“Utrecht University wants to promote open science as part of its promise to make science more open and even more reliable, efficient and relevant to society. In order to follow up on the ambition formulated in the strategic plan (pdf), the Rector Magnificus commissioned a task force, supported by a university library work group, to draft an Open Science Programme for the period 2018-2021.
Utrecht University aims to be at the forefront of open science. Therefore, the Executive Board has launched the Utrecht University Open Science Programme. A programme that aims to stimulate and facilitate researchers to put open science into practice. Read the most recent version (pdf)….”
Special issue of Informatics Studies on the work OA/OS advocacy of Sander Dekker.
“The current crisis around the Corona virus revealed the importance of Open Access and Open Science – unfettered access to scientific and scholarly information, for scientists, researchers, academicians, journalists and the public alike – for effectively dealing with such calamities. It is the efforts of Sander Dekker during the last decade to implement Open Access by legislation and involvement of European Union; that made it easy for the scientific community to place their research results on Covid-19 under Open Access to arrest the spread of the pandemic. Considering the importance of the contributions of Dekker in the efforts of humanity to sustain life on this planet; the present issue of Informatics Studies is devoted for collecting together historical documents reflecting his work, with two reviews of his career and contributions.”
“The TU Delft Open Science programme held its very first thematic session on the Recognition and Rewards cross-cutting theme on October 5, 2020. The Open Science Programme currently has 5 projects and 3 cross-cutting themes, from FAIR software to Open Education. This means that the programme core team is composed of members from many different departments (not only within the Library), bringing in their diverse perspectives and skills! But this also poses a challenge on teamwork- we need a way for us to all stay in touch, be able to see and learn from each other’s work, and contribute and provide feedback – hence the idea of the thematic sessions.Ingrid Vos, the leader of the Recognition and Rewards theme, has kindly volunteered to lead this first thematic session. Since this theme relates to everyone’s work within the Open Science Programme, Ingrid wanted to make sure everyone can be effectively engaged in the session and their voices can be heard – more on this below.Key takeaways: A re-examination of rewards and recognition is needed to further fuel the cultural and behavioural changes towards open science TU Delft’s work in this aspect builds upon VSNU’s “Room for everyone’s talent” position paper. Every university in the Netherlands has a committee on Recognition & Rewards. The TU Delft committee is led by Ena Voûte. The Open Science Programme team had fruitful discussions around open research and education behaviours and “products”, how to evaluate, appreciate and reward these, as well as emerging career paths We’d love to hear your ideas and thoughts, both on rewards and recognition and on how you’d like to contribute and participate in these discussions- please use the comment section of this post! …”
“However, the current landscape of research infrastructures presents two main issues. First, academic independence is threatened since overviews, evaluations and assessments of scholarship depend on citation databases governed by private enterprises. Second, where metadata on scholarly communications is available in public infrastructures, this metadata is fragmented and lacking in quality and/or coverage. As such, the core values of an open knowledge base (OKB) can be summarised as related to two concerns. First, to protect academic independence by opening up the metadata and metrics underlying assessments of scholarship and becoming less dependent on private enterprises for providing data and software. Second, to improve and enhance the quality and coverage of metadata available in the Dutch landscape of infrastructures on scholarly communications. By incorporating metadata on scholarly communications in an open infrastructure that not only digests but enriches and redistributes metadata, we posit that an OKB may establish a feedback loop, see figure above. Through such a feedback loop, metadata coverage and quality are improved in the OKB by integrating, harmonising and enriching metadata from multiple sources including participating CRISs, open infrastructures (e.g., CrossRef, Orcid, ROR) and research intelligence services. These improvements and enrichments are fed back into institutional CRISs to improve metadata and subsequently overviews and reports at the local institutional level. To this end, the OKB posits two proposals. First, a technological proposal of an open data layer that is interoperable and that prevents vertical integration by separating the data from the services. Second, a governance proposal to develop and maintain this technology and create buy-in from research institutes.”
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore options to further open access in the Netherlands from 2021. Its premise is that there is a need to look at qualitative aspects of open access, alongside quantitative ones. The paper first takes stock of progress that has been made. Next, we suggest to broaden the agenda by involving more types of actors and involve other scholarly formats (like books, chapters, proceedings, preprints and textbooks). At the same time we suggest to deepen the open access agenda by including several open access characteristics: immediacy, open licenses, open metadata, open peer review and diamond open access. To facilitate discussion,a framework is proposed that allows specifying these actions by the a) aspects of open access they address (what is made open access, how/when/where it is made open access, and copyright and rights retention), b) the actors that play a role (government, research institutions, funders), and c) the various levels at which these actions can be taken: state as goal, set as policy, legalize and promote, recognize and reward, finance, support with infrastructure. A template is provided to ease the use of the framework.
