Has Covid-19 changed researcher behaviour? | News | Wellcome

“On 31 January 2020, Wellcome published a statement calling on researchers, journals and funders to ‘share interim and final research data relating to the outbreak… as rapidly and widely as possible’.   

This statement has now been signed by more than 150 organisations including publishers, scientific institutions and preprint repositories.  

Signing a statement is one thing, acting on it something else. Has the research community done enough to share their data openly and transparently? And will these commitments lead to a collaborative and transparent research culture? …”

Austria: Rapid progress on clinical trial reporting

“Led by Europe’s largest academic trial sponsor, Austrian universities are now making their clinical trial results public at an impressive pace. In parallel, national medicines regulator BASG is intensifying its efforts to promote clinical trial transparency.

Overall, Austria’s 14 largest sponsors have made 37% of their due trial results public, compared to just 18% a year ago. Results are still missing for 233 long-completed trials.

Over the past year, the country’s three major medical universities alone have uploaded 65 trial results onto the European trial registry….”

Advancing Open Access in the Netherlands after 2020: from quantity to quality | Zenodo

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

 

Baromètre français de la Science Ouverte 2020

From Google’s English: “According to the 2020 edition of the Open Science Barometer (BSO), 56% of the 156,000 French scientific publications published in 2019 are available opened in December 2020. The rate observed in December 2019, relating to publications produced in 2018, was only 49%. The rate therefore increased by 7 points in one year. From one discipline to another, the proportion of open access varies greatly, from 75% for publications in Mathematics to 40% in Engineering Sciences. In addition, scientific publications published in 2018 or in previous years have an open rate increasing over time. In particular, those published in 2018 are now 54% open (+5 points compared to December 2019), and the increase, which concerns all disciplines, is greater in those less open….”

EDP Sciences – The National Open Access Agreement in France judged “a real success” as key targets are surpassed

“The partners involved in the “Accord national open access en France” (National Open Access Agreement in France) are pleased to announce that the agreement is exceeding their expectations when judged against key targets. The Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation – MESRI), the Couperin consortium, the Agence bibliographique de l’enseignement supérieur (Abes) and EDP Sciences are delighted with the results so far and agree that the excellent relationship between the partners has been a significant aspect of this success.

The Accord national was established in January 2017 and its success is being judged in the following areas:

Number of members and opt-in rate
Processes and support given to corresponding authors
Reporting and data
Volume of open access content…”

EDP Sciences – The National Open Access Agreement in France judged “a real success” as key targets are surpassed

“The partners involved in the “Accord national open access en France” (National Open Access Agreement in France) are pleased to announce that the agreement is exceeding their expectations when judged against key targets. The Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation – MESRI), the Couperin consortium, the Agence bibliographique de l’enseignement supérieur (Abes) and EDP Sciences are delighted with the results so far and agree that the excellent relationship between the partners has been a significant aspect of this success.

The Accord national was established in January 2017 and its success is being judged in the following areas:

Number of members and opt-in rate
Processes and support given to corresponding authors
Reporting and data
Volume of open access content…”

How the world is adapting to preprints

“A certain trend emerged from the preprint discussions. Praise for preprints and their virtues was reliably bracketed by an acknowledgement that the medium was a bit green and a bit untamed: the Wild West of scientific publishing, where anything can happen.

Similar analogies from the publishing community have been abundant. At a talk organized by the Society for Scholarly Publishing, Shirley Decker-Lucke, Content Director at SSRN, likened preprints to raw oysters: They’re generally safe, but sometimes you get a bad one. On the same panel, Lyle Ostrow, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Johns Hopkins, compared the adoption of preprints to the shift from horse-drawn buggies to automobiles: They’re faster, they’re better, but they will require education to use safely. The following week, a Scholarly Kitchen article about preprints drew a parallel with unruly teenagers: “tremendous promise, but in need of more adult supervision to achieve their potential”….

As it is, most preprint servers have not been agnostic about the papers they post. Generally, they restrict passage of content that is clearly unscientific, unethical, potentially harmful or not representative of a novel, empirically derived finding. That is, they already impose some editorial standards.

Preprint platforms offer authors a legitimate place to host their work with unprecedented speed, for free. In time, they could be in a position to enforce, or at least strongly incentivize, standards that are widely acknowledged to support research integrity, like data and code availability, details of randomization and blinding, study limitations and lay summaries for findings that are consequential to human health….”

How the world is adapting to preprints

“A certain trend emerged from the preprint discussions. Praise for preprints and their virtues was reliably bracketed by an acknowledgement that the medium was a bit green and a bit untamed: the Wild West of scientific publishing, where anything can happen.

Similar analogies from the publishing community have been abundant. At a talk organized by the Society for Scholarly Publishing, Shirley Decker-Lucke, Content Director at SSRN, likened preprints to raw oysters: They’re generally safe, but sometimes you get a bad one. On the same panel, Lyle Ostrow, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Johns Hopkins, compared the adoption of preprints to the shift from horse-drawn buggies to automobiles: They’re faster, they’re better, but they will require education to use safely. The following week, a Scholarly Kitchen article about preprints drew a parallel with unruly teenagers: “tremendous promise, but in need of more adult supervision to achieve their potential”….

As it is, most preprint servers have not been agnostic about the papers they post. Generally, they restrict passage of content that is clearly unscientific, unethical, potentially harmful or not representative of a novel, empirically derived finding. That is, they already impose some editorial standards.

Preprint platforms offer authors a legitimate place to host their work with unprecedented speed, for free. In time, they could be in a position to enforce, or at least strongly incentivize, standards that are widely acknowledged to support research integrity, like data and code availability, details of randomization and blinding, study limitations and lay summaries for findings that are consequential to human health….”

PLAN S and other progress for Open Access to knowledge

Abstract:  The principle of Open Access (OA) is about the breaking of any paywall to the knowledge coming from research funded by public monies. After twenty years of statements not much has changed and the market of scientific journals is still in the hands of oligopolistic companies. Plan S is a disruptive initiative created by research funders in Europe and US which aims to foster the transition to Open Access by acting against hybrid journals and citation index. The Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) has signed Plan S and, in close relationship with the Universities, the Conference of Rectors (CRUI), and the National Research Council (CNR), is outreaching the academic communities to discuss strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.  In this work both a description of Plan S and a brief status report of other initiatives are given.