“The COUNTER Code of Practice currently states about the Institution_Name in the report header that ‘For OA publishers and repositories, where it is not possible to identify usage by individual institutions, the usage should be attributed to “The World”’ (Section 3.2.1, Table 3.f). When this rule was added the focus was on fully Open Access publishers, and the expectation – which obviously was wrong and has caused some confusion – was that the fully OA publishers would not try to attribute usage to institutions. So, a report to “The World” was intended to include all global usage, whether attributed to institutions or not.
This document shows how usage could be reported to “The World” and how the global usage could be broken down and filtered.
Please note, that these reports would NOT be a mandatory requirement. Those content providers that wished to use them, could do so.
We are seeking your thoughts about how useful these reports might be, and more specifically on some of the technical details. Please provide your feedback at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/3CQZVH2 The survey questions are included at the end of this document, so that you can discuss them with colleagues before submitting your responses online….”
“As a part of a series of thematic consultations for building a global consensus on Open Science, UNESCO organized an online meeting on January 15 to take stock of Indigenous peoples‘ perspective on Open Science.
In view of developing a standard-setting instrument on Open Science, UNESCO is leading an inclusive, transparent and consultative process. In this process, inclusiveness of diverse knowledge systems and knowledge holders is essential, and the first draft of the Recommendation is based on the broad inputs provided by stakeholders from all regions and groups.
Considering the great importance given to the creation of a productive relationship between Open Science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, the consultation with Indigenous Peoples brought together 120 participants from 50 countries, including indigenous scholars and academics, members of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), members of different initiatives such as the Forest Peoples Programme, the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and the drafting committee of the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance. …”
“In accordance with the UNESCO Constitution and the Rules of Procedure concerning recommendations to Member States and international conventions covered by the terms of Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the final report together with the draft text of the Recommendation on Open Science was sent to UNESCO Member States in March 2021 (CL/4349). It is submitted to the special committee meeting of technical and legal experts, designated by Member States, to be held on 6-7 and 10-12 May, as per the circular letter (CL/4338) sent in January 2021, followed by the letter ref. SC/PCB/SPP/2376 sent in April 2021.”
“At its 40th session in November 2019, UNESCO’s General Conference decided to elaborate a draft Recommendation on Open Science.
The first draft of the Recommendation on Open Science was sent to UNESCO Member States in September 2020 (CL/4333), requesting their comments and observations by 31 December 2020. The Open Science Advisory Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat have taken these comments into account in the draft text of the Recommendation and the related final report, sent to UNESCO Member States in March 2021 (CL/4349).
The draft text of the Recommendation will be examined by technical and legal experts, designated by Member States, at the intergovernmental special committee meeting related to the draft UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, which will take place online on 6-7 May and 10-12 May 2021 (letter ref. SC/PCB/SPP/2376 sent on 12 April 2021, following CL/4338 sent in January 2021).
The draft approved at the intergovernmental meeting will be submitted to Member States in August 2021, with a view to its adoption by the General Conference at its 41st session in November 2021….”
“Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council has proposed that immediate open-access publication of research resulting from its grants should become mandatory.
The council already requires researchers to list their patents on the government’s SourceIP website, but its existing policy allows a 12-month delay to open-access publication of NHMRC-funded research.
The proposed reforms would involve researchers publishing in open repositories, circumventing publishers’ fees, as well as publishing in traditional journals. Authors would be required to retain the rights to publish and share their work. It would also encourage researchers to release non-peer-reviewed preprints.
The proposals are contained in a discussion paper released by the council in April and would take effect from the beginning of 2022….”
“NHMRC supports the sharing of outputs from NHMRC funded research including publications and data. The aims of the NHMRC Open Access Policy are to mandate the open access sharing of publications and encourage innovative open access to research data. This policy also requires that patents resulting from NHMRC funding be made findable through listing in SourceIP….
NHMRC is seeking input from relevant stakeholders about proposed revisions to the Open Access Policy and Further Guidance. The proposed revisions are limited to sections of the documents about publications….”
“Over the last few months, the Open Pharma Accessibility workstream has been hard at work, drafting our recommendations for the ‘minimum standard’ for multi-stakeholder plain language summaries of publications. These recommendations were the focus of the January 2021 Roundtable, during which we heard feedback on the recommendations from Open Pharma Members, Supporters and key Advisers.
Now, we’re asking for your input! The one-page recommendations document is available to read on our figshare page. If you have any thoughts, questions or comments, or if you just want your voice to be heard, you can email us at OxfordProject@pharmagenesis.com or join the conversation on Twitter. Please make sure to share your insights before the end of the consultation period on 31 March 2021!…”
“The Library Copyright Alliance (“LCA”) welcomes this opportunity to provide its comments on the December 18, 2020 discussion draft of the “Digital Copyright Act of 2021.” LCA consists of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries. These associations collectively represent over 100,000 libraries in the United States employing more than 300,000 librarians and other personnel. An estimated 200 million Americans use these libraries more than two billion times each year. U.S. libraries spend over $4 billion annually purchasing or licensing copyrighted works. At the outset, LCA states that it disagrees with the basic premise of the draft articulated in the press release announcing the release of the draft. Contrary to the press release, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) does not “show the strain of a statute that has not adapted well to the technological advancements and changing business practices that have occurred since” 1998. Likewise, copyright law today is not “ill-suited for the needs of most copyright owners and individual users.” Further, the copyright framework does not need to “better encourage the creation of copyrightable works.” Based on this disagreement with the draft’s premise, LCA strongly opposes section 2 of the draft, which would amend the DMCA’s safe harbors for online service providers….”
“The draft Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) has been uploaded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) on its website. The DST has also invited suggestions, inputs and comments for making changes by January 25.
The draft policy says an all-encompassing Open Science Framework will be built to provide access to scientific data, information, knowledge and resources to everyone in the country and all who are engaging with the Indian STI ecosystem on an equal partnership basis.
A dedicated portal to provide access to the outputs of such publicly-funded research will be created through the Indian Science and Technology Archive of Research (INDSTA)…..”
“STIP will lead to the establishment of a National STI Observatory that will act as a central repository for all kinds of data related to and generated from the STI ecosystem. It will encompass an open centralised database platform for all financial schemes, programmes, grants and incentives existing in the ecosystem. The Observatory will be centrally coordinated and organized in distributed, networked and interoperable manner among relevant stakeholders.
A future-looking, all-encompassing Open Science Framework will be built to provide access to scientific data, information, knowledge, and resources to everyone in the country and all who are engaging with the Indian STI ecosystem on an equal partnership basis. All data used in and generated from publicly-funded research will be available to everyone under FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) terms. A dedicated portal to provide access to the outputs of such publicly-funded research will be created through Indian Science and Technology Archive of Research (INDSTA). Additionally, full text of final accepted author versions of manuscripts (postprints and optionally preprints) supported through public funding will be deposited to an institutional or central repository. The policy will create pathways for the Government to negotiate with journal publishers for a “one nation, one subscription” policy whereby, in return for one centrally-negotiated payment, all individuals in India will have access to journal articles….”