Chief Scientist on her brief from government: “this is a fabulous thing” | Campus Morning Mail

“Dr Foley also set out the “four critical foundation issues” she will champion

* AI and quantum computing

* education. “If Australia is to avoid locking in a two-speed society, we need people with the expertise to design, develop and operate future technologies”

* diversity, “It should not need saying that we are more likely to succeed if we use our full human potential … including the knowledge base of Indigenous Australians.”

* open access. “Access to information is the great enabler for innovation and for research commercialisation.  Lack of access to information is a real roadblock, and hinders our ability to compete internationally.”

Dr Foley added, she is “closely considering” an “OA strategy in Australia.” …”

Strategy 2021 to 2022 – DOAJ News Service

“Strategic objectives

Secure a sustainable funding model
With a focus on a sustaining support model.

Improve DOAJ’s value and place in the discovery chain
Develop strategic relationships with discovery services, integrate features and services that enhance DOAJ’s position, and improve coverage.

Communicate the value of DOAJ and raise our profile
Implement a Communications strategy, use multiple languages and focus on integrating the DOAJ database in national accreditation programmes.

Continue to focus on our key activity of reviewing applications and journals
Make our key services even faster and even more efficient, and increase the diversity of our coverage….”

The UK National Data Strategy 2020: engaging for resilience – The ODI

“At the ODI, we want a world where data works for everyone, and our manifesto outlines how this vision can be achieved. Engagement is one of our manifesto points. Everyone must be able to take part in making data work for us all. Organisations and communities should collaborate on how data is used and accessed to help solve their problems. How could this principle be realised in a national data strategy?”

Open access: “Information wants to be free”?

“Below is a list of the main points I make in this document

– Internet mantras like information wants to be free misled OA advocates about what is possible in an online world. Amongst other things, these mantras led to the mistaken belief that publishing would be very much cheaper on the internet.

– BOAI was intended to achieve three things: to resolve the longstanding problems of affordability, accessibility, and equity that have long dogged scholarly communication.

– It now seems unlikely that the affordability and equity problems will be resolved, which will impact disproportionately negatively on those in the Global South. And if the geopolitical situation worsens, solving the accessibility problem may also prove difficult.

– OA advocates overestimated the wider research community’s likely interest in open access. This led them to lobby governments and funders to insist that they force open access on their peers. This was a mistake as it opened the door to OA being captured by neoliberalism.

– The goals of the OA movement are out of sync with the current economic and political environment. This is not good news for scholarly communication, for library budgets or for OA.

– Populism and nationalism pose a significant threat to open access. – The pandemic looks set to wreak havoc on budgets. This is likely to be bad news for OA.

– Rather than being a democratic force for good, the internet created power laws and network effects that saw neoliberalism morph into neofeudalism and paved the way for the surveillance capitalism and data extractivism that the web giants have pioneered. These negative phenomena look likely to become a feature of scholarly communication too.

– Today we see a mix of incompatible strategies being pursued by libraries, funders, and OA advocates – including unbundling, transformative agreements and the adoption of publishing platforms, as well as experiments with scholar-led and “collective action” initiatives. There appears to be no coherent overarching strategy. This could have perverse effects, which has in fact been an abiding feature of OA initiatives.

– OA advocates have unrealistic expectations about diamond open access and the possibility of the research community “taking back ownership” of scholarly communication.

– While publicly funded OA infrastructures would be highly desirable there currently seems to be little likelihood that governments will be willing to fund them, certainly at the necessary scale and with sufficient commitment.

– OA advocates have probably overplayed their claim that publishers are engaged in price gouging. Nevertheless, the industry consolidation we have seen has led to a publishing oligopoly that now dominates scientific publishing in a troubling way. And as these companies develop ever larger and more sophisticated platforms and portals, we can expect to see more worrying implications than high costs emerge. Unfortunately, governments and competition authorities currently seem either not to understand the dangers or are unwilling to act….”

