“The following questionnaire is part of the research conducted for the European project TRIPLE. The questionnaire is aimed at the general public. In the following you will be asked mainly a number of questions about your attitudes about the funding of science and about crowdfunding, the practice of funding a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people who each contribute a relatively small amount, typically via the internet. Known crowdfunding platforms include kickstarter, Indiegogo or gofundme. This research will help the project in taking some decisions for the creation of a crowdfunding platform for supporting research in Social Sciences and Humanities….”
Abstract: Knowledge of how science is consumed in public domains is essential for a deeper understanding of the role of science in human society. While science is heavily supported by public funding, common depictions suggest that scientific research remains an isolated or ‘ivory tower’ activity, with weak connectivity to public use, little relationship between the quality of research and its public use, and little correspondence between the funding of science and its public use. This paper introduces a measurement framework to examine public good features of science, allowing us to study public uses of science, the public funding of science, and how use and funding relate. Specifically, we integrate five large-scale datasets that link scientific publications from all scientific fields to their upstream funding support and downstream public uses across three public domains – government documents, the news media, and marketplace invention. We find that the public uses of science are extremely diverse, with different public domains drawing distinctively across scientific fields. Yet amidst these differences, we find key forms of alignment in the interface between science and society. First, despite concerns that the public does not engage high-quality science, we find universal alignment, in each scientific field and public domain, between what the public consumes and what is highly impactful within science. Second, despite myriad factors underpinning the public funding of science, the resulting allocation across fields presents a striking alignment with the field’s collective public use. Overall, public uses of science present a rich landscape of specialized consumption, yet collectively science and society interface with remarkable, quantifiable alignment between scientific use, public use, and funding.
“In the discussions about the merits and demerits of collaboration, what tends to be missed though are the untapped potentials that exist in collaborations not just between academics, or between disciplines, or between academics and external organisations, or between academics and the public, but between academics, scholarly libraries, and publishers of scholarly work. This the subject of a new report co-authored by Elli Gerakopoulou, Izabella Penier and me. It focuses on the possibilities that might exist for collaboration between scholarly libraries and open access book publishers, including the kinds of open access publishers led by academics represented by ScholarLed, one of the partners in the COPIM project and with which I am also involved. The report draws on a combination of interviews, workshop discussions (including one workshop with librarians in the US, one in the UK, and one with publishers), and pre-workshop surveys with librarians and individuals involved in library consortia, as well as desk research.
In the report we examine various forms of collaboration that characterise the existing landscape of open access book publishing. This includes examining library membership programmes, of the kind run by both publishers — examples include programmes run by Lever Press, Luminos, punctum books, and Open Book Publishers — and infrastructure providers — notably the OAPEN library membership programme. We also look at intermediaries that aim to increase the likelihood of open access book publishers being able to receive financial support from scholarly libraries, such as Knowledge Unlatched and TOME. This forms part of a scoping exercise to enable us and our readers to understand the diversity of types of collaboration that already exist between and around open access publishers and scholarly libraries and where there are possibilities to learn from such initiatives….”
“This report tackles a simple question: how can open access books be more successfully integrated into scholarly libraries? While there are some important practical efforts being made to address this question in a variety of different contexts, we explore the areas where further work is required to progress from a situation in which supporting and integrating open access books often remains a peripheral concern for libraries.
The report draws on desk research alongside a combination of interviews, workshop discussions and pre-workshop surveys with librarians and individuals involved in library consortia. It explores issues such as the discoverability of open access content in library catalogues, the sustainability of open access monograph publishing, the difficulty of articulating the value of open access for supporting universities and the challenge of aligning open access values with those of stakeholders. It also reimagines a more diverse and inclusive system of scholarly communication in relation to open access monographs. As part of this, the report outlines some of the principles that could inform a new open access model/platform aimed at transforming the relationship between open access book publishers and libraries….”
