This briefing paper aims to support decision makers at research organisations and research funders to develop new monitoring exercises or assess and improve existing processes to measure the Open Access status of publications.
The availability of data and information on the current state of scholarly publishing is invaluable to help advance Open Access. Given the complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this involves a multitude of decisions.
This briefing paper provides recommendations on the three main questions an organisation should answer to develop a monitoring exercise: Why, What, and How?
Examples of different monitoring exercises have been selected to represent different use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and strategies of interpretation.
“Last month the National Health and Medical Research Council sought submissions on going immediate OA on publication. If publishers refuse the council suggested authors’ accepted manuscripts could be made available by named institutional repositories (CMM April 16).
Which is good, but Drs Kingsley and Smith (both ex Cambridge University’s Office of Scholarly Communication) suggest tighter wording to make intent impossible to ignore.
And they call for checks, which institutions could use to make sure OA actually occurs. “There is evidence that even ‘light touch’ compliance checking results in significant behavioural change,” they write. Especially if “there is a significant consequence for non-compliance,” – which could be tying grants to OA rules….”
From Google’s English: “The indicator is produced and launched annually by the Danish Agency for Education and Research, which is part of the Ministry of Education and Research. The indicator monitors the implementation of the Danish Open Access strategy 2018-2025 by collecting and analyzing publication data from the Danish universities.
OVERVIEW – National strategic goals and the realization of them at national and university level.
OA TYPES – Types of Open Access realization at national and local level.
DATA – Data for download as well as documentation at an overview and technical level.
GUIDANCE – Information to support the Danish universities’ implementation of Open Access, such as important dates and guidelines.
FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions….”
Abstract: In 2019, the Governing Council of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) adopted a Policy on Scientific Integrity, Transparency, and Openness (SRCD, 2019a) and accompanying Author Guidelines on Scientific Integrity and Openness in Child Development (SRCD, 2019b). In this issue, a companion article (Gennetian, Tamis?LeMonda, & Frank) discusses the opportunities to realize SRCD’s vision for a science of child development that is open, transparent, robust, and impactful. In this article, we discuss some of the challenges associated with realizing SRCD’s vision. In identifying these challenges—protecting participants and researchers from harm, respecting diversity, and balancing the benefits of change with the costs—we also offer constructive solutions.
“The OA2020 Community of Practice was established to expand the shared knowledge and implementation of OA (open access) and transformative agreement principles and mechanisms.
The number of new open access and transformative agreements is rapidly growing, yet an understanding of how they work is far from universal. Mutual exchanges of ideas, tactics, and a deeper knowledge of the current and potential models will foster opportunities for open access publishing on a larger scale.
Experienced OA and transformative agreement pioneers share their experiences and approaches and collaboratively address emerging issues and models. Collectively, the Community discusses such topics as the importance of data analysis in agreements, faculty and institutional buy-in, and the impact of shifting funding models and workflows into open access….”
Abstract: This article describes a program session covering the nuances and complexities of “Read and Publish” transformative agreements. The session, a panel led by Assistant Marketing Director at AIP Publishing, Sara Rotjan, included the perspectives of three individuals – the researcher, the publisher, and the librarian – to give audience members a well-rounded idea of how transformative agreements are being negotiated from various stakeholders in Open Access publishing. In addition to outlining the infrastructures of the “Read and Publish” model, panelists also detailed the unique role they play in developing and implementing “Read and Publish” models at their own institutions. They also discussed some of the challenges with “Read and Publish” models and how these challenges are being addressed by internal and external stakeholders.
“A new database established by a collaborative team including Penn State University Libraries aims to provide centralized, consistent access to scholarly research metadata for Penn State faculty research, while eliminating much of the administrative work involved with research-activity reporting software used by higher education faculty.
The Researcher Metadata Database (RMD) aggregates content from multiple scholarly research databases including Digital Measures, Pure, the Penn State Electronic Theses and Dissertations database, National Science Foundation (NSF), Open Access Button and Clarivate (formerly Web of Science). RMD’s function not only helps to create a single access programming interface (API) for faculty profiles and department web pages, but also facilitates implementation of Penn State’s Open Access Policy and the ability to generate reports on common data requests.
A unique feature of the RMD Is the ability to push information to the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) system, whose identifiers are increasingly used by funding organizations such as NSF and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a source of information on research activity, including biographical sketches of researchers….”
“In 2018, a group of mostly European funders sent shock waves through the world of scientific publishing by proposing an unprecedented rule: The scientists they funded would be required to make journal articles developed with their support immediately free to read when published.
The new requirement, which takes effect starting this month, seeks to upend decades of tradition in scientific publishing, whereby scientists publish their research in journals for free and publishers make money by charging universities and other institutions for subscriptions. Advocates of the new scheme, called Plan S (the “S” stands for the intended “shock” to the status quo), hope to destroy subscription paywalls and speed scientific progress by allowing findings to be shared more freely. It’s part of a larger shift in scientific communication that began more than 20 years ago and has recently picked up steam.
Scientists have several ways to comply with Plan S, including by paying publishers a fee to make an article freely available on a journal website, or depositing the article in a free public repository where anyone can download it. The mandate is the first by an international coalition of funders, which now includes 17 agencies and six foundations, including the Wellcome Trust and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, two of the world’s largest funders of biomedical research….”
Abstract: The SHARC Interest Group of the Research Data Alliance was established to improve research crediting and rewarding mechanisms for scientists who wish to organise their data (and material resources) for community sharing. This requires that data are findable and accessible on the Web, and comply with shared standards making them interoperable and reusable in alignment with the FAIR principles. It takes considerable time, energy, expertise and motivation. It is imperative to facilitate the processes to encourage scientists to share their data. To that aim, supporting FAIR principles compliance processes and increasing the human understanding of FAIRness criteria – i.e., promoting FAIRness literacy – and not only the machine-readability of the criteria, are critical steps in the data sharing process. Appropriate human-understandable criteria must be the first identified in the FAIRness assessment processes and roadmap. This paper reports on the lessons learned from the RDA SHARC Interest Group on identifying the processes required to prepare FAIR implementation in various communities not specifically data skilled, and on the procedures and training that must be deployed and adapted to each practice and level of understanding. These are essential milestones in developing adapted support and credit back mechanisms not yet in place.