American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS
Abstract: Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has already begun to exacerbate inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this paper, we call on psychological scientists—focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context in which such a conversation can begin—to reimagine our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss who our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.
“Can the community of editors and administrators who collect and present the facts become as sturdy and reliable as the facts themselves? The fear is that unless Wikipedia diversifies its editing ranks, it will be unable to produce the needed context, proportionality, fairness, and imagination to accurately collect the world’s knowledge.
In 2021 the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the more than 300 different versions of Wikipedia, plans to finalize a uniform code of conduct that details unacceptable behavior among the project’s editors—including insults, sexual harassment, and doxing—and assigns corresponding punishments. The new system, which is being fashioned in consultation with the editors and administrators across the encyclopedias, would differ significantly from the current, decentralized disciplinary apparatus. Not only would there be uniform standards of conduct, but there likely would be easier access to the protection of privacy for those who make complaints of harassment….”
“The Feminist Open Government Initiative is an ambitious attempt to broaden the base of open government support by investing in cutting-edge research from partners in the Global South and a coalition building effort to rally reform champions behind a gender-centric approach to open government. The initiative comprises three core pillars of work conducted by Results for Development (R4D) and the Open Government Partnership (OGP), with support from Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Over the course of the two years, Feminist Open Government Initiative drove considerable gender-informed action across the open government community. The Feminist Open Government Initiative oversaw five research projects covering 11 OGP governments, reviewed multiple OGP action plans with suggestions for how to increase gender perspective, forged new partnerships with key groups like Women Deliver and UNDP, informed the Break the Roles gender and inclusion campaign, and built a coalition of more than 20 governments and partners who have committed to drive this work forward.
The Feminist Open Government Initiative and Break the Roles built a strong network of gender and open government partners with expertise across core and emerging thematic areas and secured high-level political commitments to continue this agenda into 2020 and beyond. Thank you to researchers from Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC), CARE International, Equal Measures 2030, Técnicas Rudas, Oxfam and for all their hard work in conducting this very important work to help build more inclusive societies….”
“We encourage you to think critically about the current state of biomedical research, globally. We hope our challenge stimulates you to confer with colleagues and consider submitting an individual or multi-authored essay that will propose and elaborate new ideas addressing the challenges for the field – for example:
Innovative ways to move away from contemporary and reductive metrics of success and towards efforts that measurably improve everyday lives (e.g. advances in diagnostics, therapy, drug discovery, health services, and novel solutions to reduce health inequities).
Bold ideas to realign incentives for behaviors that advance discovery, support healthcare decision makers, and benefit society.
New ways to frame transparency and rigor as Open Scholarship values, not just checklists or hurdles, to improve societal trust in science.
Strategies to build an equitable, open, and transparent research ecosystem that values, empowers, and nurtures diversity.
Approaches that depend on creativity and innovation and not on the need for “more” (e.g. more money, more data, more publications, etc.)…”
“As Márton Demeter and Ronina Istratii (2020, p. 519) suggest in their article, even though scholars in Humanities and Social Sciences, such as in Area Studies, can be expected to have less financial resources at their disposal than their colleagues in natural sciences or technology fields, e.g., in Computer Sciences, this has not been found to be borne out by the levels of article processing fees that Open Access journals in these fields levy.
On the one hand, article processing charges levels have been found to be positively intercorrelated with journal-level impact factor metrics. On the other hand, Demeter and Istratii (2020, p. 519) indicate that, rather than responding to higher purchasing power levels in technology-related research sector, Open Access journals set their article processing charges’ levels based on the financial ability of global scholarly associations, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), to charge lower than market-average author-facing fees, despite the high impact factor rankings of their journals….”
“As I watch how the open publishing landscape is evolving, I worry that we are approaching a new status quo and need to step back for a moment, and consider the impact on the ecosystem of funders, institutions, societies, publishers and academics (in their roles as both authors and readers).
I worry that in seeking openness, we are serving a blow to equity. It is a reality that in a time of a COVID-19 pandemic, institutions are suffering financially. Indeed, all participants of the research ecosystem are suffering. In this post I argue that funders, be they national or private, should consider directly funding their field through funding societies and institutions, with a focus on equitable distribution of funds across scholarly communities. Such an approach would temper the impact of the new status quo — the inexorable rise of the transformative agreement, which systematically disadvantages scholars at less wealthy institutions….”
“ACRL recommended “as standard practice that academic librarians publish in open access venues.” ….In June 2019, ACRL outlined priorities and plans to reshape the current system of scholarly communications to increase equity and inclusivity. While by no means an exhaustive list of the values that institutions should discuss and balance, both of these priorities place value on a scholarly infrastructure that is new, emerging, different, and may not completely align with current evaluative practices. We urge institutions to discuss their core institutional values and priorities, and how support for open access, equity, and inclusion, and impact will be represented by the codified institutional guidelines, expectations, and rank/tenure/promotion/evaluation processes….”
The document is undated. But the announcement is dated December 11, 2020.
“In response to a recent blog post on the OASPA website authored by several publishers’ representatives, COAR would like to underscore the critical role of Open Access repositories in accelerating innovation in scholarly communications and the adoption of Open Access and Open Science.
OA repositories (referred to as green OA in the blog) are central for achieving equitable open access to research outputs world wide. Many researchers around the world do not have the means to pay OA publishing fees (APCs), nor do their governments or institutions have money for transformational agreements. Justice, equity, and fairness are fundamental principles that need to be respected in the transition to full Open Access.
Furthermore, the notions expressed around the version of record are increasingly extraneous in a web-enabled, dynamic environment where researchers can share preprints immediately, peers can review and comment openly, and articles can be continually updated, amended, and extended – something that can be supported and advanced through the repository route. These types of innovations are on the horizon (for example, see eLife’s recent announcement about moving to a publish then review model). It’s time to move beyond the antiquated notion of the version of record that was developed in the print era….”
“Marking the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on 3 December 2020, UNESCO has released a new publication aiming at assisting stakeholders in the preparation of documentary heritage in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
The publication, Accessible Documentary Heritage, offers a set of guidelines for parties involved in the digitization of heritage documents, including librarians, archivists, museums workers, curators, and other stakeholders in carefully planning digital platforms and contents with a view to incorporating disability and accessibility aspects….”