Manager of Public Policy & Advocacy

“Assist the Executive Director in the development of SPARC’s policy goals and priorities, and lead SPARC’s implementation of federal advocacy with Congress and the Executive Branch. This will include:

Monitor and report on legislative and regulatory activities related to SPARC’s policy priorities.
Track the development of relevant international, federal, and state policy to identify trends or future problems.
Provide in-depth analysis of regulations, guidance, and legislation (existing and proposed) as it affects SPARC’s priorities.
Draft clear compelling materials for policymakers, SPARC members, and the public, including reports, fact sheets, FAQs, talking points, memorandums, and public comments.
Represent SPARC in meetings with policymakers and staff (in Congress, Executive branch, etc.) and provide regular feedback to SPARC leadership.
Represent SPARC in relevant coalitions, and develop and maintain partnerships with key collaborative organizations.
Oversee policy advocacy engagement with the SPARC membership, coalition partners, and the broader open community.
As a member of the management team, provide vital input for short- and long-term strategic and operational planning within the organization specific to the policy agenda….”

Statement by the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) on combatting COVID-19: the importance of sharing knowledge to create a comprehensive and publicly available evidence-base

The COVID-19 outbreak is affecting everyone worldwide, and policymakers, scientists and practitioners are exploring uncharted territory while trying to get to grips with this new virus. Especially in such times of great uncertainty, building on up-to-date and accurate information is crucial. Robust systems of epidemic intelligence that can provide solid national and regional-level epidemiological data to inform modelling of disease transmission at the population level, and ultimately offer effective guidance on public health action, are needed. Sharing data, research outcomes and experiences in order to build a common, growing body of intelligence is key when battling the outbreak and saving lives. Indeed, we see many examples of information being shared, across disciplinary, sectoral and geographical borders, contributing to new insights and accelerated generation of knowledge. EUPHA, as a science-based organisation, commends this open attitude, and calls upon all relevant authorities, organisations and experts to share evidence to the maximum extent possible.

Developing a strategy to improve data sharing in health research: A mixed-methods study to identify barriers and facilitators. – PubMed – NCBI

Abstract:  

BACKGROUND:

Data sharing presents new opportunities across the spectrum of research and is vital for science that is open, where data are easily discoverable, accessible, intelligible, reproducible, replicable and verifiable. Despite this, it is yet to become common practice. Global efforts to develop practical guidance for data sharing and open access initiatives are underway, however evidence-based studies to inform the development and implementation of effective strategies are lacking.

OBJECTIVE:

This study sought to determine the barriers and facilitators to data sharing among health researchers and to identify the target behaviours for designing a behaviour change intervention strategy.

METHOD:

Data were drawn from a cross-sectional survey of data management practices among health researchers from one Australian research institute. Determinants of behaviour were theoretically derived using well-established behavioural models.

RESULTS:

Data sharing practices have been described for 77 researchers, and 6 barriers and 4 facilitators identified. The primary barriers to data sharing included perceived negative consequences and lack of competency to share data. The primary facilitators to data sharing included trust in others using the data and social influence related to public benefit. Intervention functions likely to be most effective at changing target behaviours were also identified.

CONCLUSION:

Results of this study provide a theoretical and evidence-based process to understand the behavioural barriers and facilitators of data sharing among health researchers.

IMPLICATIONS:

Designing interventions that specifically address target behaviours to promote data sharing are important for open researcher practices.

John Willinsky, Copyright’s Constitutional Violation: When the Law Fails to “Promote the Progress of Science” (While Promoting Practically Everything Else)

Draft of a book by John Willinsky, shared in a Google doc.

“A summary of this book’s case for an open access reform of the United States Copyright Act:

A consensus has recently formed among scholarly publishing’s principal stakeholders (including the big publishers) that open access to published research does more than closed subscriptions for the progress of science.
 

This consensus means that the current use of copyright to restrict access to research places the law in violation of the Constitution, which holds that such laws are “to promote the progress of science,” rather than impede it.
 

In lieu of copyright reform, the National Institutes of Health and other parties have created legal and extra-legal workarounds that compromise open access (with embargoes, final drafts, illegal copies), slow its spread, and allow costs to soar, with copyright contributing to open access’ market failure to date.
 

Yet, copyright offers a promising strategy in “compulsory licensing,” which could require, in the case of scholarly publishing, immediate open access to published research and fair compensation to its publishers from its principal institutional users and funders.
 

Such reform would be daunting, if Congress had not amended copyright nearly 60 times in the digital era (but not for science), with many of its reforms now operating internationally, which is the goal for open access copyright reform. …”