Joint Position Statement on “Data Repository Selection – Criteria That Matter” | Zenodo

Abstract:  Over the past three years, “Data Repository Selection-Criteria That Matter” – “a set of criteria for the identification and selection of those data repositories that accept research data submissions” – were developed by a group of publishers facilitated by the FAIRsharing initiative. Throughout this time, a large number of organizations and individuals have formulated responses and expressed concern about the criteria and the process through which the criteria were developed. Collectively, our organizations consider that the “Data Repository: Selection Criteria that Matter” recommendations – as currently conceived – will act as an impediment to achieving these aims. As such, we are issuing this Joint Position Statement to highlight the community’s concerns and request that the authors of these criteria respond with specific actions.

 

Universities without walls: A vision for 2030

“Open Science, making research accessible to all, will be the default way of producing knowledge. Universities will support a diverse non-commercial publishing system and will, themselves, be directly involved in such a system, by promoting and supporting non-commercial and smaller publishing initiatives. Data and other outputs resulting from research will be made FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Scientists will be adequately rewarded for the processing and publishing of data. Europe’s scholarly information infrastructure will facilitate cross-border, multidisciplinary research with advanced digital services and tools….”

Universities without walls: A vision for 2030

“Open Science, making research accessible to all, will be the default way of producing knowledge. Universities will support a diverse non-commercial publishing system and will, themselves, be directly involved in such a system, by promoting and supporting non-commercial and smaller publishing initiatives. Data and other outputs resulting from research will be made FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Scientists will be adequately rewarded for the processing and publishing of data. Europe’s scholarly information infrastructure will facilitate cross-border, multidisciplinary research with advanced digital services and tools….”

University approaches to Citizen Science in the transition to Open Science – Institutional opportunities and challenges for creating an open and inclusive environment for Research – OpenAIRE Blog

“EUA and OpenAIRE organized the two-day, online workshop “University approaches to Citizen Science in the transition to Open Science” on December 9th and 10th. It provided a place to discuss Citizen Science in an era of Open Science (OS) and showcased a range of Citizen Science (SC) projects combining the two movements. A particular focus was on support and opportunities for CS in universities and institutions, with ample attention to the analysis of current practice and the challenges for institutions and projects….”

2020 EUA Webinar Series on Academic Career Assessment in the Transition to Open Science

“EUA is pleased to present a webinar series based on the “2020 EUA Workshop on Academic Career Assessment in the Transition to Open Science”. To support measures to contain the spread of the coronavirus, EUA cancelled the physical event, but will organise webinars starting on Monday, 18 May. Each webinar will last one hour and will include interaction with the audience.

The European higher education, research and innovation landscape is changing. A broad range of academic activities are gaining even more prominence, including Open Access publishing, digital learning and teaching, and new forms of knowledge exchange with society. Universities are rethinking how to incentivise and reward these and other activities as part of their approach to career assessment.

The discussion on career assessment has taken major steps forward since the 2019 EUA workshop on this topic. This webinar series will draw from current discussions and incorporates them in a forward-looking debate that will be of interest to institutional leaders (rectors, vice-rectors and heads of administration), research department staff and management involved in learning and teaching, as well as representatives of other organisations….”

How can we afford Open Access in the humanities disciplines? — Expert voices – European University Association

09 March 2020 | Martin Paul Eve, Birkbeck, University of London

Open Access publishing needs new business models for universities and disciplines that want to support Open Access but are short on resources. Martin Paul Eve explains how the Open Library of Humanities has pioneered an inexpensive and efficient approach for Open Access publishing with the support of many universities in Europe and beyond.

How can we afford Open Access in the humanities disciplines? — Expert voices – European University Association

09 March 2020 | Martin Paul Eve, Birkbeck, University of London

Open Access publishing needs new business models for universities and disciplines that want to support Open Access but are short on resources. Martin Paul Eve explains how the Open Library of Humanities has pioneered an inexpensive and efficient approach for Open Access publishing with the support of many universities in Europe and beyond.

Decrypting the Big Deal Landscape: Follow-up of the 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report

“As of 2017, the European University Association (EUA) assembled a unique collection of ‘Big Deals’ data on agreements between scholarly publishers and (national) consortia of libraries, universities and research organisations. This was carried out in the light of mounting higher education institution concerns about the increasingly unsustainable cost of subscriptions to scholarly publications. In 2016, EUA committed to “establishing an evidence base about current agreements and on-going negotiations with publishers in collaboration with NRCs”.1 Subsequently, data collected by EUA has served as the basis for two reports released in 2018 and 2019, respectively.2 Big Deals now receive increased attention due to their potential to ‘flip’ entire segments of the scholarly publication market from closed to open access publications. Big deals have also been widely criticised for locking-in library budgets, due to constantly increasing subscription costs. The 2019 EUA Big Deals Survey Report surveyed covered 30 European countries and found that over €1 billion is spent on electronic resources each year, including at least €726 million spent on periodicals alone. Big Deals are said to limit competition and innovation in the scholarly publishing system3 and curb universities’ and consortia’s financial freedom to pursue other priorities. However, recently, several European negotiating consortia and scholarly publishers have concluded Big Deals that allow eligible authors to publish articles in open access formats in specific journals. Known as ‘transformative agreements’, these contracts are also supported as one way to comply with future funder requirements that will apply as of 2021 under Plan S.4 In a system that is largely defined by Big Deals, this report aims to inform the transition to open access debate, by providing additional insights and indicators on these agreements’ costs, publication volumes and timelines. This has been achieved by placing EUA Big Deals data into context….

Part 1 explains the methods used to obtain the underlying data as well as limitations and responsible use of the data. Part 2 links the publication outputs of journal articles and reviews to the large five publishers’ market share. It seeks to provide a bigger picture of the relation between subscription costs and publishing output. Part 3 sets out an analysis of the price-per-article for each country and publisher, calculated on the basis of subscription prices and publication volume. It provides European negotiators with comparative Big Deals price per article data in 26 countries. Part 4 takes a closer look at the timeline of Big Deal agreements collected by the EUA Big Deals Survey. It shows that the 2018-2020 period is crucial for negotiations with scholarly publishers (in terms of market volume). Negotiations that occur during this time may also be crucial for the further development of ‘transformative’ agreements and therefore compliance with Plan S requirements. Part 5 provides a brief summary of our main findings, contextualises them with current developments and provides policy recommendations….”