“A growing number of funders are eager to encourage grantees to share their research outputs – articles, code and materials, and data. To accelerate the adoption of open norms, deploying the right incentives is of paramount importance. Specifically, the incentive structure needs to both reduce its reliance on publication in high-impact journals as a primary metric, and properly value and reward a range of research outputs.
This Incentivization Blueprint seeks to provide funders with a stepwise approach to adjusting their incentivization schemes to more closely align with open access, open data, open science, and open research. Developed by the Open Research Funders Group, the Blueprint provides organizations with guidance for developing, implementing, and overseeing incentive structures that maximize the visibility and usability of the research they fund.
A number of prominent funders have committed to taking steps to implement the Incentivization Blueprint. Among them are the following: …”
“The ORFG released guidance for funders called, Incentivizing the sharing of research outputs through research assessment: a funder implementation blueprint. The group created the document to assist funders in encouraging researchers to maximize the impact of their work by openly sharing research outputs. The blueprint identifies three goals to be successful:
change the perception that publication in high-impact journals is the only metric that counts;
provide demonstrable evidence that, while journal articles are important, we value and reward all types of research outputs; and
ensure that indicators like the venue of publication or journal impact factor are not used as surrogate measures of quality in researcher assessment.
To do this, the blueprint provides three steps with concrete actions for funders: 1) policy development and declarations, 2) implementation, and 3) engagement. Template language for funders is included in the document to promote easy uptake….”
“We are pleased that more authors are choosing to publish with us, hosting the work of 2000 published authors, a third of whom have published at least twice. Since launch, we have published 291 articles and 846 peer review reports, which are all assigned a DOI.
Research Articles remain our most popular peer reviewed article type, representing 48% of the published work. We’ve seen a rise in other article types, publishing more Open Letters and Study Protocols, at 23% and 15% respectively. We see the value in non-traditional article types, and this increase shows how researchers can benefit from the flexibility of communicating research beyond the standard research article, which isn’t necessarily the best or most appropriate format to convey research. Representing a smaller proportion but no less important are Method Articles, Software Tools and Research Notes at 5%, 4% and 2% respectively….”
“Wellcome has updated its guidance for researchers to help them comply with our open access policy and support them when some journals have discouraged them from making their Author Accepted Manuscripts open access….
‘We are disappointed that some publishers are implementing processes that seek to discourage our researchers from exercising their right to make their Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) open access. We urge these publishers to stop these practices and instead focus their efforts on developing Plan S-aligned publishing options.
‘Where publishers embrace this transition, we will fund fair and reasonable publishing costs. Moreover, under this model, the Version of Record will be made open access, and as such the author will not need to make use of their right to share the AAM.
‘In the meantime, when faced with an obligation to agree pay an Article Processing Charge (which we will not fund) we encourage our researchers to either contact the journal to request a waiver to this fee, or to consider submitting their manuscript to a different journal. …”
“Our goal is universal and immediate open sharing of all scientific knowledge and outputs. With our Open Science program, we empower more people to engage in research practices that accelerate the pace, robustness, and reproducibility of science through partnerships, policies, and grants. Helping scientists build on each others’ work can dramatically accelerate the pace of discovery, and in turn, our understanding of health and disease.
We support our grantees and the broader scientific community to deposit software code to open repositories, make experimental protocols openly accessible, and submit manuscripts to preprint servers to communicate results more quickly….”
“Our OA policy for journal articles is in line with the key principles of Plan S
(opens in a new tab. Wellcome is a member of cOAlition S(opens in a new tab) and is committed to working in partnership with other funders to make all research articles OA.
Our policy for monographs and book chapters remains unchanged….
We updated our grant conditions in January 2021 to include:
a new condition that all grantholders – both new and current – will automatically grant a CC BY public copyright licence to all their future Author Accepted Manuscripts. This will apply to manuscripts that are:
reporting original research
supported in whole, or in part, by Wellcome grant funding.
an update to the existing condition whereby grantholders must also include the following statement on all submissions of original research to peer-reviewed journals: …”
“One of the world’s richest biomedical research organizations, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), announced on 1 October that it will require scientists it funds to make papers open access (OA) as soon as they are published — a change to its current policy, which allows a delay of up to one year before results must be free to read.
The non-profit organization, based in Chevy Chase, Maryland, is only the second US funder to insist on immediate open access, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. As part of the policy change, HHMI has joined the coalition of funders and organizations behind Plan S, a European-led initiative that is pushing for research to be immediately accessible on publication, and is supported by national research agencies and charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust and the Gates foundation. The HHMI’s shift is a boost to Plan S, and having more US-based funders on board will help build momentum towards open access, says Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project and the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The HHMI spent US$763 million on biomedical research in 2019 and supports around 4,750 researchers, producing around 2,500 papers a year. Its new policy states that from 2022, HHMI scientists must either publish papers OA or deposit their accepted manuscripts in a repository openly under a liberal publishing licence….”
“We are at the beginning of a new, five-year strategy to support scientific research on human flourishing, and as part of that, Templeton World Charity Foundation has revised its grant-making activities to incentivize open science best practices across all fields of inquiry which we support. Open science refers to a process whereby research data, methods and findings are made open and available to all researchers — regardless of affiliation — for free. This may sound like inside baseball, but it will affect all of us by radically changing the way scientists work, accelerating the pace of scientific breakthroughs, and making the upper echelons of science more global and more inclusive.
OUR NEW POLICIES
Our new commitment includes two policies. Our Open Access Policy requires that anyone who uses Foundation research dollars must make their final paper openly accessible to anyone with an internet connection. They can still publish in any journal they like, and our policy allows for a number of options to stay compliant. This policy aligns with Plan S, and we are delighted to also be joining cOAlition S. As a part of this new policy we will also commit more resources toward article processing charges to facilitate this transformation.
In support of this, we also launched a Research Assessment Policy, which seeks to increase fairness and scientific rigor. Researchers have typically been encouraged to publish in journals with a high impact factor, but they tend to have a paywall. Under our new research assessment policy, we put value on the quality of data, code and methodologies produced by the researcher, and we will not prioritize impact factor. These changes are the result of a long process of analysis and our core conviction that open science is a requirement for driving scientific breakthroughs in the future. This policy aligns with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)….”
“The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), one of the largest research philanthropies, said today it will begin to require its scientists to make research papers in which they played a leading role immediately free to read. HHMI now requires open access within 12 months of publication.
After the policy takes effect in January 2022, the move could block the institute’s scientists, who include some of the biggest names in biomedical research, from publishing in top-tier, subscription-only journals such as Cell, Nature, and Science. Work by more than 4700 staff members, including 256 investigators and nearly 1700 postdoctoral researchers at laboratories across the United States, could be affected, HHMI says. But if elite journals continue to join the movement toward open-access publishing, HHMI authors may gain new options for compliance….”