingness towards engaging in knowledge sharing activities along with, related preferences such as, venue and material type. This study adopted the Willingness Indicator Model, a new research model based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour and that was specifically developed by this researcher for the purpose of this study. A quantitative research design using online questionnaire survey was employed albeit questions that derive both quantitative and qualitative information were incorporated. Findings transpired that despite low contribution, overall, participants did positively perceive OAR@UM to be a high quality venue, acknowledged access benefits, recognised that it benefits the UM and regarded it as the majorly preferred self-archiving venue. They also overall acknowledged that it benefits the UM. Among others, the major inspiring factors towards depositing respectively were the prospect of increased professional visibility and altruism in terms of benefiting other researchers. On the other hand, among others, major inhibiting factors respectively were, not finding the time, self-archiving being unusual practice within discipline, and copyright concerns. High awareness about the availability of OA and OAR@UM showed. Nonetheless, a lack of OA and self-archiving concept knowledge along with, knowledge related to OAR@UM in relation to concept and related services emerged. To this effect, low OAR@UM contributors resulted. As concluded, this particularly occurred as a consequence of negative perceptions, unrecognised benefits and concerns which most were unfounded ones and that thus, could simply cease through the acquisition of appropriate concept related knowledge that of course could only be derived through appropriate education, promotion and communication.

Open Access in Theory and Practice | Taylor & Francis Group

“Open Access in Theory and Practice investigates the theory-practice relationship in the domain of open access publication and dissemination of research outputs.

Drawing on detailed analysis of the literature and current practice in OA, as well as data collected in detailed interviews with practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, the book discusses what constitutes ‘theory’, and how the role of theory is perceived by both theorists and practitioners. Exploring the ways theory and practice have interacted in the development of OA, the authors discuss what this reveals about the nature of the OA phenomenon itself and the theory-practice relationship.

Open Access in Theory and Practice contributes to a better understanding of OA and, as such, should be of great interest to academics, researchers, and students working in the fields of information science, publishing studies, science communication, higher education policy, business, and economics. The book also makes an important contribution to the debate of the relationship between theory and practice in information science, and more widely across different fields of the social sciences and humanities.”

Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals | Zenodo

“Journal practices (other than OA) promoting Open Science goals (relevance, reproducibility, efficiency, transparency)

Early, full and reproducible content

preregistration – use preregistrations in the review process
registered reports – apply peer review to preregistration prior to the study and publish results regardless of outcomes
preprint policy – liberally allow preprinting in any archive without license restrictions
data/code availability – foster or require open availability of data and code for reviewers and readers
TDM allowance – allow unrestricted TDM of full text and metadata for any use
null/negative results – publish regardless of outcome
 

Machine readable ecosystem

data/code citation – promote citation and use standards
persistent IDs – e.g. DOI, ORCID, ROR, Open Funder Registry, grant IDs
licenses (in Crossref) – register (open) licenses in Crossref
contributorship roles – credit all contributors for their part in the work
open citations – make citation information openly available via Crossref
 

Peer review

open peer review – e.g. open reports and open identities
peer review criteria – evaluate methodological rigour and reporting quality only or also judge expected relevance or impact?
rejection rates – publish rejection rates and reconsider high selectivity
post-publication peer review – publish immediately after sanity check and let peer review follow that?
 

Diversity

author diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
reviewer diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour
editor diversity – age, position, gender, geography, ethnicity, colour

Metrics and DORA

DORA: journal metrics – refrain from promoting
DORA: article metrics – provide a range and use responsibly…”

Opening Up Communication: Assessing Open Access Practices in the Communication Studies Discipline

“The French OpenAIRE workshop on June 27th was a success. Designed for head librarians and repository managers (some researchers and funders’ representatives also attended), the meeting was divided in two main parts. First came thought provoking presentations: on the French Law for OA and what it allows, on research data, on the researchers’ digital identity, on OpenAIRE and the obligation to deposit.”