Open Scholarship and the Need for Collective Action – Knowledge Exchange

“Following the report ‘Knowledge Exchange Approach to Open Scholarship’ and in line with the recommendations resulting from the workshop report Moving from Ambition to Reality, Knowledge Exchange developed a framework to articulate the changes occurring in scholarly communications: The Knowledge Exchange Open Scholarship Framework.

On the basis of this framework, we identified further work to understand the Economy of Open Scholarship as a priority and have worked on two interconnected activities dedicated to the Economy of Open Scholarship; one practical – Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship and one conceptual – Open Scholarship and the need for Collective Action….

As many of the challenges in navigating the transition to Open Scholarship are economic, the focus of the book is on the economic arena. In addition, great attention is given to the incentives, actions and influences of meso-level actors: groups, communities or organisations such as universities, disciplines, scholarly societies or publishers because of their enormous impact on developing open scholarship. The authors analyse how economic models can be applied to scholarship and conclude that economic theory cannot fully explain nor prescribe how Open Scholarship can be achieved. The challenges to achieve Open Scholarship, such as gravitational hubs and the complex governance of common pool resources, are highlighted.

The overall conclusion of the book is that for a successful transition to Open Scholarship, collective action approaches and establishment of a supportive infrastructure are key….”

OA in the Open: Community Needs and Perspectives

Abstract:  The National Forum described here was proposed as a first step in surfacing community requirements and principles toward a collective open access (OA) collection development system. The Forum asked participants to envision a collective funding environment for libraries to contribute provisioning or sustaining funds to OA content providers. A critical component of this project was to bring together groups of interested and invested individuals with different priorities and perspectives and begin to build a community of engagement and dialogue. By analyzing focus group feedback and leveraging the insights and interactions of participants, this paper presents the challenges, opportunities, and potential next steps for building an OA collection development model and culture based on a community of collective action.

Why Scholarly Societies Are Vitally Important to the Academic Ecosystem – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In this article I attempt to explain the critical role of scholarly societies, bearing in mind these societies vary enormously — in terms of the culture of the discipline and scale. I will argue that independent scholarly societies are vital to the academic ecosystem, and are the only community organizations whose sole reason for existence is to provide for the scholars in their academic community. The sad reality in publishing circles is that even with laudable initiatives such as the funder-driven Plan S, which ostensibly aim for an open world of research and content, it is the big corporate publishers who win….”

OA in the Open White Paper Surfaces Challenges, Opportunities, Next Steps for Open Access Collecting – Association of Research Libraries

“A new white paper from the Supporting OA Collections in the Open project documents a series of conversations with librarians with expertise in collections, acquisitions, scholarly communication, and administration, from diverse institutions, regarding their experiences and attitudes towards financially supporting open access (OA) content. The project was led by librarians at James Madison University (JMU), in partnership with the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).

Funded by a grant from the US Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), OA in the Open convened a series of national forums where community members discussed their needs, values, and priorities in relation to open access collection development. The forums clarified areas of opportunity and friction, and led to productive discourse and identification of common themes about collective funding of public-goods content.

Through moderation that leveraged the insights and interactions of focus group participants, the project team developed a white paper that articulates the challenges, opportunities, and potential mechanisms for building an OA collection development system and culture and that motivates the community toward collective action….”

OA in the Open: Community Needs and Perspectives

Abstract:  The National Forum described here was proposed as a first step in surfacing community requirements and principles toward a collective open access (OA) collection development system. The Forum asked participants to envision a collective funding environment for libraries to contribute provisioning or sustaining funds to OA content providers. A critical component of this project was to bring together groups of interested and invested individuals with different priorities and perspectives and begin to build a community of engagement and dialogue. By analyzing focus group feedback and leveraging the insights and interactions of participants, this paper presents the challenges, opportunities, and potential next steps for building an OA collection development model and culture based on a community of collective action.

Advocating for Change in How Science is Conducted to Level the Playing Field – YouTube

“Open science practices have the potential to greatly accelerate progress in scientific research if widely adopted, but individual action may not be enough to spur this change.

In this webinar, a panel of experienced policy advocates discuss how to advocate for policy improvements at the institutional level (journals, funders, and universities), while providing you with the tools to do so. Open practice policies are leveling the playing field for how science is conducted, yet advocating for these improvements requires coordinated action. Join us!…”

Advocating for Change in How Science is Conducted to Level the Playing Field

“Open science practices have the potential to greatly accelerate progress in scientific research if widely adopted, but individual action may not be enough to spur this change. Join us for a discussion about the policy improvements taking place at scientific institutions — journals, funders, and universities — that are leveling the playing field for how science is conducted. Advocating for these improvements requires coordinated action.”

Free our knowledge

“The scholarly publishing system is inefficient, expensive, and promotes questionable research practices. Intense competition between researchers discourages us from embracing solutions to these problems (‘Open Science’), for fear we might risk our careers in the process. Our mission is to ‘kickstart’ progress by first organising a critical mass of support for certain Open Science practices (e.g. Open Access publishing), and then acting in a coordinated fashion to instantiate these practices as a new cultural norm….

Join the movement by pledging your support for each of the research practices below. For each campaign, you will select a ‘support threshold’ that determines when your pledge becomes active and deanonymised, thus preventing any risk to your career until you have the support of your research community….”

Governance of a global genetic resource commons for non-commercial research: A case-study of the DNA barcode commons

Abstract:  Life sciences research that uses genetic resources is increasingly collaborative and global, yet collective action remains a significant barrier to the creation and management of shared research resources. These resources include sequence data and associated metadata, and biological samples, and can be understood as a type of knowledge commons. Collective action by stakeholders to create and use knowledge commons for research has potential benefits for all involved, including minimizing costs and sharing risks, but there are gaps in our understanding of how institutional arrangements may promote such collective action in the context of global genetic resources. We address this research gap by examining the attributes of an exemplar global knowledge commons: The DNA barcode commons. DNA barcodes are short, standardized gene regions that can be used to inexpensively identify unknown specimens, and proponents have led international efforts to make DNA barcodes a standard species identification tool. Our research examined if and how attributes of the DNA barcode commons, including governance of DNA barcode resources and management of infrastructure, facilitate global participation in DNA barcoding efforts. Our data sources included key informant interviews, organizational documents, scientific outputs of the DNA barcoding community, and DNA barcode record submissions. Our research suggested that the goal of creating a globally inclusive DNA barcode commons is partially impeded by the assumption that scientific norms and expectations held by researchers in high income countries are universal. We found scientific norms are informed by a complex history of resource misappropriation and mistrust between stakeholders. DNA barcode organizations can mitigate the challenges caused by its global membership through creating more inclusive governance structures, developing norms for the community are specific to the context of DNA barcoding, and through increasing awareness and knowledge of pertinent legal frameworks.

Reimagining the academic library: What to do next. Review article | Lewis | El Profesional de la Información

Abstract:  This article reviews the conclusions of the author’s 2016 book, Reimagining the academic library and considers changes in scholarly communication and academic libraries that have taken place since its publication. Recommendations for alterations in the practice of individual libraries are provided. The problem of created integrated community-controlled open infrastructure is considered at length, especially the collective action problem that the library community must overcome.