A live version of this spreadsheet with the framework described in this article is available at https://tinyurl.com/dutchoapolicies
“Given these considerations, a large-scale ICU data sharing collaboration in The Netherlands was initiated for the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW, Fig. 1). While the database is growing, at this point, the DDW combines pseudonymized EHR data from 23 intensive care units covering the entire ICU admission of all adult COVID-19 patients treated in these ICUs. Collected data include data from monitoring and life support devices, demographics, medication, fluid balance, comorbidities, laboratory results, and outcomes. All parameters were manually reviewed by intensive care professionals and mapped to a common ontology. A software data pipeline converted units, filtered data entry errors, and calculated derived clinical parameters. Data validation was a continuous process including hospital data verification and visual inspection of distribution plots….”
This presentation was given by Johan Rooryck during the Open Access Talk on 29 October 2020. Johan Rooryck, Professor at Leiden University and Executive Director of cOAlition S, briefly outlines the rationale for the principles of Plan S. Beyond that, he discusses its implementation for all grants awarded by cOAlition S funders from 1 January 2021, including the Horizon Europe framework. In his talk, Johan Rooryck covers the following questions: Which conditions do you need to fulfil to publish in a journal of your choice under Plan S? What can the newly developed Journal Checker Tool do for you? How does the recent Rights Retention Strategy help you to keep the rights to your Author Accepted Manuscript? In addition, Johan Rooryck mentions a number of other projects initiated by cOAlition S, such as the Price Transparency Framework to ensure that prices for publishing services become more transparent and fair or the commission of a study to identify concrete funding mechanisms to support and strengthen diamond journals and their platforms. The lecture “Plan S and funding – What is going to change?” was held as part of the Open Access Talk online series of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network.
“When historians seek to research what Dutch citizens did during Nazi Germany’s occupation of the Netherlands, they have access to a stack of files that’s taller than the National Mall in Washington, DC.
Twenty years ago, those files of the “Central Archive of Special Jurisdiction” were deposited at the Dutch National Archives in The Hague. Suddenly, 300,000 case files on Dutch citizens suspected of having collaborated with Nazis were made available to everyone….
The climate in the Netherlands differs sharply from an allegedly “research-muzzling” atmosphere in Poland. On February 9, a district court ordered prominent Holocaust historians Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking to apologize to a woman who claimed the scholars slandered her deceased uncle….
In Poland, research into the Holocaust has become a lightning rod since the Law and Justice party was elected in 2015. Simultaneously, the digitization of the Netherlands’ “special jurisdiction” archive has helped researchers piece together a diverse mosaic of Dutch citizens’ wartime behavior….
Poland has its own version of the “Central Archive of Special Jurisdiction.” In 1989, files from the communist-era security services became available to the public, including those related to Nazi collaborators….
According to Grabowski, Poland’s “History Laws” are intended to “defend the good name of the Polish nation.” Any claims that Poland bore responsibility for the Holocaust are now criminalized, despite the historian’s documentation that 200,000 Jews were murdered by their Polish neighbors….”
“Join us to give global society free & reliable access to scientific articles they need to expand their knowledge horizon, develop their institutional capacities and grow their business….
The United Academics Foundation (UAF) is a not-for-profit organization. It was founded in January 2013 by Louis Lapidaire, Robert Paul Kuiper and Anouk Vleugels. The Foundation is based in Amsterdam, but our team is international, with a group of dedicated people working remotely on several continents….
The mission of the United Academics Foundation (UAF) is to connect science and society: creating a world where scientific research results are accessible for all, so that knowledge can be easily spread and built upon….”
Abstract: The spreadsheet provide a multidimensional framework for furthering open access to research output. Combining three dimensions (i.e. aspects of open access, actors involved and the levels at which actions can be taken) results in a multidimensional framework that can inform future developments. Vertically, the different aspects of open access are projected. Horizontally, the five “levels of engagement” are presented for each of the different actors relevant for open access in the Dutch context. The framework can be used in various ways. For instance one could fill it with current actions/policies. But one could also use it to prioritize or plan future actions. This file set contains both the template and the versions filled with current actions relevant for researchers in the Nederlands in PDF format, in spreadsheet format and as presentation slides.