“OpenupEd is the first, and, thus far, the only pan-European MOOC initiative. It was launched in April 2013 by EADTU, and communicated in collaboration with the European Commission (European Commission, 2013b). The 11 launch partners are based in eight EU countries (France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and the UK), as well as in three countries outside the EU (Russia, Turkey, and Israel).
While OpenupEd emerged in Europe, its mission has a global relevance and scope, thereby widening the spectrum of diversity. We promote the creation of similar initiatives (‘OpenupEd alikes’) in other regions around the world. Together with UNESCO we are collaborating with our sister organisations in Africa and in Asia (see associate partner section)….”
“In the continuing quest to make my PhD research comply with the ideals of open science, I’m uploading my protocols to protocols.io. This will create a detailed, publicly available, citable methods record (with a DOI!) for my research which aids with transparency, peer review, replication and re-use.”
Jisc Collections has been gathering and releasing data on APC payments made by UK higher education institutions (HEIs).
Following the publication of a new data set (2013-2016), OpenAPC has decided to replace all its existing Jisc collection data with the new version.
Since the data format employed by Jisc differs from the OpenAPC standard in several ways, a comprehensive pre- and postprocessing had to be conducted. The README in the Jisc data folder provides more details.
“In 2016, within the FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot, a sub-project focused on Alternative Funding Mechanisms for APC-free Open Access Journals was launched. Approximately one year later, we would like to share the main results of this workline with the public – as we believe these findings can be of interest for other initiatives and publishing platforms.”
“Now with the rise of the online open source movement, an informal shared feedback system is again possible. Referred to as ‘post-publication peer review’ (PPPR), this relatively new, additional stage in the process permits the scientific community to buffer itself against flawed, damaging or dishonest research.”
“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….”