“Using existing budget and subscription processes without imposing paywalls, S2O provides a rapid route to open access that is applicable to research from all disciplines and all countries. cOAlition S encourages publishers to seriously consider the Subscribe to Open Model as a model for achieving full transformation to open access publishing and Plan S compliance.”
“A representative of Crossref has said that the not-for-profit scholarly communications organisation is expecting a rapid expansion in the number of research grants that are allocated unique identifiers to allow anyone to easily search for resulting papers or data.
Speaking at the annual conference of the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators on 15 April, Rachael Lammey, head of special programmes at Crossref, said the organisation had already labelled just under 17,000 grants with unique codes known as digital object identifiers….”
“Data Management Plans
ARL is heartened to see Congress acknowledge the necessity of machine-readable data management plans (DMPs) and open repositories in supporting the academic research enterprise. At a National Science Foundation–funded conference on effective data practices in December 2019, ARL, along with the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the California Digital Library, convened stakeholders including university research officers, scientists, and librarians. Conference participants agreed that data management planning is important for sharing and use of research data and outputs. Participants suggested that the ability to update plans (“just in time”) across the project life cycle and as part of progress reporting would accelerate the value and adoption of DMPs among researchers, beyond what is required for compliance.
ARL encourages the development of a collaborative set of data repository criteria. Coordination among federal agencies will be necessary, as will stakeholder input from researchers, repository managers, librarians, and others. ARL looks forward to continuing these conversations and building upon work already underway within groups such as the Confederation of Open Access Repositories, the Research Data Alliance, and the World Data System….”
“By law, any material required for the education of a disabled student must be made accessible for them in a timely manner. In the United States, the legal obligation to provide accessible learning materials falls on individual educational institutions, and universities and colleges across the country are scrambling to meet their responsibilities to students with special information-access needs. The staff of disability services offices (DSOs) spend a great deal of time and effort remediating printed texts, transforming them into a variety of electronic formats to improve access for students with print disabilities. Because many of the same texts are commonly assigned at multiple institutions, the result is a wasteful duplication of effort as the DSO staff at each independent university must start the remediation work over again.
For the last two years, the University of Virginia Library has led a multi-institutional project to address this problem. With a two-year grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, University Librarian John Unsworth initiated an effort to create a web-based infrastructure allowing DSOs to share remediated texts, in order to reduce their nationwide duplication of effort, and thereby make it possible for the staff in these offices to achieve better outcomes for students in higher education….”
“To speed up the transformation to Open Access (OA), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) will be funding 20 innovative projects over the next two years. We are proud to announce that ScienceOpen is participating with a project around Open Access book metadata for increased discoverability, and we would like to give a preview here of what we are working on.
As the ecosystem of book publishing continues to adhere more to traditional print processes, the industry’s infrastructures are developing new ways to improve the discovery and visibility of academic books content.
While publishers have been looking into additional outlets and platforms to represent, promote, or sell their print and e-publications portfolio, librarians and service providers are making great advances to overhaul their (e-)catalogues and databases. However, much of the book and monograph output still could do with a little boost in visibility and simplified communication between various the systems and platforms. OA books are essential for the transformation of the whole scholarly landscape, and one of the greatest advantages of open access for monographs is full, immediate accessibility. But even those sometimes suffer from a lack of available digitalized bibliographic data. Thus, discoverability of OA books can be lower because of missing metadata or due to missing portability and interoperability based on an incompatibility of formats or plain differences in requirements that prevent uptake in library catalogues and search portals or databases. In a nutshell: Books that cannot be found cannot be read….”
“The University Libraries have committed to funding at least one, and possibly two, CU Boulder faculty publishing peer-reviewed, open access monographs through the multi-partner initiative Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem (TOME).
A project of the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of University Presses (AUP), TOME aims to bring scholars, universities, libraries and presses together to establish a more sustainable funding model for scholarly publication.
As of this month, 20 universities—including CU Boulder—have pledged to support TOME. Dean of Libraries and Senior Vice Provost of Online Education Robert McDonald says the University Libraries look forward to seeing CU Boulder faculty create open access monograph-length scholarship….”