To determine whether medRxiv data availability statements describe open or closed data—that is, whether the data used in the study is openly available without restriction—and to examine if this changes on publication based on journal data-sharing policy. Additionally, to examine whether data availability statements are sufficient to capture code availability declarations.
Observational study, following a pre-registered protocol, of preprints posted on the medRxiv repository between 25th June 2019 and 1st May 2020 and their published counterparts.
Main outcome measures
Distribution of preprinted data availability statements across nine categories, determined by a prespecified classification system. Change in the percentage of data availability statements describing open data between the preprinted and published versions of the same record, stratified by journal sharing policy. Number of code availability declarations reported in the full-text preprint which were not captured in the corresponding data availability statement.
3938 medRxiv preprints with an applicable data availability statement were included in our sample, of which 911 (23.1%) were categorized as describing open data. 379 (9.6%) preprints were subsequently published, and of these published articles, only 155 contained an applicable data availability statement. Similar to the preprint stage, a minority (59 (38.1%)) of these published data availability statements described open data. Of the 151 records eligible for the comparison between preprinted and published stages, 57 (37.7%) were published in journals which mandated open data sharing. Data availability statements more frequently described open data on publication when the journal mandated data sharing (open at preprint: 33.3%, open at publication: 61.4%) compared to when the journal did not mandate data sharing (open at preprint: 20.2%, open at publication: 22.3%).
Requiring that authors submit a data availability statement is a good first step, but is insufficient to ensure data availability. Strict editorial policies that mandate data sharing (where appropriate) as a condition of publication appear to be effective in making research data available. We would strongly encourage all journal editors to examine whether their data availability policies are sufficiently stringent and consistently enforced.
“On May 12, 2021, Provost and Executive Vice President Michael T. Brown, University Librarian and Chief Digital Scholarship Officer Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, Associate Vice Provost and Executive Director Günter Waibel, and Associate Executive Director & Director of Collection Development Ivy Anderson briefed the UC Board of Regents’ Academic and Student Affairs Committee on transformative open access and academic journal contracts.
The video archive of the presentation is available on YouTube and below. A copy of the presentation script is also available for download….”
“Sci-Hub itself is currently frozen and has not downloaded any new articles since December 2020. This rescue mission is focused on seeding the article collection in order to prepare for a potential Sci-Hub shutdown….”
“Now, people are trying to rescue the site before it’s wiped off the web for good. A collection of data-hoarding redditors have banned together to personally torent each of the 85 million articles currently housed within Sci-Hub’s walls. Ultimately, their goal is to make a fully open-source library that anyone can access, but nobody can take down….”
“SORTEE is a service organization which brings together researchers working to improve reliability and transparency through cultural and institutional changes in ecology, evolutionary biology, and related fields broadly defined. Anyone interested in improving research in these disciplines is welcome to join, regardless of experience. The society is international in scope, membership, and objectives.is a service organization which brings together researchers working to improve reliability and transparency through cultural and institutional changes in ecology, evolutionary biology, and related fields broadly defined. Anyone interested in improving research in these disciplines is welcome to join, regardless of experience. The society is international in scope, membership, and objectives….”
“Research Associate in Archiving and Preserving Open Access Books – Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) Project.
1.0 FTE, fixed-term appointment for 12 months ending no later than 31 October 2022.
A full-time Research Associate (1.0 FTE) is required to contribute to the Research England and Arcadia Foundation funded COPIM project (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs), which is composed of 10 main partners including Universities, libraries, publishers, and infrastructure providers. The post is for a full-term contract of 12 months at 1.0 FTE.
The Research Associate will lead Loughborough University contributions to the COPIM project and collaborate closely with project partners to in identifying the metadata and other information required by preservation services as well as repository platforms used by libraries and universities; manage the creation of a Toolkit to assist authors, publishers, and Librarians in archiving open access books; and build relationships with projects working in similar areas….”
“The opportunity for researchers to share their findings and draw on the research findings of others is vital for researchers, policymakers and wider society. But all too often, the way that this process works is decided by relatively small numbers of countries and people –- often those based in the global North, in “elite” institutions or in large, commercial publishers.
Important voices can be missed and, as a result, important learning about what people have found already works around the world is not reflected in academia, policy decisions, and practice.
In a recent Scholarly Kitchen webinar, I was delighted to be joined by great speakers from three continents, who are all experts in open access with different perspectives. This post summarizes some of the key themes discussed by Arianna Becerril García, who is based in Mexico, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou, who is based in Cameroon, and Vrushali Dandawate, who is in India….”
“Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of compiling and implementing more meaningful research metrics that the NISO panelists discussed is the importance of putting data into context. And, as the speakers noted, there are multiple facets of context to consider, including:
The strengths and limitations of different metrics by discipline/subject matter (e.g., some metrics are better suited to certain types of research)
The intended uses and overall strengths and limitations of particular data points (e.g., altmetrics are “indicators” of impact, not measures of quality and the JIF was never meant to be used to measure the impact of individual articles or scholars)
The cultural context that a researcher is operating within and the opportunities, challenges, and biases they have experienced
How and where a research output fits within scholars’ other professional contributions (e.g., recognizing how individual research outputs are part of broader bodies of work and also measuring the impacts of scholarly outputs that do not fit within traditional publication-based assessment systems) …”
“Part of our mission at bioRxiv is to alert readers to reviews and discussion of preprints and support the different ways readers provide feedback to authors on their work. These include tweets, comments on preprints and community- or journal-organized peer reviews. bioRxiv improves discoverability of such efforts by linking to peer reviews, community discussions and mentions of the preprint in social and traditional media. By aggregating this information in a new dashboard, we are now making these even easier for readers to find and access.
A series of new icons now appears in the dashboard launch bar, above each Abstract, representing different sources of preprint discussion or evaluation; the numbers of each evaluation or interaction are shown, and clicking on one of the icons opens a dashboard with details of the entries in that section….”
“2 AMICAL Libraries are part of the KU Selection Committee • The KU SelectCommittee consists of librarians from all over the world who make the selection of books to be included in our KU Select Books model, ensuring the most relevant content for users worldwide is included. • Librarians in the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences, selecting the most relevant content for KU Select 2022 HSS Books: titles for KU Select are not chosen by us or publishers but by the library community, through the KU Selection Committee • Thisyear’s voting process closed on 9 April, we will announce the result and the new collections at the beginning of May • It is free to participate! …”