“This study found that 42% of articles in the Netherlands in 2016 were open access publications. In 2017 this increased to 50%, for 2018 it is 54% and for 2019 it has increased to 62%….”
From Google’s English: “The objective of this website is to periodically analyze the degree of compliance with the CSIC’s institutional open access mandate that came into effect on April 1, 2019. [CSIC = Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.]
This institutional mandate is part of the so-called “green route mandates” since it chooses the DIGITAL.CSIC repository as a channel for opening the research results of its research community.
The mandate affects a wide range of types of research results. On the one hand, the CSIC provides that the bibliographic references (metadata) of all peer-reviewed publications (articles, book chapters, books, conference communications) be made public and permanently in DIGITAL.CSIC from the moment of their publication. editorial acceptance and that their full texts are freely available on DIGITAL.CSIC as soon as publishers allow.
On the other hand, it provides that the bibliographic references (metadata) of the datasets associated with journal articles be made public permanently in DIGITAL.CSIC from the moment of the editorial acceptance of the associated articles and that such datasets are in open access in DIGITAL.CSIC as long as there are no legitimate reasons for confidentiality, intellectual property and / or security.
We inaugurate this website with the publication of the results of a first monitoring carried out by the Technical Office of DIGITAL.CSIC throughout the summer of 2020.
We hope that this website will be a useful and transparent instrument to monitor the degree of compliance with the institutional mandate at the CSIC institute level and as a basis for analytical studies of various kinds….”
“This project has piloted and modeled new approaches to “mapping” or making more visible the people, organizations, tools, and services that constitute “scholarly communication” today. We took a multi-tiered approach, coming at this rather large ambition from multiple directions simultaneously. We conducted a census of scholarly communication providers that allowed us to dive deeply into the organizational models, fiscal structures, governance environments, and community engagement of more than 40 service providers, and we published a report summarizing our findings and recommendations as well as a blog post with more informal perspectives. We also created and published a massive bibliographic scan including information about 206 tools, services, and systems that are instrumental to the publishing and distribution of the scholarly record. We also conducted focus groups with library leaders and a survey of libraries to better understand what investments they made in scholarly communication infrastructure and services. …”
Abstract: Scientific journal publishers have rapidly converted during the past 25 years to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20 percent but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in 18 Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27 percent (agriculture) to 7 percent (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries that dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany, and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.
“A number of libraries and consortia have provided the full text of Big Deal licenses. These provide useful information about the terms and conditions publisher may seek to include in their standard agreements. For tips on how to acquire additional contracts not listed here, see our “Freedom of Information Requests” guide. If you have an agreement that can be lawfully shared here, please contact us. We’ve also compilled tips on pushing back against confidentiality clauses and NDAs. …”
“This report scopes the issue of the reproducibility of scientific results, based on a field review and on an expert seminar on the opportunity of policy action in Europe. As such, it aims to increase the European Commission’s understanding of the lack of reproducibility in Europe, and help design a suitable response in the context of EU Research & Innovation. The report identifies the key emerging issues in reproducibility; it is informed by clearly marked expert opinion (in italics), as it emerged from the scoping seminar. Concrete recommendations of possible action by the European Commission are featured in separate ‘Action Boxes’. Overall the report introduces the concept of reproducibility as a continuum of practices. It is posited that the reproducibility of results has value both as a mechanism to ensure good science based on truthful claims, and as a driver of further discovery and innovation. The sections includes a working definition that is conducive for policy making and thus delimits the scope of the subject. Then the report reviews recent claims regarding the increasing lack of reproducibility in modern science, dubbed by some a ‘crisis of reproducibility’. It explores the main traits and underlying causes of the lack of reproducibility, including bias, poor experimental design and statistics, issues with scientific reporting, research culture, career-related factors and economics. Finally, the report reviews recent activities by scientists, research funders and publishers that aim to mitigate the lack of reproducibility; and it catalogues a range of possible remedies to the lack of reproducibility as they are found in the literature. The report provides concrete advice for policy action that may increase reproducibility in three key areas of the EU Research & Innovation, specifically guidelines; the research grant system; and training and careers.”
“Our portfolio company, Figshare, has today launched its annual report The State of Open Data 2020. The report is the fifth in the series and includes survey results and a collection of articles from global industry experts, as well as a foreword from Dr Leslie McIntosh, CEO of Ripeta and Executive Director, Emeritus – Research Data Alliance US.
The State of Open Data is now the longest running longitudinal study on the subject, which was created in 2016, to examine attitudes and experiences of researchers working with open data – sharing it, reusing it, and redistributing it.
This year’s survey received around 4,500 responses from the research community and had an additional focus on research practices in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It asked researchers how the pandemic was impacting their ability to carry out research, and their views on reuse of data and collaboration….”